Should recruits have shields?

Should some recruits have shields?


  • Total voters
    35

Users who are viewing this thread

five bucks

Knight at Arms
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).
I'm not using it as a 1:1 comparison because it obviously isn't, like I said I couldn't find the video which is a better comparison.

But this at least illustrates the point that if a very good archer can get consistent grouping at 50m, then it's not totally out of the question for multiple less skilled archers to be hitting lucky shots occasionally in Bannerlord, which is what happens now.
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:
Thanks.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
I'm not using it as a 1:1 comparison because it obviously isn't, like I said I couldn't find the video which is a better comparison.

But this at least illustrates the point that if a very good archer can get consistent grouping at 50m, then it's not totally out of the question for multiple less skilled archers to be hitting lucky shots occasionally in Bannerlord, which is what happens now.
If that vid shown is the 50m scale, then the ranges I'm encountering are more than that in game. Even if that Olympic trained archer can get a pretty fair grouping; I don't think he can shoot through arrow loops while also under life or death pressure.
I'm not arguing against militia archers, but the top tiers such as the Fians being able to snipe you (not even going to talk about the lack of gravity/arc they should need at those ranges; or the further advantage due to lack of friendly fire aspect).
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
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.
This is the sort of change that is pretty easy to implement and test. The net effect is to make the game easier, because you no longer have to aim for one or two specific types of troops and can instead (as the player) just concentrate on recruiting the heaviest armor units in general. It does make the game easier in that sense.

Especially since you can get some heavily armored troops at T4.
 
This is the sort of change that is pretty easy to implement and test. The net effect is to make the game easier, because you no longer have to aim for one or two specific types of troops and can instead (as the player) just concentrate on recruiting the heaviest armor units in general. It does make the game easier in that sense.

Especially since you can get some heavily armored troops at T4.
We need more armor protection against projectiles in conjunction with (higher tier) units actually attempting to block, especially in higher difficulties. Granted, the game still won't be hard for veteran players unless doing a challenge run of some sort (on that note, I recommend you to try creating the most broken units in My Little Warband with the best gear and 1023 proficiencies in all skills and try doing a tournament with RBM installed, 1v1 is nearly impossible but ****'s fun af).
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
This is the sort of change that is pretty easy to implement and test. The net effect is to make the game easier, because you no longer have to aim for one or two specific types of troops and can instead (as the player) just concentrate on recruiting the heaviest armor units in general. It does make the game easier in that sense.

Especially since you can get some heavily armored troops at T4.
The player focuses on recruiting the best, most "meta" gamebreakingly strong troops, while the AI doesn't. The AI will recruit at random, meaning their parties are often full of random trash units the player would not recruit.

By levelling out the playing field between ranged and melee troops, the AI becomes stronger because they no longer need to pick specific troops to be competitive.

So the game becomes less easy to cheese. (Or at the very least, no easier).

Also the aim is not to make "armoured units in general" in any way better than their ranged same tier counterparts, but to make them just as good.
 
Last edited:

Agroplode

Sergeant
The Recruits are okay but they cost too much. 1 Denar should be the pay and half the food ration and Peasants back to 0 Denar and half the food ration. Recruits have worse stats than Peasants but double the wages. At least buff their stats, if we gonna pay double wage. And I don't want them to have shields. They have different roles on the battlefield than tier 2 infantry.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
The player focuses on recruiting the best, most "meta" gamebreakingly strong troops, while the AI doesn't. The AI will recruit at random, meaning their parties are often full of random trash units the player would not recruit.

By levelling out the playing field between ranged and melee troops, the AI becomes stronger because they no longer need to pick specific troops to be competitive.

So the game becomes less easy to cheese. (Or at the very least, no easier).

Also the aim is not to make "armoured units in general" in any way better than their ranged same tier counterparts, but to make them just as good.
I mean, RBM already does this and it has the effect of making the game pretty easy once you get armored troops. Like you said, the AI is full of trash units but that's because they don't survive to reach higher-tiers, except in peacetime.

That's why it is recommended to use a troop modification alongside RBM.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
I mean, RBM already does this and it has the effect of making the game pretty easy once you get armored troops. Like you said, the AI is full of trash units but that's because they don't survive to reach higher-tiers, except in peacetime.

