Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

[Antaeus]

The problem is that Khan's Guard straight up overshadow melee cavalry at their own job. Banner Knights, Druzhinnik Champions and Elite Cataphracts don't even have the melee punch of the Khan's Guard. What's the point of noble melee cavalry when they don't fight as well as a literal horse archer.

I guess that all depends on how they use the skills they have. A Banner Knight at full charge with couched lance should drop any unit they face - including a Khan's Guard. That's how they should be deployed. And given the gaming paper scissors stone logic... they have the OP charge, but should be weaker in melee. Do they couch their lance every time they charge? Unlikely. An Elite Cataphract should be able to go toe to toe with a Khan's Guard thanks to their superior armour, and shield - and again, should be able to drop any unit in the game at a charge with their lance - but do they charge home every time you tell them to? If you're lucky and they don't ride off in the wrong direction.

Banner Knights and Cataphracts have an objectively more lethal primary weapon than the Khan's Guard... Their lances will one hit any unit in the game. Including the player with the most OP armour - which is great. Khan's Guards' bows are unlikely to one-hit either of the other two - at a charge they can't come close. On the other hand, Khan's Guards have an objectively more lethal close quarters secondary weapon - their glaive is more lethal than the other's swords. There is a balance to be found in there. Any player kitted out like a Banner Knight would drop a Khan's Guard in single combat. Because the player would couch lance and charge home - even if they weren't confident in targeting they might first drop the horse and circle back.

This is a problem with how Banner Knights and Cataphracts use the weapons they've been given - the glaive is better than the sword that Banner Knights and Cataphracts fall back on if their charge fails. And the charge fails too often. But I don't think this means that Khan's Guards are too overpowered, I think it means that other units don't play to their best features well enough. As a ranged unit alone, Khan's Guards suffer from the same failings all Horse Archers do - they only occasionally hit their target. This is a distinct disadvantage relative to crossbows for example.

On the other hand... Don't get me started on Druzhniks. They are legitimately flawed.

 

[Apocal]

Glaives or a big f*ck off axe. Gives them a niche and makes them stronk.

I've suggested it before. I think you were in that thread.

edit: Yeah, you were.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

I've suggested it before. I think you were in that thread.

edit: Yeah, you were.

Good ideas deserve repeating.

I guess that all depends on how they use the skills they have. A Banner Knight at full charge with couched lance should drop any unit they face - including a Khan's Guard. That's how they should be deployed. And given the gaming paper scissors stone logic... they have the OP charge, but should be weaker in melee. Do they couch their lance every time they charge? Unlikely. An Elite Cataphract should be able to go toe to toe with a Khan's Guard thanks to their superior armour, and shield - and again, should be able to drop any unit in the game at a charge with their lance - but do they charge home every time you tell them to? If you're lucky and they don't ride off in the wrong direction.

Banner Knights and Cataphracts have an objectively more lethal primary weapon than the Khan's Guard... Their lances will one hit any unit in the game. Including the player with the most OP armour - which is great. Khan's Guards' bows are unlikely to one-hit either of the other two - at a charge they can't come close. On the other hand, Khan's Guards have an objectively more lethal close quarters secondary weapon - their glaive is more lethal than the other's swords. There is a balance to be found in there. Any player kitted out like a Banner Knight would drop a Khan's Guard in single combat. Because the player would couch lance and charge home - even if they weren't confident in targeting they might first drop the horse and circle back.

This is a problem with how Banner Knights and Cataphracts use the weapons they've been given - the glaive is better than the sword that Banner Knights and Cataphracts fall back on if their charge fails. And the charge fails too often. But I don't think this means that Khan's Guards are too overpowered, I think it means that other units don't play to their best features well enough. As a ranged unit alone, Khan's Guards suffer from the same failings all Horse Archers do - they only occasionally hit their target. This is a distinct disadvantage relative to crossbows for example.

On the other hand... Don't get me started on Druzhniks. They are legitimately flawed.

Yes, couched lances will basically one hit kill anything... the problem is that lance cavalry can't hit jack sh*t. And I was testing this in custom battles. I saw them couch. And almost no cataphract hit my khan's guard.

Seriously, you do it yourself and tell me that these guys are remotely equal.

Glaives are way better than lances because the AI have such an easy time hitting people with them. With lances, they are hopeless.

I don't consider Druzhinniks all that different to Banner Knights. The problem with them is that they are so indistinct. Again, give them two handers. Let them be cavalry brawlers. Fits the Sturgian identity of being a melee powerhouse.

Now if cavalry AI is actually fixed, we might just see a dramatic difference. Glaives are rather short, so in a head on charge, they whould probably take a hit from a competent lancer... and die.

