What needs to be changed

Users who are viewing this thread

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
AI being able to throw hundreds of men at you just after a wipe is definitely part of the issue for boring/tedious late game play.
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
Making arrows and bolts harder to penetrate good, expensive armor by making armor actually do what it's supposed to do will also mean slashing/cutting weapons will drop in effectiveness. Swinging an arming sword or even the mighty 2-handed glaive on horseback (so ridiculously OP and cheesy) will be nerfed. The glaive will only be slightly nerfed but it shouldn't be one-shotting anyone with a lot of armor unless it's a good head strike.

Those are good changes and IMO necessary. The more armor someone has the more you need to rely on weapons other than bows and slashing swords. A mace, a simple club, a warhammer, a flail, a morningstar, a poleaxe (but the time period isn't correct for it) are all a lot more useful vs a heavily armored opponent.

That's not to say arrows did not work at all vs armor. There are at least a few accounts that described how the arrows from the English longbows skewered the armor of the French knights, and crossbows were known to do the same. There are also accounts of plate armor defeating arrows, swords, and even attempts to penetrate with a dagger when on the ground. So it can vary wildly. Bannerlord is too early for advanced plate armor but the weapons are also simpler and mostly slashing. Chainmail is all you need to defeat a slashing sword.

As far as smithing, it feels like a placeholder mechanic. I mean you don't even need a smithy to smith. You don't need to take time to smith a weapon but must rest in between (backwards and dumb. It should take time to smith weapons especially the better ones), you can't "rest" by traveling so you can run around for literally an entire year and still can't smith anything again until you hang around a town for a day flirting with the ladies, you can't make any armor at all which is where the big money should be because of the time and skill involved, your main (and almost sole) source of materials is used weapons, costs are all over the place, unlocking parts is random, the weapons made can be totally OP with the way armor fails to protect, everything is about cutting damage when cutting damage is the type most easily defeated by good armor. It's just a mess of a system.

The proof of concept is there but it has to be overhauled.
 
Last edited:
Right, so it sounds like we are saying the same thing in different ways.

The reason why high end armor does not protect in game is because the model used for damage after armor is just bad. Here is the thread I was talking about:


I would also be interested in @Ananda_The_Destroyer's take on the shield wall formation. I was under the impression that shields were also not that effective against ranged, but I haven't played in a while so I could be mistaken on that.

The solution in that thread, ie the formula, I think can be improved, but other than that, some problems that plague the game are not solved.
In my opinion two of the main problems are:
1) you cannot enter too high armor values.
2) spam attacks.

The solution of the thread you propose does not solve these two problems because:
- inserting high armor values makes the characters tougher, to the point of having to take hours to beat just 1.
But in your proposed solution, I don't see any methods of dealing with an enemy with high armor value.
- given point 1, the spam of attacks becomes almost natural, since wherever you attack, given a reduction in localized damage very close to the average damage reduction, it is found that attacking the enemy at any point is not penalizing and therefore convenient.

Obviously I am not saying that that thread proposes something useless or wrong, mind you, I just say that the formula is NOT ENOUGH and in any case it must be improved to allow much higher armor values without running into the above problem.

The solution I propose can be integrated with the one you propose, but which has as its main objective that of solving those two problems set out above.

In summary:
we increase the hurtboxes (do 15).
10 let's make them armor slot, that is hurtboxes that can be covered with armor and therefore where the armor value is applied (with the associated function)
5 let's make them small, inserted in the joints (therefore quite hidden but still guilty areas), but which ARE NOT ARMOR SLOT, therefore to which the armor value DOES NOT APPLY.

This means that:
- if an enemy (or us) has 10 pieces of armor with infinite armor value, you can always try to hit it in the uncovered points (5) => it is still beatable and allows you to enter high armor values.
-since hitting it in the covered spots reduces the damage to zero => randomly spamming attacks is not convenient.

Obviously an infinite armor value is set as an extreme example that demonstrates that you can enter a very high armor value (to simulate a plate armor for example) without risking making an enemy unbeatable.

