Vanilla Armor vs RBM Armor

Users who are viewing this thread

just going off skills in the menu

so it's different for units? only the player gets weak effects?
Yes, damage of weapons is like 50-80% skill dependant in RBM (but its not shown in the menu unfortunatelly). Esentially most weapons have like 5-30 base damage (depending on quality) shown as stats omn weapons, piercing damage on melee weapons is shown much lower for AI reasons. Then there is skill based damage, which consists of base damage and skill level damage (this is not shown in the UI). Weapons like swords scale with skill more than lets say maces etc. Also you swing speed, reload speed, couched lance damage, etc will scale much more with your skill than in vanilla
 
Last edited:
This topic isn't about just the player, it's about the universal application of armor, which also includes the player's troops, allied troops, and opposing forces' troops.

Simply saying "Oh, well you can just turn the player damage down to 50%. See? Problem solved!" doesn't actually address the core issue and honestly comes off as a flippant Taleworlds-esque response to a problem the community has been ticked off about since 2020.
yes i know that's the main thing and i am currently experimenting on how to balance this myself just by using in game stats. (it's mainly a way to create an "impossible" difficulty, it mainly relies on giving everyone the medicine perk and giving the AI all the good perks that increase armor, health and level up units) it feels way better and challenging playing that way.
I do know what you guys talk about and i get it, but just realize that changing the entire way combat works can't be done in a snap, takes time, work, failures and testings to get there.
But Honestly speaking i never felt the need to want more armor. sure you always want more but with smart decision making you can fight without taking hits in almost any situations.
Oftentimes i take a big shot cause i try to be reckless and get 80% of my health taken away by a crossbowman because i charged him at full speed. the way i see it, in that situation, i made a mistake and i got punished. then adapt my playstyle to try and stay alive by killing as many as i can until the end, managing troops in the meantime and so on.

The thing guys is that i don't see this as a problem, if it wasn't obvious, but a preference.
I like units and me to be more squishy, getting punished for mistakes and take advantage of the ones made by the AI.
For you guys making anything last longer is more enjoyably, that's good, there happens to be a mod for you guys to download and get what you looking for. Why pushing so hard, often insulting, directly or not, the work of people who work on the game and test stuff any day just because you have a preference?
Also i'd like to clarify, changing the entire way the combat works would require a ton of time and we all know players don't want to wait, not at this stage.
I don't want to sound like a guy who says you shouldn't criticize the game, you should if you feel like you do. but be realistic with your demands, especially when solutions are out and available
Fixing armour will fix all these things.
don't know about that. The main reasons i believe the AI and troops in vanilla Bannerlord fail to deliver interesting and meaningful fights are a few:

1) The player can very easily rack up the best units there are out there as long as he can pay for them. now with the fairly recent stewardship perks it's easier then ever to rebuild an army after you lost one.

2) Ai enemies don't have very good tactics, in terms of AI behavior (only way to make them scary is using mods or buffing their in game stats) the typical cavalry suicidal charge, the archers skirmishing before infantry, the repositioning at the wrong times, the skirmishing of horse archers into infantry lines. and the almighty CIRCLE

3)AIs don't bring very good troops: i am not talking about bringing a Vlandian Pikeman over a Voulgier but about Tier, an average army brings mostly T3 and lower troops, leaving very few spots for T4, T5 & T6.

4) The AI currently brings too much cavalry: the reason this is bad is because cavalry is just easy to fight, it's pretty sad but fixing cavalry behavior already has a more relevant impact than fixing armor just because of the sheer numbers.

5) After being defeated enemies start to "recruit spam": Thousands of new and fresh troops are brought to the frontlines but they are all recruits or low levels (troops recruitment can only go up to T4) decreasing the difficulty

6) The AI has no good captains: as the player you can use and abuse this feature to turn any troop into what you want, works better for some than others but generally you build yourself as the infantry guy, 2 archer captains, cavalry and HA in case you use a lot of them.

