My Thoughts After 780 Hours of Playtime

Users who are viewing this thread

five bucks

Knight
Sorry man but that's all i need to hear.
A player typically doesn't delegate command making the test lackluster also what you prove
Do some testing of your own and then you can call mine lackluster, m8. All delegate command does is make them stand on a hill sometimes or charge other times, it doesn't change their stats or weapons.
 

Wheem

Grandmaster Knight
WF&SVCWB
After not playing for quite some time, and only doing the early campaign + custom battles since 1.8's release, I think one of the main problems for infantry is that they simply don't have enough staying power. You can't really use a shield wall, square, or other defensive-type formation to pin an enemy army in place while you maneuver other forces around to their flanks. You either have to move out well in advance and hope their forces don't just turn and ignore your infantry line, or the fight is over by the time your flanking attack is ready. In the latter case, all you've done is give the enemy army a gift by fighting them piecemeal.

At the same time, cavalry charges are almost entirely worthless against higher end infantry, even when you hit them in the back - this is about the only time I see high tier infantry actually having any staying power in melee. We shouldn't want the F1 + F3 + AFK steamroll from Warband's heavy cavalry back, but it looks like mounted troops' melee accuracy problem is still a big issue in Bannerlord.

And yes, Sturgia's tier 4 infantry is still basically the worst in the game - something I bellyached about a couple years ago. I'm not entirely sure why, but they just get annihilated by...basically everything.

I actually sort of liked how infantry battles felt in Viking Conquest; good armor was actually quite protective most of the time, but was fairly sparse until high tier units (which were much more expensive). Bannerlord probably shouldn't copy it 100%, but should be quite a bit closer than it is, IMO.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
It's easy to test in a vacuum (custom battles) 100v100 but that doesn't take into account the other economical or world map dis/advantages with infantry.
Alright. real life story:

another streamer came to me stating that all he needed to win in the best K/D ratio possible was a bunch of archers.
I told him that if you want to keep the K/D ratio low you need all kinds of troops, with the exception of cavalry.

Streamer went out of his way, created a custom battle that he could barely win with archers and told me to find a more reliable and efficient way to win.

I did and from that day that guy doesn't build armies out of only archers anymore.

testing in a vacuum is not just that and you call it a day. You use the data you gather, combine it with your experience and feedback from other players then use it to find an optimal way to win.
Nobody ever said the Veteran infantrymen from the Aserai is the best infantry in the game yet from my testings and experience they are (Altought the Legionary is still the most reliable but not as versatile).
That goes to show how little actual information there is out there when talking troops, efficiency and effectiveness. If you can create the right CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT than use the info to your advantage to better your game it doesn't make you a player who puts no effort. Which is my issue with the player in this thread.

Anyway busted units are busted a Khan guard is the best shock trooper, Horse archer and cavalrymen in the game. take him out of the equation and Horse archers are not OP anymore.
I did an entire campaign with the Khuzait using Horse archers exactly the way the player i am having a discussion with stated above and it turned out to be more casualties heavy than a balanced army.

When you have to deal with whatever your vassals bring to a fight and you take busted units out of the equation all of a sudden the game is different.
On the cost the wage is dependent on level so T5 all have the same wage and T6 costs more. but for Horse archer the right economy/geographic things to keep in mind are location of the Horse archers ( Khuzait ) and the price of the horse ( 600 let's say ) An Horse archers costs you an absurd amount more than an infantrymen and can be located far away from your kingdom zone.
and don't come to me saying but with the "Veterinary" medicine perk you get infinite horses. yes you do but those are horses you aren't selling so the cost is still higher no matter the way you look at it.

Early on cavalry and killing caravans is very good for money, later when you get around in armies speed is not that relevant anymore and with the ability of converting clans from the prison not even needed to recruit clans anymore.
Do some testing of your own and then you can call mine lackluster, m8. All delegate command does is make them stand on a hill sometimes or charge other times, it doesn't change their stats or weapons.
Delegating command doesn't make for a "CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT" it's simple as far from scientific as it can get. the AI is going to act differently each time something happens, there is no reliability.

I am sure your intentions are well placed but there is a big difference in the way proper testing is done and the ones you did. Hope you understand that this isn't a personal attack but just a logical statement.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
I told him that if you want to keep the K/D ratio low you need all kinds of troops, with the exception of cavalry.

Streamer went out of his way, created a custom battle that he could barely win with archers and told me to find a more reliable and efficient way to win.

I did and from that day that guy doesn't build armies out of only archers anymore.

testing in a vacuum is not just that and you call it a day. You use the data you gather, combine it with your experience and feedback from other players then use it to find an optimal way to win.
Nobody ever said the Veteran infantrymen from the Aserai is the best infantry in the game yet from my testings and experience they are (Altought the Legionary is still the most reliable but not as versatile).
That goes to show how little actual information there is out there when talking troops, efficiency and effectiveness. If you can create the right CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT than use the info to your advantage to better your game it doesn't make you a player who puts no effort. Which is my issue with the player in this thread.
Obviously, with player input, I can probably finagle a way to make any situation work in my favor even with the imbalances - but in general, simply amassing the same troop/recruit upgrades is vastly more efficient (overall). Doing it in custom battles by picking whatever faction/best troops/composition is easy to do to min/max the most efficient outcome to every situation, but doing it 'in-game' is not considering the time spent for travelling, training, etc...
What is your ideal composition vs 100 Khan's guard that works most efficiently - then calculate their wage comparison to said KGs, rough time spent to collect said composition, etc...