Obviously to the armor value formula, given that you can enter armor values much greater than what you imagine, I believe that the formula proposed in the thread you presented should be improved to take into account what I wrote.
I also wrote a formula in the thread, a formula that also takes into account the "condition of the armor" by setting a non-zero minimum value for completely broken armors, but with a reduction in protection in any case proportional to the reduction in the durability of the armor.

link to my thread about the armor system:
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
That is basically all of Bannerlord at the moment. A lot of great concepts, just not implemented correctly/needs overhauls.
I think a lot of the game needs polishing with the base mechanics working more or less correctly. But smithing needs to be redone from the ground up.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
The solution of the thread you propose does not solve these two problems because:
- inserting high armor values makes the characters tougher, to the point of having to take hours to beat just 1.
But in your proposed solution, I don't see any methods of dealing with an enemy with high armor value.
I know that you just want to promote your hurt boxes, but this is false.
 

Ted Striker

Veteran
I know that you just want to promote your hurt boxes, but this is false.
In that thread this is the most important part IMO:

-There should be a meaningful gameplay distinction between using Cutting, Piercing and Blunt weapons. The player should find themselves in situations where they have to weigh up the pros and cons of which item type to equip. There sort of already is a distinction between cutting and the other damage types, but ideally there should be a distinction between piercing and blunt too.

There is not enough distinction. There seemed to be more in Warband but since I played mods almost exclusively I don't know if it was mods that caused it or vanilla.

- Cutting weapons (swords mostly) should be fastest, easiest to parry lighter attacks with, good cutting damge vs lightly or unarmored opponents. Damage falls off significantly as armor is increased and not all swords can thrust/pierce effectively, especially in this time period.

- Piercing should be effective vs all armor types if melee weapon, with longest reach and damage scaling up significantly with momentum like from horseback. Parrying is slower than swords but not as slow as blunt weapons. Piercing weapons are mostly spears and lances in this game. Not sure if there are any dedicated thrusting swords in the game but those types of swords were designed specifically as thrusting-only to defeat armor. You couldn't go around slashing with them. Spears also can't have that stupid minimum range damage penalty thing the current spears have. I train personally with spears as well as swords and believe me a good spear user with that increased range is a serious threat. It is a totally underrated weapon.

If it's arrows or bolts it should greatly depend on the draw weight whether it's effective vs armor. I have no formulas in my head for this.

- Blunt should be effective vs all armor types, should have a slight stagger effect that is increased if it's a blow to the head and should cause a minor stagger or temporary swing speed penalty to the opponent if parried (try parrying a heavy mace with a sword, or worse a modern sledgehammer. Go ahead, try it). This is to offset their generally shorter range, slower swing speed, slower recovery for a miss and decreased ability to parry. They're basically offense-only weapons, but wow what an offense.
 
I know that you just want to promote your hurt boxes, but this is false.
I don't want to promote my thread because it makes me happy, but because I think the idea behind it is the best solution.
Do you know how much I care about visibility? nothing.

Having said that, what I say is not false.
Perhaps you have misinterpreted.

If I say that by raising the armor value in all the hurtboxes it takes longer to knock a guy down with the same damage dealt per hit and with consistency of animation time, am I saying something false or wrong?
No.
So setting a VERY HIGH armor value to reduce the damage to 1 or 0 would take a really long time to knock a guy down.
Instead of criticizing me or how I "promote" an idea, criticize the idea.

And then seriously ... you extrapolate a single sentence from my comment (which took some time to write) and instead of criticizing the comment do you criticize me personally for bias without even arguing for criticism of the comment?
I have just shown you that what I said is not false, but that you have misinterpreted because you are convinced that I am a certain type of person and this affects your judgment.
I mean ... seriously .. do I have to answer to defend myself instead of my idea?
Are my ideas hindered only because they come from me, and not because they are not good?
So two or three months of work with the use of physical and mathematical knowledge are useless in this forum if someone does not take a liking to you.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I don't want to promote my thread because it makes me happy, but because I think the idea behind it is the best solution.
Do you know how much I care about visibility? nothing.

Having said that, what I say is not false.
Perhaps you have misinterpreted.

If I say that by raising the armor value in all the hurtboxes it takes longer to knock a guy down with the same damage dealt per hit and with consistency of animation time, am I saying something false or wrong?
No.
So setting a VERY HIGH armor value to reduce the damage to 1 or 0 would take a really long time to knock a guy down.
Instead of criticizing me or how I "promote" an idea, criticize the idea.

