I`m already so annoyed by this at level 80 that I never invest much in athletics although I find the perks quite interesting. Should be one of the top priorities to finally fix this.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Please balance the character movement speed
- 主题发起人 bbaydogdu
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Bluko88
Sergeant
Same. Think it was better before honestly. Starting off the game it's like your Character has never ran before in their life. The way it is now this is going to be huge turn off to new players, nevermind there's no actual sprint mechanic. I mean who would want to explore a city when you move like a 300 Lbs. man?
Yes leveling up Athletics/Horse should make you faster, but only slightly faster (really should be about the Perks). They need to up the base character speeds and make the speed increase far less dramatic.
It really is laughable how fast footmen with 100+ Athletics can zip about, often with Heavy Armor too. Are they on Heroin or something?
Yep, having heavily armored troops running around nullifies any skirmisher or light weight mobility advantage. Once again, not much in this game is well thought out.
Actually heavy armors are not that heavy. People can run with them, or climb or anything they feel like:
Sure people can run faster without any armor, but realistically those heavy armors would make people practically immune to missiles. So skirmishers shouldn't have advantage over heavily armored troops. They never did.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
No they are not. Historically mobility was rarely or never issue. I haven't heard single battle in history which would have been decided because other side had too much armor so that they couldn't move. That just never happened. When soldiers today go to battle they carry ~20kg of equipment. Which is less than full plate + weapon, but not much less.
Bow against heavy armor does nothing.
Ye, looks fine really.
You need to read some more books. There's no such thing as an entire army of heavily armored units, that's why there were light skirmisher infantry and cavalry for thousands of years of warfare. Modern mechanized armies like Germany in 1944 did not have entire armies of tiger tanks, if armor did not inhibit movement, there would be no reason to have any other types of units. The Punic war alone has myriad examples of advantage by movement by lightly armored units, it was not a dress up party. Some of you guys dedication to the absurdity in this game leads to some incredibly ignorant comments..
最后编辑:
I don't think it is that fast, since almost every horse (except maybe a sumpter?) can still casually out-run you.
It would be different the maps were laid out so that you'd have a race to the parapets in some situations, but none of them are. Not even siege maps where it would make some sense, in some cases. Then it would make some sort of sense to have lightly-armored sprinters who could gain a position while heavily armored, but slower troops can't quite reach.
But that's not the game we have.
It would be different the maps were laid out so that you'd have a race to the parapets in some situations, but none of them are. Not even siege maps where it would make some sense, in some cases. Then it would make some sort of sense to have lightly-armored sprinters who could gain a position while heavily armored, but slower troops can't quite reach.
But that's not the game we have.
If you're telling people to read, it would be best to specify which books.
The go-to reference for medieval armor is Alan Williams' The Knight and the Blast Furnace but it argues essentially the opposite; that heavy armor's mobility limitations were overstated and it was almost always advantageous on the battlefield. The book also costs enough money that I only read it because it was in a university library. And it's an academic book, with all that implies (i.e. it isn't actually a fun read).
Are you trying to imply that light cavalry and skirmish units in antiquity/Middle ages did not possess better mobility than heavy knights or heavy infantry units? That is an absurd contention. Scouting cavalry in all of military history are not heavy knights for the exact fact that they lacked mobility. I don't know what context you are drawing out of that book, but it is not true. Less armor more mobility, it's not hard to understand. Cantabarian knights and infantry of Asturias that had very limited armor were better at hit and run warfare than say the Franks. This is very common across many historical periods. The Germans ran circles around the French/Brits in the Ardennes because they had mastered fast mechanized light infantry. A heavy foot knight cannot out maneuver a light skirmish unit, they can't. That's why armies used them.
最后编辑:
"...it was almost always advantageous on the battlefield". The last three words are the important bit of context and the only relevant aspect for this topic. There is no reason in M&B to care about what scouts, outriders or flankers did because they are without any purpose if you're not dealing with a scouting plan, route reconnaissance or security on the march. And that's fine. This is not a game -- in any iteration or mod I've played -- that claims to be serious exploration of medieval military art and science and most players would get really turned off if their party would occasionally not do the things they wanted it to do.
That's why I'm fine with the current Athletics speed. It makes skirmishers pointless, but they were already pointless. Shielded infantry are effectively immune to their attacks and can rotate their entire formation fast enough to present their shields in any case you care to engineer on the battlefield. Cavalry ride them down easily -- even if you give them OP Athletics like the Jawwal's low-tier troops. They die en masse to archers and crossbowmen. Might as well make things fun for the player so they can get the full power-fantasy experience out of it.
Especially since Athletics is one of those skills that sucks to grind up to a decent level and the realistic end-point is you move fast while wearing heavy armor (but you're still not invulnerable) and your animation looks a little bit goofy.
That's the thing though. A lot of armies didn't make much use of lightly armored skirmishers on foot and those that did seem to have done so out of an inability to give a full panoply or mounts to all their men, rather than as deliberate military counterplay against heavily armored troops. Even then, lightly armored skirmishers still rapidly declined in prominence in the face of improving armor (which means when faced with a choice of something or nothing, leaders at the time chose nothing) and only returned to their previous position once there were handheld weapons that could reliably penetrate said armor (firearms).
Games make mobility vs. armor a huge counterplay spectrum, but that's because games are better off being made fun and interesting, with lots of counterplay options, built with verisimilitude ("this feels real") in mind rather than realism ("this is real"). Real military history can give you a pretty boring set of options.
最后编辑:
Sorry but it is not me who have to read some books. And when you start reading those books some books about economy could be useful too.
Real reason why there was no armies of elite units is that they were not available. No country could give best armor to every soldier. If Germany could have given Tiger tank to every 5 men they had and would have had ammo and fuel for those tanks we would now write in German. Of course they didn't because they didn't have resources for that.
Reason why ancient and medieval armies used light skirmish infantry is that everyone didn't have skills or equipment to be heavy infantry. Reason why medieval armies levied peasants was that even when they were nearly useless in battlefields against enemy heavy infantry or cavalry. they could still act as cannon fodders. In siege someone have to push siege tower or battering ram or dig a tunnel under walls. And of course those peasants didn't cost anything while real soldiers were very expensive.
And of course there was also use for scouts and messengers and they could be crucial in battles. but not because scouts or messengers would have killed any enemy soldiers.
Light troops did have better mobility, but not much better and in battlefield it didn't matter at all.
Heavy foot knight doesn't have to out maneuver light skirmish unit because before gunpowder that light skirmish unit couldn't do anything against them. If skirmishers like to keep distance knights would just walk in to their camp and take their their supplies. And of course there was cavalry too. Those foot knights could just run behind those skirmishers and send some cavalry to catch them. Anyone who would stop to fight cavalry would soon face those foot knights (and die) and those who would run... cavalry would run faster so they would die anyway.
Only skirmish army which was successful in history was Mongols. It worked for them because they were all cavalry and they didn't need supply train.
Hit and run warfare is different thing. You don't do surprise attack when enemy is ready to fight. Even best armor doesn't help much if it is not on.
Entire armies of Tiger tanks will suffice since weight/armor values are not viable in warfare. 15th century plate armor heavy foot knights can run like the wind, there's no need for other units lol. This might be the dumbest argument I have ever seen on here. LOL okay guys.
最后编辑:
