Possible solution to balance Khan's Guard?

[SomeWeirdSins]

You want me to track down the video of an hours long Bannerlord stream from over a year ago?

edit: I actually talked about it in a thread back then:

This sounds like a really cool way of playing. Do you know how long it was taking this streamer to complete the game?

The fastest way I've found is to focus on zerging clans, not zergling land. IMO forest bandits are a class above fians/khans, because they make you flithy rich, and roguery is OP.
I tend to play pretty fast, but I don't consider myself a full on speedrunner, because I avoid strategies that feel exploity or boring. I'm curious how this stacks up to zerging land.

Here's how my map looked in 1091: https://www.reddit.com/r/MB2Bannerlord/comments/wv6lem/cunning_is_very_strong_in_180/

Was this guy clearing the map <1090? I'd be interested in knowing

 

[BigFat]

Like many people pointed out, they're only ever that strong in the players hands and I agree it feels really cheesy to play with a full party of them. So, by simply resisting the temptation to stack them, you've mostly solved that issue. The real problem to me is that the end game in Bannerlord is unforgivably tedious and if you're playing conquest, I can't really blame someone for wanting to make it go a little quicker or easier. Once you get to the castle taking phase there is almost no difference in your first army/castle battle and your hundredth army/castle battle. I mostly try to play with gimmick parties like bandits and even by then most times I end up just taking whatever I can get because I'm mostly checked out by that time and it's soon time to make a new character.
That said, maybe lowering the base damage or swing speed of polearms on horseback could help. They all have crazy high swing damage for whatever reason.

 

[Antaeus]

Even if noble troops were made, say, half as common, Khan's Guards would still be way too strong anyway. So yes, it is a matter of the unit's fit-out and ability, because any of you have failed to explain why it is necessary for KGs to be so blatantly, immersion breakingly overpowered to the point that they slaughter every other noble troop 2:1 or better.

Apocal literally just explained it to you. From a gameplay perspective, a special, elite, noble etc unit should be 'special'. Otherwise they're a normal unit. They can be godly invincible with lasers for eyes for all it matters. So long as they are something that normal units are not.

TW have ensured, through AI behaviours that they are rare in AI parties. Which reflects their special nature. But this hasn't been ported through to how available they are to the player. Previously (prior to about 1.8 they were rare. All I can take away from this, is that TW think they should be freely available, and they're the decision makers here. I don't agree with TW. I think they should be more rare, I don't go out of my way to recruit them, but I pick them up along the way. If you don't like it, don't recruit them. The power is in your hands. It's really that simple.

Literally just give one reason why they shouldn't be nerfed. You can't.

Come on now child. You can be better than that.

 

[Earth Dragon]

I feel like too many people blow off what this games stands to be: a highly moddable sandbox experience.

So it's best served to be as balanced as possible so that mods have more freedom to avoid overly disrupting that balance. Those who advocate that "sandbox games don't need balance" are markedly wrong. Illusion of choice and purposely making "poor" choices is not nearly as engaging as true risk vs reward and effort vs outcome balancing.

Bannerlord does a decent job on most of these fronts. Khan's Guard is a clear standout of something that is objectively out of balance. And that's why it should be addressed. Many of the "it doesn't matter because...." can, and almost for sure will be eventually, modded out/in as a non-point. And that is why it should be addressed now.

Bugs, gross exploits, and obvious imbalances should be where the devs concentrate most aside from finishing scenes and town functionality and the like that we know are still to come.

 

[five bucks]

Like many people pointed out, they're only ever that strong in the players hands and I agree it feels really cheesy to play with a full party of them. So, by simply resisting the temptation to stack them, you've mostly solved that issue.

I think they are too strong in the hands of the AI as well. When I face Khan's Guards as enemies (which will definitely happen if you're fighting Khuzait lord parties - which is something you need to do to win the game) they are just as much murder machines as in the player's hands.

