Which Faction Needs the Most Love and Work?

[HalfMetalJacket]

We both agree Bannerlord needs a unique ranged infantry faction. But there are better candidates for that than Battania. Aserai already have the Master Archer, and its real-life inspiration, the Sassanian Empire, considered archers to be the elite of their infantry, placing high cultural value on skill with the bow and javelins. I think that with slight changes, Aserai can be Bannerlord's ranged infantry faction. Another good candidate is the Empire, who already has a regular archer *and* a crossbowman at T5!

It's also worth thinking about representation of different weapons in the game's armies. Bow users are extremely common, but javelins and two-handed weapons are much less common. So, giving Battania a new two-handed weapon user would make the game more varied; giving them a new bow user would make the game less varied.

Let me just compare our positions quickly.

* You think that Battania should be the game's ranged infantry faction. Your reasoning is that this dev blog says they are masters of the longbow (which Fians being elite bow users satisfies anyway). You also say an unspecified number of other people want it.

* I think that Battania should be the game's shock infantry faction. My reasoning is that when you pick a culture, the game tells you that "Battania's fierce warriors use great axes and two-handed swords with deadly efficiency", and does not mention bows at all, but right now Battania doesn't have any great axes! Also, that their real-life inspirations the Celts were overall not known for their use of the bow and used it less than other cultures, other than a small subset of the Welsh who were elite archers, therefore elite Fians being the only Battanian archers represents real life very well, and giving them regular archers would not. Next, to give javelins and two-handed weapons more representation in the game, which they currently lack. Finally, that to give Battania a regular ranged infantry unit like every other faction in the game has, would be to undeniably make them less unique because you are making them objectively more similar to the other factions.

In fact, Khuzaits snowball much less than they used to, so that isn't really an argument at all anymore against making factions unique.

So, it's not a case of "denying" Battania regular archers. They never needed them in the first place. There's no good reasons for doing it, and plenty of reasons not to.

I don't believe factions should be as one note as you suggest. This isn't Warband anymore, factions actually have a number of facets to them beyond just a single gimmick. The Aserai shouldn't just be the 'archer' faction, but rather the well rounded assault faction. The Empire meanwhile occupies the well rounded 'defense' role. Sturgia is the melee powerhouse, the Khuzaits are the horse horde, Vlandia is the combined arms faction and finally Battania is the foot faction. No Nords for huscarls or Vaegirs for marksmen nonsense please.

Welsh nobles absolutely weren't archers, no idea where you are getting this from. Hell, they're not even these elite, exclusive troops either- they were more or less drawn from common stock. Welsh nobles formed the Teulu and Uchelwr more often than not- noble cavalry men.

As for objectively making them more similar? Sure, in this respect I don't care at all. And if my mod is anything to go by, a fair number of people don't care. Hell, mods that go even further in making everyone the same have even more fans than mine. Frankly, you're the only person I've seen arguing so strongly for this.

Again, I don't really care about uniqueness for uniqueness sake, especially since its more of a detriment anyway. Sure, another two handed axe man is more unique than an archer, but tell me what are they really doing that's special? If you think naked archers are not distinct enough, there's absolutely no way an armoured axeman with javelins is going to stand out compared to Heroic Line Breakers or Palace Guard. If they just end up being the superior choice because Battania has to be the superior shock trooper faction, then I have zero interest in the idea.

Even in a perfectly 'balanced' Bannerlord, I can still see shock troops being bullied if we suppose ranged troops form a sensible counter to them. Without enough cavalry to chase down archers, the only other way shock troops will be allowed any sort of fighting chance is to give them proper ranged support to thin out enemy volleys.

A Battanian army would be way too easy to counter if all they had were these defenseless shock troops. Not to mention kind of boring. Having a good proper volley of arrows at least forces a player to deal with two interesting propositions. Much more fun than just a mindless mob of shock troops racing to get themselves slaughtered.