And then seriously ... you extrapolate a single sentence from my comment (which took some time to write) and instead of criticizing the comment do you criticize me personally for bias without even arguing for criticism of the comment?
I have just shown you that what I said is not false, but that you have misinterpreted because you are convinced that I am a certain type of person and this affects your judgment.
I mean ... seriously .. do I have to answer to defend myself instead of my idea?
Are my ideas hindered only because they come from me, and not because they are not good?
So two or three months of work with the use of physical and mathematical knowledge are useless in this forum if someone does not take a liking to you.
Your whole post started from a false premise. OP did take into account the fact that high damage needs to go through armor, and the whole topic was much more nuanced than what you said, the quote from @Ted Striker is an example. The damage/armor model is a parabolic curve exactly to have a smaller percentage of damage reduced at higher damage.

I don't know why you expect me to take your post seriously when you clearly did not take the time to read the thread that I linked.
 
The damage/armor model is a parabolic curve exactly to have a smaller percentage of damage reduced at higher damage.

That curve just tells you "how he would like the damage trend to be".
But in the graphs the damage is not distinguished by type, the structure of the armor is not taken into consideration and the trend, although it resembles a parabola initially, is linear and similar to the old system for high damage values.

Having ONLY a strong damage reduction at low values does not make the game balanced and does not solve the problem of attack spam, rather it accentuates it.
If you come across one with endgame armor, you simply have to hit him many times if you don't deal a lot of damage, or have a weapon that does a lot of damage.
But wherever you hit it is protected on average and it is only the location of the damage that makes the damage inflicted slightly different.
This leads you to spam attacks and compulsively defend yourself from the enemy, because you know that WHEREVER IT HITS YOU, it will do NOT IRRELEVANT damage.
If, on the other hand, you knew that on your right side you are completely protected and you only have a few uncovered hurtboxes, while on the left side you have no protection, it is likely that the enemy will try to hit you on the left or that if he tries to hit you on the right, it is likely that hit your armor, not dealing damage worthy of consideration.
Thus your strategy could be:
if the enemy attacks on your left: you play defensive and even because you are exposed
if the enemy attacks on your right: you do not defend yourself but you attack, because you know that you will probably not take damage and if you do (unfortunately or because the enemy has divine precision) he too would take a hit from you, since while attacks you cannot defend itself.


Furthermore, the formula FAILS in the case of:
-20 shieldless warriors with plate armor against 20 archers / crossbowmen

If they are 100m away and run towards the archers at 5m / s, it will take them 20 seconds to get to them.
In those 20 seconds, archers will be able to fire from 4-5 forests of arrows, if each forest takes 5-6 seconds to fire.
If the damage they take turns out to be greater than 20-25, within those 20 seconds these walking fortresses (in theory) almost all die.

This is because the damage reduction for high damage values is reduced IN THE WHOLE BODY, with the consequence that 16 of them would die along the way although they are walking fortresses.

A weapon or ammunition should be considered PERFORATING not only because they PERFORATE the ARMOR (although with the plates this thing is difficult to happen), but because being thin they can hit those points that with a cutting or bruising weapon probably that you wouldn't hit.
For example the armpit:
-With a weapon that deals slashing damage but does not allow you to follow thrusts (scimitar or ax for example), to hit the armpit you would have to wait for the enemy to pick up the arm. much damage.
-with a contusion weapon same consequence.
-But with a lunge weapon (spear, stylet, arrow, dart) you can very well execute the lunge aiming right at the armpit.

Always taking as an example archers vs warriors with full plate armor and without shields:
In the system with the hurtboxes and an armor value that greatly reduces the damage even for high values.
It would be that those 20 warriors, in those 20 seconds would lose 3-4 companions (for bad luck, from a distance the arrow came in the right place, or, up close, one of the archers had a good aim).
The point is that they would come from the archers and then it would be a matter of hand-to-hand combat.

Obviously my example does not take into account a possible hit and run style archer skirmish tactic.
In that case the result of such a fight would shift in favor of the archers as their room for maneuver increases, which would allow them to repeat the tactic several times.

With what I propose it is possible to play with full plate armor and two-handed broadsword without necessarily having to play on the defensive.
It also often happens that archers aim at the legs as some shields fail to protect them.
Well, just wear a plate on your shin and your legs are protected.

I'm just saying that the current formula does not consider all aspects and does not balance those cases which continue to be the subject of complaints.
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
Things like attack spam are only relevant for duels and small skirmishes, not for typical battles. Again you are inventing a problem to justify your walls of texts that you love so much. Maybe you should go bother the MP guys with this as it's not really relevant for SP.

