RozBritanicus
Sergeant
I don't know if making the actual fights longer is a good idea. Battles lasted for hours or even days but there wasn't constant fighting over that period of time. Two groups of soldiers in a melee might clash for only about 10 minutes before losing cohesion and drifting apart again. A soldier would spend more time shouting at his enemy and pumping himself up than fighting. You even see this with random street fistfights, people shout at each other a lot but the actual fist fighting happens in a couple of seconds.
The irony is that because bannerlord combat is so precise (i.e. every sword swing is calculated individually), larger scale stuff like flanking and cohesion which are quite abstract don't get simulated, and also in order to slow down the fights you have to slow down the entire combat mechanic. Bannerlord is a game where you can kill someone in about 4 seconds, now imagine how drastically different the game would be if this now took 30 seconds.
I don't think so I have taken part in a line battle anyone bashing through a line is down in seconds the only way is to keep formation. Even on a mass push it would be costly. Plus a group of soldiers losing cohesion may be if they were untrained . But professional medieval soldiers would have had intensive training. As I mentioned the battle of Agincourt lasted about 3 hours, The French charged on mass, the 3 hours did included the chancing down of troops. They is no way a battle would like 20mins. As for bannerlord I am no asking for a 3 hour battle. Just that the troops on either side don't break and run in the first 5 minutes. Formation cohesion could be based on the rank of the soldiers.