Currently viewing this thread:

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Most people state that archers are OP. When I want to form a balanced army like %40 Infantry, %40 Archer and %20 Cavalry; battles are usually already won before any melee fight, thanks to archers. So it makes infantry useless. Yes, archers should counter infantry and I have no problem with archers killing low tier infantry at ease but high tier infantry shouldn't be so vulnarable to them.

Usage of shields should be improved but that is not the only thing. Armors don't absorb enough damage in Bannerlord. And I will put some video evidence that armor in Bannerlord should save the wearer from archers and crossbows.

There is no plate armor in Bannerlord so no need to look for that. Highest tier armors in the game are lamellar armors. And they protect so well in real life that only a minimal damage should be applied in Bannerlord when someone gets shot right on that armor. Here is a lamellar armor vs crossbow test video.

As you can see, lamellar armor prevents from penetration of bolts. There should be only a small blunt impact. But those little plates fell off in the test. Maybe if the strings were more durable, it wouldn't even happen.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

And now here is a Arrow vs Chainmail Armor test.

At first I thought that it could penetrate easily through the gaps of the armor but I was very surprised about the result. Arrows bounced back in every shot. It can stun the infantry for a bit and make him step back a little but wouldn't do damage.

Instead of nerfing archers, I think that infantry should be buffed with an armor doing its job.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

In this video below, you can see that the victim takes 10 damage from his chest which is protected by a lamellar armor.
Those arrows wouldn't even penetrate and bounce back if it was a realistic armor. And it will look better if arrows bounced back because we wouldn't walk around like a hedgehog.

If this change can be applied, projectile damage to the underprotected areas could be increased. Projectile to the face should one shot the victim for example.

Thanks for reading

Cheers
 
The problem with going down this route is that historically archers were used to wear down an army over hours, days or even weeks. The total war thing where you shoot for a few seconds and mow down hundreds of guys is not how archers work in real life, so if you want to implement fully realistic damage you also have implement fully realistic battle pacing, which would include sword fights taking longer than the 2 seconds they currently do. Also going the other way and having oneshot damage on unarmoured targets will make looters and other shieldless troops even more trivial than they currently are.

Ideally I would like a mechanic where archers and other skirmish troops arrive in the battle first allowing you to try and take ground, with the infantry appearing after a few minutes of fighting, after which the archers can be retreated. Right now archers shoot at point blank range and get tangled up in the battle lines often unable to pick targets.
 

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Yes archers are starting to shoot too late and increasing the range of them could balance armor buff and make archers feel more realistic as they would aim high and create an arrow rain.

Duration of sword fights would increase with armors protecting better against not only projectiles but against melee too. Lamellar and chainmail armors would protect against slashes very well in reality. If you look at the damage done by the player against legionaries, it is too much in my opinion. That sword wouldn't even penetrate that armor.

When I played the game for the first time, I was very disapointed when I couldn't one shot a looter and he carried on with a arrow on his eye. So if we don't want looters to not die that easily, they could wear armor that they looted which would make more sense that carrying them without wearing. Archers are perfect counter to shieldless and unarmored infantry so I see no problem of those type of guys dying more easily. I said one shot thing for the face but in my opinion a shot to the unprotected chest is lethal too.
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
I didn't try Realistic Battle mod yet, but I think it should be part of the game.

I agree with this thread.

I would strongly recommend that the developers take a careful look at the combat mods and integrate them into the game.

This is the mod that is being referred to:

 

Urzahil

Recruit
I play with the Realistic Battle mod - archers are pretty much neutered with that mod against high armor troop types. It's only against lower tier/poorly armored troops that the archers are effective against, but let's remember that the majority of armies will have mostly levies. But if they run into armies stacked with T5-T6's, it's over for the archers. Especially if they all have shields. I also use the Blood, **** and Iron mod, so most troop tiers have shields even at lower tiers.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Most people state that archers are OP. When I want to form a balanced army like %40 Infantry, %40 Archer and %20 Cavalry; battles are usually already won before any melee fight, thanks to archers. So it makes infantry useless. Yes, archers should counter infantry and I have no problem with archers killing low tier infantry at ease but high tier infantry shouldn't be so vulnarable to them.

Usage of shields should be improved but that is not the only thing. Armors don't absorb enough damage in Bannerlord. And I will put some video evidence that armor in Bannerlord should save the wearer from archers and crossbows.

There is no plate armor in Bannerlord so no need to look for that. Highest tier armors in the game are lamellar armors. And they protect so well in real life that only a minimal damage should be applied in Bannerlord when someone gets shot right on that armor. Here is a lamellar armor vs crossbow test video.

As you can see, lamellar armor prevents from penetration of bolts. There should be only a small blunt impact. But those little plates fell off in the test. Maybe if the strings were more durable, it wouldn't even happen.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

And now here is a Arrow vs Chainmail Armor test.

At first I thought that it could penetrate easily through the gaps of the armor but I was very surprised about the result. Arrows bounced back in every shot. It can stun the infantry for a bit and make him step back a little but wouldn't do damage.

Instead of nerfing archers, I think that infantry should be buffed with an armor doing its job.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

In this video below, you can see that the victim takes 10 damage from his chest which is protected by a lamellar armor.
Those arrows wouldn't even penetrate and bounce back if it was a realistic armor. And it will look better if arrows bounced back because we wouldn't walk around like a hedgehog.

If this change can be applied, projectile damage to the underprotected areas could be increased. Projectile to the face should one shot the victim for example.

Thanks for reading

Cheers
I agree that's very well put. It's my 1st argument against strait nerfing archers is that it's armor and damage calculations that are to blame, not archer damage. The same is true for a recruit killing your t6 cavalry....somehow..... it's not the recruit is too OP it's there's some serious problems with how the damage is being applied.
 
Top Bottom