I don't know, having archers on the wall should be one of the biggest advantages for the defenders. Telling them to get off the wall doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Maybe they need better cover and a bigger height advantage?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
What is the next major content after Rebellions?
- Thread starter VonCarstein
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Or maybe they need to get better at firing down on their enemies. Thanks to how Bannerlord is, I haven't had the opportunity to be on the defending side in a siege, but I'm willing to bet that defending archers still fire a significant chunk of their arrows into the battlements in front of them instead of the enemies below, just like they did in Warband... Anyone that could tell me it is not the case anymore?
In Bannerlord, any position that allows the defenders to send arrows down allows the attackers to send arrows up, and it isn't an equal relationship since -- as far as the game is concerned -- any wall at upper-chest level will block the arrow of the person behind the wall, but still allow them to be headshot. Load up archers to clear the wall and the enemy will only get off when they are all dead. People call it cheese, but it is using almost-literal textbook assault tactics and the current AI can't cope because its imperative is to hold the wall at all costs.
But that's silly. The wall is an advantage precisely because it can be (not must!) be used to deny the enemy ranged units the ability to tear into packed-rank formations below, along with channelizing them along predictable and very limited routes (towers, stairs). If the defenders are to cede the wall, they shouldn't just mill around aimlessly but reverse the situation by massing their own archers to cover it as attackers filter in, still forcing attackers to endure an arrow storm -- but on their own terms.
There are Bannerlord castles where it is already in effect, with the archers having not just the wall but an interior fallback position where they can cover the wall in arrows and the attackers can't mass against them effectively. But all of them should work that way, because that was the way real castle defenses functioned*.
(*With the caveat that you're going to find about a million and one exceptions if you look at historical examples. Some castles had front-loaded defense, others were simply poorly engineered because they were more of a rich *******'s house than an actual fortification.)
edit:
It is hard to tell (arrows break when hitting stone now) but they seem to be a lot better about it, but that's because they won't loose with an obstruction in the way. It still happens occasionally, but not that often, as far as I can tell.
Last edited:
Generally I'd say having a height advantage should result in better accuracy, better range and more damage. I don't know how good that is reflected in game. By the way, do defenders have unlimited arrows?
Good points.
I don't even understand your complaint. I didn't say they shouldn't take inspiration, I said it's going to be inherently different. That is what inspiration is. it isnt copy-paste. My point was people talk about development as if they were responsible for VQ, when they clearly were not. ergo, any implementation of VQ, features will highly likely not be copy-paste.
they already have some island land mass in the south, I could so them working a faction there along with that forested coastline west of Aserai territory.
VonCarstein
Recruit
I agree to you and I want to add that there is free spaces on map that are suitable for adding new factions or castles. I would like to see them after I see siege problems are solved(If we are going to see ofc)
Razeo
Regular
There's also that huge empty desert like area east of Khuzait territory. The area itself looks a little bigger than the playable map as it is right now.
Oh there is so much more land they could work all kinds of crazy/cool factions on it, we have the entire world map from the game files and it's glorious, hope modders will do something with it on the future.
Dope. I like how the Calradian continent just looks like an incredibly crunched, early breakup of an Europe/Africa/Asia pangea.
When your city is being besieged and you are inside you can't even go to market and buy a bow and arrows to use them in battle. They really need to work on sieges.
VonCarstein
Recruit
Wow if it is real then the game is completed %1 of way it should have been
It's real but the devs said to not get high hopes, they only included it in the files to generate the outermesh of the campaign map so it wouldn't end in clear cut lines or something like this.
VonCarstein
Recruit
Such a waste of potential then
But we are not asking him to copy paste or basically take everything viking conquest had ( bannerlord and viking conquest have a question of historicity that takes them away ), but for a license opus released 6 years ago and which was approved by taleworlds for release. on sale, I think it would be wise to take into account what viking conquest contained, because it contains very good ideas that would only embellish more Bannerlord, and the question of a different team is no excuse for that
bltzn
Recruit
For those saying experience siege defense is too difficult, it's not really. What you need to do is find a siege in progress, break in and join the defense. The AI should not be purposely nerfed to be so stupid that they will willingly engage in a siege that they are likely to lose.
So we have the same point.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Viking Conquest content would make a fine DLC. But when it comes to vanilla, right now I barely even have confidence that they're going to manage to replace the stuff missing from Warband.
Last edited:
