These need fix/work ASAP

Users who are viewing this thread

LDominating

Regular
I recently started Ironmode on Bannerlord difficulty and boy it's hard!
I have some complaints.

To begin with...Sturgia 1 year of development still a joke in terns of units.
Spearman T4 has 25 body armour?
1 Armour bonus from T3?
Are you kidding me?
But this isn't just the only troop like this,yea it's still Sturgia!
Varyag upgrades give 2 to 3 armour from T2 to T4,that's not even an upgrade!
This needs a fix/rework in this beta patch,it's embarassing to see the state of Sturgia in 1 year,goddammit!

Bannerlord difficulty/Realistic feels not so real
Especially when an army of Legionaries,dismounted Cataphracts loses to Aserai Archers and infantrymen,we also had menavliatons.
We also had higher numbers in the melee..
Please add a real REALISTIC difficulty,where the battlefield's fair,it's so obvious in Bannerlord difficulty you take a lot more DMG,even with 40+ body armour a slash in my body from a T1 deals well 20-30 depending on their weapon,with high inclination towards 30.

These things really annoys me,it feels like if I go a bit lower on difficulty from Bannerlord I enter Gaming Journalist difficulty.
But to remain on Bannerlord with weak troops from Sturgia or get cheated on by A.I DMG is not at all satisfying or pleasant.

On another note,hopefully with the whole battlefield rework and formation rework we can get rid of the Circle formation and troops pushing past us for some reason.
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
I fear Imperials would become way too OP though if armor started doing what it's supposed to do. Armor shouldn't be impenetrable to arrows but it feels like it doesn't do much at all to protect against them or anything else really.

There were many times in history when arrows went through plate armor. Ask the French about that.

To give Imperial legionaries and cataphracts near immunity to arrows would easily let them steamroll and it would be an unrealistic mechanic, but they shouldn't be mowed down by Aserai archers either as if they're not wearing some of the best armor in the game.

I'm all for armor being buffed by the way. A sword swing shouldn't be getting through good, expensive metal armor like it does. I feel like Warband did a much better job with that, where you had to switch to (gasp!) blunt weapons to deal reliable damage to heavily armored opponents.
 
Last edited:

Madeloc

Recruit
"I would love to see a difficulty that focussed on simply being realistic rather than fair or balanced'

Problem of many games nowadays, or maybe since forever.

Best example : cavalry seems to be essential for every faction, and we do notice well that it is a balance requirement. So stupid and mediocre.
So with battanians you need just 200 cavs to counter 100 from the empire...
WB was more balanced, or not - but that's not the question - their were factions that had not cavalry and were able to face those who had some.

It looks like a Blizzard game or a contemporary example : all things should be equal; life is not like that, and even like that, it remains possible to achieve something.
+ cavs are completely dumb in BL...

Provided the lore of the game, and talking about cavalry :
- Cataphracts are legitimate
- Vlandian Banner Knights are legitimate
- Khuzait horsery is legitimate (btw, they have infantry and archers for pure "balance" matter, it's obvious, not sure but in WB, I don't think Khergits have never had any footmen, except recruits)
- Aserai : sort of cavalry with throwing weapons : must come from Mars - I would have seen mounted troops on Camels, for the style and lore !! and I 200% agree with myself lol - well aerai cavalry : completely off topic - looks like nothing... By the way when I play Aserai, once I have enough of this useless, uggly-irrevelant cavalry, I put them to the rubish bin and replace them (with console lol) with Ghilman, which litteraly have another damn good look than these mounted throwers...
- Sturgia : don't know what to say - I would have prefered tier 6 infantry rather than the Druz, that are not bad at all... But I can't pretend to have a relevant answer about this matter...
- Battania : I don't see the purpose of cavalry except for commercial purpose subject and game balance : this faction has all his/her lords/ladies on foot - which is excellent from the lore of the game. I don't see the point of adding cavalry - except for casual player to say "oh that's balanced, they all have cavalry", well before noting the cav's behaviour...

Yep that's it.

Another note :
- I noticed Sturgian Archers have twice as much quivers of arrows than empire ones (so Sturgian tier 6 infantry + archers without cavalry, might be an idea to think about).
Bucellarii have two quivers. But they suck the hell compared to Khuzait mounted archers. But you can put them behind archers to have another row of rangers...
There might be an inconsistancy here, or something I didn't catch well, about amount of arrows for Palatine Guards :smile:
 

five bucks

Squire
I fear Imperials would become way too OP though if armor started doing what it's supposed to do.
The main thing people want buffed about armor is making it more resistant against ranged weapons. That should bring shock infantry, pike infantry, and shield infantry up to the same level of viability as ranged infantry and ranged cavalry. As every faction has melee infantry options who wear armor, it shouldn't be too massive of an effect on faction balance. And there's plenty of other variables that can be tweaked as necessary if it is a problem.
Armor shouldn't be impenetrable to arrows but it feels like it doesn't do much at all to protect against them or anything else really.
I also agree that mail/lamellar/C.O.P. armor shouldn't be impenetrable to arrows.
In my opinion it would be best for gameplay if archers took, on average, 10 shots to kill an enemy of the same tier (currently, it takes 3-5 shots, and T5 archers can defeat a force of T5 infantry more than twice their size).
There were many times in history when arrows went through plate armor. Ask the French about that.
Arrows could go through the gaps in a suit of plate, but they could not go through the plate itself, unless it was very poorly made.
Here's a video of an archer at optimal distance, with a powerful bow, trying to shoot through plate made with accurate medieval techniques.
I'm all for armor being buffed by the way. A sword swing shouldn't be getting through good, expensive metal armor like it does. I feel like Warband did a much better job with that, where you had to switch to (gasp!) blunt weapons to deal reliable damage to heavily armored opponents.
Sword damage is actually pretty ok, the real problem is ranged attacks, slashing polearms which do disgustingly good damage, and some blunt weapons go a bit too far as well.
 
Last edited:

Ted Striker

Veteran
The main thing people want buffed about armor is making it more resistant against ranged weapons. That should bring shock infantry, pike infantry, and shield infantry up to the same level of viability as ranged infantry and ranged cavalry. As every faction has melee infantry options who wear armor, it shouldn't be too massive of an effect on faction balance. And there's plenty of other variables that can be tweaked as necessary if it is a problem.

I also agree that mail/lamellar/C.O.P. armor shouldn't be impenetrable to arrows.
In my opinion it would be best for gameplay if archers took, on average, 10 shots to kill an enemy of the same tier (currently, it takes 3-5 shots, and T5 archers can defeat a force of T5 infantry more than twice their size).

Arrows could go through the gaps in a suit of plate, but they could not go through the plate itself, unless it was very poorly made.
Here's a video of an archer at optimal distance, with a powerful bow, trying to shoot through plate made with accurate medieval techniques.

Sword damage is actually pretty ok, the real problem is ranged attacks, slashing polearms which do disgustingly good damage, and some blunt weapons go a bit too far as well.
Historically plate armor wasn't always excellent quality or even excellent quality steel. There were a few contemporary accounts of "barbed" arrows going right through armor, to the shock and horror of the chronicler observing the battle. I don't have my sources with me to quote them directly but between cavalry losing their horses to massed arrows and those arrows going right through their armor it made good, well trained bowmen a serious threat, especially if they were positioned properly (Agincourt).

I have a big problem with slashing polearms in this game too, the biggest being how stupidly easy it is to use them on horseback. It's hard enough to use them on foot with how they're balanced in the hands. I'm really hoping the dell'arte della guerra mod addresses it because polearms and poleaxes should be fairly common in it, and once it's out I'm gonna play it almost exclusively I think. I do not want cavalry galloping around swinging poleaxes like they're all Superman.

The only two-handed weapon a cavalry unit used was a bow. The only melee weapon with any major reach a cavalry unit used was a lance, or sometimes a spear. Two handed swords? Long glaives? Two handed axes? That's all fantasy. They were often used against cavalry, not by cavalry.
 
The only two-handed weapon a cavalry unit used was a bow. The only melee weapon with any major reach a cavalry unit used was a lance, or sometimes a spear. Two handed swords? Long glaives? Two handed axes? That's all fantasy. They were often used against cavalry, not by cavalry.

Glaives were a cavalry weapon, but mainly in militaries influenced by China. The Naginata is a form of glaive, so is the Yari and the Guandao. I think glaives as a main cavalry weapon for certain factions is fine, they're just ridiculously OP. I don't mind this either though. Battles would suck without OP glaives.
 

Madeloc

Recruit
I fear Imperials would become way too OP though if armor started doing what it's supposed to do. Armor shouldn't be impenetrable to arrows but it feels like it doesn't do much at all to protect against them or anything else really.

There were many times in history when arrows went through plate armor. Ask the French about that.
About armor, in reality, indeed, I do not think any armor will protect anyone from a couched lance in the chest from a rider at full speed (at his full speed).
So we usually take heavy damage whatever armor we have. The difference is for "light" blows where armor can help a bit. I have since more tried to use myself not to be targeted at all (I try at least), that's the best way to go on living ! :smile:

About Azincourt (Agincourt in english), indeed, physically, I think if you calculate the forces and all the stuff, an arrow must be able to pierce through a certain thickness of metal, or a thickness of metal which is certain :wink:

Cavalry maybe too strong in BL. Because in reality it is weak to projectiles while going towards the ennemy. For me it should be used more strategically than it is intended in the game. Even maybe not present at the start of a battle and called as reinforcement or put in reserve.
But I don't think its purpose is to be a meat shield. + in the game you are forced to take in account those right and left flanks under penalty of undergo undue casualties - No one never saw 10 cavaliers roaming in a group of 100 and killing here and there soldiers... except maybe in very particular or desperate conditions, not in a pitched battle.

Well ok, see you :smile:
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
Glaives were a cavalry weapon, but mainly in militaries influenced by China. The Naginata is a form of glaive, so is the Yari and the Guandao. I think glaives as a main cavalry weapon for certain factions is fine, they're just ridiculously OP. I don't mind this either though. Battles would suck without OP glaives.
I don't use OP glaives and I'm having fun in battles. I use a spear or a lance, and equip a bow at times.

and I'd say a naginata is balanced a lot better for use on horseback. A glaive is basically a large, heavy axe at the end of a pole. Unwieldy even on foot. A naginata is more like a large katana at the end of a pole. Just as a rough comparison.
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
About armor, in reality, indeed, I do not think any armor will protect anyone from a couched lance in the chest from a rider at full speed (at his full speed).
So we usually take heavy damage whatever armor we have. The difference is for "light" blows where armor can help a bit. I have since more tried to use myself not to be targeted at all (I try at least), that's the best way to go on living ! :smile:

About Azincourt (Agincourt in english), indeed, physically, I think if you calculate the forces and all the stuff, an arrow must be able to pierce through a certain thickness of metal, or a thickness of metal which is certain :wink:

Cavalry maybe too strong in BL. Because in reality it is weak to projectiles while going towards the ennemy. For me it should be used more strategically than it is intended in the game. Even maybe not present at the start of a battle and called as reinforcement or put in reserve.
But I don't think its purpose is to be a meat shield. + in the game you are forced to take in account those right and left flanks under penalty of undergo undue casualties - No one never saw 10 cavaliers roaming in a group of 100 and killing here and there soldiers... except maybe in very particular or desperate conditions, not in a pitched battle.

Well ok, see you :smile:
In the time period that Bannerlord is supposed to take place cavalry were the dominant force on the battlefield. That only changed later in the middle ages.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
and I'd say a naginata is balanced a lot better for use on horseback. A glaive is basically a large, heavy axe at the end of a pole. Unwieldy even on foot. A naginata is more like a large katana at the end of a pole. Just as a rough comparison.
Not the glaives in Bannerlord. They are just blades on a stick, similar to a naginata.
 

five bucks

Squire
Historically plate armor wasn't always excellent quality or even excellent quality steel. There were a few contemporary accounts of "barbed" arrows going right through armor, to the shock and horror of the chronicler observing the battle. I don't have my sources with me to quote them directly but between cavalry losing their horses to massed arrows and those arrows going right through their armor it made good, well trained bowmen a serious threat, especially if they were positioned properly (Agincourt).
Yes, some armor plate was wrought iron which could be penetrated by arrows, but that was under the category of "poorly made". It didn't have to be excellent quality armor to be nigh-on invulnerable to arrows.
To save time I'll link to a post I just made on the subject of Agincourt.
I have a big problem with slashing polearms in this game too, the biggest being how stupidly easy it is to use them on horseback. It's hard enough to use them on foot with how they're balanced in the hands. I do not want cavalry galloping around swinging poleaxes like they're all Superman.
Agree with all of this. Though I would tend a bit towards making slashing polearms a bit less easy to use and stabbing polearms/onehanders a bit more easy (even giving them very mild phantom range if needed). Right now it feels like half the weapons on horseback are too easy and half are too awkward/inconsistent.
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
Yes, some armor plate was wrought iron which could be penetrated by arrows, but that was under the category of "poorly made". It didn't have to be excellent quality armor to be nigh-on invulnerable to arrows.
To save time I'll link to a post I just made on the subject of Agincourt.
Agincourt was a French failure on multiple levels but it did show how powerful English longbows were. It actually became known as the "English Method" to arrange your lines like the English did because it was so strong. Those bodkin heads could be devastating, and with proper positioning to protect those vulnerable archer flanks they could move into a position to fire at the sides/flanks of an opposing line.

They also employed stakes. It wasn't the first time in history that happened (I believe it first began in Turkey or the the Middle East. Again, I don't have my sources with me here at work) and it's thought that that tactic was written down in a manual and read by Henry or an advisor. Nobody knows for sure. But it did become a dominant battlefield tactic to arrange your lines that way, and at Agincourt with flights of arrows so thick in the air it could blot out the sun the horses were dispatched, the knights were bogged down in nasty muddy ground, they felt heavy impacts from arrows landing at almost 200 mph (sources vary on just how fast the arrows fell), some pierced through as the French knights got closer, and it all caused a panicked retreat into their waiting lines which caused mass confusion and an amazing victory for Henry that rung through Europed and caused a change in tactics everywhere.

Great stuff.

I don't ever expect to see that kind of battlefield simulation in a Mount and Blade game though.

Agincourt was a victory for the English mostly because the French were stupid and overconfident though, and greatly underestimated how devastating well-trained English longbowmen were.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
They also employed stakes. It wasn't the first time in history that happened (I believe it first began in Turkey or the the Middle East. Again, I don't have my sources with me here at work) and it's thought that that tactic was written down in a manual and read by Henry or an advisor. Nobody knows for sure.
They had that example from fighting the Scottish, at the same time they got the idea to use pikes (cut-down lances in some cases) which was the real medieval killer-app. The stakes were to force a frontal engagement, so they didn't have to weaken the whole force by covering multiple angles of approach with reserve or auxiliary formations. The tactics the English used at Agincourt weren't new to either side.
 
I dont want to beat the dead horse but there are multiple nice mods that overhaul the unit trees either by modifying existing units or completely reworking them. Since I am doing overhaul for some time myself I can tell that dev did not touch the unit tree much in a long time (for example they constanyly add new armors but none of them is worn by units, only the armors from the original EA release, thats a big red flag). Only thing I can think of is changing aserai skirmisher to basic archer unit and renaming some sturgian units from cool names to baseball sounding functions (looking at you line breaker).
 
I dont want to beat the dead horse but there are multiple nice mods that overhaul the unit trees either by modifying existing units or completely reworking them. Since I am doing overhaul for some time myself I can tell that dev did not touch the unit tree much in a long time (for example they constanyly add new armors but none of them is worn by units, only the armors from the original EA release, thats a big red flag). Only thing I can think of is changing aserai skirmisher to basic archer unit and renaming some sturgian units from cool names to baseball sounding functions (looking at you line breaker).
They might be waiting when they "rework" armor, to look at the unit trees, but we are past the point with TW to give them the benefit of the doubt, sight...
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
I dont want to beat the dead horse but there are multiple nice mods that overhaul the unit trees either by modifying existing units or completely reworking them. Since I am doing overhaul for some time myself I can tell that dev did not touch the unit tree much in a long time (for example they constanyly add new armors but none of them is worn by units, only the armors from the original EA release, thats a big red flag). Only thing I can think of is changing aserai skirmisher to basic archer unit and renaming some sturgian units from cool names to baseball sounding functions (looking at you line breaker).


There are some mods out there that do overhaul the troop tress quite a bit. Some even have patches for RBM compatibility now.

However, I think that once the game matures, it would be interesting to see your take (and the rest of the RBM team's take) on the Bannerlord troop trees.
 
Top Bottom