The armor is effective enough. The real problem is the weapons of low tier troops.

[世界知名伟人]

I made a test 100 Darkhans VS 900 Battanian militia spearmen. the 900 militia got slaughtered by darkhans, thanks to their heavy armor. Voulgers, menavliatons, legionaries, and even line breakers, can't do better than this.
However, if you replace the battanian militia with any other troops, like recruits, No t5 infantry would win this. Many recruits are equiped with a hammer, hoe or sycthe. They perform well against heavy armored units. If not, their swords and axes,(with cut damage around 60) are also good enough to make its heavy enemy staggerred sometimes.
Battanian militia spearman is the only unit that I found equipped with weapons of which the damage is lower than 50 and not blunt damage.
The weapons of low tier troops are too powerful.

 

[anoddhermit]

I mean, what kind of ratio are the relative tiers supposed to have against eachother(assuming roughly same type)?

I think 9vs1, infantry vs. infantry, the 1 should be overwhelmed by sheer numbers unless they have a chokepoint and/or hold a defensive formation.

Recruit balance, I'd grant, is kinda wild right now. The scythe is far better than most other peasant weapons as it's effective against infantry and cav and does solid damage. The hoe is okay. The sledgehammer Battanians is get is probably the biggest outlier against infantry as it's far more effective than anything else. The little hammers are okay for mobbing things but pretty terrible in smaller numbers. I kind of miss the fairly effective hammers from Warband, like the ones that Rhodoks used. Sturgia's recruits get absolutely nothing and are basically fodder, Vlandia and Aserai aren't great as they don't get very effective two handers or polearms. So really only 3 out of 6 factions have strong recruits.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

1/2 Agree, the general effectiveness of all tiers in combat and the "UNLIMITED POWER" of many weapons due the bonus speed damage and other mechanics is problem. That doesn't mean armor shouldn't also have changes. Troops are too similar in performance so it's just always better to machine gun them down with ranged instead of trading off, even with more powerful infantry.

When I say it's a problem, I just mean it's annoying, not that you can't complete panting the map because of it.

 

[sh1ny4]

I made a test 100 Darkhans VS 900 Battanian militia spearmen. the 900 militia got slaughtered by darkhans, thanks to their heavy armor. Voulgers, menavliatons, legionaries, and even line breakers, can't do better than this.
However, if you replace the battanian militia with any other troops, like recruits, No t5 infantry would win this. Many recruits are equiped with a hammer, hoe or sycthe. They perform well against heavy armored units. If not, their swords and axes,(with cut damage around 60) are also good enough to make its heavy enemy staggerred sometimes.
Battanian militia spearman is the only unit that I found equipped with weapons of which the damage is lower than 50 and not blunt damage.
The weapons of low tier troops are too powerful.

you're making shock troops fight against some of the weakest units in the game, ofc they are doing well.
Yes sthe armour got better against cut and blunt damage. The issue still is very much present against pierce damage, which is the main complaint point of the other posts. Archers are way too OP and reducing their damages won't change much about that if none of it is absorbed by the armour

 

[five bucks]

I made a test 100 Darkhans VS 900 Battanian militia spearmen. the 900 militia got slaughtered by darkhans, thanks to their heavy armor. Voulgers, menavliatons, legionaries, and even line breakers, can't do better than this.
However, if you replace the battanian militia with any other troops, like recruits, No t5 infantry would win this. Many recruits are equiped with a hammer, hoe or sycthe. They perform well against heavy armored units. If not, their swords and axes,(with cut damage around 60) are also good enough to make its heavy enemy staggerred sometimes.
Battanian militia spearman is the only unit that I found equipped with weapons of which the damage is lower than 50 and not blunt damage.
The weapons of low tier troops are too powerful.

Your test entirely misses the main problem with armour which is ranged weapons.

Bows and crossbows do too much damage to armour.

 

[Galdr]

[Rant about how gamers use to adapt. How most gamers knew how to work around various challenges, using alternative tactics and strategies - even cheesing. Cheese is great in singleplayer games, use to be a thing you bragged about, "I found out how to cheese X by doing Y", in which case developers, if they so thought the cheese was too much or unintended from their POV, would change various things that would render said cheese useless - for example by buffing armor values etc.]

