Low Tier units vs High Tier units

[Dabos37]

I think that almost everyone here agrees with the gap between low and high-tier units is not as relevant as it should be. I personally think the gap is too big in Warband, but in Bannerlord it is totally the opposite, and this brings some issues which make the game feel less rewarding, challenging, and not immersive. People mostly blame armor, but I think the biggest reason because high-tier units do not feel as strong as they should, is because the equipment is simply 200% more relevant than skill in this game. You can just start a new campaing, get a wife with one of the best weapons, and then start killing elite units with ease. Leveling up weapon skill is mostly relevant to unlock perks, but regular units do not get affected by perks, and they just get a small weapon swing speed and damage compared to lower-skilled units (one-handed and two-handed weapon damage bonus is decent though, but for some weapons, it is just overkill).

So, while we do agree with improving armor could somehow help in some cases, it won't change the fact that weapon skill proficiency is not really relevant in this game. If you compare a T2 Vlandian Footman (40 one-handed skill) with a T5 Sergeant (130 one-handed skill), the difference is something like 3-4% weapon speed, and 14-16% weapon damage. I think it is almost nothing if we think that a T5 is a veteran, and an elite guy while a T2 is someone slightly better than a recruit.

I have been thinking about the easiest ways to improve the current situation and make high skilled units stronger:

- Option 1: Reduce all weapons damage and speed by X%, and increase weapon damage and especially speed bonuses for weapon skill. A trained guy should be much faster at fighting than an untrained guy, not just 5%.
- Option 2: In the same way as cavalry, add weapon damage and swing speed penalties for units under 100 weapon skill.

In my view, aside from equipment (which should be better for elite units), an elite unit should be able to hit like 30% harder and be like 20-30% faster than a recruit. This change and making armor a bit more relevant would make high tier units as strong as they should, and things like two recruits laughing in a legionary's face won't be as common as it is happening now.

 

[anoddhermit]

I personally like it being this way as the AI is less handicapped by having lower tier troops than the player's party which can easily be all T6.

I think other balance changes would be in order if they were to tweak it too much, which I am not against either granted, just it would have to be a more complex project.

However I do think higher tier troops should get some perks that set them apart as units. For fun factor alone. Imagine having the dismount chance perks for spear or javelin units! Awesome anti-cav/HA feature that would also make it harder for the player to cheese infantry with them.

 

[Sh1mbo]

i agree that there is should not be a huge diference in armor, i mean if i hit you with you with a 5 kg axe in your head, when im riding a horse at full speed, you are gonna feel the blow, no mathers what kind of armor you are using. For me, the gap should be on on the A.I. side, how often the soldiers attact on how of fast they block

 

[Dabos37]

i agree that there is should not be a huge diference in armor, i mean if i hit you with you with a 5 kg axe in your head, when im riding a horse at full speed, you are gonna feel the blow, no mathers what kind of armor you are using. For me, the gap should be on on the A.I. side, how often the soldiers attact on how of fast they block

Agree, but not sure if it is something easy to achieve. I mean, in 1v1 is easy I suppose, but when you have 500 guys spamming attacks against other 500 guys, blocking is probably self-defeating. In Warband if you have pretty slow skill proficiency, you attack much slower and hit weaker.

A 90kg strongman with medieval weapon practice is for sure able to inflict much higher damage and swing much faster than my mom. The problem in Bannerlord is that the soldiers' skill difference between T2 and T5 is really unnoticeable, and it is all about equipment (ironically, people just complain about armor which would make high-tier units even more dependent on equipment). You have tournaments as evidence where equipment is less impactful, and seeing low-tier units defeat higher-tier units is not a rare thing.

I personally like it being this way as the AI is less handicapped by having lower tier troops than the player's party which can easily be all T6.

I think other balance changes would be in order if they were to tweak it too much, which I am not against either granted, just it would have to be a more complex project.

However I do think higher tier troops should get some perks that set them apart as units. For fun factor alone. Imagine having the dismount chance perks for spear or javelin units! Awesome anti-cav/HA feature that would also make it harder for the player to cheese infantry with them.

Making for the player to amass 200 T6 harder is probably a better idea than keeping the gap between units tiers as small as it is now. On the other hand, higher tier units getting some perks is nice but it looks like a harder thing to do in my view.

 

[black_bulldog]

i agree that there is should not be a huge diference in armor, i mean if i hit you with you with a 5 kg axe in your head, when im riding a horse at full speed, you are gonna feel the blow, no mathers what kind of armor you are using. For me, the gap should be on on the A.I. side, how often the soldiers attact on how of fast they block

Higher tier units should be more efficient at killing and harder to kill period. What we have atm are top tier units that are a waste of money to purchase/upgrade because T3 units can do as good or almost as good a job and cost significantly less. If TW said ok we'll just make top tier units better but more expensive I'd be perfectly fine with that. This is one of the big issues with this game.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

**** it, I would welcome the difference we had in older games. Huscarls and Swadian Knights galore.

I would temper it with the difficulty in amassing elites like in Viking Conquest. The only elites that feel special are ranged ones. Everyone else is just kind of poop.

