SP - General My Observations & Suggestions about the Game

[Kongepal]

Hello,
First of all, I wish all readers a pleasant reading and I hope you will agree with some of what I have said. If there are issues that you do not agree with, I would be very pleased if you write where you do not agree and why. First of all, I can say that it has been about a week since I started playing Bannerlord. In the Mount & Blade series, when you switch to a new game after Warband, one inevitably gets very excited. I convey my sincere love to the Taleworlds team for bringing such a game to us, the players, and wish them continued success. I would like to make a few inferences based on my experience and dissatisfaction with the game.

There were moments when I had a lot of fun in the game, and there were moments that left me disappointed. Of course, I will touch on the things I dislike, of course, if I try to count the ones I like, your eyes will get tired. (Of course I'll be tired too)

First of all, I think there is quite a difference in power between kingdoms. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have to play Battanian just because they are strong, or not be able to play Sturgia just because they are weak. When you look at the overall strength of the troops, the Battanian Fian Champion is stronger than all the Sturgia troops in every way. I did not fully understand the logic of this. I think that in kingdoms one thing is either too strong and other things are too weak, or in general it is divided into very strong and very weak. I think this problem needs to be fixed. Empire has a slightly more coherent structure. The soldiers in the kingdoms should be of a certain strength on average, but some features should be in the foreground, in my opinion. For example, the archers of the Kuzait kingdom should be more prominent, the infantry of the Sturgians etc. as. But the other troops should not be very weak. For example;

The Sturgian army structure can be as follows:
Cavalry Archer: 4/10
Cavalry Melee: 8/10 > 6/10 (-2 debuff for characteristic situation of the Strugia Kingdom)
Archers: 6/10
Infantry: 10/10

Sturgia Kingdom's total army score: 26

Kuzait army structure can be as follows:
Cavalry Archer: 8/10
Cavalry Melee: 2/10 > 4/10 (+2 buff for characteristic situation of the Kuzait Kingdom)
Archers: 10/10
Infantry: 4//10

Kuzait Kingdom's total army score: 26

What I want to say is a close basis, but some features may differ from each other according to characteristic situations. Some troops may be a little stronger or a little weaker. That would be more acceptable in my opinion.

I may add to the subject in the future, I look forward to your comments.

Thanks so much for reading.
Kongepal

 

[Tryvenyal]

The Sturgian army structure can be as follows:
Cavalry: 5/10
Archers: 5/10
Infantry: 9/10

Kuzait army structure can be as follows:
Cavalry: 6/10
Archers: 9/10
Infantry: 4/10

What you think is their quality today?

Khuzait strenght is Horse Arhers, not archers

 

[Kongepal]

What you think is their quality today?

Khuzait strenght is Horse Arhers, not archers

"I balanced the rating"
You can make a straight logic like this, it is more difficult to use a bow on a horse. Therefore, there must be a unit that uses a better bow when dismounted. Isn't it a bit ridiculous to use a bow with the same ability in both cases?

 

[five bucks]

When you look at the overall strength of the troops, the Battanian Fian Champion is stronger than all the Sturgia troops in every way. I did not fully understand the logic of this.

It's because armor does not work properly. It does not provide good enough protection, especially against arrows, bolts, and stones.

Therefore, since Fian Champions are the fastest firing and highest damaging archers in the game, they are also the most powerful troop in the game by a large margin. Until armor is fixed to act more realistically and provide good protection this will continue to be an issue, and infantry-focused factions like Sturgia will continue to be weak.