Agree that party of only foot archers is stupid though, given how tanky infantry shields are and other ways to easily counter them.
When you have to deal with whatever your vassals bring to a fight and you take busted units out of the equation all of a sudden the game is different.
On the cost the wage is dependent on level so T5 all have the same wage and T6 costs more. but for Horse archer the right economy/geographic things to keep in mind are location of the Horse archers ( Khuzait ) and the price of the horse ( 600 let's say ) An Horse archers costs you an absurd amount more than an infantrymen and can be located far away from your kingdom zone.
In terms of in game, they aren't really an 'absurd' amount more, considering their longevity vs infantry; granted being close to Khuzait is a boon for sure.
Even if you use infantry expertly in whatever engagement/army battles; they do tend to suffer the most casualties typically - so one would have to also take into account the replenishing costs (+time, re-upgrade, etc...) so that 600d example isn't that much of a cost disparity in the end.
Delegating command doesn't make for a "CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT" it's simple as far from scientific as it can get. the AI is going to act differently each time something happens, there is no reliability.
But it is certainly more controlled than accounting for exact same player input in each scenario as they work under a strict set of conditions.
I am sure your intentions are well placed but there is a big difference in the way proper testing is done and the ones you did. Hope you understand that this isn't a personal attack but just a logical statement.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
100 Khan's guard that works most efficiently
well let's start by saying 100 khan's is a very hard number to encounter but the way i would deal with that depends on many factors.

am i defender or agressor? How many troops am i bringing?How good are my troops, especially archers?

Rendering 100 Khans useless as defender is very easy, just run them out of arrows and let them join the cavalry formations. all you need in that scenario is some cavalry to prevent an encirclement and a shield wall to protect archers. you might lose a few guys but the arrows are gone

If i am the defender then i use a weird formation that makes my infantry stay like this "/" and the archers in one or 2 line/Loose in an "I" and "-" respectively the "I" is just covered by the infantry "/" and the "-" is more open but you will see why later.
in this scenario crossbowmen would perform better but the Khans are tough ones to take down.
I would also like to have some cavalry in this scenario to prevent a flanking maneuver or, in case it's not preventable, galloping around my formations in order to protect the arrows and infantrymen backs.

This generally work very well and i might have an highlight to show. i'll try looking for it.
Here it is
Also that highlight is a great example because i am the defender. It would be even easier if i was the aggressor since the AI would send the HA forward but keep the rest of their units behind.
The entire fight is a great example of how to use all formations and have good control of the BF. wouldn't be able to do that without the shield boys.

And this was vanilla as far as i remember
 

LyonExodus

Regular
But it is certainly more controlled than accounting for exact same player input in each scenario as they work under a strict set of conditions.
Big depends. If you want efficiency of a unit you have to control them yourself and i'd say 9 times out of 10 i give my formations the same commands.
I like reliability and tend to do very little micro outside of archers. i had some very bad experiences trying to micro too many formations. i limit myself to 5 or 6 but hardly more than that
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
The talking about the way some users insults others in the way they expose themselves are the following:
VvEJH.gif

