• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

[Suggesion] why the troops tier does not match their armors and weapons tier?

Users who are viewing this thread

limier

Recruit
So i decided to create 2 threads about the tier system of Bannerlord, one for the tier system apply to the player and here is the one for the troops.

right now the tier of the troops do not match the armor / weapon tier they wear. for example, here is a picture of a Sturgian archer Tier 4 and the same archer Tier 5. the first one wear an armor t5 but the second one wear an armor t4. the same non sens is apply to most of the troops.

pmV2x.png
AdPis.png


So, why the armors and weapons of the units does not match their own tier ?

edit : in the 1.4.1 version of the game, they've changed the sturgian archer armor and the sturgian shock troop armor for a higher tier one. Thank you guys for helping me on this topic, that's a good start. i'm leaving this thread open because the troops tier still doesn't match their tier armors / weapons. i will open a new thread about it and i'll post it to the feedback and suggestion section of the forum.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
So, why the armors and weapons of the units does not match their own tier ?

Why should they? Where's the rule that units can only wear the same tier of armor as their own tier? When it comes to armor, tier of the armor is completely irrelevant at the end. It's just abstract number. What matter is the armor value.

I don't know why devs decided to give Sturgian veteran bowman lees body armor then Sturgian archer, but lighter armor makes unit faster. That might have been the reason.
 

limier

Recruit
Why should they? Where's the rule that units can only wear the same tier of armor as their own tier? When it comes to armor, tier of the armor is completely irrelevant at the end. It's just abstract number. What matter is the armor value.

I don't know why devs decided to give Sturgian veteran bowman lees body armor then Sturgian archer, but lighter armor makes unit faster. That might have been the reason.

i also thought about this, but then why did they gave a t5 (less light) armor to the tier 4 archer and not an armor that respect this speed bonus? in my opinion, it's more for cosmetic reasons, they did it to give the Sturgian an identity and the result make the sturgian archer weaker. So why don't they standardize the system? so that all the units are on the a closer step considering armors and weapon bonus?

if all the units wear their cultural armors, they keep their identity and the gap between armor bonus and weapon from one culture unit to another one is decreased.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
and the result make the sturgian archer weaker

Sturgian archers are not weak.

if all the units wear their cultural armors, they keep their identity and the gap between armor bonus and weapon from one culture unit to another one is decreased.

I don't think that units from different cultures are supposed to have comparable armors. I don't think units from different cultures are supposed to be comparable in general. Every faction have slightly different focus.
 

limier

Recruit
Sturgian archers are not weak.

compare to other the others archers, they have less armor and less damage, so i wasn't the best student in math but less dmg + less armor = weaker.
And the speed bonus is not balancing this factor.

I don't think that units from different cultures are supposed to have comparable armors. I don't think units from different cultures are supposed to be comparable in general. Every faction have slightly different focus.

the different cultural armors are not comparable at all, even with the same tier. Some of them give more arm armor, other one give chest armor, and other one give leg armor. but if they respect the tier system that they half implemented themselves, the game would be more balanced and fun to play in my opinion.

but i respect your opinion. I think i'm just going to stop proposing anything now and just let the community decide what kind of game is going to be bannerlord.

i'll come back in one year, bye and have a nice day !
 
Sturgian archers are not weak.



I don't think that units from different cultures are supposed to have comparable armors. I don't think units from different cultures are supposed to be comparable in general. Every faction have slightly different focus.
Sturgian Archers are fairly weak when you pit them against other archers. There's little, if anything going for them. Maybe 140 bow as opposed to the usual 130?

At any rate though, they've got no place at all. Master Archers are the second best archers, Palantines are the most heavily armoured, Khuzaits are perfectly average and we don't have to speak of the Fian Champion. Minor faction archers elsewhere are really damn good.

Sturgian Archers have nothing to offer in comparison. If they were to be fixed though, I'd give him better armour and a shield. Make him feel more like a shield infantryman that happens to carry a bow rather than a dedicated archer. At least that would give them some sort of identity.

I don't know why devs decided to give Sturgian veteran bowman lees body armor then Sturgian archer, but lighter armor makes unit faster. That might have been the reason.
I don't know if it makes any more of a difference to speed, especially since they have higher athletics anyway.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Sturgian Archers have nothing to offer in comparison.

They have the same bow as Imperial archers and better stats then Imperials and Kuzaits, but Imperial archers have only one stack of ammo. Considering that primary reason you recruit archers is to shoot arrows and not fight in the melee, I consider Sturgian ones better then Imperial, even if they have inferior armor ...which btw. makes Sturgian archers faster and better able to kite enemies if need be.
 
They have the same bow as Imperial archers and better stats then Imperials and Kuzaits, but Imperial archers have only one stack of ammo. Considering that primary reason you recruit archers is to shoot arrows, I consider Sturgian ones better then Imperial, even if they have inferior armor ...which btw. makes Sturgian archers faster and better able to kite enemies if need be.
10 more bow skill than the usual and an extra quiver is not enough of an identity for me. The Khuzait Marksman will serve you better.

