Not liking Bannerlord as much as I hoped, (Two handed weapons especially)

[bohemian1967]

I've been away from home for 3 months and not gaming at all and really looking forward to this game for the last few months reading and watching all kinds of websites and You-tube videos the last two months. But now that I flew back home, I'm not liking it as much as I hoped I would. It seems a bit more of a grind than Warband. As far as very specific complaints, it seems like the game balance is way off on two handed melee weapons to the point that it almost looks to me that the game makers are intentionally crippling this play style compared to Warband. In Warband two handed was a very viable option if you like the be on the offense, where the best defense was to put your opponent down fast. This could at times mean you would die quicker not having as much defense from missile weapons and what have you. But very viable as far as general scrapping goes.


In this game, it seems like my novice combat abilities really take a beating from the AI in melee, and especially when I am without a shield. Besides this, there also are few 2 handed weapons available, if you rule out hoes. Axes swing too short, when in melee with a sword user and Two handed swords are way too expensive. I suppose with a lot of work, I could work on smithing and eventually crafting one... but it seems like deliberately choosing strength/ two handed weapon options when choosing your character background is not a pathway that is actually rewarded at all in game play compared to options that increase proficiency with one handed weapons and pole arms. When you add up all these limitations taken together it seems like the creators don't really want you to use a two handed weapon, or maybe that using a two hander is something that you should do only "if you want a challenge", or perhaps they are just being too realistic for the historic time that this fantasy universe is suppose to be mimicking (But if that was so, I would think a "Dane" type axe would be a much better).

 

[Nakh]

This game have bug problem with armor doing nothing against ranged fire. As result, player have very limited ability to be personally involved in fighting in large battles, mostly it's about killing runners or shooting bow from horseback.

 

[Bob Gnarly]

Two handed is my favorite play style and in my opinion it's strong AF. If you want to be a mass murderer on the battlefield, then two handed is the way to go. I'm also on foot the majority of the time.

I use 2H axes for their cleave mechanic, this is powerful against groups of infantry as you'll be getting lots of multi-kills with one swing. Since I'm on foot, athletics is my primary stat, then two handed. Having high athletics is critical for this play style to get in and out of melee range while also adding damage to your swings with the extra speed.

Generally in battle, I'll chill on the flank of our infantry force until both sides clash, then start chopping into their flank until they break (which doesn't take long), then proceed to destroy the rest of their line. Good luck doing that with one handed weapons.

 

[Virthuss]

Two handed is my favorite play style and in my opinion it's strong AF. If you want to be a mass murderer on the battlefield, then two handed is the way to go. I'm also on foot the majority of the time.

I use 2H axes for their cleave mechanic, this is powerful against groups of infantry as you'll be getting lots of multi-kills with one swing. Since I'm on foot, athletics is my primary stat, then two handed. Having high athletics is critical for this play style to get in and out of melee range while also adding damage to your swings with the extra speed.

Generally in battle, I'll chill on the flank of our infantry force until both sides clash, then start chopping into their flank until they break (which doesn't take long), then proceed to destroy the rest of their line. Good luck doing that with one handed weapons.

Seems like pole-arms deals much more damages though

 

[bohemian1967]

Two handed is my favorite play style and in my opinion it's strong AF. If you want to be a mass murderer on the battlefield, then two handed is the way to go. I'm also on foot the majority of the time.

I use 2H axes for their cleave mechanic, this is powerful against groups of infantry as you'll be getting lots of multi-kills with one swing. Since I'm on foot, athletics is my primary stat, then two handed. Having high athletics is critical for this play style to get in and out of melee range while also adding damage to your swings with the extra speed.

Generally in battle, I'll chill on the flank of our infantry force until both sides clash, then start chopping into their flank until they break (which doesn't take long), then proceed to destroy the rest of their line. Good luck doing that with one handed weapons.

This suggestion was very useful (wish this place had a thumbs up or other emoticons). I will have to try it on my next play through.

 

[King Yngvar]

You should try setting bows to cut and increasing stats on metal armor, that will make 2 handed a lot more viable.

 

[Skjuld]

Seems like pole-arms deals much more damages though

They do, but they tend to have slower attack, poor handling and a smaller effective strike zone/tendency to hit obstacles. And, in the end, a good two-handed sword will take a similar amount of blows to kill most targets, while being more nimble and easier to use. Axes are good too, but I tend to favor swords. Polerams are more useful on horseback (even though it's quite unrealistic)

Otherwise, agree with Bob Gnarly, I tend to do the same on foot. Linger on the side, then start hacking from the flank/ back.

 

[Waybook]

I haven't used 2-handers much, but they have been great at battles when I've flanked an enemy troop. One hit to the head often kills an enemy and you can defeat a bunch of enemies fast if they are focusing on someone else.

In 1-on-1 fights, shield + 1-hander is a lot better though.

 

[MoToM]

A Bardiche in my hands and 30 Fians at my back, my personal Nirvana.

 

[sirano]

I've been away from home for 3 months and not gaming at all and really looking forward to this game for the last few months reading and watching all kinds of websites and You-tube videos the last two months. But now that I flew back home, I'm not liking it as much as I hoped I would. It seems a bit more of a grind than Warband. As far as very specific complaints, it seems like the game balance is way off on two handed melee weapons to the point that it almost looks to me that the game makers are intentionally crippling this play style compared to Warband. In Warband two handed was a very viable option if you like the be on the offense, where the best defense was to put your opponent down fast. This could at times mean you would die quicker not having as much defense from missile weapons and what have you. But very viable as far as general scrapping goes.


