The lack of shield on T2 is a rather strange exclusion indeed, especially seeing that Warband T2 inf all had those (a possible exception is the vaegir footman, which I simply haven't seen enough of in my MnB days to recall correctly). Guess it took Calradians 173 years to figure out that dead peasants don't fight very well
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Please give shields to every faction's tier 2 infantry
Users who are viewing this thread
factions with easy access to strong cavarly units don't need shield for their infantry that much. When their army launch assault, it's more common to see that they have heavy cav charging and creating a distraction that is long enough for their infantry to close in.
As for battarians, they have the best range units and their skirmisher unit from tier 2 already have shields which makes them much better than the sturgian conterpart.
As for battarians, they have the best range units and their skirmisher unit from tier 2 already have shields which makes them much better than the sturgian conterpart.
Empire archers are nothing compared to battania finn archers or aserai master archers lol
Claymores came into their own as a cultural icon in the height of the Pike and Shot era. It's not like they were never used in combat, but their use in the frontline was absolutely ceremonial. Like the Zwiehander the Claymore was the weapon of minor nobility and was usually used to lead a battle rather than to actually fight one. A claymore was an officer's sword, not a weapon of levee troops, which used spears or firearms throughout that entire era.
They did frequently come back out of a battle stained with an enemy's blood, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to undermine that fact, but the battle didn't normally swing on how good the officers and NCOs were with their claymores
Also claymores came into their own after the firearm entered the battlefield and shields became obsolete. The obsolescence of shields changed the battlefield dynamic and opened things up for two handed weapons, but even so, the most common 2h weapon on the battlefield was a heavy polearm like a pike, halbard, bill, etc.
The Empire can counter that quality with quantity. A horde of Imperial Archers is better than a handful of Fians.
Besides, the Palatine Guard can hang right in there with Battania's best, not quite at the same level but considering how much easier it is to get them, more than good enough.
durbal
Sergeant
Again, this just addresses the symptom of the problem which is that archers are overpowered. Bow accuracy (the item) is too high and the firing rate is insane. I think archers in this game fire 15-20 arrows per minute (every 3-4 seconds) which is double or more the maximum sustainable firing rate done in tests with replica bows. What makes it worse is that every shot -- even at maximum firing rate -- has the same accuracy. 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.
The problem is that this game has no stamina and even though most of the cavalry in the game would be considered light cavalry, they are overpowered in head-on charges against infantry, also, arrows are as powerful at a distance as they are at close range. So I'm guessing to prevent massive mounted forces just charging across the whole map and wiping out the archers and infantry, they buffed archery, because it's easier and takes less processing power than adding a stamina mechanic for charges, and better arrow physics. I'm pretty sure the game will never have these mechanics, so realism is always going to be limited. Making archery unrealistically powerful is a trade-off.
Another thing they could do is place more emphasis on pikemen and cavalry defenses, and horse archers need a debuff.
I'll be honest, I think even the most basic unit should start off with at least a one-handed weapon and a shield. Only peasents and looters should be worse off.
For instance, imperial recruits start off with a spatha which, I think, can be bought for close to 300 denars last I checked. If they changed it out for a cheaper weapon ( such as a club) and a shield (usually around 140 denars), they would likely double their survivability and effectiveness in the field.
For instance, imperial recruits start off with a spatha which, I think, can be bought for close to 300 denars last I checked. If they changed it out for a cheaper weapon ( such as a club) and a shield (usually around 140 denars), they would likely double their survivability and effectiveness in the field.
This guy gets it. A quote from your friendly neighborhood Spartan...
"King Leonidas: Your father should have taught you how our phalanx works. We fight as a single, impenetrable unit. That is the source of our strength. Each Spartan protects the man to his left from thigh to neck with his shield.
King Leonidas: A single weak spot and the phalanx shatters. From thigh to neck."
I just don't imagine anyone leaving their village to join some wandering warband with nothing but a single weapon thinking "yep, this is a good idea."
This just doesn't make sense to me. Cavalry that charge straight into an infantry blob will die easily, especially considering how almost all infantry units have spears in this game. Having to sacrifice expensive cavalry every battle because your infantry don't get shields until tier 3 is not worth it. Besides, Empire and Khuzait have arguably some of the best horsemen in the game, yet they have shields on their tier 2 infantry. I propose this change as it is a small change that could balance the factions a bit better, as I don't really see any reason why only three factions get shielded tier 2 infantry while the rest don't get shields until tier 3. Having to upgrade shieldless infantry up to tier 3 is also quite a pain as they die so easily to ranged fire.
I find it odd that Battania's tier 2 skirmisher has shields but their tier 2 infantry lack shields for every unit.
I somewhat agree, but atleast vlandian pikemen and battanian falxmen have good weapons that make up for this. T2 infantry mostly have weapons and armor that are pretty much the same as the T1's equipment with a few points in skills. They really need some shields, and half of the factions already have shields for their T2.