Also, why should I be arbitrarily holding myself back? If a castle village has 10 noble recruits, why should I force myself to not pick them up so that I can have an actually challenging experience?

A good video game is immersive and doesn't force you to hold yourself back. It's immersion breaking. If I want to do a Khuzait playthrough and get immersed, I don't want to be making weird irrational decisions like not recruiting elite troops because they're TOO good. What commander would ever do that?

The real problem to me is that the end game in Bannerlord is unforgivably tedious and if you're playing conquest, I can't really blame someone for wanting to make it go a little quicker or easier. Once you get to the castle taking phase there is almost no difference in your first army/castle battle and your hundredth army/castle battle.

Considering even with Khan's Guard existing that stage of the game still sucks, I don't think it is an argument for keeping KGs so broken.

The way to make the endgame of Bannerlord less unforgivably tedious is:
* Fix the war score calculation (on TW's radar, source: Duh)
* Make defeated AI kingdoms with no territory dissolve (possibly on TW's radar)
* Make voting able to be influenced more by the player (partially on TW's radar, by changing influence economy so less clans vote)
* Make the AI lords/garrisons surrender more often in battles/sieges the player will obviously win
* Improve autoresolve so you can use it with less random casualties to skip tedious battles (on TW's radar)
* Make Engineering increase rate of siege camp construction so the player spends less time waiting for camps to build lategame
* Differentiate the faction troop trees more, so that it feels more different as the player fights to conquer non-Empire regions

That said, maybe lowering the base damage or swing speed of polearms on horseback could help. They all have crazy high swing damage for whatever reason.

Agreed. Swing polearms in general are a bit overtuned.

---

Apocal literally just explained it to you. From a gameplay perspective, a special, elite, noble etc unit should be 'special'. Otherwise they're a normal unit. They can be godly invincible with lasers for eyes for all it matters. So long as they are something that normal units are not.

As I already explained to Apocal - perhaps you missed it:

"The other T6 units DO feel meaningful in mixed battles. Elite Cataphracts for example will outlast almost everything on the battlefield in melee when mounted, and bowl over infantry. They feel like a properly balanced threat. You can see them racking up kills for the entirety of the battle and even taking on groups alone and still surviving."

So yes: other T6 elite troops already do feel like "special" troops. Therefore Khan's Guard can be balanced alongside the other T6 troops, there is no reason not to do so.

If you don't like it, don't recruit them. The power is in your hands. It's really that simple.

See what it says at the top of my post.

Come on now child. You can be better than that.

Not an argument.

So it's best served to be as balanced as possible so that mods have more freedom to avoid overly disrupting that balance. Those who advocate that "sandbox games don't need balance" are markedly wrong. Illusion of choice and purposely making "poor" choices is not nearly as engaging as true risk vs reward and effort vs outcome balancing.

Bannerlord does a decent job on most of these fronts. Khan's Guard is a clear standout of something that is objectively out of balance. And that's why it should be addressed. Many of the "it doesn't matter because...." can, and almost for sure will be eventually, modded out/in as a non-point. And that is why it should be addressed now.

Bugs, gross exploits, and obvious imbalances should be where the devs concentrate most aside from finishing scenes and town functionality and the like that we know are still to come.

This!!

 

[Apocal]

In what way?

There you go, that's already a major change when taken cumulatively.

I'm skipping most of this usual spaghetti posting you do but this deserves a special mention:

Did you not notice the AI targets almost only border/near-border settlements now? And that second change (troops in recruiting) makes the game even easier for a player who simply steamrolls without troop concerns, because they get more high-tier troops without having to do anything else?

The other T6 units DO feel meaningful in mixed battles, so that entire argument falls apart.

They might to you, but I firmly disagree. The performance of most T6 units falls within the error bar of similar units in a mixed fight. They might be 10-20% more effective but I'm not going to notice 10-20% more effectiveness in a normal battle.

 

[Antaeus]

They might to you, but I firmly disagree. The performance of most T6 units falls within the error bar of similar units in a mixed fight. They might be 10-20% more effective but I'm not going to notice 10-20% more effectiveness in a normal battle.

