Low Tier units vs High Tier units

[Philozoraptor]

Thanks I’m guessing your the mod author if so many thanks. Yeah I like it when bots are really really hard and use lots of player like feints I’m just looking for more disparity - that being recruit level guys don’t fight nearly as well as seasoned troops - is this possible with what your suggesting? I take it you mean on the options menu of the game itself

Well its 2 layer problem - one layer is player vs NPC, another layer is NPC vs NPC (which is 99.99 % of field battle). If block / parry chance is too low, low tier troops will just unrealistically slaughter each other in formation fighting, despite the fact that IRL these fight were long because people were (and still are) defensive in these kinds of engagements. Generally Block and parry chance are relatively high even on low tier troops, however their chance to parry or block in wrong direction is also relatively high (to represent that even untrained people generally can react quickly, they just react inproperly), this way attacking quickly (attack speed is importnat here) or using some 2H weapon that can overwhelm defense (2H polearms, 2H maces, 2H axes) or just hitting people that are not looking at you is good way to penetrate defense.

 

[five bucks]

I am not sure if 50 Legionaries should be able to kill 250 recruits in order to find them cost/effective or not. Keeping in mind that we have party limits, Legionaries just need to be considerably better than recruits to find them worthy.

While I also would like to see high tiers feeling stronger, legionaries are one of these units which currently worth the money they cost.

I've gotta ask: How many recruits do you think a T5 unit should be able to kill (on average) if not five. Three, four?

Though legionaries are indeed stronger than most T5 units, I don't agree they are worth the money they cost. T3 troops will get you similar results for less time, upgrade money, and wage money investment (and, in the case of cav, horse upgrades). T5 is not a large increase in effectiveness relative to T3.

And cost effectiveness is just one factor for why T5 troops should perform very well against raw recruits. Realism and the feeling of progression are two others. I've given historical examples of battle hardened, well-trained, well-equipped soldiers inflicting disproportionately high casualties on inexperienced, poorly-trained, poorly-equipped soldiers. So if anything, high tier melee units' performance with their quality weapons, armor, and training is unrealistically weak against raw recruits who have a weak little weapon, no armor, and no training or experience of war.

Progression is the other big thing. After putting work into training your troops, you want them to feel powerful, to be able to easily crush the weakest enemies in the game. In Warband, each T5 Swadian Knight could kill 10 T1 Recruits. That's obviously way too powerful, but it did feel satisfying. A Legionary being able to kill 5 Recruits would be half as strong as that, so it would be a midpoint between Warband and the unsatisfying weak elites we have now.

Same for most of ranged units which perform considerably better as they get upgraded.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that ranged fighters are an exception, especially ones like Sharpshooters.

 

[Nogand]

Which mid-tier units did you use, spearmen or something? I believe what you're saying is possible, but here's a test by Apocal on 300 recruits vs 50 legionaries

Watch Untitled 8 | Streamable

Watch "Untitled 8" on Streamable.

streamable.com

and as you can see, the legionaries can't manage anywhere near a 5:1 kill ratio against imperial recruits.

Yeah I agree that's a big part of the issue. Since I like to collect feedback for that roadmap thread, how would you fix it? Maybe make flinch stun have a cooldown, to give a unit fighting 2v1 or 3v1 a way to keep fighting without being perma-stunned to death? They used a similar solution for 1vX in Mordhau.

Increase the threshold and buff armor slightly IMO. If you had to take ~20 damage to get stunned then a recruit would struggle to inflict that much damage against T5 armour. Maybe have athletics skill increase the threshold. Even in the current iteration if you equip legionary level armour (by lowering armour prices via modding enough for them to appear in shops, or simply cheating) you'll get about 2/3rds or greater damage reduction against most non-blunt low-level attacks.

 

[Dabos37]

I've gotta ask: How many recruits do you think a T5 unit should be able to kill (on average) if not five. Three, four?

Though legionaries are indeed stronger than most T5 units, I don't agree they are worth the money they cost. T3 troops will get you similar results for less time, upgrade money, and wage money investment (and, in the case of cav, horse upgrades). T5 is not a large increase in effectiveness relative to T3.