I agree, there's very little difference between T1 and T2 infantry on these factions that don't give shields to T2 and it is a huge setback as they have to survive and get enough kills to finally get a shield at T3. Some basic shields would go a long way.
The weakest faction so far is Sturgian, even with e1.3.0's fix on their equipment and state. And they have shield for their tier2 infantry. The balancing problem the game as is that there is no extra attrition in snow area, the speed penalty is not yet notable and the horses don't consume grain. No matter how shielded this faction is, since the AI don't understand how to use a shield wall yet and don't have a tactic AI that can make a good use of heavy skirmisher cav, this faction will keep been slaughtered.
Asarais have a similar condition compares to the Sturgians, their territory is linal that makes their army harder to rally, their desert don't provide campaign-wise bonus for them, and plus, they don't have shield for neither of their tier2 infantry. But they are doing fine in most campaign I've played, probably because they have quite decent shock cav units, and their no shield basic units are decent against cav.
Valandia don't have shield for most their infantry units, but they are also doing fine, that's because they have great shock cav units. It's very common in campaigns I've played to see Valandians conquered settlements from Sturgians, Battarians, and West Empire, they all have more shielded infantry units comparing to Valandians.
Battarian usually last for long enough to see at least one of the empire factions been crushed. Their tier1 is trash compares to the rest cultures, but their skirmisher are really doing fine. Those are very decent skirmisher since tier2. Indeed that their tier2 melee infantry don't always have a shield, but their spear made them less killable. Their archer units are even better, although not in number, but are good enough to make a difference in end battle range duel.
As soon as the game no longer let lords leading army of recruits, you will find out that having a shield for tier2 or really doesn't matter that much. Adding a shield for tier2 is easy, even I can do it in less than 20 minutes, but I wish TW work mroe on battle AI, the AI need to understand different formation group according to the unit's equipment set, and make a better use of each unit with a decent timing. So far the AI seems to be using the same formation group setting as the player's, but I think they need to have their own tactic in the battle.
Once again, Empire and Khuzait have some of the best horsemen yet they have tier 2 shields, so I don't understand your point for Vlandia and Aserai in terms of not needing shields because they have decent cavalry.
Battania can be arguable, since they only get archers from their noble line whereas factions like Aserai and Empire get very effective archers on their basic line. Honestly, I don't find skirmishers that useful, but I think if a tier 2 skirmisher gets a shield, then a tier 2 infantry should get one as well.
Your last point also seems contradictory. If the AI uses less tier 1 recruits, then they would use more tier 2-5. Considering how most armies will probably still consist of the lower range of tiers (1-3) then giving shields to tier 2 will most certainly matter. The problem is that only half of these factions get shields for their T2 infantry for some reason, but in reality, every faction should get shields at tier 2 like in Warband.
I think battle AI and campaign AI are for a different thread and topic, so I will refrain from that discussion.
This is a simple change, but I believe it will have quite an impact on the general flow and progression of the troop trees while also correcting the balance between factions.
Last edited:
My point is that either a faction is strong or not doesn't relate to either it has tier2 shields or not. I mentioned Vlandia and Aserai becase they don't need tier2 shields to make them strong. Vlandia is so strong because of its shock cav in number, and Aserai is strong because it has a quite accessable horse archer tree.
It does seem contradictory, and it was meant to be. Because before the game's tactic AI starts to recongnize different unit types and issue orders properly, it remain unclear either our argue, the tier2 shield argue, was meaningful or not.
Unless the AI tweek could impact a lot on this current topic. For example, if the shield wall order could make the AI try to move units with a shield to the first line of the formation, or if the NPC tactic AI could arrange different unit types to each their own formation group (meat shield infantry, javalin/throwing axe skirmisher, shock infantry, etc.) and move them accordingly.
The game's current recruitment system already make NPC army very boring, by making them all have shield on tier2 melee units will be another "acculturation" that make the "culture" the game has even less appearing I'm afraid.
I understand. I still believe that shields for tier 2 infantry should be universal among all factions. With how strong archers are, shields are crucial to stop arrows from destroying your army. Currently, the upgrade from tier one to tier two is barely an upgrade at all for Vlandia, Aserai, and Battania, and it's a setback to try to keep your recruits alive until tier 3, especially for the AI.
Having shieldwall prioritize units with shields in the front would help, but there will still be a lack of shields for Vlandia, Aserai, and Battania as the bulk of their infantry will be low tier units who lack shields. I think Aserai and Battania in particular would greatly benefit from more shields as they have some decent shock infantry, but they can't really utilize them without any shields to cover them.
I don't think giving shields to every faction's tier 2 infantry would make the game more boring, if anything it would make it harder to exploit their armies with archers which would open up some more tactics, playstyles, and army compositions.