And no matter how many times you say "hurt box", it has been explained to you that Taleworlds would never add more of them, because battle performance is what they care about most, not some silly "solution" to the armor problems that has much better and proven alternatives that don't carry a performance hit.
But do you listen? No, you only care about your walls of text as if all your poop is infallible.
 

Lazregamesh

Sergeant
WB
AI being able to throw hundreds of men at you just after a wipe is definitely part of the issue for boring/tedious late game play.
Yeah this is bad, major battles should have more impact. Both on manpower and willingness to fight (Diplomacy)
In that thread this is the most important part IMO:



There is not enough distinction. There seemed to be more in Warband but since I played mods almost exclusively I don't know if it was mods that caused it or vanilla.

- Cutting weapons (swords mostly) should be fastest, easiest to parry lighter attacks with, good cutting damge vs lightly or unarmored opponents. Damage falls off significantly as armor is increased and not all swords can thrust/pierce effectively, especially in this time period.

- Piercing should be effective vs all armor types if melee weapon, with longest reach and damage scaling up significantly with momentum like from horseback. Parrying is slower than swords but not as slow as blunt weapons. Piercing weapons are mostly spears and lances in this game. Not sure if there are any dedicated thrusting swords in the game but those types of swords were designed specifically as thrusting-only to defeat armor. You couldn't go around slashing with them. Spears also can't have that stupid minimum range damage penalty thing the current spears have. I train personally with spears as well as swords and believe me a good spear user with that increased range is a serious threat. It is a totally underrated weapon.

If it's arrows or bolts it should greatly depend on the draw weight whether it's effective vs armor. I have no formulas in my head for this.

- Blunt should be effective vs all armor types, should have a slight stagger effect that is increased if it's a blow to the head and should cause a minor stagger or temporary swing speed penalty to the opponent if parried (try parrying a heavy mace with a sword, or worse a modern sledgehammer. Go ahead, try it). This is to offset their generally shorter range, slower swing speed, slower recovery for a miss and decreased ability to parry. They're basically offense-only weapons, but wow what an offense.
Could not have said it better myself 👏
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
I would also be interested in @Ananda_The_Destroyer's take on the shield wall formation. I was under the impression that shields were also not that effective against ranged, but I haven't played in a while so I could be mistaken on that.
Only the t5 infantry have good defense from ranged in SW and only from the front. Any other units seem to magically get picked off in the SW on approach. This is based on campaign single player, player VRS AI fights, not custom battle or "Hey dudes which infantry is the badest" BS.
Enemy SW moves so slow it can just be ignored until everything else is dead. At that point it can be easily surrounded and shot to death. Enemy SW also has tunnel vision and the player can easily get along side and headshot them as they approach, if they do fight back they give up thier defense to frontal ranged fire. Player SW is more like a lightning rod to protect other troops, not because they actually block enemy ranged or anything, but because the AI seems to usually just good after what is closest and adjust it's approach based on this. You can even make an enemy SW turn just slightly by moving your own SW to the left or right and open them up to ranged fire. Lower tier units magically will get shot down 1st still and t5 will usually last until the enemy get thier. Honorable mention to t2 khuzait footman who's shield seems to work pretty well compared to other low tiers. One thing to note though is you can use cavalry in SW for these defensive thigs too, but with +map speed and easier time positioning them. On offense the problems are 1. SW moves very slow, your ranged units will probably kill everything before SW get there. 2. SW 'goes away' when they contact enemies, they don't have a way of fighting like a phalanx or "Vikings tv show" so they are at risk of ranged damage and the general clunky "what skill?" way melee combat goes for the AI. SO they still trade too much, even if you did everything perfectly and brought them to the enemy. You can get some use out of a small SW of t5 infantry on advance while your HA circle around, the will help clean up stubborn enemies but it's basically over at that point already. Again, you could also use cavalry in SW on advance to help clean up too, but I will say t5 axemen or Legionaries will out live most Cavalry when used this way.

I think it would be okay to give more magical shield radius when in SW, even to the point of protecting units placed behind the SW. As it is, you can get right behind a SW and try to shoot over thier shoulders and still get poped in the face. The defense of a SW for a party is based solely on the AI's defect to just attack what's closest or what they see first. Why the AI shoot me behind the SW? I can't explain it!

I also think a Sprint ability would be good for infantry to change thier position faster, as it is they are juts too slow to be offensively competitive with ranged. Their default shield use should be better too, no bobbing up and down, they should hold it in the best position and move at normal speed to get in position faster. They should also have a melee defense buff in the formation too so it actually "feels" defensive when they contact the enemy.

Infantry also IMO needs some other benefits or "things to do" in battle. AS long as you can kill the enemy faster and with less units lost with other units there's no reason to make infantry, but they could easily add a variety of benefits even beyond combat performance to give them a place.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
That curve just tells you "how he would like the damage trend to be".
But in the graphs the damage is not distinguished by type, the structure of the armor is not taken into consideration and the trend, although it resembles a parabola initially, is linear and similar to the old system for high damage values.
If it kept going as a parabola after the slope is equal to one the slope would keep increasing, therefore magnifying the damage instead of reducing it. What you are saying doesn't make sense from a mathematical point of view. And no, it is not similar to the old system, there is a larger reduction in damage than in the current system. You also can play with the slope or add more non linearities, although I don't see why you would.

Also, in your previous post you had a problem with armor being effective against damage, now you have a problem with the opposite.

Do you see why you are coming across as someone who just wants to push his ideas ignoring everything anyone else says?

Edit: thank you @Ananda_The_Destroyer! I knew you had to have played around with that 😁
 
Also, in your previous post you had a problem with armor being effective against damage, now you have a problem with the opposite.
is it so hard to understand?

If out of 5 weak points, all 5 are covered and have extreme protection, armor becomes a problem for the game.
Spam me attacks on someone like that.

If out of 5 weak points, 3 are covered and 2 cannot be covered, then having extreme protection in those 3 points does not make the subject invincible.
Against such a subject it is necessary to "aim in those points".

Except that:
- in the first case the high armor value is a problem.
- In the second case it is not, indeed the opposite is, because low armor values would make the parts of the armor worn useless and insignificant.

The current system is with 5 hurtboxes, all of which can be covered, but with low armor values or with ridiculous damage reductions.
Guess why armor value can't be raised.
Because it would create too much imbalance between units of different tiers.

And guess what would make the odds between units of different tiers less unbalanced.
the fact that better equipped units can be hit hard in "some places", unlike a rookie who can be hit hard all over the place.

The examples I made with the 5 hurtboxes that are at stake and I hope you understand them.

And no, it is not similar to the old system, there is a larger reduction in damage than in the current system. You also can play with the slope or add more non linearities, although I don't see why you would.
For low damage the reduction is high.
For high damage there is a linear trend, as if the line had only been translated and joined to the parabola (the slope is like the current one in play, there is only one translation).
The formula has the big defect of not considering the types of damage and the types of armor, as well as not solving the other problems I mentioned to you.
There is written in the thread itself that it applies to all damages.
But it doesn't have to be.
A single armor doesn't absorb the same damage from different attacks.
A chainmail with a gambeson underneath must absorb cuts very well, blunt blows on average (or less), and piercing blows badly (depending on how thick the gambeson is).
The formula takes this off the bill.
 
Things like attack spam are only relevant for duels and small skirmishes, not for typical battles. Again you are inventing a problem to justify your walls of texts that you love so much. Maybe you should go bother the MP guys with this as it's not really relevant for SP.
DUELS:
tournaments ARE duels.
In a duel you should face a well-protected lord and defeating him should allow you to act on your relationships with him based on his traits.
But beating a lord or king MUST be a challenge.

And to be a challenge you have to insert difficulties that are consistent.

BATTLES:
Also in the great battles there are archers and ranged weapons.
The probability of an arrow hitting you is equal to the ratio of the area offered by your uncovered hurtboxes to the total area of your character.
It means that the more covered you are, the less likely you are to be seriously injured by an arrow or a dart.
If in addition to a great coverage, you also have very high armor values (possible to enter IF AND ONLY IF you increase the total hurtboxes and some are left UNCOVERABLE), then, taking as an example a warrior with full plate armor such as to reduce the damage to zero and a coverage of 90%, we have that only 1/10 arrows would be able to hit it.
This taking into account that all ten arrows shot have been shot with such an aim that they all end up in the total area offered by the warrior.

=> you can make a group of warriors with broadswords, without shields, but well armored without this group being disintegrated by arrows, darts or stones.
=> a heavy, well-armored cavalry charge must not be more frightened by archers than archers must be by the cavalry that is charging them.

=> infantry do not last 30 seconds.
=> although statistically the best equipped units tend to win and if they belong to the enemy, if the player knows how to exploit the weaknesses in the enemy equipment and if he is lucky enough that his soldiers are able to hit the enemies in the weak points more than these do with the player's soldiers (maybe the player's soldiers have a +30 1h weapon that gives them greater accuracy in aiming at those points), maybe they can win battles that in the current system would be lost simply for a numerical question.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Right now most T5 archers can kill through the armor T5 infantry wears in about 3-4 shots.
Yeah, this is sad and is part of "everything dies in 2-3 hits from anything". It's hard to say how many shots is right but what I would ultimately like is for ALL types of t5/6 units to be equally powerful if used correctly (may require better player controls). If you allow 50 t5 archers to flank your t5 SW..uh oh... but if they allow the SW(that works properly) to get to theirr50 t5 archers uh oh for them.. of course this is expecting the skill and weaponry to actually play a much bigger role then it does currently! And it's okay to have some exceptional units, like fian champions being very powerful in close combat, but the problem is all ranged is relatively powerful in close combat now.

However, I agree that T5 ranged is performing against low tier units in poor armor pretty much the way they should.
Yeah, I think thinning out low tier units is the main role for ranged. Likewise I would be okay with t2-t3 ranged being near useless against the highest tier units, like if they did zero to t5/6 units I would be fine with that. This somewhat applies to all low tier units for me too, I think speed boosted damage get out of control and I can't stand to see "t6 killed by recruit" in the feed. I would be fine with a Banner Knight charging up to a recruit and the recruit bumping it's knee for zero and getting crushed by the horse!

Headshots are also almost always a kill, and that makes headshot damage related perks pretty useless.
This is going be ill-received, but what if the headshot bonus only worked on/for the player? I feel like for AI it just seems like RNG and basically negates armor and tiers and what not. But for the player both landing them and suffering them is an interesting thing! Maybe remove or reduce it greatly for AI on AI but still let the player experience "1 shot head shots" both giving and receiving. Or just turn it all down! It could also be a bonus for certain types of troops to suffer far less from headshots! Lots of things they could do to make it better and not "sometimes they just die".
 

five bucks

Squire
Yeah, this is sad and is part of "everything dies in 2-3 hits from anything". It's hard to say how many shots is right but what I would ultimately like is for ALL types of t5/6 units to be equally powerful if used correctly (may require better player controls). If you allow 50 t5 archers to flank your t5 SW..uh oh... but if they allow the SW(that works properly) to get to theirr50 t5 archers uh oh for them.. of course this is expecting the skill and weaponry to actually play a much bigger role then it does currently! And it's okay to have some exceptional units, like fian champions being very powerful in close combat, but the problem is all ranged is relatively powerful in close combat now.
+1 to all of this, and I also like the concept of some ranged units continuing to be hybrid melee/ranged to compensate for a certain weakness, like sharpshooters (good melee offsets their low ammo count), fian champs (good melee balances that they're the only noble unit with no horse), etc.

Khan's Guard should not be strong in close combat though, that capability should be significantly nerfed since they should just be the best ranged cav.
Yeah, I think thinning out low tier units is the main role for ranged.
The way I see it their roles should be outshooting ranged cav (thanks to no horseback accuracy/fire rate penalties and being able to use more powerful bows or carry more ammo), thinning out low tier trash as you said, possibly having some sort of morale effect on enemies too if the morale system ever gets that kind of depth, and also being really good in sieges due to protection from being rushed by the enemy.

In my ideal world on a siege with little equipment or a high ground with difficult access archers have the advantage, on open field archers go roughly even with most other types of unit as they can't kill them before they get in melee range but can weaken them enough to even out the melee fight (or shoot down a horse), and in a scene which is full of cover or a siege with good siege engines, archers should be quite weak.
This is going be ill-received, but what if the headshot bonus only worked on/for the player? I feel like for AI it just seems like RNG and basically negates armor and tiers and what not. But for the player both landing them and suffering them is an interesting thing!
Well technically their entire accuracy model is RNG already. But yes it does feel a bit BS.
Maybe remove or reduce it greatly for AI on AI but still let the player experience "1 shot head shots" both giving and receiving. Or just turn it all down! It could also be a bonus for certain types of troops to suffer far less from headshots! Lots of things they could do to make it better and not "sometimes they just die".
Definitely turn it down.
 
Top Bottom