Just another thread about OP Archers.

[Marajah]

Although nothing has be said, I feel archers are missing more in 1.4.3. Might just be bias though.

I feel a big problem with archers is how incompetent mostly everything else is and how hard it is to target them specifically. If we get a small infantry group to flank the main bout and hit them, it effectively bogs them down, but that's hard to apply other than in huge battles. If we could target archers with cavalry and they were effective, maybe they wouldn't be so op.

 

[Ninjaman1277]

Sergeants were not under AI. They have been commanded in to shield wall, AI won't do it on it's own. And yes, the way sergeants have been handled by the player in that video leave lot to be desired. The proper way of attacking those archers would be to move them in a formation, rather then ordering them to charge. That way they wouldn't expose their unshielded sides and they would have beaten archers. Moreover once they were in melee, they should have been ordered to drop their shield wall. Shield wall is bad for a melee.

No no,you misunderstood me.I am not talking about AI controling the army,I am talking about individual AIs in that army.They come to the archers,and instead of spreading out they swarm.

 

[Dabos37]

And yes, the way sergeants have been handled by the player in that video leave lot to be desired.

xDDDDDD it was just a test, I do not get why I should use great tactics to defeat the AI just shooting which archers.

Anyway, maybe we are playing different games, but this is how most of my battles look (yes, a lot of recruits were in that army but still, I just had 64 men a not all of them completely upgraded:




And then you can do things like this with archers (being fair, retreat should make us lose some men if the enemy is so close, but still, I just can use this awful tactic with archers:



Looking at these videos, these archers look like if they would have AK47 in their hands, the time they need to clear masses is simply insane. Anyway, not reason to argue much more about this, it is something that it is clearly OP and devs will probably look at this soon.

 

[hruza]

No no,you misunderstood me.I am not talking about AI controling the army,I am talking about individual AIs in that army.They come to the archers,and instead of spreading out they swarm.

Oh I see. That's standard AI under "charge" order. They go after closest enemy. Often "advance" or "sergeants take command" is better.

The best use of infantry in my experience is to shieldwall them, move them to the enemy and when they already star engaging enemy, order them to drop the shielwall and charge. But that's if you're willing to micro them in battle.

xDDDDDD it was just a test,

I know, I was just pointing that to the Ninjaman1277.

I do not get why I should use great tactics to defeat the AI just shooting which archers.

You mean why should you use tactic in the first person tactical game where you command an army? I think that's quit obvious.

Anyway, maybe we are playing different games, but this is how most of my battles look (yes, a lot of recruits were in that army but still, I just had 64 men a not all of them completely upgraded:

What exactly did you expect to happen? Enemy general to cast magic barrier? What is OP on bunch of top tier archers shooting bunch or recruits and woodsmen to bits? They have no armor and most of them did not even have a shied. Not that AI would use it, as I have pointed before. Shooting poorly armored, poorly protected masses of infantry is exactly what archers are supposed to be good at.

Looking at these videos, these archers look like if they would have AK47 in their hands, the time they need to clear masses is simply insane. Anyway, not reason to argue much more about this, it is something that it is clearly OP and devs will probably look at this soon.

That's what French said about English longbowmen after Crecy too.

 

[black_bulldog]

Archers in Warband were horrendous except for the top tier guys were good against mid-low tier infantry and crossbows were deadly and something to be feared by anyone. It's not that archers are OP it's that armor isn't working the way it should and ai in this game is not good. I feel like bows should have less armor penetration, and leave crossbows as a way to counter heavy infantry and cavalry.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

1- Cavalry is not that bad and it is effective against infantry

"stinky recruit X Banner knight "
"Stinky recruit X Heavy Lancer"
All ****ing day every day. They are not good against infantry, they get killed by recruits all the time.

2- Yes, AI should make better use of shields, but this does not change the fact about archers are able to do tons of headshots.

Do you just put on you magneto helmet to block out all the "giant blob of AI" stuff people told you? Also GOOD, how nice that at least archers function.

3- Cavalry should have an advantage in open battlefields, while archers' advantage should be on sieges and irregular battlefields.

That can be your imagination land, that's fine, but archers are good in the open too. Cav has problems that need to be fixed.

Concerning infantry, archers, and cavalry test, it is about how fast we are able to get top tier archers compared to any other type of unit. Getting top tier archers is like 5 times easier than getting top tier infantry/cavalry and it should not be the case. Archers are super easy to level up because they are killing machines and get tons of kills per battle.

GOOD

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I doubt I would complain because archer spam gets nerfed

There's no spam, it's ALL YOU, it's a single player game.
You act like those guys who cry in MTG because they want to use there timmy deck in tournaments and say every single card and deck is OP because they lose.
Buts it a SP game so use you timmy team if you want, use cheats if leveling is too slow, edit items in data if arrows do to much damage.
Do whatever you want IN YOUR GAME

 

[Dabos37]

There's no spam, it's ALL YOU, it's a single player game.
You act like those guys who cry in MTG because they want to use there timmy deck in tournaments and say every single card and deck is OP because they lose.
Buts it a SP game so use you timmy team if you want, use cheats if leveling is too slow, edit items in data if arrows do to much damage.
Do whatever you want IN YOUR GAME

This argument is invalid IMO. It is not just about my archers spam, because the AI sometimes also spam missile units. Have you tries to play as Sturgia or NE vassal to try to save these factions against Khuzaits? Big battles against Khuzaits are just a pain and I tend to leave the army because NE and Sturgia have a chance with simulated battles, but un actual battles they get totally wrecked against Khuzaits most of the times.

Plus, a singleplayer Game also needs balancing, otherwise why bother with workshops nerfs and why asking for smithing balancing? I am not enjoying smithing because It is broken, and I am going to have to do the same with archers and stop using them until they get balanced.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

This argument is invalid IMO. It is not just about my archers spam, because the AI sometimes also spam missile units. Have you tries to play as Sturgia or NE vassal to try to save these factions against Khuzaits? Big battles against Khuzaits are just a pain and I tend to leave the army because NE and Sturgia have a chance with simulated battles, but un actual battles they get totally wrecked against Khuzaits most of the times.

Plus, a singleplayer Game also needs balancing, otherwise why bother with workshops nerfs and why asking for smithing balancing? I am not enjoying smithing because It is broken, and I am going to have to do the same with archers and stop using them until they get balanced.

No they don't 'spam' anything they have a unit palate that determine what they get and make. They don't ever think "oh I think I'll make more archers ".

Plus, a singleplayer Game also needs balancing,
They need to balance it by making other things work as they should, not by dumbing down what does work. But that doesn't mean infantry or cavalry is magically always going to beat archers, it just means infantry and cavalry can perform their roles.

Big battles against Khuzaits are just a pain and I tend to leave the army because NE and Sturgia have a chance with simulated battles, but un actual battles they get totally wrecked against Khuzaits most of the times.

That's some funny ****. They lose because of you and you're blaming the game.
I beat the Khuzait into the dirt with my single clan and no faction to back me up every single game and take Chaikand as my home.
I agree actually that they're annoying, but it's because they get too many mounted units back too fast after they've been defeated. They have less down time then other factions and get way too much of their t2 ha. But it has nothing to do with the units being OP, it has to do with them not having to actually spend time and compete with each other for mounts to replace troops after defeats.

Everybody gets saved against the Khuzaits if and when I choose because I know how to play the game.

 

[Dabos37]

That's some funny ****. They lose because of you and you're blaming the game.
I beat the Khuzait into the dirt with my single clan and no faction to back me up every single game and take Chaikand as my home.
I agree actually that they're annoying, but it's because they get too many mounted units back too fast after they've been defeated. They have less down time then other factions and get way too much of their t2 ha. But it has nothing to do with the units being OP, it has to do with them not having to actually spend time and compete with each other for mounts to replace troops after defeats.

Everybody gets saved against the Khuzaits if and when I choose because I know how to play the game.

Because of me xD? Early game when you have few units and playing as mercenary. 800 vs 800 battle and the AI takes control of infantry mainline, how this could be my fault? Even if I would be able to kill 30 guys, it is still not enough. I have 0 issues when I am the commander or when I have to fight Khuzait parties alone.

Anyway, it is not about " dumbing down what does work", archers are simply too accurate and too decisive in battles currently. Making them less accurate won't make them useless nor dumb.

Anyway, the videos I have uploaded just show how OP archers are. I really do not get any justification for making them so extremely good as they are now. Maybe it is something related to commander mode or who knows...

 

[Dabos37]

Oh I see. That's standard AI under "charge" order. They go after closest enemy. Often "advance" or "sergeants take command" is better.

The best use of infantry in my experience is to shieldwall them, move them to the enemy and when they already star engaging enemy, order them to drop the shielwall and charge. But that's if you're willing to micro them in battle.



I know, I was just pointing that to the Ninjaman1277.



You mean why should you use tactic in the first person tactical game where you command an army? I think that's quit obvious.



What exactly did you expect to happen? Enemy general to cast magic barrier? What is OP on bunch of top tier archers shooting bunch or recruits and woodsmen to bits? They have no armor and most of them did not even have a shied. Not that AI would use it, as I have pointed before. Shooting poorly armored, poorly protected masses of infantry is exactly what archers are supposed to be good at.



That's what French said about English longbowmen after Crecy too.

Have you looked all the battles I have uploaded? In some of them, the AI used shield wall but still got massacred.

Please check more information about Crecy and Agincourt, it was much more than Archers vs everything. In a open battlefied in usual conditions, without making use of trenches and irregular terrain, the English would probably get wrecked. In any case, the longbow which English used in those battles does not match the Bannerlord age.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

archers are simply too accurate

They're not. Your'e mad cuz bad.

nyway, the videos I have uploaded just show how OP archers are

No and I'm not going to. I play this game everyday with and against all types of archers and I know all about them. They're functional. Not op, no even 'good' until the highest tiers, just functional.

 

[black_bulldog]

Ok so I watched the videos and omg you're using those as examples?
The first video is about 50 top tier archers/crossbow men going against a force of half recruits. WTF did you think was going to happen?
The second video you have 50 or so 4-5 tier archers against 25 Sturgia cav who have 5 javs and are acting like skirmishers. Of course they're going to get the **** kick out of them you outnumber them and they aren't charging your position. In addition you had them bottled up because of terrain. I use the tier 4 Mountain Bandits and Desert Bandits and I can destroy a force of archers twice my size because I don't take them head on. You as a player have a brain and should be able to beat what the game throws at you. This is not about how powerful archers are but about how stupid the ai can be.

 

[Dabos37]

Just to add more evidence for devs, I have tested 50 legionaries and 50 palatine guards against exactly the same army. Here you can check the results:

Legionary:




Palatine Guard:

Ok so I watched the videos and omg you're using those as examples?
The first video is about 50 top tier archers/crossbow men going against a force of half recruits. WTF did you think was going to happen?
The second video you have 50 or so 4-5 tier archers against 25 Sturgia cav who have 5 javs and are acting like skirmishers. Of course they're going to get the **** kick out of them you outnumber them and they aren't charging your position. In addition you had them bottled up because of terrain. I use the tier 4 Mountain Bandits and Desert Bandits and I can destroy a force of archers twice my size because I don't take them head on. You as a player have a brain and should be able to beat what the game throws at you. This is not about how powerful archers are but about how stupid the ai can be.

So, why should I even care to get infantry? Palatine Guards overperform Legionaries in any possible scenario. If you think that I am wrong, please tell me where do you think that legionaries perform better and I can simply test it using the console.

I really cannot understand how people are unable to see what is pretty evident.

 

[Dabos37]

I have just tested Vlandian Vanguards against the same army:



Good thing about cavalry is that you can do some work and maybe Vanguards could win this battle if re-grouping them to charge. What I have seen about vanguards and Legionaries seems balanced, what I have seen about Palatine Guards is broken, or maybe elite and infantry and Cavalry need HUGE buffs which I doubt.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

I think you should just use the Realistic Battle mod.

 

[black_bulldog]

I think you should just use the Realistic Battle mod.

+1

 

[Dabos37]

I have been doing more tests with console and just won this battle:



I really doubt that I could do something similar with other kind of unit which do not use projectiles. Then you realize that it is extremely easy to get palatine Guards or any other top tier archer unit, they are easy to level up because archers rarely die and kill tons of units per battle.

I have just lost 36 men in this battle, with a healer I would lose even fewer men.

I think you should just use the Realistic Battle mod.

Probably yes, but for the moment I do not want to use mods and prefer giving feedback to help to improve the game. it is just not an easy task when a big portion of this forum enjoys playing with broken stuff (same happened when I said that Tanneries were OP...).

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Probably yes, but for the moment I do not want to use mods and prefer giving feedback to help to improve the game. it is just not an easy task when a big portion of this forum enjoys playing with broken stuff (same happened when I said that Tanneries were OP...).

Sure, but maybe its fine to let people enjoy their op archers. And SP Mount and Blade has always been about modding the game to your liking anyway.

 

[Apocal]

Probably yes, but for the moment I do not want to use mods and prefer giving feedback to help to improve the game. it is just not an easy task when a big portion of this forum enjoys playing with broken stuff (same happened when I said that Tanneries were OP...).

Why not just test your proposed solution of dialing down their accuracy? See what happens when archers can't hit the broadside of a barn.

That's what French said about English longbowmen after Crecy too.

Crecy ended in a long series of melees, lasting well into the evening. Bannerlord archers are pretty good about making sure that melee doesn't happen in anything approaching an equal battle.