Exactly.

If 1 in 10 of an AI party's archers are noble and can shoot 20% better that's 20% improvement on 10% of their fighting capability. That's negligible overall impact.

Same is true of all noble troops. If 1 in 10 of a Kuzait party's horse archers are Khan's Guards, and those Khan's Guards are a percentage better than other horse archers, then that's only an improvement to 10% of the fighting force. That's still negligible and unlikely to make them the deciding factor in anything but a very even battle. Which would be exactly the point of a noble troop.

Now the player could recruit nothing but noble troops, and that would offer a cumulative advantage. But we've already covered that.

 

[Bluko88]

Khan's Guard are really op but they are incredible idiots when you get them to the edge of the map. They are like a killer death robot with an off switch. So even if the devs never nerf these potato heads just move to the edge of the map and destroy them. That is the krpytonite and since they are so broken and op anyways I would shamelessy use it everytime

This is the thing, I don't want to be tempted by this. I strongly dislike "cheese" such as this and constantly retreating your archer party for unlimited ammunition. Also this effectively breaks all Horse Archers and Cavalry A.I. not just KGs, so again more ways to break the game. The fact Vlandian Pikemen were almost able to fend off Banner Knights more or less demonstrates the problem with boundary hugging.

To be fair I think a number of Total War games have border issues too, but it's far less pronounced and hugging the border generally isn't to your advantage.

The problem lies not only in whether or not the KG has a glaive equipped, but in other factors that Taleworlds are not interested in modifying 😌🎻.

Well they are not going to fix animations or attacks in Bannerlord at this point. Maybe in a MB3 assuming they aren't totally burnt out (which I suspect TW is at this point from 10 years of development.)

Ranged + shock = aberration: My crusade against the Fiann is well known... two-handed shock weapons + ranged role and good armor on top of that? Oh mama... Same with KG.

Anyone who has really played this game should understand that.

I can tolerate it with the Fians since they are supposed to be super duper archers, even though "realistically" (I apologize for using this word) archers probably wouldn't carry more than a short sword, since if you've trained most of your life to be a bowman, you probably aren't much of a swordsman. Again cause this is a video game so gameplay > realism for me. If Fians Two-Handed skill is reduced I don't think it's so bad as a unit.

So, what's the solution?...plain and simple for me. Remove KG's ranged factor if you want to keep the armoured factor... the rest of the tree branches will still work... melee cavalry with spears (medium cavalry role with medium armor) and mounted archers (light cavalry/horse archers with low armor).

You have to reduce their armor as well. The Torguud and Kheshig have light enough armor that they fall in line with the "Shock Cavalry" concept, hence no one complains about them having glaive to begin with (despite being cheaper).

Khan's Guard absolutely not with their level of armor. If Khan's Guard were just pure "Shock Cavalry" armed with Glaives only; it'd be real obvious to everyone real fast how broken they are. (I've tested it, not a good idea)

I mean Khan's Guard have...

Head Armor: 51
Body Armor: 67 (this is Cataphract levels of tanky, you get to like 75 armor you basically shrug off most non-blunt attacks)
Arm Armor: 46
Leg Armor 21 (only real weakspot)

There's a reason my Khan's Guard reskin has no horse armor and the following armor...

Head Armor: 48
Body Armor: 39 (need to keep em in 30-40 range to not be totally OP)
Arm Armor: 29
Leg Armor 16

But hey I gave them the BIG glaive, because that works since they aren't a freaking depleted uranium armored tank.

Like many people pointed out, they're only ever that strong in the players hands and I agree it feels really cheesy to play with a full party of them.

Everyone says that... but where is the video/description that shows how to defeat 100 Khan Guards in an open battle (without abusing borders/chokepoint)?

Surely there must be some party composition a big-brained player can utilize to defeat KGs in open battle? Khan's Guard aren't that OP..

