Should recruits have shields?

[HalfMetalJacket]

In my opinion, every soldier should have a shield. However, the shield in too powerful in this game. You are nearly invincible when you a holding a shield. They should reduce the durability of low level shield and give everybody a shield.

Even shock troops and archers? I think that starts becoming nonsense before long.

 

[Bluko88]

You recruit spam a bunch (numbers advantage) and maybe only 5 make it to trained infantry/archer - but once you even get a few of those, the rest of the recruits you hire from then on don't have that 'struggle'.

Yeah they do, but depends on the %. Once most are are behind a shield wall, sure.

Archer spam is too powerful as it is. Nothing has changed enough in 2.5 years, it's still to your benefit to go archer heavy from the get go. It's only a slight liability with some of the quests.

You only really need to think about getting actual infantry/cavalry when you're getting to mercenary/vassal stage and risk encountering cavalry or higher tier infantry

I say "bumper rails" cause you pretty much have to start the game the same way every time, unless you're going pure trader. If you try to deviate from that at all (fighting small bands of looters, arena/tournament), well you can't. I fail to see how amassing a large number of recruits is any less valid than amassing a large number T2 shield infantry to beat a T3 Archer party. Though given how terrified some are at the thought of recruits having some flimsy shields, maybe it was apt.


I've been playing with my shielded recruits and it has not wildly changed anything in my experience, at least in terms of Army battles and Sieges. I mean let's think this out...

You attack a 500 man enemy army, it's composed of 20% recruits (not unusual).

So that's 100 recruits, only 33 of them are going to have shields give or take.

Will that really ruin your experience? Their armor is still crap/non-existent, their skills are poor, they are not going to overwhelm you - because at the end of the day they are still poor fighters. If anything I nerfed recruits by taking away their scythes (also a shield wouldn't help scythe wielders because it sits on their back anyways), which is if you pay attention where they overwhelmingly get kills on higher tier units.

Just to drive it home a little further; here's 100 Imperial Palatine/Sergeant Crossbowmen versus 600 Recruits (w/ shields) in a siege. About the only micro I did was placing left archer formation behind walls so they wouldn't spill down siege tower, otherwise I let the A.I. use it's own Sun Tzu tactics.

Oh god, oh man, oh wow, oh god, oh man, oh wow! Some of the peasants have wooden shields! We're doomed! THE END IS NIGH!

We win, crazy huh?

And if we run the same scenario via the base game, no unit mods, what do we get? Surely a flawless victory right? Again 100 Imperial Palatine/Sergeant Crossbowmen versus 600 Recruits...

So lost 8 less units, which could all boil to RNG anyways. 🙃

The issue with late-game AI and their party composition is a different thing and shouldn't be 'balanced' by giving the recruits shields in order to make those AI/parties more challenging.

Well how else are you going to balance it? Though not really my intent to begin with, again shields is to make recruits more useful early game and less sacrificial lambs for the sake of getting a T2 unit.

You either
A) Get rid of Recruits so they don't trash up large armies
B) Make Lords train up their troops (I can not see TW doing this)


If I still haven't have convinced folks at this point, well to each their own I suppose.

 

[Chest Hunter]

There is an unintuitive, ultra-grindy and barely displayed method to make sure you have consistent access to Tier 2 troops.

Basically grind relations very high with village landowner any notables in a fief you own for like ten or fifteen years and they'll swap over support to you (the owner), get crazy amounts of power (well above 200) either blitz through the recruit phase of their troop production (urban and village headman notables) or just skip to producing noble troops that start at Tier 2 (village landowner notables).

It is silly because it is opaque system that rests on the back of both grinding out quests like crazy and then just waiting for a nearly pure-RNG process to give you an advantage.

I personally use the leadership perk 'Famous Commander' at 'Leadership' level 4 (4th perk you can get), it gives 200 bonus xp to any recruited troop, and it stacks. Hire 10 recruits, upgrade the ones I can to T2, then I RP walk to the nearest cliffs and throw the T1 over the edge (disband them from my party). Rinse and repeat. I have stacked any and every perk granting daily XP or XP for waiting/while overloaded. I miss the training skill.