 

[KingEroc1st]

Funny, earlier, I used the same video to illustrate the opposite point - how dangerous arrows are even if you have a shield and mail. But meh. We're circling, and I think this point is er... besides the point.

the point clearly flew over your head. I was stating the inaccuracies present in the game how a shield can stop 50 arrows taking 0 damage. while full brigandine armor + mail undershirt + padded cloth would still take decent damage. but in reality it is the opposite. armor worked very well and shields didn't do that much. a good way to "nerf" archers while making the game more realistic is to buff armor

(Apart from the statement also being a vast generalisation) The different use of which is a question of money. Which is my exact point. Thanks.

your earlier statement which I was addressing "Infantry for the most part, should be rubbish militia, and easy to replace." disregarding all the trained heavy infantry men at arms involved in most of the line fighting. the truth is, they made up the greatest number of professional soldiers, out numbering both archers and cavalrymen.
to my understanding. all the troops you recruit in bannerlord are men at arms. and the militia troops spawning to defend the towns are the levies. which are literally free.

 

[CrazyElf]

As others in the thread pointed out, the real issue isn't that archers do a lot of damage, it's that they do so much more damage relative to other options. Balance is inherently relative, so the correct approach is to adjust archers proportionally to others. Buff the lower end (infantry), and nerf the high end (archers). Neither needs a big shift, but the cumulative effect would narrow the entire spectrum.

Side note, I also think the damage/armor calculation is a big part of the problem. Damage & armor constants (in a range without outliers) matter less than the formula which is using them.

There are only really 2 options:

1. Nerf archers
2. Buff armor

I think 2 is by far the better option. Archers will remain deadly, especially against lower tier units.

 

[KingEroc1st]

There are only really 2 options:

1. Nerf archers
2. Buff armor

I think 2 is by far the better option. Archers will remain deadly, especially against lower tier units.

although both options are umbrella terms that applies to many minor tweeks. buffing armor will no doubt also affect both infantry and cavalry. more specifically their already low damage output.
Like Orion said which i wholeheartedly agree "Balance is inherently relative, so the correct approach is to adjust archers proportionally to others." Buffing armor outright across the board will not change the current situation but only make battles last longer since people take less damage.

The way armor works in this game, it blocks incoming damage by deducting points, rather than a % mitigation. meaning weaker weapons will be nerfed more relatively speaking compared to stronger weapons when you buff armor, as a greater % of total damage is blocked by armor. and the 2 strongest weapon types in the game currently are 2h swing and ranged. depending on the degree which you buff armor, they'll continue to dominate, while the 1h sword/spears are going to be bad at best or completely useless.
However I do think armor should be more effective against ranged in general. especially heavily armored plates like in chest and helmet areas.

now onto nerfing archers and how to go about it without destroying them while retaining realism...
-heavier arrows do more damage, but lose energy faster therefore have higher damage drop off // lower range
-heavier bows are harder to pull, therefore have lower fire rate.
-for longer range "artillery" archers shot in unison following the commanders orders, only switching to fire at will (at their own pace) when enemies are close

-nerf archers far range ability. while retaining their lethality in closer range by creating bigger damage drop off
-lower tier archers have cut arrows that are weaker against armor while higher tier archers have pierce arrows that will do more damage at the cost of range.
-force some player command, so that farther than say 100m you need to order archers to fire in vollies, maybe add a focus fire option
-reduce headshot damage, i mean seriously guys, helmets worked, not just in that they were solid pieces of metal plates capable of stopping a lot of damage. but also the domed shape of the helmets deflected arrows away from being able to actually make an impact.
(currently there's a hitbox for neck, and with some practice i've managed to be consistantly hitting neck shots instead of headshots, i suggest breaking it up to 3 parts: head, face and neck. and make headshots take reduced damage, while face shots take decent damage, and neck shots being very deadly)

 

[five bucks]

Buffing armor outright across the board will not change the current situation but only make battles last longer since people take less damage.

True. Armor should receive a large buff against ranged weapons, and a small to medium-sized buff against certain types of melee damage.
Some melee damage against armor is in a good spot right now.

 

[SadBlueberry]

I have seen endless discussion about the specific instances of this, but to me it always boils down to the same theme:

• regular archers/crossbowmen are way more powerful than melee infantry. We all fear sharpshooters and fians, but laugh about axemen.
• horse archers are way more powerful than melee cavalry. I think just saying "Khuzait" is enough to demonstrate this point, even with their less than optimal tactical use of those troops.
• This also contributes to the fast pace of battles, as melee units either rush archers or die trying (mostly the latter)
• it is usually way easier for the player to rack up more than a dozen kills with a ranged weapon, even if unskilled in the weapon
• when I go down on the battle field, it is more often than not to a random arrow to the face -- less fun than avoidable melee damage
• A glancing hit with a melee weapon can be reduced to single digit damage in heavy armor, but arrows always really hurt.
• And lastly, looter rocks are more dangerous than their pitchforks

Putting aside all discussions of realism, the ability to fire from a distance is such a huge tactical advantage that if you ever want to make melee viable for reasons other than role-playing, ranged damage output can't be on par with melee. If it is, like in the current implementation, we effectively go from medieval to modern warfare in which the effectiveness of an army is largely decided by their number of ranged troops. Ranged weapons should be tactical and supportive, but as it is, ranged troops get kills and melee troops get killed. Even heavily micromanaged melee troops don't come close to the effectiveness of "fire and forget" mass ranged weapons.

The only ranged weapons that seem to be in a good place to me are throwing weapons, but their use is obviously much, much more limited than that of a bow or crossbow. Otherwise, I cannot think of a single instance in which the game would not be drastically improved by significantly slashing ranged damage across the board. I think this would bring the game much closer to what I feel the balance should be: A ranged fighter is more effective if they can shoot unimpeded for a long time and use most of their quiver -- otherwise, the melee fighter should win.

So please, just reduce those numbers? I am tired of every game being a decision of "Do I want to mass ranged units or do I want to make it artificially harder for myself?"

I think instead of nerfing arrows, armor should be buffed.

Arrows were pretty lethal to lightly armored or unarmored targets and a person can already take a few arrows before going down in Bannerlord. Any more, and a person would become a porcupine before dying to arrows. Seriously, it is as if Calradians only maintain their weapons but leave their armor filled with rust, dirt, sweat and other bodily fluids, making them able to cut through them like butter.

Another change that needs to happen is the fatalities from blunt weapons. Using blunt weapons does not mean your opponent gets off easy with a knockout. Haha. No. IRL, their skulls get crushed and the opponent was wearing armor, their armor would basically be a carapace containing mashed up flesh and bone like a go-gurt tube.

I lmao everytime I smacked someone in the head with a polehammer in Warband but the opponent comes out only wounded on the other side. He should have had his face and skull caved in. Blunt weapons were more lethal than swords when it came to facing armored opponents. And even unarmored opponents, a good swing of a warhammer to the chest or the head is going to be pretty fatal.

 

[Maximum997]

although both options are umbrella terms that applies to many minor tweeks. buffing armor will no doubt also affect both infantry and cavalry. more specifically their already low damage output.

Low damage output? Melee battles 500 v 500 lasts 1.5 minutes

 

[zihaom]

Some facts:
1. Bannerlord is pre-warband and fully plated armor does not exist. (well some vlandian helmets do look like warband). However good armor does exist and can provide sufficient protection against arrows.
2. Arrows have big differences, some bodkin arrows pierce even plate armor, while sharpened wood arrow cant pierce skulls.
3. An arrow to the neck means death, while others are not necessary the case. So neck > head > body > armor and leg.
4. Arrows are mostly not the damage dealers, but rather strategic units to keep enemy in formation (shield walls).
4. As suggested by Tod's Workshop, elite longbowmen can have speed on par with regularly trained bowmen. Fians were using machine guns.
5. Battles in early medieval time last long because 1. more number (thus thickness of lines), 2. regular disengage due to fatigue, 3. armor does something 4. people opt for blocking instead of killing.
6. most Battles are lost due to moral breaks, instead of casualties. TW should learn from total wars.
7. Armor have endurance in battle, but this cannot be simulated in games for performance reasons I guess. This also applies to the fact that some skin is left unprotected by most armor in this period (like face, neck, fingers). So the armor value is an estimate of how infrequently those parts are hit and the average chance of armor maintaining effectiveness.

In my opinion,
1. since we do not have the numbers of a realistic battlefield, each unit should have more health to simulate that (2 times? maybe).
2. Armor should be even more effective against cuts. T5 infantry should take nearly no damage (below 8%) to anywhere other than the neck, whereas T1s are 1 shot by 2Hs. Charging cavs are deadly as in the game.
3. Pierce should be nerfed less. Also spear should not be useless even in close combat (now it is rendered useless like a hit on a stone).
4. Arrows should be as important as the bows when considering damage shots deal. Some arrow should deal high cut damage(like barbed arrows) for more effective killing of low tier troops and some arrows more towards armor piercing dealing mid level piece damage. Regular arrows should have low pierce damage. Thus, overall damage of bows are lower. The result of this should be t2-t3 archer should do ok damage to infantry of the same tier, but nearly no damage to t5. Fians and xbows remain deadly to all tiers but less so than that in current game.
5. Arrows should do little damage to the health of the shield, but some damage to the arm of the man behind it.
6. in a perfect world, all weapons should have combined damage values. like axes are high cut+ mid blunt + low piece, arrows are high piece/cut+ low blunt, spears are mid blunt+ mid piece...

To conclude with
I d say all changes makes the battle longer. This would be a good thing as time would be given for player to maneuver and perform tactics. If Hannibal fought the battle of cannae in bannerlord, the Romans would cut down the lines of the Gauls in seconds and the Numidian cavalry would find their general's head on a spike after they routed the Roman cav.
Also, buffing armors does the trick as well, but the more fine-grained the damage is calculated, the more it is close to realistic. It is like linear fit vs multivariable regression

 

[five bucks]

1. Bannerlord is pre-warband and fully plated armor does not exist.

Sure, however high quality lamellar and mail provided good protection in their own right, even if not as good as full plate. Double-linked mail with padding underneath was considered almost arrow-proof, and lamellar provided very good protection also.

2. bodkin arrows pierce even plate armor

This is untrue, unless the plate is of poor quality.
In the Tod's Workshop test video you may have seen, they used "plate cutter" bodkins, as Tod explains in this other video.

Most of the rest of your post I would strongly agree with, just wanted to clear those up.

5. Arrows should do little damage to the health of the shield, but some damage to the arm of the man behind it.

I don't know if TW would do this, but I really like the idea nonetheless.

 

[KingEroc1st]

Low damage output? Melee battles 500 v 500 lasts 1.5 minutes

that's because outside of arena 1v1 Ai doesn't know how to block and parry. and they are wearing toilet paper armor

have you seen what happens in 500 range vs 500 melee? no comparison here mate

 

[black_bulldog]

that's because outside of arena 1v1 Ai doesn't know how to block and parry. and they are wearing toilet paper armor

have you seen what happens in 500 range vs 500 melee? no comparison here mate

Imho damage calculations and ai that actually tries to survive are both necessary and would definitely make battles more tactical and last longer and would make higher tier units more survivable and there by more useful. Changing one without changing the other is not a real solution, and maybe we could get battles that don't degenerate into a damn mosh pit every time.

 

[Maximum997]

Imho damage calculations and ai that actually tries to survive are both necessary and would definitely make battles more tactical and last longer

I played "more defensive AI" As player it was boring as hell.

 

[Philozoraptor]

-heavier arrows do more damage, but lose energy faster therefore have higher damage drop off // lower range

Heavier arrows lose energy slower than light arrows, however they start of slower, which is the reason why they got shorter range.

 

[black_bulldog]

I played "more defensive AI" As player it was boring as hell.

Are you talking about a mod?

 

[zihaom]

Sure, however high quality lamellar and mail provided good protection in their own right, even if not as good as full plate. Double-linked mail with padding underneath was considered almost arrow-proof, and lamellar provided very good protection also.

This is untrue, unless the plate is of poor quality.
In the Tod's Workshop test video you may have seen, they used "plate cutter" bodkins, as Tod explains in this other video.

Most of the rest of your post I would strongly agree with, just wanted to clear those up.

I don't know if TW would do this, but I really like the idea nonetheless.

I made my post more precise according to your suggestion.

 

[Maximum997]

Are you talking about a mod?

Yes. While AI just holding and holding block - it is pretty damn boring.

There are two more problems:

1) Base damage is stupidly high. In WB base damage was low but modifier was high. In BL base damage is stupidly high and modifier is low.
It means pesant with 2 hander can onesshot elite knight.
2) Moshpits and overheads. Mobs will create a blob then spam overheads. It means that every single hit is headshot with bonus damage.

 

[black_bulldog]

Yes. While AI just holding and holding block - it is pretty damn boring.

There are two more problems:

1) Base damage is stupidly high. In WB base damage was low but modifier was high. In BL base damage is stupidly high and modifier is low.
It means pesant with 2 hander can onesshot elite knight.
2) Moshpits and overheads. Mobs will create a blob then spam overheads. It means that every single hit is headshot with bonus damage.

What I'm talking about is the ai in melee actually using shield and not just spamming attacks till either they're dead or the opponent is dead. The ai use to be much better but unfortunately it was dumbed down and now we get moshpits or npcs just spamming attacks. Yes as I said before besides the ai, damage calculations and or armor values need to be look at too.

 

[mujadaddy]

1.6.2
* Increased Crossbow speed from 35 to 55

finger-on-the-pulse.gif