And cost effectiveness is just one factor for why T5 troops should perform very well against raw recruits. Realism and the feeling of progression are two others. I've given historical examples of battle hardened, well-trained, well-equipped soldiers inflicting disproportionately high casualties on inexperienced, poorly-trained, poorly-equipped soldiers. So if anything, high tier melee units' performance with their quality weapons, armor, and training is unrealistically weak against raw recruits who have a weak little weapon, no armor, and no training or experience of war.

Progression is the other big thing. After putting work into training your troops, you want them to feel powerful, to be able to easily crush the weakest enemies in the game. In Warband, each T5 Swadian Knight could kill 10 T1 Recruits. That's obviously way too powerful, but it did feel satisfying. A Legionary being able to kill 5 Recruits would be half as strong as that, so it would be a midpoint between Warband and the unsatisfying weak elites we have now.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that ranged fighters are an exception, especially ones like Sharpshooters.

To be honest, I do not know which is the magic number to make Legionaries good enough for everyone. For me, Legionaries are already pretty much as strong as they should and there is no reason because I would not upgrade my units to Legionaries:



On the other hand, a recruit is a tricky unit to test, because they act as one-handed and two-handed infantry (two-handed Infantry is able to counter shielded infantry), so it is much more complex than just making one test against recruits and make conclusions after that. 5:1 when your units get totally surrounded is a scenario where realistically any army would lose (if you manage to take advantage of the map to avoid getting surrounded, then this is a different history).

 

[Philozoraptor]

To be honest, I do not know which is the magic number to make Legionaries good enough for everyone. For me, Legionaries are already pretty much as strong as they should and there is no reason because I would not upgrade my units to Legionaries:



On the other hand, a recruit is a tricky unit to test, because they act as one-handed and two-handed infantry (two-handed Infantry is able to counter shielded infantry), so it is much more complex than just making one test against recruits and make conclusions after that. 5:1 when your units get totally surrounded is a scenario where realistically any army would lose (if you manage to take advantage of the map to avoid getting surrounded, then this is a different history).

Imagine if recruits had shields and spears as was the case for majority of antiquity and medieval period. We would not have to bother with random Batannian hammermen.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Imagine if recruits had shields and spears as was the case for majority of antiquity and medieval period. We would not have to bother with random Batannian hammermen.

Ngl, I find them fun and amusing. And personally I see recruits not as troops you bring to camp and immediately arm, but just random bums that you picked up fresh from their homes with whatever weapons they happen to have at hand.

I think maybe spending up training from tier 6 to tier 11 wouldn't hurt though. That way you should never see recruit level troops around after a day of marching around with them.

 

[Laliloluhla]

It's starting to become annoying for me too, fielding an army of infantry and trying to take on forces larger than your own is proving very difficult. I upgrade these troops to their max tier and still can't comfortably rely on them to take out an army of Khuzait Nomads. This is of course after cycle charging their horse archers and then retreating from the battlefield repeatedly otherwise the fight would be impossible.

 

[five bucks]

And personally I see recruits not as troops you bring to camp and immediately arm, but just random bums that you picked up fresh from their homes with whatever weapons they happen to have at hand.

I think maybe spending up training from tier 6 to tier 11 wouldn't hurt though. That way you should never see recruit level troops around after a day of marching around with them.

Strongly agree.
Recruits are the guys who are completely new on the job. They are still in training to be soldiers, rather than actually being soldiers. And after a very brief training period, they become soldiers at T2 (inexperienced ones).

Their commander hasn't finished showing them how to use their equipment yet - or maybe even hasn't bought it, that's what upgrade costs are - so they don't have weapons until someone has taken the day to teach them how to swing a sword without hitting their allies in the back of the head.

 

[CalarTheMerciless]

If the recruits had shields and helmets it would make sense for them to have a chance at winning, but currently they're just guys with swords and literally nothing else. From both a gameplay and believability perspective I have no problem with them just getting massacred.

I agree, the lack of shield is the real clincher.

Plus a legionnaire at that point is meant to be decked in armor vs cloth.

The problem with armor is that it doesnt really protect you. If the damage output was 1/3 it starts to feel real, Lance's and 2handers still kill you in heavy armor but it takes a lot more of the glancing blows from low tier weapons. Which is what those high tier troops need in the end staying power against chaff; while the chaff would still fall.

Spear damage should probably stay where it is especially with the fact that it takes an age to stab.