1 I'm THE DESTROYER, I'm not going to kiss your butt. I'm not going to kiss anyone else's butt or lie to save face or get good boy points or any other
? :poop: Yes I think ramming 500 troops into 500 troops and going "GG how exciting" is a garbage way to play. I don't do it, I don't recommend it and I think it sucks ? I also don't care about custom battle tests, only real campaign strategy and results is interesting to me.
2 Why are you injecting yourself as the target of my comments? You volunteering to either accept them or champion some phantom player is your choice and makes it seem like you-yourself must feel this description applies to you. This is all you. Nobody actually insulted you.
I can't see why people got mad maybe you can help.
I don't care at all if you, or anyone else "gets mad". There is TOS for the forum use and that is all I am obliged to consider.
I stand for truth, justice and the Calradian way and I will not compromise to avoid hurting feeling or egos.
Now there are many times and reasons on why Infantry is at times leagues above archers or Horse Archers or why each unit needs each others in order to really be optimal without cheesing the game, one of them are sieges. Long weapons tend to get stuck, Khans happens to have Glaives. on small or short maps Horses happen to take too much space. the busted khans help you there since for some stupid reason they are the best shock troop in the game even without an horse. Infantry units can annihilate low tiers in seconds and thus letting your archers dealing with the real problems later in the fight. Too many archers or Horse archers can't all fire all at ones, and if they do many shots will hit the same target and be wasted. A loose formation of archers can fire 3-4 ranks deep. any other rank is there just in case someone dies. there is no reason to have too much firepower if that's the case. The only way to use all archers at the same time are either inefficient shooting formation or multiple lines that can only be used effectively on certain maps.
^Based on your own post here, I don't think you know anything at all about using horse archers effectively. Yes if a player plays this poorly as you describe, HA is only a minor advantage. The player can and should position and format all ranged units to fire optimally and move them to keep them in optimal and safe positions. If you don't do so, you are playing poorly, making bad decisions, wasting resources, putting in low effort and so on. I also described how I use them in this same thread already, but I suppose that's not good reading if you can't get offended over it.
The problem is that archers can easily do the same and have overall more value :/ .
Yes. Even low tier ranged with get in some damage and is still a fine meat shield and can be bum rushed into the side/back of an enemy SW if need be. Not to mention if you make t4-5 Xbowmen.... there's just no reason to want a legionary or sergeant over the Xbow equivalents, they're the perfect foot soldiers.
I did an entire campaign with the Khuzait using Horse archers exactly the way the player i am having a discussion with stated above and it turned out to be more casualties heavy than a balanced army.
Obviously not. Based on your own comments in this same thread you have neither the understanding or capability to use them as I do.
We shouldn't want the F1 + F3 + AFK steamroll from Warband's heavy cavalry back, but it looks like mounted troops' melee accuracy problem is still a big issue in Bannerlord.
Agreed.
The entire fight is a great example of how to use all formations and have good control of the BF. wouldn't be able to do that without the shield boys.
Yes, yes you can. I do seriously every day I play Bannerlord. It 's even better with horsearchers because you can move them along side the pinned enemy HA and then chase them along the map shooting them in the butt if the pull back. The whole back of the map HA pin originates from topics on this forum so don't expect any butt kisses for you great example.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
well let's start by saying 100 khan's is a very hard number to encounter but the way i would deal with that depends on many factors.

am i defender or agressor? How many troops am i bringing?How good are my troops, especially archers?

Rendering 100 Khans useless as defender is very easy, just run them out of arrows and let them join the cavalry formations. all you need in that scenario is some cavalry to prevent an encirclement and a shield wall to protect archers. you might lose a few guys but the arrows are gone

If i am the defender then i use a weird formation that makes my infantry stay like this "/" and the archers in one or 2 line/Loose in an "I" and "-" respectively the "I" is just covered by the infantry "/" and the "-" is more open but you will see why later.
in this scenario crossbowmen would perform better but the Khans are tough ones to take down.
I would also like to have some cavalry in this scenario to prevent a flanking maneuver or, in case it's not preventable, galloping around my formations in order to protect the arrows and infantrymen backs.

This generally work very well and i might have an highlight to show. i'll try looking for it.
Here it is
Also that highlight is a great example because i am the defender. It would be even easier if i was the aggressor since the AI would send the HA forward but keep the rest of their units behind.
The entire fight is a great example of how to use all formations and have good control of the BF. wouldn't be able to do that without the shield boys.

And this was vanilla as far as i remember
Hard to use this clip as a proof/example with the comparison of 100 KG reference as they also had a mixed ratio of troops (ie not 660 KG - understandably that is near impossible in game but for the point of this discussion). It's really only the end results that I care about - loss count ratio of your troop types, their kill/death ratio, cost to replenish, map movement speed, etc...vs a composition that is, say, 90% HA with a sprinkler of infantry.

I'm not saying mixed compositions can/'t work better than a party of only one-type of troop, just that even in your example, infantry must have a significantly higher# of troops to be effective vs the other troops. But given that their cost is not 'cheaper' in comparison to the equivalent of HA or the amount of micromanaging to make them more effective, it's hard to see any benefit using them if you're min/maxing and can get more effective party of just HAs (+more map speed) at maybe ~10% more cost.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
I'm not saying mixed compositions can/'t work better than a party of only one-type of troop, just that even in your example, infantry must have a significantly higher# of troops to be effective vs the other troops.
Most of those infantry units acted passively. blocking arrows, providing a target and such, blocking the enemy. also most of this guys weren't mine. i was in an army and we had to use them. i brought 45 guys out of 283 that is 16% of my party. anything else is either an archer, horse archer or cavalry
Let alone the fact that i only lost 24 people in that fight. That was 8% of the party and 5% where tier 4 or higher. My party wasn't even very good when it come to infantry to begin with and i had roughly 110 medicine.

Isn't the simple fact that running in an army changes the way you use troops not obvious? I used the Horse archers exactly like anyone else would. reposition, flanking. keeping them out of troubles and so on, having more Horse archers isn't even an option in that battle. you still have to deal with your vassals troops. And letting them die in order to save our HA isn't an option. you are slowing yourself down if you do that. And since the AI likes to infantry spam after defeating their parties you need the lines to hold the recruit mob. You need to upgrade depending on your surroundings.