 

[five bucks]

Yeah they do, but depends on the %. Once most are are behind a shield wall, sure.

Archer spam is too powerful as it is. Nothing has changed enough in 2.5 years, it's still to your benefit to go archer heavy from the get go. It's only a slight liability with some of the quests.

You only really need to think about getting actual infantry/cavalry when you're getting to mercenary/vassal stage and risk encountering cavalry or higher tier infantry

I say "bumper rails" cause you pretty much have to start the game the same way every time, unless you're going pure trader. If you try to deviate from that at all (fighting small bands of looters, arena/tournament), well you can't. I fail to see how amassing a large number of recruits is any less valid than amassing a large number T2 shield infantry to beat a T3 Archer party. Though given how terrified some are at the thought of recruits having some flimsy shields, maybe it was apt.


I've been playing with my shielded recruits and it has not wildly changed anything in my experience, at least in terms of Army battles and Sieges. I mean let's think this out...

You attack a 500 man enemy army, it's composed of 20% recruits (not unusual).

So that's 100 recruits, only 33 of them are going to have shields give or take.

Will that really ruin your experience? Their armor is still crap/non-existent, their skills are poor, they are not going to overwhelm you - because at the end of the day they are still poor fighters. If anything I nerfed recruits by taking away their scythes (also a shield wouldn't help scythe wielders because it sits on their back anyways), which is if you pay attention where they overwhelmingly get kills on higher tier units.

Just to drive it home a little further; here's 100 Imperial Palatine/Sergeant Crossbowmen versus 600 Recruits (w/ shields) in a siege. About the only micro I did was placing left archer formation behind walls so they wouldn't spill down siege tower, otherwise I let the A.I. use it's own Sun Tzu tactics.

Oh god, oh man, oh wow, oh god, oh man, oh wow! Some of the peasants have wooden shields! We're doomed! THE END IS NIGH!

We win, crazy huh?

And if we run the same scenario via the base game, no unit mods, what do we get? Surely a flawless victory right? Again 100 Imperial Palatine/Sergeant Crossbowmen versus 600 Recruits...

So lost 8 less units, which could all boil to RNG anyways. 🙃


Well how else are you going to balance it? Though not really my intent to begin with, again shields is to make recruits more useful early game and less sacrificial lambs for the sake of getting a T2 unit.

You either
A) Get rid of Recruits so they don't trash up large armies
B) Make Lords train up their troops (I can not see TW doing this)


If I still haven't have convinced folks at this point, well to each their own I suppose.

Have we even established why it needs to happen in the vanilla game yet considering you've already modded it into your own?

More recruits surviving to level up - can be accomplished with quicker XP gain which should happen anyway?
Nerfing archers - can be accomplished by fixing armour which needs to happen anyway?
Realism - controversial, some find it more immersive and some find it hurts immersion?

Like what reason was there for doing this again and why does it need to be put into my copy of the game?

 

[JunKeteer]

Yeah they do, but depends on the %. Once most are are behind a shield wall, sure.

Archer spam is too powerful as it is. Nothing has changed enough in 2.5 years, it's still to your benefit to go archer heavy from the get go. It's only a slight liability with some of the quests.

You only really need to think about getting actual infantry/cavalry when you're getting to mercenary/vassal stage and risk encountering cavalry or higher tier infantry

Agree on this, easiest start is to upgrade archers first so looters are trivialized after a few minutes. But also, you have to then contend with the next level (ie shielded mountain/raiders and forest bandits); typically by getting infantry to change their shield exposure angles/distract/rush TBD. Which is fine, there's a distinct 'tier' of bandits you should face as a stepping stone, and particular composition to play depending on your start and what kind of bandits are there.

I say "bumper rails" cause you pretty much have to start the game the same way every time, unless you're going pure trader. If you try to deviate from that at all (fighting small bands of looters, arena/tournament), well you can't. I fail to see how amassing a large number of recruits is any less valid than amassing a large number T2 shield infantry to beat a T3 Archer party. Though given how terrified some are at the thought of recruits having some flimsy shields, maybe it was apt.