I mean is there another unit in this game that's effectively unbeatable on an open battlefield? FCs are strong but ECs and VFs can beat them, I think Banner Knights can too just barely.


Admittedly I have not tried that hard myself for an Anti-KG method, but I also know it's something of a fools errand to. Funny I try a combination of FCs and ECs, and the game locks up for first time in forever. I guess it's a law of nature not meant to be broken.

 

[Apocal]

Everyone says that... but where is the video/description that shows how to defeat 100 Khan Guards in an open battle (without abusing borders/chokepoint)?

Surely there must be some party composition a big-brained player can utilize to defeat KGs in open battle? Khan's Guard aren't that OP..

Most people don't care, because it isn't a situation you'll ever see outside of custom battles.

 

[five bucks]

Did you not notice the AI targets almost only border/near-border settlements now?

That's a positive change, what did we have before - AI travelling a stupidly long distance to siege something they considered "weak", but getting reamed on the way there through starvation and the fact their own settlements got owned while they were reenacting the Siege of Troy?

And that second change (troops in recruiting) makes the game even easier for a player who simply steamrolls without troop concerns, because they get more high-tier troops without having to do anything else?

So do the AI, also the question was not ease of gameplay but the most viable strategy to win. More high tier troops means it is easier to run an all noble party without having to go out of your way to do so.

Again, as stated this is entirely pointless to discuss until you provide the video or a similar one.

They might to you, but I firmly disagree. The performance of most T6 units falls within the error bar of similar units in a mixed fight. They might be 10-20% more effective but I'm not going to notice 10-20% more effectiveness in a normal battle.

I'm too lazy to put this argument in essay format so here have bullet points

* Banner Knights are twice as effective as Vanguards in KDA from Mr chicken's testing
* Fixing armour to work like it should will make the melee T6 units even more effective
* It is not problematic in any way for T6 to only be 20% more effective than T5 like you're saying, it is the lower tier units that they're meant to be massively more effective than, and that's what they do already
* Is anyone actually seriously complaining that Banner Knights or Elite Cataphracts are not effective enough relative to T5 melee units, or is this just a "problem" you've made up for the sake of justifying your ultimately pointless argument?

 

[Apocal]

That's a positive change, what did we have before - AI travelling a stupidly long distance to siege something they considered "weak", but getting reamed on the way there through starvation and the fact their own settlements got owned while they were reenacting the Siege of Troy?

So do the AI, also the question was not ease of gameplay but the most viable strategy to win. More high tier troops means it is easier to run an all noble party without having to go out of your way to do so.

It makes the empty garrison trick (the silliest of them all) actually work, which is the easiest way to speedrun a faction genocide since they all come to you, repeatedly. Potentially even moreso now because all the armies attempt to dogpile the same siege.

Secondly, I said it was suboptimal play to recruit only KGs, not it wasn't viable. Almost every party composition is viable, up to and including having no party at all, since the real "party limit" in BL is influence burn vs. generation rate and army speed on the map. The suboptimal part is where a player goes back to recruit from the eastern part of the map. (And that they are completely the same as any other T6 troop in autocalc)

Optimal BL doesn't care about specific troops because you can always get enough to style on the AI.

* Banner Knights are twice as effective as Vanguards in KDA from Mr chicken's testing

earlier in thread:

You can tell the difference between shielded and unshielded, well-armored and basically naked, on horse or on foot, ranged or melee, sure. That's plenty obvious. But you need sterile room, 500v500 tests to see if one type of similar unit is better than another, which is something that never happens in the campaign, and can be "broken" by the player simply issuing one or two intelligent commands.

 

[five bucks]

It makes the empty garrison trick (the silliest of them all) actually work, which is the easiest way to speedrun a faction genocide since they all come to you, repeatedly. Potentially even moreso now because all the armies attempt to dogpile the same siege.