When you run around in an army horses don't make you that much faster. you can prove that on your own by bringing 400 HA to any army outside of the Khuzait. you might gain 0.1 speed. So let's stop with this one alright. you can bring normal mounts and have half the bonus cavalry bring anyway. it's not that important. And there is also a size penalty for having a lot of troops, i think it starts from 200 and since by that time you have Stewardship, clan tier, policies and Leadership, and you might be the king. the speed bonus from cavalry gets diminishing returns.

Another thing to consider about costs is medicine. when you get to 200 you basically add 50% more survivability to any unit ( don't look at the TW mathematics in the skill screen). If you use infantry you get there faster. If you use a troop type that is so broken it doesn't get wounded you don't.

There are many more reasons to get medicine other than just survivability BTW.
So why would it be more efficient in the long run to have low medicine? Simple. it isn't, you are going to lose your High tier troops faster in a battle where your HA can't finish the enemy off with their arrows ( unless you cheese the game by retreating ) and cutting your sieging campaign short because you have to resupply on a very specific unit type that is 10 days away from where you are located.

then let's not even talk about the time we need to get them trained and the hundreds of horses we must use to upgrade and the fact that we can only get this guys in villages bounded by castles and that we need good enough relation with the notables in order to recruit from all of their slots.
meaning if we want to passively gain relation we have to take castles over towns and if we don't we have to do quests. And yeah i am not considering using very easy recruitment as that would require less than 1/10 of the tought of a nice guy.

Getting Horse archers is a very good strategy early on, later in the game you use whatever you find if you really want to be efficient. You are going to be happier if you find a unit you can build up to be a broken one, but if you don't you have to deal with it. Also if you trade, something a loot of people do early, foot troops allow you to trade more horses.

About min maxing for a specif fight sure. but all of what i stated above doesn't make it a long term strategy if efficiency is what we care about.
Troops are resources. Not using resources and piling them up for no reason in not what someone who wants to min/max does. it's something that somebody who wants an EASY button does. and if things seem too easy there is some potential missing somewhere. The good strategy players in any game min/max in using all of their resources not the other way around. Medicine and time are resources in this game.

Want to prove me wrong? Show yourself beating the game in less than 15 years without using exploits like the smithy or cheesing the battle system with retreats and reengage and such.
I think what i have been able to do in that campaign is close to the peak of efficiency you can get in this game. and i didn't even use 200 Horse archers to accomplish it.

Are we even playing the same game? this is starting to be a legitimate question for me you know? you guys are missing out so many of the things to keep in mind when talking efficiency.
Anything i state is something that i proven many times over, i don't need credibility. I have used all troops, someone else here only played with broken ones and doesn't even bother trying to make the others work. But that guy seem more than happy to call others out for lacking effort.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
Oh okay, so the advantages and utility of some troops that many players revere and the weakness and lack of utility of some troops many players observe: it doesn't matter because later in the game you can just jam vassals into a huge blob and ram them into everyone? Also just get 200 medicine bro? Yeah that's a garbage way to play IMO and not appropriate advice for anyone.
? ? ? ?
 

JunKeteer

Regular
Most of those infantry units acted passively. blocking arrows, providing a target and such, blocking the enemy. also most of this guys weren't mine. i was in an army and we had to use them. i brought 45 guys out of 283 that is 16% of my party. anything else is either an archer, horse archer or cavalry
Let alone the fact that i only lost 24 people in that fight. That was 8% of the party and 5% where tier 4 or higher. My party wasn't even very good when it come to infantry to begin with and i had roughly 110 medicine.

Isn't the simple fact that running in an army changes the way you use troops not obvious? I used the Horse archers exactly like anyone else would. reposition, flanking. keeping them out of troubles and so on, having more Horse archers isn't even an option in that battle. you still have to deal with your vassals troops. And letting them die in order to save our HA isn't an option. you are slowing yourself down if you do that. And since the AI likes to infantry spam after defeating their parties you need the lines to hold the recruit mob. You need to upgrade depending on your surroundings.
Not sure where this tangent comes from but yes, you have to use what you got, particularly if in an army. Mixed compositions work, but the effectiveness of infantry only becomes relevant by needing a substantially higher# vs any other troop-type; and they require more micromanaging on positions/formations vs other types to be as efficient.
Ie. if I need 200 infantry in order to be on same 'comparison' as 50 HAs; you bet I'm going with 50 HAs. Faster map movement, less wage cost, less food consumption, less horses in inventory, less time spent replenishing as I lose maybe 1 HA every odd battle vs steady loss of infantry in battles; upgrade cost with horses becomes moot if HA lasts ~20-30 days more than an equivalent infantry if they die (not accounting for the added cost of said replenishing of infantry/upgrades).
When you run around in an army horses don't make you that much faster. you can prove that on your own by bringing 400 HA to any army outside of the Khuzait. you might gain 0.1 speed. So let's stop with this one alright. you can bring normal mounts and have half the bonus cavalry bring anyway. it's not that important. And there is also a size penalty for having a lot of troops, i think it starts from 200 and since by that time you have Stewardship, clan tier, policies and Leadership, and you might be the king. the speed bonus from cavalry gets diminishing returns.
This is where you're contradicting what I'm saying, if you need 200 infantry to match my 50 HA, you're at a loss already for the reasons mentioned above.
Another thing to consider about costs is medicine. when you get to 200 you basically add 50% more survivability to any unit ( don't look at the TW mathematics in the skill screen). If you use infantry you get there faster. If you use a troop type that is so broken it doesn't get wounded you don't.
This is just cheesing the perks/mechanics which is another entirely different point/issue.
There are many more reasons to get medicine other than just survivability BTW.
So why would it be more efficient in the long run to have low medicine? Simple. it isn't, you are going to lose your High tier troops faster in a battle where your HA can't finish the enemy off with their arrows ( unless you cheese the game by retreating ) and cutting your sieging campaign short because you have to resupply on a very specific unit type that is 10 days away from where you are located.

then let's not even talk about the time we need to get them trained and the hundreds of horses we must use to upgrade and the fact that we can only get this guys in villages bounded by castles and that we need good enough relation with the notables in order to recruit from all of their slots.
meaning if we want to passively gain relation we have to take castles over towns and if we don't we have to do quests. And yeah i am not considering using very easy recruitment as that would require less than 1/10 of the tought of a nice guy.
This applies same with infantry though the need to replenish infantry more often (and ratio to HA from before) is worse off.
About min maxing for a specif fight sure. but all of what i stated above doesn't make it a long term strategy if efficiency is what we care about.
Troops are resources. Not using resources and piling them up for no reason in not what someone who wants to min/max does. it's something that somebody who wants an EASY button does. and if things seem too easy there is some potential missing somewhere. The good strategy players in any game min/max in using all of their resources not the other way around. Medicine and time are resources in this game.
The only troops as a resource you have control of are the ones in your party/garrisons; other than that, they're not wasted as they don't 'exist'. If we consider conquering 'Calradia' as beating the game; obviously, recruiting anything under the sun into your party, autoresolve, spam armies, execute lords, etc...the game should only take a couple years - the only difficulty are the handicaps we create for ourselves; which is the point of an open-world/sandbox game.
Want to prove me wrong? Show yourself beating the game in less than 15 years without using exploits like the smithy or cheesing the battle system with retreats and reengage and such.
I think what i have been able to do in that campaign is close to the peak of efficiency you can get in this game. and i didn't even use 200 Horse archers to accomplish it.
Game isn't even near complete with the amount of bugs/imbalance exploitations beyond smithing/re&re battles to discern what is or isn't 'cheesing'. Your medicine gaining thing from before can be considered 'cheesy', fighting the AI can be too given how you can predictably manipulate around their triggers in battles or on map.
And I don't know how you keep wanting this validation that by 'beating' the game in 15 years proves anything.
Are we even playing the same game? this is starting to be a legitimate question for me you know? you guys are missing out so many of the things to keep in mind when talking efficiency.
Anything i state is something that i proven many times over, i don't need credibility. I have used all troops, someone else here only played with broken ones and doesn't even bother trying to make the others work. But that guy seem more than happy to call others out for lacking effort.
Have to tone down this self-aggrandizing attitude of yours, as you were also extolling for humility in earlier post. But yes, in reference to your 'someone else'; I'm not agreeing that HA/archers are 'superior IQ' or this lack of effort.
Infantry are just crappier in general which is why they require substantially more 'effort' to be effective - but given the game's current balancing, is not counterbalanced in other ways to make it an as fun/creative type of effort.
 

five bucks

Knight
Delegating command doesn't make for a "CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT" it's simple as far from scientific as it can get. the AI is going to act differently each time something happens, there is no reliability.
Perfect accuracy is not needed because the overall outcome will be the same.

If you claim that delegate command makes the units act so abnormally that it can give greatly varying results, why not do some tests yourself to back up that claim?

Show me some tests under equal conditions where infantry perform better than horse archers, Khuzait elite cavalry or Battanian elite archers.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Another thing to consider about costs is medicine. when you get to 200 you basically add 50% more survivability to any unit ( don't look at the TW mathematics in the skill screen). If you use infantry you get there faster. If you use a troop type that is so broken it doesn't get wounded you don't.
This seems a bit backwards: if you're losing 10 troops per battle in hopes of eventually grinding your way up to saving 5 of them, then it remains a far worse than the option where you lose 1 or 2.