7) The AI are bad party leaders. i mean in terms of perks. the player can very easily get all the best perks his build allows but the AI selects them randomly (not sure if only new perks are selected randomly or any time a campaign is started) but the point is that they can select some laughably bad ones making them worse.

8 ) The AI often uses poor formations commands: i have always told people that shield wall and hold fire is the way to go for infantry but the AI doesn't seem to think the same. a similar situation happens for the archers, they'll shoot whatever is in range, no matter the distance.

So i think there are a few, already fixable points ( 3-4-5?-6-7-8 ) that can make fights better and require minimal coding. before rewriting everything that should be attempted at least in testings.
It's very easy to jump to a conclusion and thinking that's the root of all evil. don't get me wrong it plays a part but there are plenty more things that do too and are underrated
 
yes i know that's the main thing and i am currently experimenting on how to balance this myself just by using in game stats. (it's mainly a way to create an "impossible" difficulty, it mainly relies on giving everyone the medicine perk and giving the AI all the good perks that increase armor, health and level up units) it feels way better and challenging playing that way.
I do know what you guys talk about and i get it, but just realize that changing the entire way combat works can't be done in a snap, takes time, work, failures and testings to get there.
Most of us aren't asking to change the AI, animations, etc...(though I wish those are improved too) because we know they won't happen judging by the pace and feedback from the devs. Just asking to change the formula/stats on damage and armor.
But Honestly speaking i never felt the need to want more armor. sure you always want more but with smart decision making you can fight without taking hits in almost any situations.
Oftentimes i take a big shot cause i try to be reckless and get 80% of my health taken away by a crossbowman because i charged him at full speed. the way i see it, in that situation, i made a mistake and i got punished. then adapt my playstyle to try and stay alive by killing as many as i can until the end, managing troops in the meantime and so on.

The thing guys is that i don't see this as a problem, if it wasn't obvious, but a preference.
I like units and me to be more squishy, getting punished for mistakes and take advantage of the ones made by the AI.
Sure, we all want challenges, which is why MOST games go the option of Casual>Normal>Hard>Impossible for difficulty scaling. I think for most of us the 'default' is the Bannerlord (max) settings which at the moment are lacking and don't make sense.
If armor was intended to be this squishy with damage scaling as it is; why the hell is armor 200K then? You might as well just remove the armor values, go the aesthetic route, and devalue the equipment altogether. But no, because of all the other underlying/economic systems tied to it, it would break the game (and smithing).
For you guys making anything last longer is more enjoyably, that's good, there happens to be a mod for you guys to download and get what you looking for. Why pushing so hard, often insulting, directly or not, the work of people who work on the game and test stuff any day just because you have a preference?
This is one of those issues that should not be relegated to mods; the extreme of RBM may be considered a mod for those wanting challenges but the base has to be fixed too. This was an issue since the very beginning, and most of us have been really patient with the pace and 'community feedback' we've been receiving on the changes/issues but I feel it's getting to a critical point pretty soon with the recent delays.
Also i'd like to clarify, changing the entire way the combat works would require a ton of time and we all know players don't want to wait, not at this stage.
I don't want to sound like a guy who says you shouldn't criticize the game, you should if you feel like you do. but be realistic with your demands, especially when solutions are out and available

don't know about that.
We're asking to tweak the armor/damage calcs only which is, in essence, just fudging with some numbers.
The main reasons i believe the AI and troops in vanilla Bannerlord fail to deliver interesting and meaningful fights are a few:

1) The player can very easily rack up the best units there are out there as long as he can pay for them. now with the fairly recent stewardship perks it's easier then ever to rebuild an army after you lost one.