That's why it is recommended to use a troop modification alongside RBM.
RBM makes a hell of a lot of changes including combat AI, AI tactics, and a stamina system; plus making armor much stronger against both ranged *and* melee attacks than what I am proposing. It just about turns Bannerlord into a different game.

So it isn't representative of the proposed change, which is simply increasing protection of armor against arrows and bolts by 1.7x (as well as buffing spears).
 
I mean, RBM already does this and it has the effect of making the game pretty easy once you get armored troops. Like you said, the AI is full of trash units but that's because they don't survive to reach higher-tiers, except in peacetime.

That's why it is recommended to use a troop modification alongside RBM.
I don't think even RBM's troop mod even helps that. If anything I remember troops being even more capable because they saw fit to equipment them with top line stuff.

Countering that sort of difficulty requires heavily armoured troops to be genuinely difficult to get. As long as you can turn any recruit into an armoured footman, the problem remains.
 
Even that is just going to delay how fast you become a God, and for a game with as long a campaign as bannerlord, you are never going to balance it so that high tier troops are both universally good and also difficult enough to obtain that they don't just become steamrollers.
 
Yes, I think they should. Who would join a guy that says do you want to be in my army but bring your shovel because I am not giving you any equipment. A basic recruit should have a basic sword or spear or axe and a shield the armour may be just a cloth/padded tabard.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
you are never going to balance it so that high tier troops are both universally good and also difficult enough to obtain that they don't just become steamrollers.
The balance of most high tier units is decent.
It's only high-tier ranged units, like Khan's Guard or Fian Champs killing more than 20x their number, that are an issue. Fix ranged damage to armor, you fix them.
Who would join a guy that says do you want to be in my army but bring your shovel because I am not giving you any equipment.
A desperate farmer who is extremely poor.

Just look at looters. Nobody gives them any equipment when they join up. Yet they roam the world in packs using farming equipment to fight.

Recruits are basically just "Lawful Neutral looters". In the earlygame, the player is practically a bandit leader who just so happens to fight other bandits.
 
Last edited:
Even that is just going to delay how fast you become a God, and for a game with as long a campaign as bannerlord, you are never going to balance it so that high tier troops are both universally good and also difficult enough to obtain that they don't just become steamrollers.
Eh, I don't care to make pure elite armies utterly impossible to get. Just hard to the point where you really could be better off with cheap troops.
 

Philozoraptor

Sergeant
If that vid shown is the 50m scale, then the ranges I'm encountering are more than that in game. Even if that Olympic trained archer can get a pretty fair grouping; I don't think he can shoot through arrow loops while also under life or death pressure.
I'm not arguing against militia archers, but the top tiers such as the Fians being able to snipe you (not even going to talk about the lack of gravity/arc they should need at those ranges; or the further advantage due to lack of friendly fire aspect).
Gravity works fine in BL, its just the high arrow speed and lack of arc. In vanilla arrows fly with speed of compound bows not traditional bows, I guess to make the game easier.
 
Yeah I definitely agree. I think what I really meant was that upgrading shouldn't just be a no-brainer all the time.
Yeah I get that. Imo, I think the cause lies in party size limits. Without them, and with some very expensive upgrades I think it would lead to players actually considering lower tiers.

That, or do the De Ri Militari thing. So long as upgrading to the max is a thing, players will just gravitate towards that.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
Even that is just going to delay how fast you become a God, and for a game with as long a campaign as bannerlord, you are never going to balance it so that high tier troops are both universally good and also difficult enough to obtain that they don't just become steamrollers.
There are ways, as suggested throughout by others but TW doesn't seem to want to; or how it breaks the precious 'balance' they've been trying to instill. There's some counterbalance/sacrifice needed if changes are to be made, 'can't eat your cake and have it it too', with armor/top tier troops:
  • Time - ease/speed of replenishing said troops
  • Quality - power/strength/capability/effectiveness of troop
  • Cost
Pick two. You want those top-tiered, armored troops to reflect RL better and also have a lot of them - should cost a lot of money. Want a whole stack of them but don't like the cost mechanic in game, don't expect them to also steamroll others/AI. Want them to stay cheap but also a lot stronger, make them harder/longer to replenish.
 

geala

Squire
The problem of BL is it's crazy composition of visually highly armored units with armor being weak to a certain extent.To add to this armor has no disadvantages at all, except slowing down a bit on foot, no gaps, no deformable or breakable junctions, no slag, no heat problems, no sight problems. We also don't have special anti-armor weapons which were the result of better armor in the real world. Because BL allegedly takes place in an 11th c., with more or less 11th c. weapons but partly 14th c. armor.

Couple this with the opinion that isolated tests of armor made with modern materials give decisive data for historical armor. Some people think that armor, like mail, made people untouchable and plate was only used later because it was possible and cheap (like Dan Howard, incredible ...). Obviously a lot of battles where higly armored troops were beaten by less or unarmored opponents were historical lies.

The latest tests by Tod et al. showed that plate (made of mild steel) was quite effective against a 160 lbs warbow from 15 yards, and that modern mild steel simulates seemingly better quality wrought iron (most common armor material before the 15th c. AD) quite well. It also showed (again, as there are a lot of tests) the low defensive qualities of normal (not especially thick and heavy special area's) mail against arrows, as well as that less powerful bows achieved not that much less penetration than the 160 lbs bow.

Does this help for BL? No, because in BL we have no realistic armor and health system. We have a system where hp is slowly diminished, and till it is 0, the person is fully functional. So all the amount of damage by hits is arbitrariness. Cloth and mail should not offer great protection, proto-plate armor should be better, but not on real plate level. Wether that does mean 4 hits to death or 8 is a gameplay decision.

I would not mind a decrease of pierce damage effectiveness of projectiles (but not javelins) and an increase of pierce damage for spears and swords. Sadly I cannot mod that in, other than shields for recruits, removal of armor from the troops or removal of Fians from the game. So I have to use RBM with combat module enabled, let's see how long I can suffer through. :ohdear:
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
The latest tests by Tod et al. showed the low defensive qualities of normal (not especially thick and heavy special area's) mail against arrows, as well as that less powerful bows achieved not that much less penetration than the 160 lbs bow.
I know the Tod mail video you're talking about - it's worth mentioning that they used a 160lbs bow where the most powerful bow (Noble Long Bow) in Bannerlord would most likely be around 100lbs, and most non-longbows would be more in the 60lbs range.

As Tod says when they are comparing the types of bow: "We are using the 160lbs bow because we want to answer the question, do arrows go through armor, and you can't do that with a 100lbs bow, you can't answer that question."

For a little context on bow poundage, here's a 36lbs bow against a real human:

Another Tod mail video where arrows only reach to 2.5cm through mail over gambeson:
Whether that does mean 4 hits to death or 8 is a gameplay decision.

I would not mind a decrease of pierce damage effectiveness of projectiles (but not javelins) and an increase of pierce damage for spears and swords. Sadly I cannot mod that in, other than shields for recruits, removal of armor from the troops or removal of Fians from the game. So I have to use RBM with combat module enabled, let's see how long I can suffer through. :ohdear:
Yes, this stuff should be in vanilla. Especially for console users who can't mod.
 
Last edited:

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
There are ways, as suggested throughout by others but TW doesn't seem to want to; or how it breaks the precious 'balance' they've been trying to instill. There's some counterbalance/sacrifice needed if changes are to be made, 'can't eat your cake and have it it too', with armor/top tier troops:
  • Time - ease/speed of replenishing said troops
  • Quality - power/strength/capability/effectiveness of troop
  • Cost
Pick two. You want those top-tiered, armored troops to reflect RL better and also have a lot of them - should cost a lot of money. Want a whole stack of them but don't like the cost mechanic in game, don't expect them to also steamroll others/AI. Want them to stay cheap but also a lot stronger, make them harder/longer to replenish.
No, not really.

Time/replacement. The problem is that it will not affect classes uniformly. In practice, your typical army would, in all likelihood, end up being high quality archers and low quality infantry, until the day you can scrap infantry altogether.

Quality. Playes want quality to matter. You would have, and there has been, 10 times (random number) more complains that quality is not important enough.

Cost. Vitually impossible to balance around. At worst you risk ending up in a MMO stile situation where you would need to grind for hours to gather enough resources. Besides, complains about the economic balance is already rampant with plenty of post of the "the game impossible, you need to smith to make money, game sucks" nature around. When cost reasonably function, as a choice variable, it is practically always in the context of a tradeoff between numbers vs. quality. But that is not practical in Bannerlord; you already have a hard limit on partsize and a soft limit on speed.
 
Top Bottom