There are certainly reasons to want high Medicine skill (perks!) but saving a large number of already mostly-expendable troops isn't really it.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
There are certainly reasons to want high Medicine skill (perks!) but saving a large number of already mostly-expendable troops isn't really it.
you know a better way that doesn't involve cheesing the system with catapults to get there? Fighting and getting some wounded troops is not cheesing... @JunKeteer

the argument of not reaching the perks by using OP troops still stands. Medicine is a very efficient skill to keep an army running as the higher the ratio the more low tier enemies you can save with Doctor Oath and the more you can get the more you can convert for not only your party but filling garrisons too.
Keeping your party running as long as you have food.
There are many things that intertwine with the Medicine skill, it's the synergies more than the perks. Efficiency and Min/maxing are 2 different things and in this specific case if you min/max you must waste time.
And Efficiency is a combination of time, cost and quality.

it depends by the way you look at things but i don't feel like my argument makes no sense.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
you know a better way that doesn't involve cheesing the system with catapults to get there? Fighting and getting some wounded troops is not cheesing... @JunKeteer

the argument of not reaching the perks by using OP troops still stands. Medicine is a very efficient skill to keep an army running as the higher the ratio the more low tier enemies you can save with Doctor Oath and the more you can get the more you can convert for not only your party but filling garrisons too.
Keeping your party running as long as you have food.
There are many things that intertwine with the Medicine skill, it's the synergies more than the perks. Efficiency and Min/maxing are 2 different things and in this specific case if you min/max you must waste time.
And Efficiency is a combination of time, cost and quality.

it depends by the way you look at things but i don't feel like my argument makes no sense.
Not sure what you mean by catapults if this is some other method of getting med skill up. It's my companion's med skill that goes up and I have no desire to 'grind' it out; it gets to whatever level it is just by virtue of me playing how I want.
Depending on it in order to prove the stance that infantry are more efficient than other troops doesn't make sense; let alone the fact you're proving my point of the discussion! You're using them to grind our your medicine skill based on the fact they fall to combat much easier than any other troop type; add the fact that the perk applies to all troops.

So, in terms of min/max and efficiency (which I see as the same thing for games), you're losing however X number of infantry to get to 200med quicker so it becomes 50% more efficient from then on is missing the added time/cost/upgrades/recruit in order to just get to 200med. Whereas, if I use a composition of HA/archers with just randomly picked up (free prisoners) infantry as disposable fodder; I may lose 1-2 HA vs 10 infantry.
For example, if 10 inf = 2 HA and 25denar is their upkeep (same Tier), that's already a difference of 200denar/day; so by, say, 5 days, that already balances out the add'l horse upgrade cost required. Plus there's the map speed benefits if using above troop ratio given smaller party size and mounts.

Now, I'm not disagreeing that infantry are 'useless', but as they are currently, there's a lot more disadvantages/handicaps using them vs any other troop-type far beyond what can be considered 'balanced'.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
@JunKeteer mate. you are simply not understanding. i don't know if it's on purpose or not. That's all i am gonna say. But to answer this:
Not sure what you mean by catapults if this is some other method of getting med skill up
You can start a siege against a castle that has at least 1 catapult ( catapults don't kill, they only wound ) get all of your guys wounded then retreat, go away, heal your boys up, come back and repeat. That would be cheesing the system Video By StratGaming explaining it here. Give him a check you'll learn a lot.

using infantry because we don't want to be inefficient with our time and go all the way to the Khuzait land to grab the most busted unit in the realm and having them fight and get wounded, without trying to: is not cheesing the game.

The speed gain on the party is close to non important ( please stop using it ) because if we have 300 troops slot we use all of them, the singing speed alone is worth it. the extra experience on basically anything ( Medicine, Stewardship, Engineering, Leadership, Tactics, ) is worth it and yes you still gain experience for MC progression even if you have reached the cap in a skill. and the pay can be very easily mitigated by stewardship

Your side is honestly clear and i don't understand if you have something against me or a sincere lack of understanding of the bigger picture of the game.

If i do sound like an ass i apologize but if you are the kind of player who really wants to get better i have to be clear and upfront.

Also i think this is a typo:
Now, I'm not disagreeing that infantry are 'useless',
 