I'll admit though, using the Armor Does Something mod and unchecking the projectiles folder does make having an extra quiver a very big deal.

Still, I think Sturgian Archers would be better served with my idea. It would make them feel a lot more Sturgian while also giving them a niche compared to other archers.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
10 more bow skill than the usual and an extra quiver is not enough of an identity for me.

Considering that archers without arrows do no damage, it's pretty significant advantage. With just one stack of arrows, Imperial archers runs out of ammo in any mid to large battle. Especially against factions like Kuzaits with their large amounts of horse archers.

The Khuzait Marksman will serve you better.

And Batanian fian is gone serve you better then Khuzait marksman. If you accept logic "it's weak because there is something better" then all archers in the game are weak save for Batanian ones.

Sturgian archers might not be the best in the game but they are not weak. Any t5 archer in the game is effective enough.
 
Considering that archers without arrows do no damage, it's pretty significant advantage. With just one stack of arrows, Imperial archers runs out of ammo in any mid to large battle. Especially against factions like Kuzaits with their large amounts of horse archers.
The sheer amount of protection that Imperial archers have will more than make up for their lack of ammo. Once they run out, you can practically send them right in with the legionaries without any problems at all.

And Batanian fian is gone serve you better then Khuzait marksman. If you accept logic "it's weak because there is something better" then all archers in the game are weak save for Batanian ones.

Sturgian archers might not be the best in the game but they are not weak. Any t5 archer in the game is effective enough.
Battanian Fians are not as easy to obtain. Their exclusivity makes them a lot more of a rarity in comparison. So while they are strong, you aren't going to be able to field so many of them. And even then, they are relatively frail compared to the competition, so they're not the best at everything.

I reiterate, Sturgian archers have little going for them besides an extra quiver of weak arrows and 10 more skill points that might not even matter at all.

I hope TW decides to make them closer to the Nord archers of Warband- lacking at range, but compensate by being good in melee.
 

limier

Recruit
Considering that archers without arrows do no damage, it's pretty significant advantage. With just one stack of arrows, Imperial archers runs out of ammo in any mid to large battle. Especially against factions like Kuzaits with their large amounts of horse archers.

And Batanian fian is gone serve you better then Khuzait marksman. If you accept logic "it's weak because there is something better" then all archers in the game are weak save for Batanian ones.

Sturgian archers might not be the best in the game but they are not weak. Any t5 archer in the game is effective enough.

i would add that it is in the identity of battanian to have a tier 6 foot troop because all their lords are on foot and they are living in the woods. So, their tier 6 unit is a foot archer because they don't have any tier 6 cavalry like the druzinik for sturgian, the cataphract for imperial, the vanguard, etc. it's logical.

but let me try to put back this thread on the main topic. one detail i notice is that the symbol for the tier 4 troops is a pentagon, but the tier 3 is 3 chevrons. So, in my opinion they didn't respect the tier system for troops simply because they forgot the tier 4 during the dev process, maybe they were in a rush so they didn't had the time to finish properly his implementaion. the pentagon was intended for the tier 5 and they needed to make some change in the troop tier system not for "speed bonus" reasons but because they were in a rush and they made few mistakes.

So tier 5 troops are not tier five, most of them wear tier 6 armors, in fact they were intended to be tier 6. And vanguard, battanian fian, cataphract... are not tier 6 units but tier 7.

i really appreciate the tier system they've made but i wish to see it fully implemented because i think that was their main idea before they were out of time /money.

anyway thank you guys for taking the time to let a reply, can't wait to read your opinion about that.

ps : a pentagon is a plane figure with five straight sides and five angles (= tier 5)
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
The sheer amount of protection that Imperial archers have will more than make up for their lack of ammo. Once they run out, you can practically send them right in with the legionaries without any problems at all.

Or I can hire legionaries instead and they will do much better in melee. When I recruit archers, I want them to fire arrows, not to fight in melee.

Battanian Fians are not as easy to obtain.

Unless you want to field whole armies of them, no, they're not that difficult to get.
 

Sheepify

Regular
Sturgian Archers have nothing to offer in comparison. If they were to be fixed though, I'd give him better armour and a shield. Make him feel more like a shield infantryman that happens to carry a bow rather than a dedicated archer. At least that would give them some sort of identity.
I really like this idea. Reinforces Sturgian "foot infantry da best" factional ethos.

Unless you want to field whole armies of them, no, they're not that difficult to get.
Enough captured forest bandits + Disciplinarian and a Fian-exclusive army is very much possible. Just really, really expensive, but they make up for it with their effectiveness.

Since troops don't die of age, a longer playthrough will give you enough captured forest bandits to make it happen, as I can happily attest to :smile:

Aside from that, I've been getting 3-4 Battanian Youths from the special "powerful" village per week alone. Slower, but if you combine this with focus on doing quests to get as many notables as possible to "powerful" (and keep their power high), Battania can turn into one-stop-Fian-shopping center as well.
 
Top Bottom