In this game, it seems like my novice combat abilities really take a beating from the AI in melee, and especially when I am without a shield. Besides this, there also are few 2 handed weapons available, if you rule out hoes. Axes swing too short, when in melee with a sword user and Two handed swords are way too expensive. I suppose with a lot of work, I could work on smithing and eventually crafting one... but it seems like deliberately choosing strength/ two handed weapon options when choosing your character background is not a pathway that is actually rewarded at all in game play compared to options that increase proficiency with one handed weapons and pole arms. When you add up all these limitations taken together it seems like the creators don't really want you to use a two handed weapon, or maybe that using a two hander is something that you should do only "if you want a challenge", or perhaps they are just being too realistic for the historic time that this fantasy universe is suppose to be mimicking (But if that was so, I would think a "Dane" type axe would be a much better).

i would say the fighting in bannerlord is amazing. arena is hard but a bit more fun than warband, in warband u could kill an entire arena team solo but here u need to be more careful, with that said there is allot of bad things in the game and the devs have no idea how to balance features in a smart and good way if there is something broken or a bit op they just make it usless and thats a lazy thing to do

 

[bohemian1967]

A Bardiche in my hands and 30 Fians at my back, my personal Nirvana.

Did they add that weapon? I have not seen it in my game play and all my reading various articles of available weapons and armor.


That being said, I already went back to the Warband single player campaign for the time being. I am however likely to remake a character soon based on the feed back of Bob Gnarley, making End a primary statistic, and vitality a secondary.

Right now I have an Aserai commander / trader character that I'm not happy with. I built him more to be a group leader with his highest skill so far in steward as well as having as having some competence in social as far as leadership and trade. He is a mediocre combatant when not doing couched damage with his lance. So far I'm underwhelmed by caravans, even though I have at least 3 being run by 3 followers.

 

[stringman7113]

A Bardiche in my hands and 30 Fians at my back, my personal Nirvana.

Fians are hands down my favorite troop. Stick them on a hill behind a shield wall and bait the enemy into charging. Only thing missing is VR!

 

[KingEroc1st]

well this game has pretty clear rules for weapon/troop type counter.

polearm counters cavs, cavs counter horse archer/archer/none spear infantry, horse archer/shields counter archer, archer counters no shield and melee in general. and in terms of infantry, 2h counters 1h counters polearm counters 2h.

so if you are on horseback, stick to the polearm and bow. if you are on foot, maybe pick up that 2h. personally i don't fight field battle on foot so i use the 2h in sieges, when i go up a wall and need to hack down hodes of enemy. if you do fighting on foot, stay in a safe spot and flank enemy when they are clashing. sometimes i bring a 2h axe on my horse to help out my shield wall a bit when they are getting surrounded. the falx is super fast attacking and a good investment. otherwise stick to the executioner axe it has a huge cutting edge allowing for best multi kills. if you are rich and wanna do polearm only there's the sledgehammer, it functions like a 2h weapon but its a pole, and the billhook which is a cheaper version of that essentially.

 

[KingEroc1st]

They do, but they tend to have slower attack, poor handling and a smaller effective strike zone/tendency to hit obstacles. And, in the end, a good two-handed sword will take a similar amount of blows to kill most targets, while being more nimble and easier to use. Axes are good too, but I tend to favor swords. Polerams are more useful on horseback (even though it's quite unrealistic)

Otherwise, agree with Bob Gnarly, I tend to do the same on foot. Linger on the side, then start hacking from the flank/ back.

polearms (the cutting types) don't do any more damage compared to a 2h weapon, and those stabby types (spears) are super weak unless couched so i don't know what people are complaining about polearms doing too much damage. they are even worse on foot due to having a huge vacuum area close to you where you can only strike with the pole part of the weapon doing 10 dmg. but still manage to out range 2h so if you are in a duel you get the first hit or 2.
how is it unrealistic for polearms to be more effective on horse back? they are designed for that use. you need that extra reach to hit people on horse back also nobody is able to get super close to you so it avoids the vacuum area pretty well. and on horseback you can have massive speed multiplier for your damage. when i'm able to chop heads off for 350-400 damage a pop that's because i'm on my fast horse and running full clip at the enemy who's also running full clip at me. the relative speed for that attack is like 30 m/s of course it hits hard af, not to mention the small window of opportunity for that attack since we both are moving fast, it takes timing and i had to charge at him meaning the next time i do an attack like that is 30 seconds later, and all that can be blocked with a shield.

i think the only problem is that they didn't add 2h maces to the game, you can craft a crappy one of course but that's about it

 

[Skjuld]

how is it unrealistic for polearms to be more effective on horse back? they are designed for that use.

Well.. From a purely gaming PoV, yeah. But then, it makes lances useless. (Not that they ae useful ATM due to the game's mechanics)
From a historical PoV, lances were designed for horseback. Cutting polearms, no. Nobody used a Bardiche, Fauchard or Halberd on a charging horse. You'd break your arms or fall. Such weapons were anti-cavalry or anti-armor Infantry weapons.

 

[KingEroc1st]

Well.. From a purely gaming PoV, yeah. But then, it makes lances useless. (Not that they ae useful ATM due to the game's mechanics)
From a historical PoV, lances were designed for horseback. Cutting polearms, no. Nobody used a Bardiche, Fauchard or Halberd on a charging horse. You'd break your arms or fall. Such weapons were anti-cavalry or anti-armor Infantry weapons.

Lance's aren't useless since you still one shot everything when couching. spears tho are pretty bad and even with a good charge you might only end up doing 60 or so damage.
there aren't any large head polearms in this game like the bardiche. the glaives were actually used in the East, go check some Chinese and Japanese polearms. it's a good alternative to spears since your goal is not to charge at someone but pass parallel to them so you can cut with the momentum. I found these weapons especially effective when you have a fast horse and ride behind someone.