2) Ai enemies don't have very good tactics, in terms of AI behavior (only way to make them scary is using mods or buffing their in game stats) the typical cavalry suicidal charge, the archers skirmishing before infantry, the repositioning at the wrong times, the skirmishing of horse archers into infantry lines. and the almighty CIRCLE

3)AIs don't bring very good troops: i am not talking about bringing a Vlandian Pikeman over a Voulgier but about Tier, an average army brings mostly T3 and lower troops, leaving very few spots for T4, T5 & T6.

4) The AI currently brings too much cavalry: the reason this is bad is because cavalry is just easy to fight, it's pretty sad but fixing cavalry behavior already has a more relevant impact than fixing armor just because of the sheer numbers.

5) After being defeated enemies start to "recruit spam": Thousands of new and fresh troops are brought to the frontlines but they are all recruits or low levels (troops recruitment can only go up to T4) decreasing the difficulty

6) The AI has no good captains: as the player you can use and abuse this feature to turn any troop into what you want, works better for some than others but generally you build yourself as the infantry guy, 2 archer captains, cavalry and HA in case you use a lot of them.

7) The AI are bad party leaders. i mean in terms of perks. the player can very easily get all the best perks his build allows but the AI selects them randomly (not sure if only new perks are selected randomly or any time a campaign is started) but the point is that they can select some laughably bad ones making them worse.

8 ) The AI often uses poor formations commands: i have always told people that shield wall and hold fire is the way to go for infantry but the AI doesn't seem to think the same. a similar situation happens for the archers, they'll shoot whatever is in range, no matter the distance.

So i think there are a few, already fixable points ( 3-4-5?-6-7-8 ) that can make fights better and require minimal coding. before rewriting everything that should be attempted at least in testings.
It's very easy to jump to a conclusion and thinking that's the root of all evil. don't get me wrong it plays a part but there are plenty more things that do too and are underrated
You're asking us to be realistic with the demands whilst suggesting a multitude of AI behavioral suggestions? I'm not a developer but changing AI/NPC behavior is substantially more time consuming than, say, changing blunt 'penetration' from 100% value to 50%. Or damage x speed modifier from a x3 scaling to just a x2 scaling.
 
You're asking us to be realistic with the demands whilst suggesting a multitude of AI behavioral suggestions?
did you read the final statement? just making sure. most of the points listed there are stuff that you can change yourself in not more than 1 hour.
the AI behavior part is advance an therefore just a suggestion ( apart form the cavalry one cause they are working on it currently ), i know it won't happen any time soon too, not delusional.
Changing the % of higher tier troops the AI gets is easily done by giving them the good perks, the cavalry % of armies is currently dependent on the increased spawn for Noble unites (for most factions) can easily be tweaked at any point and we know that's something the devs can do at any stage if they want
just fudging with some numbers.
only thing i'd change is arrows shouldn't be piercing, they should be projectiles, same as javs. currently they use the same calculation as lances which is pretty dumb.
The rest it's more complicated than fudging with numbers, and requires hundreds of hours of testing. i have done a few testings here and there and let me tell you that his one would take the cake in terms of time spent to balance each weapon and every unit out. Look at the RBM guys for example, still going after months.
why the hell is armor 200K then?
armor is 60% less expensive from a good chunk of patches now. before i could understand the feeling but not as much now. just under 600K it's the best body armor at 57. 20K for shoulders for 20 body. that adds up to 77 body armor you add an extra 10% from the 250 athletics perk and you get 85 body while on foot. now i don't have a 20/20 vision but with that value i remember walking among militia in sieges and not budging over low tier weapons and arrows, outside of maces, always be aware of maces.
On the price once again. you make at least 10K a day once you have a few towns, that and loot you'll drawn in money before you know it. Even before having towns, shops can make 2,5K by themselves and generally cover the army expenses, a good merc contract of around 250 denars for influence + immortal charm will grant you 4K a day. that means with an army that costs around 2K you make 4,5K each day just by existing. then add some loot here and there and the extra influence for winning battles and you can easily make close to 10K each day. if we round down to 7,5K each day for "expenses" you can buy that armor in 1 year.