 

[Philozoraptor]

Ngl, I find them fun and amusing. And personally I see recruits not as troops you bring to camp and immediately arm, but just random bums that you picked up fresh from their homes with whatever weapons they happen to have at hand.

I think maybe spending up training from tier 6 to tier 11 wouldn't hurt though. That way you should never see recruit level troops around after a day of marching around with them.

Thats why we made Volunteer Up Tier, I just wanted to skip this useless cannon fodder stage of game for both AI and the player (though later I just gave recruits spears, helmets and shields). I mean, this peasant (with peasant gear) participation in battles is mostly movie / videogame fantasy.

 

[KingEroc1st]

Thats why we made Volunteer Up Tier, I just wanted to skip this useless cannon fodder stage of game for both AI and the player (though later I just gave recruits spears, helmets and shields). I mean, this peasant (with peasant gear) participation in battles is mostly movie / videogame fantasy.

i've tried this more troops mod that adds different troop types to all factions

one of the features is it removes all tier 1 and adds a new tier 7

 

[vota dc]

I've gotta ask: How many recruits do you think a T5 unit should be able to kill (on average) if not five. Three, four?

Though legionaries are indeed stronger than most T5 units, I don't agree they are worth the money they cost. T3 troops will get you similar results for less time, upgrade money, and wage money investment (and, in the case of cav, horse upgrades). T5 is not a large increase in effectiveness relative to T3.

And cost effectiveness is just one factor for why T5 troops should perform very well against raw recruits. Realism and the feeling of progression are two others. I've given historical examples of battle hardened, well-trained, well-equipped soldiers inflicting disproportionately high casualties on inexperienced, poorly-trained, poorly-equipped soldiers. So if anything, high tier melee units' performance with their quality weapons, armor, and training is unrealistically weak against raw recruits who have a weak little weapon, no armor, and no training or experience of war.

Progression is the other big thing. After putting work into training your troops, you want them to feel powerful, to be able to easily crush the weakest enemies in the game. In Warband, each T5 Swadian Knight could kill 10 T1 Recruits. That's obviously way too powerful, but it did feel satisfying. A Legionary being able to kill 5 Recruits would be half as strong as that, so it would be a midpoint between Warband and the unsatisfying weak elites we have now.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that ranged fighters are an exception, especially ones like Sharpshooters.

They could change armor formula and give a weak regeneration until 30% to defeat many low tier and recover, t5 should defeat even more than 5 t1 but only if they come in waves...if they are 1:4 odds they should die since when they fight one of them there are two others on his sides that attack and one on his back.

 

[KingEroc1st]

if they are 1:4 odds they should die since when they fight one of them there are two others on his sides that attack and one on his back.

even in a direct frontal 1v4 the looters wouldn't get behind the legionary and hit him from the back. they just don't, of course they'll be on the sides attacking.

But in a situation of 50vs200 or 100vs400. it won't be the same. most legionaries in the formation would only have 1 enemy in front of him. and the flanks would be hit from the sides.while the looter group would eventually surround them in the back, but there's a "race" as the looters will die a lot faster and lose morale causing some to rout, making the surround less likely.

 

[Nogand]

Which mid-tier units did you use, spearmen or something? I believe what you're saying is possible, but here's a test by Apocal on 300 recruits vs 50 legionaries

Watch Untitled 8 | Streamable

Watch "Untitled 8" on Streamable.

streamable.com

and as you can see, the legionaries can't manage anywhere near a 5:1 kill ratio against imperial recruits.

Yeah I agree that's a big part of the issue. Since I like to collect feedback for that roadmap thread, how would you fix it? Maybe make flinch stun have a cooldown, to give a unit fighting 2v1 or 3v1 a way to keep fighting without being perma-stunned to death? They used a similar solution for 1vX in Mordhau.

This is just anecdotal experience, haven't tested it in custom battles. Though these ratios only occur if the legionaries are fighting an enemy that doesn't have the upfront numbers to envelop them, so I'd have to test it by making a custom battle with a redshirt army split into 5 parts, sending wave after wave like some incompetent villain.

Defensive battles that are above the battle size limit tend to be like this I've noticed. The AI will crash into my kill zone, retreat to its side of the map, regroup, and then hit again.