Secondly, I said it was suboptimal play to recruit only KGs, not it wasn't viable. Almost every party composition is viable, up to and including having no party at all, since the real "party limit" in BL is influence burn vs. generation rate and army speed on the map. The suboptimal part is where a player goes back to recruit from the eastern part of the map. (And that they are completely the same as any other T6 troop in autocalc)

I'm going to repeat what I said before and you are categorically ignoring: post the video or an equivalent one. There's no point in us arguing about whether a theoretical video is theoretically out of date or not, post it so we can see.

earlier in thread: you need sterile room tests to see troop differences, which is something that never happens in the campaign

And my reply which addresses that point, also, was earlier in the thread, here have it again:

* Fixing armour to work like it should will make the melee T6 units even more effective
* It is not problematic in any way for T6 to only be 20% more effective than T5 like you're saying, it is the lower tier units that they're meant to be massively more effective than, and that's what they do already
* Is anyone actually seriously complaining that Banner Knights or Elite Cataphracts are not effective enough relative to T5 melee units, or is this just a "problem" you've made up for the sake of justifying your ultimately pointless argument?

There is no good reason why Khan's Guard need to be so overpowered that they slaughter even Fian Champs.
You have failed to present one, you're just wasting both our time with minor quibbles in an argument you even said you have no real position on, one way or the other.

 

[Apocal]

I'm going to repeat what I said before and you are categorically ignoring: post the video or an equivalent one. There's no point in us arguing about whether a theoretical video is theoretically out of date or not, post it so we can see.

How recent does it need to be? Because StratGaming did it in March or so. No exploits or even executions (!!) but he doesn't stay in enemy territory and only uses his clan as an army (so cares somewhat about casualties), but there's the same distinct lack of concern about what specific troops he has and treating his army as his party. Also a cameo of the empty garrison trick with Heretogea Castle, lol.

And my reply which addresses that point, also, was earlier in the thread, here have it again:

There is no good reason why Khan's Guard need to be so overpowered that they slaughter even Fian Champs.
You have failed to present one, you're just wasting both our time with minor quibbles in an argument you even said you have no real position on, one way or the other.

I was saying that IECs weren't good enough to notice the differences between themselves and other armored cavalry in most battles. That's my position across T6 troops in general. In most battles, the player can just use horse archers in such a way there is never a melee. The exceptions are (sometimes) sieges.

 

[JunKeteer]

The whole balancing of many troops is messed up once you dive deep enough; there's no tradeoff. All the T6 troops are just stacked heavy armor on top horse with top weaponry of their 'culture' variant.

Yes, KGs are horse archers, but they also have their best horse, best armor, best glaive, best bow/arrows. I would assume, to be nimble as such + on a horseback with a bow, the tradeoff would be lighter armor (both unit and horse).

Fians - top two-handers, best armor, best bow. Likewise, would've assumed, to be that capable/accurate/strong with the bow, the tradeoff would be light armor as well (can't imagine shooting a very heavy bow can be done lugging around 50lb armor - especially on arms)

EC - absolute strongest armor for them/horse (medieval 'tanks'). Yet, their mounts are still very fast (no stamina aspect); and almost still quick as comparable to their legionnaire counterparts.

etc...

If they are intended to be the absolutely 'strongest' units you can aim to achieve with the most expensive armor/weaponry available, sure, but they barely cost any more (not enough tradeoff balancing) in XP to upgrade, cost upkeep, or availability. It's no 'challenge' to get them, the player would always end up with a stack of T6s (unless they deliberately handicap themselves); whether you want to go get only KGs specifically or kitchen fit recruit.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The whole balancing of many troops is messed up once you dive deep enough; there's no tradeoff. All the T6 troops are just stacked heavy armor on top horse with top weaponry of their 'culture' variant.

I think on top of this, having troops that are so good at everything takes away from the players feeling of accomplishment because you feel like you don't have to do anything to win with KG or fians. Whether that's actually true or not is kind of irrelevant, it just comes across that way when you upgrade darkhans or whatever and they eventually become these fully armoured gigachads with no downsides, and the feel of a game has way more of an impact on the way I play than the stats.