And yes it's worth it
'penetration' from 100% value to 50%
there are 2 calculations for damage delivered. blunt weapons bypass one but not the other. but it's not a full 100%. just think about tournaments very early when you get no skills. the damage you deliver to a tier 2 imperial archer is not the same you deliver to a tier 6 Legionary. and all tournaments weapons deliver blunt damage
 
Lyon dude, try fighting with only t2 units in native for awhile and you'll see what we mean

you should see very quickly and clearly tier has no impact at all
difficulty, tactics, or loosing units is meaningless. it's bland and boring once you notice it

if you don't see it your either in denial or being contrarian

Yes, damage of weapons is like 50-80% skill dependant in RBM (but its not shown in the menu unfortunatelly). Esentially most weapons have like 5-30 base damage (depending on quality) shown as stats omn weapons, piercing damage on melee weapons is shown much lower for AI reasons. Then there is skill based damage, which consists of base damage and skill level damage (this is not shown in the UI). Weapons like swords scale with skill more than lets say maces etc. Also you swing speed, reload speed, couched lance damage, etc will scale much more with your skill than in vanilla
ahh, bad ui...
so the ai uses a different skill system? or did you guys balance around the minor increase in damage?
 
Lyon dude, try fighting with only t2 units in native for awhile and you'll see what we mean
i should. 4K hours seems to not have done it
You don't play as inf in vanilla you say? Hmm, I wonder why...
mobility is way too important to control troops, only real reason. an infantry build is not as effective as an horse archer but can be way more devastating than a lancer or archer.

the only reason i play mainly as a lancer is for mobility sake but in sieges i tend to be aggressive, racking up lots of kills.
 
i should. 4K hours seems to not have done it
im serious, there's beyond a doubt no point to upgrade after seeing it
50-T2 units = 50-T5 units
the only decisive factor is how useless the guys using spears are

tiers are soo pointless that youtubers joke play looter-only runs and it works
 
tiers are soo pointless that youtubers joke play looter-only runs and it works
do you play this game or are you just here to complain about it?

I do understand the guys who say armor is far too weak, there is a point for it even if i don't like the way their present their "facts" ( using the best bowman in the game from 3 meters to prove that it does indeed takes 2 shots to the nogging to get knocked out in a 52 head armor helmet, you should feel dizzy after just 1 from such a guy at that distance )

But stating that tier 2 ( at Bannerlord difficulty ) is enough to win any fight is maddness.
The reason this Youtubers make it work is thanks to , more than likely, easier difficulty. if not, provide evidence. i'd like to see it
 
But stating that tier 2 ( at Bannerlord difficulty ) is enough to win any fight is maddness.
yup, this is what we have issue with. it's bland and boring


( using the best bowman in the game from 3 meters to prove that it does indeed takes 2 shots to the nogging to get knocked out in a 52 head armor helmet, you should feel dizzy after just 1 from such a guy at that distance )
bowmen use "pierce" so they ignore armor regardless of either units quality
it's not the armour or bow, its the fact that ranged are all 1-3-hit-ko


provide evidence. i'd like to see it




better yet, try yourself.
you'll see beyond shield, bow, horse, or spear everything else is meaningless
 
I do know what you guys talk about and i get it, but just realize that changing the entire way combat works can't be done in a snap, takes time, work, failures and testings to get there.
Also i'd like to clarify, changing the entire way the combat works would require a ton of time and we all know players don't want to wait, not at this stage.
I don't want to sound like a guy who says you shouldn't criticize the game, you should if you feel like you do. but be realistic with your demands, especially when solutions are out and available
We're asking for armour to give roughly twice the amount of protection from arrows and a bit more protection from blunt/pierce damage. That's as simple as changing a handful of numbers. It's not "changing the entire way the combat works".