 

[Philozoraptor]

They could change armor formula and give a weak regeneration until 30% to defeat many low tier and recover.

By that point, why not give units stamina that would scale with their level, which would be used to block / parry attack. Elite units would have more of it and they would regenerate it faster etc.

 

[Spinozart1]

By that point, why not give units stamina that would scale with their level, which would be used to block / parry attack. Elite units would have more of it and they would regenerate it faster etc.

I guess it was already suggested but maybe using the existing morale mechanic could make the trick as well.
Higher tier means more morale, stay longer on the battlefield, they could give a boost to the lower troops, and/or a morale boost on battle start etc...

 

[Philozoraptor]

I guess it was already suggested but maybe using the existing morale mechanic could make the trick as well.
Higher tier means more morale, stay longer on the battlefield, they could give a boost to the lower troops, and/or a morale boost on battle start etc...

Morale is another system that should work together with this. Stamina should correlate with how much you fight, morale should corelate with how much punishment you take physically and mentally (think enemy cav being nearby, enemy cav charging you, enemy showering your shields with arrows in addition to actual damage taken). Tired units generally should have reduced morale, but units with low morale can be fresh and full of energy, two systems that pertially overlap.

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Morale is another system that should work together with this. Stamina should correlate with how much you fight, morale should corelate with how much punishment you take physically and mentally (think enemy cav being nearby, enemy cav charging you, enemy showering your shields with arrows in addition to actual damage taken). Tired units generally should have reduced morale, but units with low morale can be fresh and full of energy, two systems that pertially overlap.

Do you think it'd be viable to redo the entire battle system to incorporate stamina? Obviously it exists for Smithing, but tying your stamina to Smithing could be problematic, and then there would be UX changes, code related to weapon usage, recovery, etc.

I would at least like to see Morale be externalized and the effect be more drastic, like if a Lord(s) and Captains dies, the entire formation should rout outside of maybe T5/6 units. And each unit who breaks contact should exponentially drop unit morale - where if you had a few T3 guys break away their morale hit would have compounding effects on the entire formation. If I'm in the ****, and I see some big-balls tough guys run away, I am likely to follow them too.

 

[hruza]

Progression is the other big thing. After putting work into training your troops, you want them to feel powerful, to be able to easily crush the weakest enemies in the game. In Warband, each T5 Swadian Knight could kill 10 T1 Recruits.

Yea, but he wasn't able to crush them so easily because he was trained, expensive and well equipped, but because his horse had magic impact damage and was able to plow through pikes and spears.

It was result of a flawed mechanics. Non heavy cavalry high tier units were hardly more effective against recruits in Warband then in Bannerlord. And that's because all other mechanics were basically the same. And the main one is the lack of fighting skill difference between high and low tier NPCs. In theory high tier NPC swings slightly faster then low tier one, but in practice there is hardly any noticeable difference. On average both low and high tier are landing about the same number of hits. Or with too small a difference.

At the end it's down to damage of the weapon and resistance of the armor and slightly higher HP. And that's not going to make 1 T5 outlast 10 T1 in combat as some of the players would want. Especially not if it's one 1 T5 against 10 T1 at the same time. Which is also what many players would like.

Not that it would be a good thing in my opinion.

 

[Philozoraptor]

Do you think it'd be viable to redo the entire battle system to incorporate stamina? Obviously it exists for Smithing, but tying your stamina to Smithing could be problematic, and then there would be UX changes, code related to weapon usage, recovery, etc.

I would at least like to see Morale be externalized and the effect be more drastic, like if a Lord(s) and Captains dies, the entire formation should rout outside of maybe T5/6 units. And each unit who breaks contact should exponentially drop unit morale - where if you had a few T3 guys break away their morale hit would have compounding effects on the entire formation. If I'm in the ****, and I see some big-balls tough guys run away, I am likely to follow them too.

I dont know if it would be clever but I would like it, it would be another layer of combat balance that can be gently tweaked in order to change results. But we are talking RBM type of armor balance, none of features like morale or stamina is relevant if battles take 30-60 seconds. Any kind of advanced combat feature that people on these forums daydream about are absolutelly pointless as long as core element of the game - troop engagement is moshpit of meat robots that dont care about their lives and just push and swing at each other until they are dead in 1-3 hits with total of zero parries/blocks.