The close-in time for the aiming reticle needs to be slowed substantially -- it should proabably be at least 3x longer than it currently is.
Dunno if you've ever tried archery, especially with recurve bows, but the longer you hold a drawn arrow, the *less* accurate you are. Even with compound there is only so long before muscle fatigue will cause your arm to sway. The issue I see with archers isn't their accuracy but rather their ammo. Archers may have carried a selection of arrows into battle but the type of arrow they loosed would have a big impact on the target they might hit. A broad-head or barbed arrow would be devastating to unarmoured men or horses, yet glance off scale, chain, banded plate, and stand a chance of being stopped by ring armour. A bodkin headed arrow would be capable of possibly penetrating most armour of the period but even against unarmoured target it could potentially deal less overall damage. An arrow to a vital area will kill/disable someone regardless of the tip, as simply moving with an arrow stuck in you would be "churning" your innards. (kind of hard to "walk it off") But the broad-heads would induce a lot more bleeding and barbed heads cannot simply be pulled out. (unless you were wearing silk under your armour)
So IMO, a game like Bannerlord, an army should be required to choose the composition of their archer arrows. If you're facing or fielding a lot of heavily armoured units, Bodkins would be practical. If you're facing a lot of lightly armoured men or horses, then broad heads. A balanced army would greatly limit the effectiveness of archers because bodkins might work against armour, but not be as devastating to lighter units, and broad heads would chew through lighter units and unarmoured horses, but be no threat to heavier armoured troops. Armies could carry a mix of archer units and be forced to try and field the right men at the right time.
Many of the videos with horse archers look devastating when fought in a manner that plays to the HA strength. Wide open spaces where the HA can circle unopposed. Even a circle formation with shields doesn't stand up against that since at range, arrows are flying into the backs of the circle from the opposite side. (Arguably I would have figured armies facing such harassment would adapt to have men on the inner edge of formations turtle their shields to cover the backs of their line) Bringing terrain and a mixture of units into the battle can greatly change the tide, plus you have to account for a like-for-like in terms of cost and accessibility. Simply breaking the "ring" with cavalry, infantry, and/or terrain is enough to disrupt the HAs so that your own archers can lay into them.
Still, expecting a force of infantry to advance on archers or face horse archers without shields is not an issue of balance, it is a failure in strategy and tactics. There are many ways to deal with archers because the main drawback of archers is a limited ammo supply.
1. meat shield - Attacking with an advance force of cheap, disposable units. Every arrow spent against these units is one your main force doesn't get hit with.
2. Advancing behind shielded units - Just because you use an army with the 2-handers doesn't mean you cannot recruit troops that carry shields. Like the meat shield these can advance in shield wall to harmlessly absorb arrows while followed by 2-hander berserker-style troops.
3. Cavalry - Cavalry units can be very hard for archers to hit and these can flank/charge archer-heavy groups to disrupt them heavily while your main force advances.
4. Terrain/weather - If you have control to set the place and time of battle, fighting at night in hilly or wooded terrain will give you a significant advantage over archer-heavy forces. Sometimes the best approach to an enemy position isn't a straight line. If you can advance from another direction that offers cover from arrows to cut down the distance, even better.
5. Archers - skirmishing "cheaper" archers in advance of your forces acts like a meat shield that in turn inflicts losses on your opponents.
Archers historically were scorned by knights and men at arms as the thought of loosing arrows into a field of battle was not honorable combat. Archers were often killed rather than ransomed, or had their hands mutilated before being released if captured. Still, they are there, so adapt.
Complaining that armies focused on 2-handers have no counter to archers is akin to complaining that rock-paper-scissors isn't fair because you can't win by just playing rock every time.
acoup.blog