Unpaid, amateur modders managed to figure it out within a month of release. Taleworlds has had 2 years of Early Access, 8 years of prior development, and already has the working armour code from Warband to look at, as well as the widely praised work of modders which they are legally allowed to copy+paste into the game if they want. It really isn't rocket science.
But Honestly speaking i never felt the need to want more armor. sure you always want more but with smart decision making you can fight without taking hits in almost any situations.
Oftentimes i take a big shot cause i try to be reckless and get 80% of my health taken away by a crossbowman because i charged him at full speed. the way i see it, in that situation, i made a mistake and i got punished.
It's not a mistake by you, especially not if you were on foot, which is supposed to be a viable playstyle. What are you meant to do on foot, just ignore him and never try to attack while he keeps shooting at you? Try and dodge (not reliable because if he misses where you were, you get hit anyway)?

The entire point of your armour is so that you can charge that crossbowman and only lose like 10% of your health instead of 80%. Just like you could in real life. It was why people wore armour at all.
I like units and me to be more squishy, getting punished for mistakes and take advantage of the ones made by the AI.
For you guys making anything last longer is more enjoyably, that's good, there happens to be a mod for you guys to download and get what you looking for. Why pushing so hard, often insulting, directly or not, the work of people who work on the game and test stuff any day just because you have a preference?
As was already said, your preference is massively in the minority, so the 0.5% of players are the ones who should be installing mods for their preference, not the 99%.

Also, because (as has already been said too), there are an enormous amount of things that weak armour affects negatively, not just player survivability.
don't know about that.
You are partially correct in that it may only partially fix some of the issues I listed.

Making armour more protective will definitely fix
* The player dying too easily to random bull**** so that they can't participate in frontline fights for long
* Armour not being worth its ridiculous cost
* High tier enemies being too easy to kill
* Headshot and multiple other combat perks not being worth it when you can just one shot armoured people without them

It might only partially fix
* The massive imbalance of troop types (this also needs melee cavalry aiming fixes to be complete)
* High tier enemies not feeling threatening (as you correctly point out, they also need better AI, but better armour will still help enormously).
* High tier units not being effective enough (they also need better AI, but better armour will still help enormously).
* Battles being too short (better armour will help enormously, but bad AI is also a part of the problem)

But ultimately, fixing armour is something that HAS to happen to begin fixing every problem I mentioned.
So i think there are a few, already fixable points ( 3-4-5?-6-7-8 ) that can make fights better and require minimal coding. before rewriting everything that should be attempted at least in testings.
Sure those AI/recruitment fixes would improve things too, but entirely regardless of what happens with those, armour must be fixed. You could have the best melee cavalry AI in the world and it wouldn't change that a Battanian Fian Champion can kill two guys from a safe distance before a Banner Knight can even charge in and kill one. That's a fact.
It's very easy to jump to a conclusion and thinking that's the root of all evil. don't get me wrong it plays a part but there are plenty more things that do too and are underrated
We aren't focusing this hard on armour for no reason or because we irrationally think it's the "root of all evil", but because we can all see that it's the biggest problem here with so many obvious flow-on effects.
 
did you read the final statement? just making sure. most of the points listed there are stuff that you can change yourself in not more than 1 hour.
the AI behavior part is advance an therefore just a suggestion ( apart form the cavalry one cause they are working on it currently ), i know it won't happen any time soon too, not delusional.
Changing the % of higher tier troops the AI gets is easily done by giving them the good perks, the cavalry % of armies is currently dependent on the increased spawn for Noble unites (for most factions) can easily be tweaked at any point and we know that's something the devs can do at any stage if they want
I'm not going to go into this further as I don't have experience with modding/game development but just as 'easy' as it is changing % ratio of NPC parties; sure it's even more simplistic to adjust armor values from 50 to 100 or damage from x1.5 speed factor to a x1.25 factor. Assuming TW has some breakdown of all the values that tie together (even a simple excel sheet most people can run) to just 'play' with the numbers to get a comfortable result.
only thing i'd change is arrows shouldn't be piercing, they should be projectiles, same as javs. currently they use the same calculation as lances which is pretty dumb.
The rest it's more complicated than fudging with numbers, and requires hundreds of hours of testing. i have done a few testings here and there and let me tell you that his one would take the cake in terms of time spent to balance each weapon and every unit out. Look at the RBM guys for example, still going after months.
Yes, it won't be perfect, but this open early access/Beta/pre-Beta patch stage is literally the best time to make the changes so we can test on a grander scale and through multiple perspectives/fresh eyes besides however many internal testers TW.
armor is 60% less expensive from a good chunk of patches now. before i could understand the feeling but not as much now. just under 600K it's the best body armor at 57. 20K for shoulders for 20 body. that adds up to 77 body armor you add an extra 10% from the 250 athletics perk and you get 85 body while on foot. now i don't have a 20/20 vision but with that value i remember walking among militia in sieges and not budging over low tier weapons and arrows, outside of maces, always be aware of maces.
That's another issue that needs to be addressed, the fact you need 250 ATH perk to get that bonus, + whatever other min/max perks throughout in order to squeeze that minutia of added HP - to only be able to help stave off maybe 1 or 1.5 additional hits is ridiculous. Then you have to min/max armor (which limits player choice/'freedom' for styles) to bring that to maybe a 2/2.5 hit retention.
I don't know about you but, even with max armor/HP, militia still pack a heavy punch and is really not as discernable between them and a T5 as it was in Warband.
On the price once again. you make at least 10K a day once you have a few towns, that and loot you'll drawn in money before you know it. Even before having towns, shops can make 2,5K by themselves and generally cover the army expenses, a good merc contract of around 250 denars for influence + immortal charm will grant you 4K a day. that means with an army that costs around 2K you make 4,5K each day just by existing. then add some loot here and there and the extra influence for winning battles and you can easily make close to 10K each day. if we round down to 7,5K each day for "expenses" you can buy that armor in 1 year.

And yes it's worth it
Again, this is not a point on the difficulty acquiring money which is very easy to do in this game - the formulas they set in the game result in the armor being the cost it is and is solely a gold sink. But if armor being the most expensive thing to purchase (besides buying lords), at least tie more value to it as there's literally nothing else to do with your accumulated wealth.
there are 2 calculations for damage delivered. blunt weapons bypass one but not the other. but it's not a full 100%. just think about tournaments very early when you get no skills. the damage you deliver to a tier 2 imperial archer is not the same you deliver to a tier 6 Legionary. and all tournaments weapons deliver blunt damage
I don't know the nuance of all the damage calcs in place but using tournaments as example (as every NPC has different armor), it takes me 2 hits to kill a trained infantry and 3 hits to kill a legionary; this is at the very early stages where my 'stats' are even lesser than a trained infantry. That just doesn't make sense.
 
The entire point of your armour is so that you can charge that crossbowman and only lose like 10% of your health instead of 80%. Just like you could in real life. It was why people wore armour at all.
The only minor thing to this, Xbows should be deadly against armored foes as I believe historically they even wanted to ban them on the fact a simple farmer could essentially fell a plated knight due to it's capabilities (at short ranges only though) vs archers which take years of training (ie longbowman).

We aren't focusing this hard on armour for no reason or because we irrationally think it's the "root of all evil", but because we can all see that it's the biggest problem here with so many obvious flow-on effects.
Yes, there's other elements tied; if they keep armor as it is, at least allow us to take over an NPC in a battle when our character falls - spectating in SP is not a good gameplay decisions especially in a game heavily focused on the combat/battles.
If armor value makes higher tiers more impactful, I don't think any of us mind if upgrading/maintenance cost for them increases accordingly so they are more 'rare' in battles.

Just like how early on the snowballing was the big issue, right now, this seems to be the other major concern that needs to be addressed.
 
better yet, try yourself.
so the first video is very much a meme and required 1K looter to win the siege...
The second was a siege against militia
the third was a loss against low tier units.