I think we're getting it mixed in terms of the opposition of giving them shields, it's not some 'fear' of making them stronger, etc...it's just making the 'upgrade' path/tier differential between them and the next upgrade even less 'meaningful' and makes the decision to face other bandits besides looters slightly quicker; making the early game (which I find the most fun still) go by quicker than it does/needs to already.

I've been playing with my shielded recruits and it has not wildly changed anything in my experience, at least in terms of Army battles and Sieges. I mean let's think this out...

I'm not adverse to, say, give a small percentage of them shields, might as well give them rocks too. You may consider it 'gatekeeping', but, let's keep the early game as challenging as can be as it only gets easier beyond that once you get to the start of late-game (which isn't that fun TBH).

Well how else are you going to balance it? Though not really my intent to begin with, again shields is to make recruits more useful early game and less sacrificial lambs for the sake of getting a T2 unit.

You either
A) Get rid of Recruits so they don't trash up large armies
B) Make Lords train up their troops (I can not see TW doing this)

Well, partial point of original intent, I can recognize there's some weird balancing aspect between a recruit and a peasant that should be equalized at the very least.

But giving them shields (or whatever%), we would essentially be bringing them closer to their next tier that you might as well get rid of them. And the thing with late game AI parties and the issue of recruit-laden parties, giving them shields won't solve that problem either way.

 

[JunKeteer]

Like what reason was there for doing this again and why does it need to be put into my copy of the game?

TBF, it's the same reasoning with your advocacy with making armor more protective even further to the recent changes they made. Both these (minute issues now IMO - compared to other issues in the game) are approaching the point where, yes, use mod to tailor how the player wants; whether that's more shields for recruits or being able to take 12 arrow hits or both.

 

[five bucks]

TBF, it's the same reasoning with your advocacy with making armor more protective even further to the recent changes they made. Both these (minute issues now IMO - compared to other issues in the game) are approaching the point where, yes, use mod to tailor how the player wants; whether that's more shields for recruits or being able to take 12 arrow hits or both.

The reasoning is that changes to the vanilla game need good reasons.

Balancing arrow damage to armor has good reasons in its favour:
* It would finally, actually balance ranged troops (which many people, even in this thread, including Bluko, agree are OP).
* It would allow the player to survive longer in battles, especially if they use two-handed weapons on foot.
* Let the player's companions survive longer too so they can level up in battles without dying to a few stray arrows.
* Make headshot damage perks and helmets more relevant.
* Increase the challenge of the game by making it harder to cheese with bows and making different army compositions and tactics more important.
* Immersion - armor giving better protection vs arrows would be objectively more realistic.
* Popularity of the idea - from what I've seen, most people here are for it, hardly any are against it, and armor-buffing mods are very popular.

Giving shields to recruits, on the other hand, has no good reasons in its favour, and even some reasons against it.
* A small nerf to ranged troops - but it wouldn't actually fix the problem, so that's not a good reason.
* Recruits would die less easily - but they're intended to, so that's not a good reason.
* Immersion - this is controversial, some people find it more realistic and others don't, so that's not a good reason.
* Popularity - not established here, in the small poll sample size, it seems more people are against the idea than for it.
* XML file equipment changes are the easiest possible mod to make, and the person who made this thread has already modded it into their own game. For them, they already have what they want.

 

[JunKeteer]

The reasoning is that changes to the vanilla game need good reasons.

Balancing arrow damage to armor has good reasons in its favour:
* It would finally, actually balance ranged troops (which many people, even in this thread, including Bluko, agree are OP).
* It would allow the player to survive longer in battles, especially if they use two-handed weapons on foot.
* Let the player's companions survive longer too so they can level up in battles without dying to a few stray arrows.
* Make headshot damage perks and helmets more relevant.
* Increase the challenge of the game by making it harder to cheese with bows and making different army compositions and tactics more important.
* Immersion - armor giving better protection vs arrows would be objectively more realistic.
* Popularity of the idea - from what I've seen, most people here are for it, hardly any are against it, and armor-buffing mods are very popular.

