Just another thread about OP Archers.

[black_bulldog]

the palatine guard are the best archer unit in the game imo might not be as good as the fian champian but take a lot less time to recruit and train

In terms of armor yes but the Khuzait marksman is damn good too. They have a much better bow and twice as many arrows. They do have lower bow skill, but with almost 60 arrows that's a lot of pain to bring.

 

[Dabos37]

Well, the true is that except if you are fighting Khuzaits, you rarely get out of ammo with palatine guards and they have enough to kill everything in seconds. But yes, Palatine Guard and Marksmen are the most OP archers in the game. Fian Champions are even better but at least you need disciplinary perk to get them in mass and need some time. Getting Palatine Guard is super easy since the beginning.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

In terms of armor yes but the Khuzait marksman is damn good too. They have a much better bow and twice as many arrows. They do have lower bow skill, but with almost 60 arrows that's a lot of pain to bring.

Master Archers take it up a notch. Better bows, quivers and skills. But their upgrade progression is ****.

Only **** archer is the Sturgian one. Everything else is up to personal taste if you exclude Fians.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Also I'd really like the idea of having to actually supply ammo. More perk ideas too.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Fian Champions are even better but at least you need disciplinary perk to get them in mass

he doesn't know

 

[Dabos37]

T5 Sturgian Archers are still pretty damn good, they are just not as effective as other archers in the game. Sturgian Archers are still enough to win most of battles without melee (talking about vanilla without mods).

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

T5 Sturgian Archers are still pretty damn good, they are just not as effective as other archers in the game. Sturgian Archers are still enough to win most of battles without melee (talking about vanilla without mods).

But they don't do anything well, so there's no serious merit. **** might be a bad way ti describe them, but they are the weakest ones.

 

[Marajah]

I am making about 1000% more tests than you and uploadinmg tons of videos, while you only repeat the same silly thing about F1-F3, or your only argument about cavalry kill archers in custom battles. Archers in actual battles are MUCH more effective than cavalry/infantry.

After the lastest patches where vlandian cav got improved armor, plus units using skills now, it is true that most of the times cavalry units are now able to defeat archers in perfect conditions (1 vs 1 in custom battles), but this does not change the fact about Archers are like 5 times more effective than infantry and cavalry in actual battles, when they are correctly used, and when the chaos does not allow you to perform perfect charges with cavarly over and over like in custom battles. Anyway, there is not need to continue making vacum tests in custom battles, when looking this videos is pretty clear that archers are much supperior than infantry/cav:










On the other hand, what are you talking about F1-F3 xDDDDD? With archers you do not even need to do that, you just need to start the battle, go for a coffee, back 3 minutes later, and then the battle is over with 0 losses from your side xD. I do not get why you repeat the "noobs doing F1-F3" argument over and over, when archers are actually the most noobfriendly unit in the game currently, c'mon...

Your tests are great to prove a point. Don't bother with AnandaShanti. He likes playing OP horse archers and bragging how he mastered the game and will lash out aggressively every time someone suggests either archers or horse archers are op, very easily accessible in contrast to other good troops, easy to maintain and lvl and have no apparent weakness.

Archers need the nerf bat and there's probably a hundred approaches to do this. They do too much damage, are too accurate, don't get line of sight penalty in tall grass or bushes, we can't prioritize getting them down without complex chain of commands (besides cheesing) and mostly have too much ammo. Any combination can be used to get them to be reasonable, not to mention some creative solutions. Soon or later TW is gonna have to address this. There's no reason to use anything else than archers in the game.

 

[KSHMR]

The whole point is that if they are to address this, it has to be suitable for both SK and CM

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

The whole point is that if they are to address this, it has to be suitable for both SK and CM

They could maybe penalize you in some way for not using a divers army, or just "you can only have this % of a kind", I doubt they would do that though, but that one way to do something without outright neutering some classes.
I just hope they enhance the AI and abilities of Cav and Inf before they do anything or we'll be stuck with a very frustrating army. Every battle will be like an indoor siege where I have to hide the army and kill everyone myself because they won't function and just die too easily.

 

[Hans 77]

You could argue that archers were overpowered in Warband, but in Bannerlord they are on a whole other level.

Bannerlord ranged units aren't overpowered -they're straight up broken. Unerring headshot machines that can shoot with impunity into crowded chaotic melee fight from astounding range.

Even the lowest tier ranged troops have the damage output and accuracy of the Noldor from Prophesy of Pendor.

It's a shame how unbalanced this game is.

 

[Dabos37]

Your tests are great to prove a point. Don't bother with AnandaShanti. He likes playing OP horse archers and bragging how he mastered the game and will lash out aggressively every time someone suggests either archers or horse archers are op, very easily accessible in contrast to other good troops, easy to maintain and lvl and have no apparent weakness.

Archers need the nerf bat and there's probably a hundred approaches to do this. They do too much damage, are too accurate, don't get line of sight penalty in tall grass or bushes, we can't prioritize getting them down without complex chain of commands (besides cheesing) and mostly have too much ammo. Any combination can be used to get them to be reasonable, not to mention some creative solutions. Soon or later TW is gonna have to address this. There's no reason to use anything else than archers in the game.

You could argue that archers were overpowered in Warband, but in Bannerlord they are on a whole other level.

Bannerlord ranged units aren't overpowered -they're straight up broken. Unerring headshot machines that can shoot with impunity into crowded chaotic melee fight from astounding range.

Even the lowest tier ranged troops have the damage output and accuracy of the Noldor from Prophesy of Pendor.

It's a shame how unbalanced this game is.

100% agree.

Good to know that there are more people who also find archers pretty OP in Bannerlord. Sadly the most vocal people in this forum are these ones which are usualy abusing broken mechanics and try to stop any justified nerf.

I am currently trying to play the game without using archers because they make the game too bored, but the problem is now how to deal with OP horse archers xD. Hopefully both units gets revised and nerfed as deserved.

 

[relam10]

Archers are supposed to be deadly, if there is any problem, is just armor/IA/Shields. Archers are like snipers from the present, I mean, is normal to have a lot of casualties from a rain of arrows.

 

[Dabos37]

Archers are supposed to be deadly, if there is any problem, is just armor. Archers are like snipers from the present, I mean, is normal to have a lot of casualties from a rain of arrows.

I disagree with this. Almost any battle in middle age was decided in a melee fight. Just try to find one single battle where arches were able to kill everyone from distance. Not even Agincourt or Crecy, where english longbowmen were training for 10 years to master archery. Plus I really doubt that archers were able to perform an insane amout of heatshots in actual battles. Archers are ridicously OP in this game and there is not any justification for that, especially not historical justification.

 

[relam10]

I disagree with this. Almost any battle in middle age was decided in a melee fight. Just try to find one single battle where arches were able to kill everyone from distance. Not even Agincourt or Crecy, where english longbowmen were training for 10 years to master archery. Plus I really doubt that archers were able to perform an insane amout of heatshots in actual battles. Archers are ridicously OP in this game and there is not any justification for that, especially not historical justification.

Well, I updated seconds before you asked adding IA/Shields problems. About battles, well, it depend, I mean, if 100 soldiers that carry wool clothes get shoots by 50 archers, they will die. But if thoose 100 soldiers wear plate/shields things will be really different.

That's why the only problem I see is IA/shield because there is no point on recieve free headshoots if you have a shield, and armor, because dmg should be hard nerfed or even prevented if you wear plates.

 

[Apocal]

Archers need the nerf bat and there's probably a hundred approaches to do this. They do too much damage, are too accurate, don't get line of sight penalty in tall grass or bushes, we can't prioritize getting them down without complex chain of commands (besides cheesing) and mostly have too much ammo.

Even the lowest tier ranged troops have the damage output and accuracy of the Noldor from Prophesy of Pendor.

Plus I really doubt that archers were able to perform an insane amout of heatshots in actual battles.

Maybe my game is just ****ed up for whatever reason, but when I tested archers with nerfed accuracy there was no significant change in their performance. I'm just assuming the accuracy stat for ranged weapons in spitems.xml is actually functional but when I cranked it down to 60, nothing really changed in archer effectiveness except maybe they loosed at shorter ranges (it is hard to measure).

 

[Dabos37]

Well, I updated seconds before you asked adding IA/Shields problems. About battles, well, it depend, I mean, if 100 soldiers that carry wool clothes get shoots by 50 archers, they will die. But if thoose 100 soldiers wear plate/shields things will be really different.

That's why the only problem I see is IA/shield because there is no point on recieve free headshoots if you have a shield, and armor, because dmg should be hard nerfed or even prevented if you wear plates.

Please check this video at 06:10 and then 08:40:



Here you can see the that AI actually tried yo use shield wall but still got masacred. It is not just and AI issue, archers are still capable to do a lot of damage on units in shieldwall. I know that AI is not good at blocking proyectiles when it is not using shield wall formation, but there is something really wrong about archers in this game and how extremely effective they are. They are too good at picking unshielded units and having extremely good accuracy to kill them from distance.

Maybe my game is just ****ed up for whatever reason, but when I tested archers with nerfed accuracy there was no significant change in their performance. I'm just assuming the accuracy stat for ranged weapons in spitems.xml is actually functional but when I cranked it down to 60, nothing really changed in archer effectiveness except maybe they loosed at shorter ranges (it is hard to measure).

I am learning to mod the game with the hope to be able to change this. Sad news then. Anyway,taking into account that I can perform headshots without problem in tournaments at lvl 1 with 10 in archery skill, I am not surprised by this.

 

[Hans 77]

I disagree with this. Almost any battle in middle age was decided in a melee fight. Just try to find one single battle where arches were able to kill everyone from distance. Not even Agincourt or Crecy, where english longbowmen were training for 10 years to master archery. Plus I really doubt that archers were able to perform an insane amout of heatshots in actual battles. Archers are ridicously OP in this game and there is not any justification for that, especially not historical justification.

So true. It's actually a pet peeve of mine when people misappropriate credit to the English victories at Crecy and Agincourt to solely that of the longbowmen. The crux of the battle was decided by the English's professional infantry and men-at-arms. The longbowmen did play an important role; their arrows took a heavy toll on the French horses (who were less armored than their riders), which helped break up their charge and hurt enemy morale. In Agincourt, the longbowmen actually joined their infantry comrades in the melee fight when the French pushed too close. With that being said, to say the English longbowmen, bows in hand, laid waste to all who stood before them and were the main cause of the French defeat is nothing short of fantasy.

In both battles, the longbowmen filled their required roles perfectly; they softened up enemy formations and lowered enemy morale, inflicting casualties where/when they could. This is the role of archers in warfare; to support their allied infantry and cavalry. While they can be formidable, archers were not the medieval equivalent of an MG42 (though Bannerlord would have you think otherwise ?).

As it stands, ranged in Bannerlord is sickeningly OP. Whenever I played Warband SP, I tried to avoid using cheese strats whenever possible and play the game without abusing broken mechanics. While Warband wasn't a perfectly balanced utopia either, all-in-all everything was pretty harmonious. Bannerlord's current state is skewed heavily in favor of ranged units to a worrying degree.

 

[hruza]

You could argue that archers were overpowered in Warband, but in Bannerlord they are on a whole other level.

Archers in Warband were almost useless outside of sieges. Making then useful is one of the best things in Bannerlord.

Unerring headshot machines

AI is not programmed to target head. When AI archers hit head it's not because their accuracy is so great, it's because their accuracy sucks.

that can shoot with impunity into crowded chaotic melee fight from astounding range.

You can stand at long range in front of the whole army or archers till they empty their quivers. No arrow with hit you. Archers shooting at "astounding range" is complete waste of arrows at anything but large area target.

 

[Dabos37]

To be honest, I think the whole point of this thread is that we should not be able to win more than 70% of battles (which are supposedly balanced in strenght balance bar) without any melee engagement. I think that only a few people enjoy this and it is for sure that this is not desired to happens by devs. I really do not know what is the best way to fix this issue, but please, I just hope that this get fixed and I would like to find infantry, archers and cavalry units useful and balanced.

People have complained a lot about how OP were cavalry units in Warband, but now archers are without doubt more effective than cavalry in Warband, because archers are simply pretty useful in every escenary when cavalry units do not, plus the archers kill ratio is simply insane.

If the devs should have to increase infantry AI to make them really good at blocking projectiles, and also adding shields for recruits, I would be ok with that. It is not like if the only thing I want is to nerf archers, my actual point is to be able to enjoy battles without archers getting all the kills before engaging in melee. I just want to enjoy melee battles without having to stop using archer units at all.

Plus there is amybe something wrong with palatine archers (and maybe other archers) because they are pretty easy to get. Upgrading cav units to t5 is a pain while upgrading archers is insanely easy.