 

[Apocal]

Everyone else is just kind of poop.

2 v 1, one of them lands a hit and stuns the high-tier troop, who then eats another hit and stun, followed by another, etc.

 

[hruza]

i agree that there is should not be a huge diference in armor, i mean if i hit you with you with a 5 kg axe in your head, when im riding a horse at full speed, you are gonna feel the blow, no mathers what kind of armor you are using.

War axes weighted about 0.5 - 3kg. And 3 kg you're talking large 2H Dane axes.

For me, the gap should be on on the A.I. side, how often the soldiers attact on how of fast they block

They do attack and block faster, but here's the problem: that can actually make them worst in combat because MB combat is specifically made not to reward spamming. I have noticed it in arena fights when sometimes low tier opponents seems more dangerous then high tier ones. Thanks to lower speed, they have better "rhythm" of attacks and can trigger block more often because they are not in the middle of attack animation all the time.

Therefore it should be about how WELL they attack and block and not necessarily how fast. I agree that there is definitely too small difference between low tier and high tier combat AI. Skill plays disapointingly little role in MB combat.

Now that can be done deliberately to allow low level player defeat high tier units.

2 v 1, one of them lands a hit and stuns the high-tier troop, who then eats another hit and stun, followed by another, etc.

Which is sort of realistic. Been outnumbered is a serious disadvantage in combat.

 

[11hunter22]

**** it, I would welcome the difference we had in older games. Huscarls and Swadian Knights galore.

I would temper it with the difficulty in amassing elites like in Viking Conquest. The only elites that feel special are ranged ones. Everyone else is just kind of poop.

Agree. I think the Floris mod did a good job at balancing troops. You could get Tier 6 troops and sometimes even Tier 7 troops, but while they were really strong you never had more than 10 in your party as upgrading them took a lot of xp.

 

[Adrivan]

T6 is still useful because of simulated battles. You can crush low tier armies with T6 elites if you just auto-calc and don't go into a real battle.

 

[Medivhtratos]

What about kicks and shield/weapon bashes? I mean the AI does only 2 things, running in kiss range and make swings, regardless if you block. Feints are only seen in tournaments by lords, but that's it

 

[BigFat]

2 v 1, one of them lands a hit and stuns the high-tier troop, who then eats another hit and stun, followed by another, etc.

I've seen that a lot too. It kind of makes me wish there was a poise system like dark souls 1 where heavily armored troops would rarely be staggered by weak hits.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

- Option 1: Reduce all weapons damage and speed by X%, and increase weapon damage and especially speed bonuses for weapon skill. A trained guy should be much faster at fighting than an untrained guy, not just 5%.
- Option 2: In the same way as cavalry, add weapon damage and swing speed penalties for units under 100 weapon skill.

In my view, aside from equipment (which should be better for elite units), an elite unit should be able to hit like 30% harder and be like 20-30% faster than a recruit. This change and making armor a bit more relevant would make high tier units as strong as they should, and things like two recruits laughing in a legionary's face won't be as common as it is happening now.

I kinda lean towards option 2, but a combination could work too. Some weapons need revision and skill needs to become relevant. I'm sure originally the MP class system was to blame, but I don't know why this set up has persisted so long. As it is the Vigor skills are worthless because you have perfect control over all weapons and no stat requirement to equip them. This is of course true for npcs too, whatever difference skill gives, it's just not enough to matter. On top of the, the AI does not put it to use in any useful way, so the whole idea of "better fighters" just doesn't exist in the game yet. Any on paper advantage a higher tier unit has is negated if they happen to take a hit 1st in a exchange because there's just to many trading of blows and too little chance for recovery

**** it, I would welcome the difference we had in older games. Huscarls and Swadian Knights galore.

Yes please!

T6 is still useful because of simulated battles. You can crush low tier armies with T6 elites if you just auto-calc and don't go into a real battle.

Well, you're not wrong but... I guess to me if you lose even one it's a bigger loss then the gain of defeating an enemy.

i agree that there is should not be a huge diference in armor, i mean if i hit you with you with a 5 kg axe in your head, when im riding a horse at full speed, you are gonna feel the blow, no mathers what kind of armor you are using. For me, the gap should be on on the A.I. side, how often the soldiers attact on how of fast they block

Oh you got nothing to worry about. A solid hit from a speed boosted (horse)heavy swinging weapon will kill max armored lord 5Xs over, there's no way they're gonna balance it so that armor is that effective to survive a real attack. What I mostly don't want is the near same effect from a little crap trash units who hits me (how?) and turns my speed against me. I feel like TW deliberately tuned unmounted units to be good at landing a hit on charging mounted units, AGAIN likely because of MP captain system crap.

Higher tier units should be more efficient at killing and harder to kill period. What we have atm are top tier units that are a waste of money to purchase/upgrade because T3 units can do as good or almost as good a job and cost significantly less. If TW said ok we'll just make top tier units better but more expensive I'd be perfectly fine with that. This is one of the big issues with this game.

Absolutely. Sure, if you can afford them (you can) using 100 Khan's Guards or Fians is easier and more resilient for steam rolling enemies, but they're still very expensive compared to lower tier counterparts that can still be used effectively. And of course you must Micro KG and Fians or you will end up loosing them to stupid stuff and it's a big loss. It's unacceptably bad to lose a t6 unit to some random BS in a battle. It just feels bad. That said, the noble Cav still can't hit things with it's weapons' so.... yeah come on TW. I'm fine with them costing more if they're improved, but as it is now they're all overpriced and the Cav isn't worth a warhorse tbh.

Making for the player to amass 200 T6 harder is probably a better idea than keeping the gap between units tiers as small as it is now. On the other hand, higher tier units getting some perks is nice but it looks like a harder thing to do in my view.

Making harder is fine (they already have a few serious oversights un-fixed here) but I think the idea of "make it so the player CAN'T get/afford so many and win more gooder" is completely ***backwards though. Only new players will be effected anyone who knows the game will just shrug it off. And of course all things that the player must do, the bots better be punished by not doing them too, so if they are rare or more expensive, then we should see much less in battle on the bot side too.

I've seen that a lot too. It kind of makes me wish there was a poise system like dark souls 1 where heavily armored troops would rarely be staggered by weak hits.

Yeah me too.

 

[KingEroc1st]

I think what OP is trying to say is, in real life a Legionary would be able to strike down a looter in 2-3 quick blows without getting touched once, and he can repeat this and go through 10 looters. or 1v3-5 and come out on top. receiving very few hits, while delivery many.

but in the game when it comes to melee battles, numbers make a huge difference. because a looter has as much chance to hit a legionary as being hit, and there's a stagger effect to taking damage.
the only things at play here are their skill levels, equipment values, and as i was told recently a tier based armor absorb factor. but none of those make up for the skill of a fighter that allows him to dodge more easily and deliver unavoidable strikes.

Personally i want them to tweak the combat so the melee combat lasts a bit longer. introduce some dodge/miss or just straight up damage mitigation. and reduce the effect morale has so less low tier troops just straight up run.

 

[hruza]

or 1v3-5 and come out on top. receiving very few hits, while delivery many.

In Hollywood films.

 

[mujadaddy]

In Hollywood films.

+1

There's the old commander's saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own".

 

[Medivhtratos]

+1

There's the old commander's saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own".

But quantity causes frame drops?

 

[chillsing]

Get yourself a quality computer

 

[KingEroc1st]

In Hollywood films.

have u actually been in a fight? 3-5 disorganized drunk hot heads don't come at you from all directions and attack together. usually you take out their leader and it's over, maybe 1-2 others will come at you but there's more than enough time and space to back away a little to gain distance

and a proper fighter knows how to position himself and use his opponents as a barrier to prevent being cornered or surrounded.

i'm talking about skilled fighters vs none skilled fighters, not blue belts ganging up on a black belt.

in real life people will prioritize on dodging parrying and blocking instead of attacking especially when outnumbered. so a real fight between 1 skilled fighter and a few goons will take much longer than a slug fest dps race that is the game, it will require a lot of movement and circling around. boxing is a perfect example when 2 masters duke it out for 12 rounds and nobody hits the ground. skill means taking less hits and knowing when to not be an idiot and charge only to get hit.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

have u actually been in a fight? 3-5 disorganized drunk hot heads don't come at you from all directions and attack together. usually you take out their leader and it's over, maybe 1-2 others will come at you but there's more than enough time and space to back away a little to gain distance

and a proper fighter knows how to position himself and use his opponents as a barrier to prevent being cornered or surrounded.

i'm talking about skilled fighters vs none skilled fighters, not blue belts ganging up on a black belt.

in real life people will prioritize on dodging parrying and blocking instead of attacking especially when outnumbered. so a real fight between 1 skilled fighter and a few goons will take much longer than a slug fest dps race that is the game, it will require a lot of movement and circling around. boxing is a perfect example when 2 masters duke it out for 12 rounds and nobody hits the ground. skill means taking less hits and knowing when to not be an idiot and charge only to get hit.

Its still rather tricky for one dude to take on multiple opponents, no matter the skill though. Possible, but improbable.

That being said, one veteran warrior in heavy armour, a big shield and nasty weapon should take care of himself in a fight against five ragged bums with whatever they picked off the ground.