I think the whole system of linear progression in Bannerlord detracts from replayability. You have to intentionally gimp yourself to feel like you're actually doing something in lategame battles most of the time, which always feels bad. Upgrades, if they happen, should only upgrade one or two stats, not all of them. Top tier horse archers should be specialists, not T-34s.

 

[JunKeteer]

I think on top of this, having troops that are so good at everything takes away from the players feeling of accomplishment because you feel like you don't have to do anything to win with KG or fians. Whether that's actually true or not is kind of irrelevant, it just comes across that way when you upgrade darkhans or whatever and they eventually become these fully armoured gigachads with no downsides, and the feel of a game has way more of an impact on the way I play than the stats.

I think the whole system of linear progression in Bannerlord detracts from replayability. You have to intentionally gimp yourself to feel like you're actually doing something in lategame battles most of the time, which always feels bad. Upgrades, if they happen, should only upgrade one or two stats, not all of them. Top tier horse archers should be specialists, not T-34s.

It removes any aspect or challenge or 'gameplay' with building your party; you can just upgrade all your troops with no thought or having to delay the upgrade until you can afford them or whatever else.
It's fine having a troop that's just crazily good at everything, as long as there is a fair tradeoff/balancing playstyle meta to be able to accumulate 100+ of them which isn't present in game.
The upgrade paths are too linear for what they are capable of, would've assumed their cost (upgrade, availability, exp required) should've been more exponentially based.

 

[Bluko88]

Most people don't care, because it isn't a situation you'll ever see outside of custom battles.

I can appreciate where you're coming from, since you're looking at things from the more "macro" side of things. Problem is this mostly boils down to how bad the A.I. is at controlling armies. I'm pretty sure if you gave the A.I. 500 HP units, it could still manage to get them killed.

So with a mock army of all T5-T6 units (sorry I'm too lazy to add like 4 dozen troops in EBT) this is what happens in vanilla:

And then if you have more "balanced" KGs (lance in place of glaive) you get this:

I am starting to wonder if Shock Troops are a little too good now given the Menavliation's high kill counts.

That said for giggles here I decided to see how pure "Shock Cavalry" would perform. I'm really starting to think the Khuzait Noble Line should be "Shock Cavalry" focused since no such unit really exists in-game and Khuzait have no foot shock troops. Seems like it would make for a better experience and take a completely broken unit out of the player's hand, and leave Khuzait less crippled in hands of A.I. at the same time, well sort of.

 

[five bucks]

How recent does it need to be? Because StratGaming did it in March or so. No exploits or even executions (!!) but he doesn't stay in enemy territory and only uses his clan as an army (so cares somewhat about casualties), but there's the same distinct lack of concern about what specific troops he has and treating his army as his party. Also a cameo of the empty garrison trick with Heretogea Castle, lol.

An excellent source but watch the first video in that series, at 3:20 on:

"The plan is to recruit all Khuzait troops and turn them into horse archers which gives us lots of mobility for trading. For the rest of the month we roam the Khuzait lands trying to fill our party with horse archers."

Watch the second video also before saying "no exploits" - he does bandit fights in towns by luring bandits one by one outside their aggro zone to fight them solo, which gives him 10 levels in one go; I'd call that an exploit.

This gives him enough levels to ditch all troops and fight bandit parties solo (while mounted with a bow on horseback, of course). To me, ditching all troops seems like unintended, undesirable gameplay on TW's part. If he wasn't fighting all those battles solo do you think he would have kept his Khuzait troops which he already said are good?

By the fourth video he has a party of 100 again (from 1) and yet despite being all the way over in Battania, what does he have in his party? A not insignificant number of Khuzait horse archers and noble archers, who do most of the actual killing in his battles!

What he also says is that he has room for improvement in his field battles, following further research into formations and tactics.