Giving shields to recruits, on the other hand, has no good reasons in its favour, and even some reasons against it.
* A small nerf to ranged troops - but it wouldn't actually fix the problem, so that's not a good reason.
* Recruits would die less easily - but they're intended to, so that's not a good reason.
* Immersion - this is controversial, some people find it more realistic and others don't, so that's not a good reason.
* Popularity - not established here, in the small poll sample size, it seems more people are against the idea than for it.
* XML file equipment changes are the easiest possible mod to make, and the person who made this thread has already modded it into their own game. For them, they already have what they want.

Look, I'm all for balancing or trying to get the game have a better representation of realism where we can.
With archers, same as from other threads, I'd rather it be the accuracy of bows be what gets tuned first before we further increase the armor values again (or decrease accuracy at night/inclement weather/etc...too).
We already see the immediate effects the recent changes did where the upper tier units are noticeably tankier, particularly with siege attacks (less casualties and taking them is nothing like it was in WB) and how melee collision works (or doesn't) in tight situations. Which, TBF, should be (?) how they were used realistically but then, make the higher tier units more expensive than they are currently.

Same goes with recruits/shields, if they even make that change to the base game, should they be the exact same cheap/disposable cost as they are?

 

[five bucks]

With archers, same as from other threads, I'd rather it be the accuracy of bows be what gets tuned first before we further increase the armor values again (or decrease accuracy at night/inclement weather/etc...too).

Why accuracy rather than armor damage or fire rate? The latter two are the actually unrealistic part, while BL archers are actually fairly inaccurate for the most part, possibly even more inaccurate than real life archers would be.

 

[JunKeteer]

Why accuracy rather than armor damage or fire rate? The latter two are the actually unrealistic part, while BL archers are actually fairly inaccurate for the most part, possibly even more inaccurate than real life archers would be.

The higher tier ones, I know the T1-2/militia archers are probably 'ok'. I still don't understand how I can briefly run across battlements/arrow loops and get sniped from somewhere like ~50+ meters away; and afaik, crossbows weren't known to be accurate past just a few meters (? - and more for penetrative/layman reasons and distance due to bolt weights/feathering?).

Fire rate adjustment could be another alternative vs accuracy tuning, haven't really thought much on that angle.

 

[Chest Hunter]

while BL archers are actually fairly inaccurate for the most part, possibly even more inaccurate than real life archers would be.

Can confirm, I made a bow from some local wood, cut it down and carved it with the same knife and made the arrows from flint heads lying on the floor and crows feathers, the arrow shafts made out of hazel. It shot remarkably far and was incredibly accurate with about a 1m spread on a very windy day at 200m, it was the first bow I made and first time I'd shot a bow, it was like 1.2m in length and I bent it using boiling water in a pan. lol primitive but effective, the archers in bannerlord are Simple Jack roleplayers who don't got a g-g-good brain or a g-g-good aim

 

[Apocal]

If anything I nerfed recruits by taking away their scythes (also a shield wouldn't help scythe wielders because it sits on their back anyways), which is if you pay attention where they overwhelmingly get kills on higher tier units.

That is pretty irrelevant to me because none of them get within melee range.

 

[randomuser]

Even shock troops and archers? I think that starts becoming nonsense before long.

Tell me why shock troops and archers can't use shield. You need something to support your opinion. Players can equip both bow and shield. Troops should be able to do the same.

I am not a pro in history. I think the game can't really copy the historical settings either.
In the history, armored troops take 0 damage from most of the arrows so they are okay without shield.
In the game, any unit without shield will die to 5 arrows or less.
Shield is something you must have in order to survive in the game.

You know it should not be too hard to find some cheap shields for your low tier troops, but they still don't have shields.
I really think the developers should adjust the value of equipment and troops. The low tier troops worth less than a shield right now.

 

[JunKeteer]

Tell me why shock troops and archers can't use shield. You need something to support your opinion. Players can equip both bow and shield. Troops should be able to do the same.

It is still a game in the end, there has to be some more distinct differences between the different troops (ie rock>paper>scissors).