How is that any proof that low tiers are enough to win any battle? When the first one is done in such a rapid pace not even my fastes speedrun, that took 15 years could achieve ( clear use of the cheat mode to give looters and possible ALT + CTRL + F4 to kill all entities in any given fight)

The second had a bad army, but was fighting small amounts of militia which are poorly geared tier 2 units. very common game scenario but not preferable to a better army.

The third one was a defeat, that's all i need to say. a defeat while having the easier mode active... don't want to disrespect Uran, loved his content on the Tube but doesn't that alone disprove anything you tried to say?

@JunKeteer @five bucks guys i understand your points but an archer needs to be evaluated at 150m not 3 ( i hope you understand that that's confirmation bias as a proof )
but anyway, i don't think you guys are wrong but also an Un-atheltic character is going to be more fickle in combat, an old or weak commander can't fight on the same level of the younger or stronger ones, that's simply natural. better armor perks in smithing and athletics can change that for the MC, but obviously not for the troops ( outside of capatins perks or party leading ones that target specific tiers of units or even better: culture, meaning that there might be a bonkers perk that actually makes playing with 1 faction only more rewarding ).

Armor should be better? more than likely, especially against headshots and cut weapons. but also a warrior shouldn't be reckless and expect, without protection ( shield or men around him ), to charge a group of archers with minimal consequences. a good one that can keep his cool can land the shot in the weakest part of the helmet and kill, or wound you right there.
think about Agincourt, it's speculated that the English bowman cut down the French heavy cavalry by aiming at their helmets' weak points from dozens of meters, mainly the breathing holes on the side of the cheeks. than there are splinters and all that BS that causes unexpected damage. plus on the realistic side an horse falling over means bad things for the guy directly behind it. i know very well Agincourt was a crapshow but it happened, and one thing is for certain the French heavy cavalry took a big L that day.

I understand the need and want to have more protection but we have no idea if TW isn't testing the system on their own while holding all info to not disappoint people who look forward to such a change.
Knowing how oftentimes they have been criticized in the past it wouldn't be surprising to me if that's the case. if i were in that situation with a pressing community of disappointed customers i wouldn't really say that out load and possibly avoid the forums entirely or they might also be asked to by management.
As a player i am honestly more looking forward to performance improvements as my current CPU I7 and GPU RTX 3080 can't make the game run at 30 ( in most sieges and some maps ) while streaming. no other game can manage that.
That's more of a fundamental issue than gameplay mechanics in my eyes ( it also means many players with lower end machinery can't enjoy the biggest fights in the game or the product entirely ). huge improvements on the performance side over the last year but nowhere near where it should be.
 
so the first video is very much a meme and required 1K looter to win the siege...
The second was a siege against militia
the third was a loss against low tier units.

The point is that he was able to even compete -to compete with using looters, which are (supposed) to be the Mount&Blade equivalent of JRPG slimes. The outcome, win or lose, does not matter, nor does the fact he wasn't fighting against doomstacks of T6 units in those engagements. The sheer success of the looters showcased the disturbing lack of separation between troop tiers in regards to their battlefield effectiveness.
 
the disturbing lack of separation between troop tiers in regards to their battlefield effectiveness
sure bud. let's end this idiotic conversation here. it's not that numbers mean something or anything, quality is not the only thing that matters. the mixture of the 2 makes the difference and Bannerlord doesn't do that badly
 
a warrior shouldn't be reckless and expect, without protection ( shield or men around him ), to charge a group of archers with minimal consequences.
A warrior also should visually be able to distinguish which units can be killed more easily than others. In vanilla this visual information does not have much of impact on your gameplay as Terco shows in his video. When I installed RBM, this instantly made impact on my gameplay. Which targets to eliminate first both individually and as a commander when you decide which units to eliminate in the enemy army with your troops.
 
Back
Top Bottom