Anyway, what this video clearly demonstrates is that when given choice of troops, there is no point going anywhere but Khuzait territory or maybe Battanian. Just to have them easily mow down all enemies for you. That is a problem for immersion and also for the player's feeling of variety as @Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said.

I was saying that IECs weren't good enough to notice the differences between themselves and other armored cavalry in most battles. That's my position across T6 troops in general.

Other armoured cavalry? So in other words, T5 troops?

I already said it is not an issue if there's not a highly noticeable effectiveness gap between T6 and T5. There should be a highly noticeable effectiveness gap between T1/T2 and T6, and right now when it comes to T6 melee cavalry, there already is.

So, there is no reason for Khan's Guards to remain so incredibly overpowered.

In most battles, the player can just use horse archers in such a way there is never a melee. The exceptions are (sometimes) sieges.

Yes, that's problematic too and can be improved by changing armour to be more arrow resistant, as you have probably seen me say 1 birrion times, and also possibly removing the ammo refill retreat exploit and replacing it with a more intentional game mechanic.

Thus meaning horse archers get fewer kills before running out of arrows and having to engage in melee, rather than kiting and soloing an entire army alone.

 

[Apocal]

This gives him enough levels to ditch all troops and fight bandit parties solo (while mounted with a bow on horseback, of course). To me, ditching all troops seems like unintended, undesirable gameplay on TW's part. If he wasn't fighting all those battles solo do you think he would have kept his Khuzait troops which he already said are good?

By the fourth video he has a party of 100 again (from 1) and yet despite being all the way over in Battania, what does he have in his party? A not insignificant number of Khuzait horse archers and noble archers, who do most of the actual killing in his battles!

I know he wouldn't have kept them because he ditches the all-Khuz early game format in favor of whatever is around when he has his first fief. By time he is heavy into the kingdom phase (video 9 and on), he can't afford to go all the way around to Khuzait lands, so his party is a grab bag of literally whatever happens to be near.

At any rate, anyone can see at no point did he go out of his way to stack up T6s into his party as you asserted was optimal. It is literally a bad thing to do as you progress, if you're concerned with optimal play and not RPing.

Other armoured cavalry? So in other words, T5 troops?

T6 as well.

 

[kweassa]

The most ideal and fantastical (= improbable the devs would ever give a f***) solution, would be to re-balance polearms as a whole. Particularly, swinging polearms are just way too high in damage+way too lenient in it's handling.

Also, there's a reason why large swinging polearms weren't usually all that popular on horseback in real-life. I won't go into detail here, but swinging polearms on horseback are almost non-consequential in the history of horseback fighting. It is very commonly depicted in media that "Asian cavalry" carry around glaives (ie., the famous imagery of Guan Yu from the RotTK), but the reality is even in Asia, glaives were predominantly infnatry weapons.

The very rare, almost only, exception would be late-16th ~ early-17th century Ming heavy cavalry, whom experimented with glaive weapons to fight AGAINST increasing incursions from tribal warriors such as the Jurchens -- but this experiment was also short lived since East Asian armies rapidly transitioned to firearms with the beginning of the 1600s.

The reality is, since the earliest artifacts depicting Scythians, to the famous Companions of Alexander, the powerful heavy cavalry of the Persians, famed Celtic and Germanic cavalry serving under Caesar, the Cataphracts of the Sassanids, tjem the cataphracts of the Eastern Empire themselves, the earliest knights that fought in Hastings, the ones that roamed Europe and invaded Middle East during the Crusades, the Seljuk cavalry that fought against them during the Crusades, to the Hussars of Poland and revived lancers of the Napoleon Era... the tribal warriors of Alans, Cumans, Huns... the Central Asian Khwarezmian cataphracts that fought against the Mongols, the Mongols themselves, the Khitai, the Jurchen... the Chinese cavalry from Han to Ming, the cavalry of the Korean peninsula.. Japan.. etcetc..

They were all spear-armed. Predominantly, throughout the ages.

...

The simplest solution? Disable use of swinging polearms on horseback.