JunKeteer

Regular
@JunKeteer mate. you are simply not understanding. i don't know if it's on purpose or not. That's all i am gonna say. But to answer this:
All I'm trying to do is understand your arguments but you keep pulling out excerpt in isolation and mixing/going off on random point tangents based on that; such as below.
You can start a siege against a castle that has at least 1 catapult ( catapults don't kill, they only wound ) get all of your guys wounded then retreat, go away, heal your boys up, come back and repeat. That would be cheesing the system Video By StratGaming explaining it here. Give him a check you'll learn a lot.
Ok cool, but this means nothing in the point about how infantry are far worse/less-efficient than any other troop.
using infantry because we don't want to be inefficient with our time and go all the way to the Khuzait land to grab the most busted unit in the realm and having them fight and get wounded, without trying to: is not cheesing the game.
Ok sure, yes, travelling back and forth to Khuzait for the KG is loss of time but that is also highly subjective of where your alliance/faction alignment is (ie. stupid to replenish KG if you're Vlandian); though I wish there was a culture creep feature with conquered towns.
But, I can get a party of only 50 KG/HA and they can last a very, very long time until they all die but while doing so they've made more than their weight in denars from the lopsided victories, loot, lord ransoms, freed prisoners (fodder so HA die even less).
The speed gain on the party is close to non important ( please stop using it ) because if we have 300 troops slot we use all of them, the singing speed alone is worth it. the extra experience on basically anything ( Medicine, Stewardship, Engineering, Leadership, Tactics, ) is worth it and yes you still gain experience for MC progression even if you have reached the cap in a skill. and the pay can be very easily mitigated by stewardship
I don't know why you keep saying speed is not important/moot point. For example, if you need 10 infantry to = 2 HA in terms of their potency, the map movement speed between 300 infantry vs 60 HA is significant. Plus the horses infantry need in inventory - which also further proves their cost inefficiency (since they still need a horse too for them in that sense). There's also a daily wage differential of 7500 vs 1500 if we're using the 25denar as their wages. Perks/wage benefits apply to both which doesn't mitigate anything in comparing them as they both get it.
Now, maybe 300 HA vs 300 infantry map movement speed is the same (or 0.1 difference) but you cannot also then tell me that you can get an infantry-focused party of 300 that can beat my 300 HA in any situation.
Your side is honestly clear and i don't understand if you have something against me or a sincere lack of understanding of the bigger picture of the game.
There is clearly some failure to communicate here. The only bigger picture I want is for infantry to be better than what we have. Whether that's knocking down HAs or raising infantry up; be it through their stats, armor makeup, formation AI, combat AI, cost compensation, etc...
I'm perfectly fine if it takes 10 infantry to be the equivalent of 2 HA in combat; but there still is some balancing needed in the background to make it more 'fair' either way.
If i do sound like an ass i apologize but if you are the kind of player who really wants to get better i have to be clear and upfront.
We're already off on a tangent from the OP who may want to get better; you play how you want, I play how I want - as it's SP, isn't PVP, nor are other players dependent on my performance.
Also i think this is a typo:
Sure, typo, but the point that should have been evident/relayed from all the other aspects of my comments, yes, infantry aren't 'useless' but they suck disproportionally to any other troop. And even if one wants to use/make them effective in game, the level of effort required at the current state of the game is not enough of a tradeoff vs HA. Either HAs needs to be nerfed or infantry needs to be buffed to reduce that differential.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
Ok cool, but this means nothing in the point about how infantry are far worse/less-efficient than any other troop.
that was in reply to this argument. where you call fighting cheesing.
Another thing to consider about costs is medicine. when you get to 200 you basically add 50% more survivability to any unit ( don't look at the TW mathematics in the skill screen). If you use infantry you get there faster. If you use a troop type that is so broken it doesn't get wounded you don't.

This is just cheesing the perks/mechanics which is another entirely different point/issue.
And as my useless tangents went on describing there are many reason to need medicine. The video i linked shows the ways you can really cheese the game. Losing some troops, or getting them wounded in order to win a fight is not the same as commanding badly.

i am still typing but yeah have a read i guess
 

LyonExodus

Regular
Ok sure, yes, travelling back and forth to Khuzait for the KG is loss of time but that is also highly subjective of where your alliance/faction alignment is (ie. stupid to replenish KG if you're Vlandian); though I wish there was a culture creep feature with conquered towns.
I too wish there was a mechanic that allowed you to change the troops type or culture of a settlement.
Or upgrading looters to normal faction troops from the player culture with the Perk.
And yes like you said travelling all the way to the Steppes is not a good idea even if the troops are busted. better off using whatever is close. Vlandia/Battania also happen to be the easiest faction to take over if you want to rebel so a lot of conquests start form there too.
But, I can get a party of only 50 KG/HA and they can last a very, very long time until they all die but while doing so they've made more than their weight in denars from the lopsided victories, loot, lord ransoms, freed prisoners (fodder so HA die even less).
You absolutely can. that's why i always said getting them early if you really have to is the best time. then they quite simply don't die even if you try. their base survival rate is 50% with 0 Medicine. They have the best weapon for cavalry in the Glaive and 260 Polearm to crush anything in their way. Like i said these guys and the Fians are busted. they aren't even fun to play with after a while.
They will make you more than enough money to pay for themselves. even if you go down these guys just bulldoze any army.
I don't know why you keep saying speed is not important/moot point
Party speed changes from 2.3 to 2.6 when switching the entire 450 party from infantry to cavalry. that is a bare 0.3 and considering it's likely we have some 100 cavalrymen anyway it can only be a difference of just 0.2 .it's there sure. but we aren't gaining 1 or even 0.5 difference. Other thing is that we can release 1 party from our army and they will pursue the enemy for us. Speed while in an army becomes less important. it's as simple as that. For your single party sure but the late game is all about this, big army, take over town, leave 50 to 100 troops in there.

This was also taken with no prisoners if we add just 200 prisoners to our party. That can be any of the vassals too. speed drops to 2.4 (gain of 0.1) if we have prisoners and infantry speed drops to 2.2 (loss of 0.1) cavalry gives you a 0.2 increase in that situation

And party size is king, you have control over what that guy is. you shouldn't go around in an army with less troops.