I am not a pro in history. I think the game can't really copy the historical settings either.
In the history, armored troops take 0 damage from most of the arrows so they are okay without shield.
In the game, any unit without shield will die to 5 arrows or less.
Shield is something you must have in order to survive in the game.

You can survive quite well without needing a shield, it's challenging for sure, but if we just give them all shields - we're making the game substantially easier than it is. And even less tactical agency from a player than it is already with F1+F3 or F6 most cases.

You know it should not be too hard to find some cheap shields for your low tier troops, but they still don't have shields.
I really think the developers should adjust the value of equipment and troops. The low tier troops worth less than a shield right now.

I don't think we can ever hope to achieve a more realistic valuation of the cost of recruiting/upgrading troops with the equipment costs in game. A Lordly Hauberk Cataphract Armor can probably but a whole clan currently.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Tell me why shock troops and archers can't use shield. You need something to support your opinion. Players can equip both bow and shield. Troops should be able to do the same.

I am not a pro in history. I think the game can't really copy the historical settings either.
In the history, armored troops take 0 damage from most of the arrows so they are okay without shield.
In the game, any unit without shield will die to 5 arrows or less.
Shield is something you must have in order to survive in the game.

You know it should not be too hard to find some cheap shields for your low tier troops, but they still don't have shields.
I really think the developers should adjust the value of equipment and troops. The low tier troops worth less than a shield right now.

Nothing against it at all, with moderation. But giving a shield to literally everyone is a bit silly.

 

[five bucks]

I still don't understand how I can briefly run across battlements/arrow loops and get sniped from somewhere like ~50+ meters away

Because in a siege, you have forty plus guys firing at you. If they have a 1/40 chance to hit at 50m, then one of them is very likely from a probability perspective to hit you.

Plus, if arrow damage was fixed then it wouldn't even be an issue getting sniped by a stray arrow. Rather than taking 33 damage you might take 12.

Reducing archer accuracy will simply make it a matter of RNG more, so it will still feel bull**** when you get hit by a stray arrow and lose 1/3 of your HP, it will just happen somewhat less often.

Fire rate adjustment could be another alternative vs accuracy tuning, haven't really thought much on that angle.

Yeah, fire rate is slightly too fast to be realistic, as explored by Terco who has also made examples of slower animations.

But to me, based on all the historical evidence and gameplay problems I've seen, the Numero Uno problem is the disgusting damage done by arrows to armor. It makes no sense whatsoever that you can be wearing a full face covering helmet and still get consistently one-shot by a militia archer with a mediocre bow at close range.

 

[JunKeteer]

Because in a siege, you have forty plus guys firing at you. If they have a 1/40 chance to hit at 50m, then one of them is very likely from a probability perspective to hit you.

But the AI isn't 'blanket/bombarding' you in these scenarios, they are aiming them at you; and generally, it's only one or two individuals, not 40 archers aiming specifically at me. If that was the case, wouldn't be an argument since 1/40 hitting me, I can accept. I also shouldn't be able to consistently kill archer after archer through those arrow loops from 50+ meters away; doesn't really make sense.

Plus, if arrow damage was fixed then it wouldn't even be an issue getting sniped by a stray arrow. Rather than taking 33 damage you might take 12.

Reducing archer accuracy will simply make it a matter of RNG more, so it will still feel bull**** when you get hit by a stray arrow and lose 1/3 of your HP, it will just happen somewhat less often.

Which is essentially the same thing? It's the HTK, you prefer the solution being able to face-tank more arrows like a hedgehog (both you and T6 troops with similar armor), I prefer going with reducing the %chance to hit.

But to me, based on all the historical evidence and gameplay problems I've seen, the Numero Uno problem is the disgusting damage done by arrows to armor. It makes no sense whatsoever that you can be wearing a full face covering helmet and still get consistently one-shot by a militia archer with a mediocre bow at close range.

The one-shot might be a bit of an exaggeration but I get it, armor, if closely-tied with RL values, should be near impervious to most arrows. I'm not entirely against upping armor values, but they must up the cost of said units accordingly for some semblance of balancing. I don't want it to be easier than it is to create a stack of T6 units that just roll through against any opposition AI, especially since they all degrade to ****tier tier units over the course of a playthrough.