Spoiler: Cheese examples

Good example of how a gamer should play videogames

Summa sumarum:

Buff shields

 

[mujadaddy]

Archers are way too OP

omfg git gud

the main problem with armour which is ranged weapons

Again, no. Ranged is working as intended.

 

[five bucks]

Again, no. Ranged is working as intended.

Source? Half the mechanics in this game still don't look like they're working as intended. Even if they did intend for ranged to be like this, it's bad anyway and should be changed regardless.

 

[mujadaddy]

Half the mechanics in this game still don't look like they're working as intended.

Okay, ygot me there. I'll reply to your "proposed casualty rate" post for more info.

 

[Galdr]

TF do you know whats the intended, are you a dev?

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I made a test 100 Darkhans VS 900 Battanian militia spearmen. the 900 militia got slaughtered by darkhans, thanks to their heavy armor. Voulgers, menavliatons, legionaries, and even line breakers, can't do better than this.
However, if you replace the battanian militia with any other troops, like recruits, No t5 infantry would win this. Many recruits are equiped with a hammer, hoe or sycthe. They perform well against heavy armored units. If not, their swords and axes,(with cut damage around 60) are also good enough to make its heavy enemy staggerred sometimes.
Battanian militia spearman is the only unit that I found equipped with weapons of which the damage is lower than 50 and not blunt damage.
The weapons of low tier troops are too powerful.

This is a flawed analysis.

The main problem for an infantry-based party is that, when outnumbered, you individual soldiers gets flanked, and that is what gets them killed. What you get at the micro-level is various versions of "your soldier A is targeting soldier B, who is targeting your soldier C, while soldier D and E are targeting your soldier A".

It makes no material difference whether you change the armor level of higher level troops or you nerf the lower tier soldiers damage output; that is just a matter of numbers.

What would make a more fundamental difference would be that your soldier A has some agency to block incoming attacks from D and E.

The only thing your video really demonstrate is that, in the situation, the AI is unable to use its numerical superiority effectively.

 

[five bucks]

What you get at the micro-level is various versions of "your soldier A is targeting soldier B, who is targeting your soldier C, while soldier D and E are targeting your soldier A".

It makes no material difference whether you change the armor level of higher level troops or you nerf the lower tier soldiers damage output;

It did in Warband and that game's AI was pretty much the same as Bannerlord's, arguably worse even. Yet archers were balanced in Warband because armour worked.

Number changes absolutely do make a difference. If you gave one troop a bajillion HP, it wouldn't matter if he took ten minutes to target the correct enemy, he would still win.

Fix armour! Increase armour protection against pierce damage by 1.7x, then increase base damage of melee weapons by 1.7x to compensate. Then archers will be balanced.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

It did in Warband and that game's AI was pretty much the same as Bannerlord's, arguably worse even. Yet archers were balanced in Warband because armour worked.

Number changes absolutely do make a difference. If you gave one troop a bajillion HP, it wouldn't matter if he took ten minutes to target the correct enemy, he would still win.

Fix armour! Increase armour protection against pierce damage by 1.7x, then increase base damage of melee weapons by 1.7x to compensate. Then archers will be balanced.

I dont give a rats ass about archers. The larger the relative share of archer the enemy has the easier the fight is going to be. The AI is just terrible at generating synergy between the different arms.

 

[black_bulldog]

omfg git gud

Again, no. Ranged is working as intended.

So Taleworlds intended to put out a mediocre game with boring and repetitive mechanics? Yep working as intended.

 

[mujadaddy]

So Taleworlds intended to put out a mediocre game with boring and repetitive mechanics? Yep working as intended.

Bye, can I have your stuff?

 

[black_bulldog]

Bye, can I have your stuff?

4/10 trolling attempt but keep at it, with work I'm sure you'll get better some day.

 

[mujadaddy]

but

Bye. Cry more, noob.

 

[Orion]

What are you, 12? Cut it out.

 

[Rossa]

I dont give a rats ass about archers. The larger the relative share of archer the enemy has the easier the fight is going to be. The AI is just terrible at generating synergy between the different arms.

Couldn't agree more. In that regard the AI is dogsh*t, you can sprinkle it with as many goldflakes you want, it will still stink.