Only time i drop to 150 is when i want to hunt someone: future vassals & mercenary leaders. but now we can convert them from the prison so i don't even do that very often anymore.
Plus the horses infantry need in inventory
Medicine "Veterinary" perk will give you more cavalry than you can even count. i often have to butcher or sell them. All you need to do is not loosing. The war horses are still a bit tricky to get but you will be drawing in normal mounts.
Perks/wage benefits apply to both which doesn't mitigate anything in comparing them as they both get it.
Some perks apply to infantry other to archer other again to cavalry. yes there are general perks but there are also specialized ones. One of the last crossbow perks cuts the wages of archers down by 50%. not really worth getting to but once again you can make units way cheaper than you think.
infantry-focused party of 300 that can beat my 300 HA in any situation.
not in any situation. no. There are many reasons as to why that's not possible. but if the right map or the imbalances in troop level were to play a role you can swing the result one side or the other. of course a troop with projectile will always be more impactfull than one who doesn't. that's the simple nature of having a ranged option.
The thing is that we are both being carried away now when all of this discussion started for an entire different reason.
I'm perfectly fine if it takes 10 infantry to be the equivalent of 2 HA in combat; but there still is some balancing needed in the background to make it more 'fair' either way.
i am perfectly fine with that too. normal horse archers are strong but you can deal with them. the Khans are busted and you can do little to nothing against them. Even when they run out of arrows their armor and glaives are absurd to deal with.
This entire discussion only started because of somebody calling out someone else effort. that's all it was.
We're already off on a tangent from the OP who may want to get better; you play how you want, I play how I want - as it's SP, isn't PVP, nor are other players dependent on my performance.
Of course we both play how we want. i have no problem with that. as long as nobody calls out others for no reasons. i am in favor of all playstyles, efficient inefficient i don't care. i am in favor of broken mechanics like the smithy for players that don't want to deal with the economy side of things and such. i just can't stand when someone calls others out, especially when it's effort we talk about.
Either HAs needs to be nerfed or infantry needs to be buffed to reduce that differential.
A little extra armor here for infantry. removing the glaives or reducing the DMG of swingable polearms for the Khans, that should do.

Only problem is that the player will always have the advantage over the AI, if the patch notes are true now lords will bring even less trained troops to the fights and that only makes the player stronger. When was the last time you've seen a lord bringing 100 Legionary or any T5 troops in triple digits to a fight? in vanilla that is.

Don't know if you cought my typo here:
the singing speed alone is worth it.
That is supposed to say sieging. and yeah. bigger army faster sieges.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
using infantry because we don't want to be inefficient with our time and go all the way to the Khuzait land to grab the most busted unit in the realm and having them fight and get wounded, without trying to: is not cheesing the game.
You choosing not to go "all the way" to get Khuzait Nobles doesn't change anything to do with their utility or the utility of infantry. Also this is just you and I don't understand the issue: Early Game You must go SOMEWHERE to do SOMETHING and get renown and troops (usually) so just go east instead of north west or south and force recruit from khuzait villages to build up your rank. You must start a faction SOMEWHERE so if you favor khuzait nobles you can just attack there!
Also I must call you out on something again, there's just so much stuff from you to go through here.
You can make use of them with effort
here you contradict yourself because you realized you exposed yourself in a bad way by saying this
@LyonExodus that line is lifted verbatim from the original post I made that you are arguing against!
Infantry is completely worthless dead weight in the current single player game. You can make use of them with effort, but if you're ever choosing an upgrade path just making a ranged unit, even a bad one, is more useful. They just take too long to re-position and are to vulnerable to damage both when moving and when attacking. They trade down to often. Until they alter damage/armor there's no reason to make them.
You can have fun and win with all kinds of troops.
True. You can make use of them with effort
I even colored it to make it obvious and you still can't fallow this and have the audacity to say I contradict myself when it is my first post in the thread?
the argument of not reaching the perks by using OP troops still stands.
I don't think you've made this argument, it's more like a misunderstanding you have. It would be faster to use t6 troops whenever possible so they survive and can be healed and give more exp per downed. There are no t6 infantry. If you mean just using an amount of "extra whatever" troops to charge in and get medicine each battle, sure, but you can have khans guards or whatever you want and still use a large pile of trash troops for this too, once clan rank 2 or so and you have enough space. By using powerful troops like KG you can get the weak troops lost each battle and still win with the powerful troops and still be in fighting fighting form if you need to fight again immediately as none of the downed troops were important to winning. But again, it has nothing to do with infantry or not-xyz troop, you can do this with any troops so it's a non point for saying infantry has special utility.
The speed gain on the party is close to non important ( please stop using it )
No, you're wrong here. No matter how small it saves campaign time whenever you are moving. Also, you can drop extra parties at any time and become a fast single party to intercept armies if you are going to miss them with your army. You can destroy these armies if your single party is good ranged troops and you use good tactics (actual tactics, not the cunning skill). You can siege with a single party just fine if you use good ranged troops and good tactics. It's a huge misconception both that the speed doesn't matter or that you must be in a big bulky army all the time.
 
Top Bottom