 

[bm01]

...

Yeah. I wouldn't mind them having some wooden planks stitched together.

That's just one issue on top of others though, not shown in this screenshot but being able to have the enemy cavalry chase you forever or make the enemy archers move back and forth without doing anything... The AI is way too exploitable and that hasn't really gotten any better in two and a half year (at least formations were improved, except the circle where you can just kill dozens of units by yourself before the battle even starts). The fact that archers tend to be very strong only exacerbates this.

 

[five bucks]

But the AI isn't 'blanket/bombarding' you in these scenarios, they are aiming them at you; and generally, it's only one or two individuals, not 40 archers aiming specifically at me. If that was the case, wouldn't be an argument since 1/40 hitting me, I can accept. I also shouldn't be able to consistently kill archer after archer through those arrow loops from 50+ meters away; doesn't really make sense.

I once found a better video demonstrating that hitting shots at 50 metres with a traditional bow is not so unusual for a well practiced archer but I can't find it so I'll post this one instead. This guy is shooting at 50m for the first time!

So the accuracy is not very unrealistic at all. What's extremely unrealistic is the damage to armour.

Which is essentially the same thing? It's the HTK, you prefer the solution being able to face-tank more arrows like a hedgehog (both you and T6 troops with similar armor), I prefer going with reducing the %chance to hit.

I'm proposing average HTK to chest to be 7-8 and head maybe 2/3, that's not really a hedgehog. Only if you're facing a militia archer with tippy top tier armour would we get into hedgehog territory.

The one-shot might be a bit of an exaggeration but I get it, armor, if closely-tied with RL values, should be near impervious to most arrows. I'm not entirely against upping armor values, but they must up the cost of said units accordingly for some semblance of balancing.

Well I'm not proposing armour be impervious, just 1.7X more resistant to arrows.

I don't want it to be easier than it is to create a stack of T6 units that just roll through against any opposition AI, especially since they all degrade to ****tier tier units over the course of a playthrough.

Making armour work properly against arrows will make T6 banner knights, cataphracts, Faris, druzhina more effective against archers but also make T6 Khan's Guards and Fian Champs less effective against all cavalry and infantry, so the net effect should not make the game easier to cheese overall, probably the opposite.

 

[Philozoraptor]

I once found a better video demonstrating that hitting shots at 50 metres with a traditional bow is not so unusual for a well practiced archer but I can't find it so I'll post this one instead. This guy is shooting at 50m for the first time!

So the accuracy is not very unrealistic at all. What's extremely unrealistic is the damage to armour.

I'm proposing average HTK to chest to be 7-8 and head maybe 2/3, that's not really a hedgehog. Only if you're facing a militia archer with tippy top tier armour would we get into hedgehog territory.

Well I'm not proposing armour be impervious, just 1.7X more resistant to arrows.

Making armour work properly against arrows will make T6 banner knights, cataphracts, Faris, druzhina more effective against archers but also make T6 Khan's Guards and Fian Champs less effective against all cavalry and infantry, so the net effect should not make the game easier to cheese overall, probably the opposite.

You know that guy got two silver medals from Olympics right? And also medieval bows were generally heavier draw weight 45-60 was considered hunting and militia level, 70-100 pounds was considered entry level war bow (70 for "horsebow" 100 for longbow). Majority of modern archers shoot 25-50 pound bows that have added weight in order to stabilize the shot and shooting window (cutout in the middle) to reduce negative impact of archers paradox. With trad bow you either have to use khatra (generall not used with longbows) or tilt the bow to adjust effects of archers paradox if you end up with wrong spine, all of this will have imact on your consistency. Additionally you will have hard time using olympic technique at 50+ pounds and at 70+ it will be literally impossible and which will force you to use war bow technique which requires even more practice (at least in my opinion as someone who practice with 60 pound+ trad bow). Here is much better example trad bow accuracy with draw weight that is much more relevant for BL.

Short range:

Medium Range:

Long range:

Short range but with horsebow: