Here our little conversation started, but it can be that @Dabos37 found some new parameters(look at site 5 till 6)Yea the vanilla xbows reloads too fast, it's like a machine gun lol. You mod looks more realistic. Link? Lol
Here our little conversation started, but it can be that @Dabos37 found some new parameters(look at site 5 till 6)
Thread 'Archers and Crossbowmen performance insanely good in 1.5.5' https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...en-performance-insanely-good-in-1-5-5.435273/
Yea the vanilla xbows reloads too fast, it's like a machine gun lol. You mod looks more realistic. Link? Lol
Here our little conversation started, but it can be that @Dabos37 found some new parameters(look at site 5 till 6)
Thread 'Archers and Crossbowmen performance insanely good in 1.5.5' https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...en-performance-insanely-good-in-1-5-5.435273/
Nah all good, maybe the devs would be interested, but they should know what to change from the videoYep, I have just changed what @Medivhtratos suggested in the linked thread, plus I have created an script to check the weapons.xml script, and reduce thrust speed 25% just for bows and crossbows. The first time I did it manually and it was a pain to be changing every bow and crossbow parameter. I can share the Python script if someone is interested, but I do not know how to create a new mod and upload it in Nexus.
You were clearly stating, as if it was fact, that the game's weapons are from the Renaissance (wrong) as an argument for why high damage to armor is appropriate.I don't need to establish anything. I'm stating opinion. And as such, nothing you have said has changed it.
Yeah ew, how dare someone show you actual evidence that shows you're wrong. They should be spouting random nonsense they literally made up instead, that's the Antaeus way.But by all means... carry on hunting for wikipedia articles or what ever. Blah.
A couple of individual pieces of new armor are added with each new iteration of the game, your proposal would need multiple entire new sets made, I guess it could be done but the work would be much better used adding variety to mid-tiers. As I already said, later period plate would clash with the existing aesthetic of the game, so there's very little chance TW would do it. In addition, since you said it was just for really high tier units, it would make barely any difference to the problems of archers being overpowered or battles ending too quickly. Your idea makes zero sense.I think that changing the values and balance for every ranged weapon would result in repeated iterations and testing far beyond adding new armour would. new armour is added to every iteration of the game already.
Of course it would lead to testing, as would any change to the game. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing, because the current weakness of armor and overpoweredness of ranged troops causes many problems with the game (troop type imbalance, irrelevance of tier, immersion breaking, shallow tactics, short battle lengths, armor not being worth its cost, various perks being worthless, nobles and companions dying very easily) that lots of people complain about frequently.What you're suggesting would just lead to more testing, more claims of unbalanced something or other and endless cycles of "this thing is out of balance! nerf it!" Which we already have, because people complained last time.
Yep, I have just changed what @Medivhtratos suggested in the linked thread, plus I have created an script to check the weapons.xml script, and reduce thrust speed 25% just for bows and crossbows. The first time I did it manually and it was a pain to be changing every bow and crossbow parameter. I can share the Python script if someone is interested, but I do not know how to create a new mod and upload it in Nexus.
Archers are not op, but those darn rock throwing looters are!
A simple, historically accurate solution (other than increasing armour values) would be to significantly increase the cost of recruiting, upgrading and keeping ranged troops vs foot melee, and increasing the xp values for archer upgrades. It should be prohibitively expensive and time consuming to train up a big T5/6 archery corps. In my view, "reload" speeds for top tier archers are probably too slow for realism, but it's probably right that heavier crossbows are too fast. If TW could add a mechanic that meant your had to manage ammunition stocks, that would even better. Economics and logistics (as well as culture) are the main reason archery was relatively limited on European battlefields and why firearms replaced them relatively quickly despite being largely inferior in terms of killing capacity until the early to mid 19th century.Great points Terco, I think we can all agree there are a lot of balance issues in general and many overlap and even compound issues. While I agree reload speeds are over tuned and not balanced, it looks even worse because armor is under tuned. As to the thrust speed it looks way better at 35 compared to vanilla and bows with more damage should be slower to draw.
Fixing armor values should be more than enough without messing with ranged troop progression and throwing the balance of archers from "overpowered" to "underpowered". This thread and many others have made it clear that armor is the core issue.A simple, historically accurate solution (other than increasing armour values) would be to significantly increase the cost of recruiting, upgrading and keeping ranged troops vs foot melee
Fixing armor values should be more than enough without messing with ranged troop progression and throwing the balance of archers from "overpowered" to "underpowered". This thread and many others have made it clear that armor is the core issue.
Yeah, sounds reasonable.Reducing rate of fire AND improving armor effectiveness against ranged units is the way to go in my view.
I strongly disagree with breaking up the head hitbox in such a way that some headshots are worse than body shots. From a gameplay perspective, it is intuited that headshots are best, and typically they are the most difficult so it is self-balancing. From a realism perspective, some head injuries are debilitating even without breaking the skin, as the brain is susceptible to trauma in unique ways (concussions, for one). This can't be accurately modeled in the game with the available systems, though, so the solution is finding an appropriate combination of base damage and typical damage bonus that makes for consistent, acceptable results which are proportional to other options in the game.
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.