@Apocal answered you in regards to snowballing already. That argument can still be made against the Khuzait's stupid troop tree.

Just taking away melee cavalry is more than enough. Common archers are not this horrible deal you're making them out to be.

There are good reasons for it, you just say nah because of your skewed idea of 'uniqueness' at all costs and this weird notion that Welsh longbowmen were some sort of elite nobles and that the Gaels need to over represent Battania, as opposed to trying to create a more holistic, well rounded Celtic inspired faction that doesn't try to adhere too closely to real life.

 

[Apocal]

I prefer uniqueness in the form of distinct mechanics, for example:

• allowing urban Imperial notables to give noble recruits
• Aserai being able to draw their Mamluk troop line from captives
• Khuzaits getting to pillage their own settlements

Etc.

Troop trees should be free to be messed with in every which way so that you don't have the Swadian Knight problem of one blatantly OP troop (or troop tree) reducing all the battle tactics down to acquiring as many as possible then winning forever.

 

[badman]

If you're going to have marauding steppe nomad faction then they SHOULD occasionally snowball. But lack the ability to remain organised and hold onto those gains in the long term. .

 

[five bucks]

Now, you tell me ok we don't want bows in Battania; replace them with slings and it's a deal then. Javelins and slings in the purest skirmisher style for common troops and for garrison militia you apply Pictish crossbows; I'll buy it.

I still think that noble lines should be cavalry, the horse as a symbol of power encompasses practically any warrior culture with access to mounted animals.

I'm glad we can come to an agreement regarding bows at least. I think that Battania should only have one unit classified as ranged infantry, that being the Fians; but most of their other infantry units should be equipped with javelins to make up for the lack of ranged weaponry in their regular tree.

My idea of a Battanian T5 would look something like this:

• Veteran Falxman: Shock infantry. Has a rhomphaia, no armor but high athletics, and javelins. Represents the ancient Celts that ran into battle naked.
• Picked Warrior: Shock infantry. Has a 2hander axe and proper armor. Represents the post-Viking invasion Irish/Pictish Gallowglasses.
• Mounted Skirmisher: Ranged cavalry. Uses javelins. Represents the general Celtic use of cavalry for skirmishing.
• Oathsworn: Heavy infantry. Uses sword, shield and javelins. Represents Picts.
• Wildling: Light infantry. Uses two-hander pike and javelins. Represents North Wales' spearmen.
• Fians: Noble Ranged infantry. Represents elite South Wales longbowmen.

Having two shock infantry options would be good for three reasons. It would create a clear specialist faction for people who enjoy that playstyle, and make them feel more distinct as an opponent. It would fit their description on the culture menu, which states "they use great axes and two-handed swords with deadly efficiency." It would fit the stereotype of Celts wildly charging into battle.

My disagreement with you on the cavalry noble line just comes down to what we value more I guess. For troop trees, the two biggest considerations are (A): is the troop tree different enough from other factions to provide variety and replayability, and (B): is the troop tree representative of its real-life source material. Considering that Bannerlord is technically a fantasy game (if extremely heavily inspired by real life), I would normally prioritize (A) over (B), because mild hits to realism can be made if it benefits gameplay. But I can see why you would think differently too.

I don't believe factions should be as one note as you suggest. This isn't Warband anymore, factions actually have a number of facets to them beyond just a single gimmick.

Welsh nobles absolutely weren't archers, no idea where you are getting this from. Hell, they're not even these elite, exclusive troops either- they were more or less drawn from common stock. Welsh nobles formed the Teulu and Uchelwr more often than not- noble cavalry men.

As for objectively making them more similar? Sure, in this respect I don't care at all. And if my mod is anything to go by, a fair number of people don't care. Hell, mods that go even further in making everyone the same have even more fans than mine.

There's absolutely no way an armoured axeman with javelins is going to stand out compared to Heroic Line Breakers or Palace Guard. If they just end up being the superior choice because Battania has to be the superior shock trooper faction, then I have zero interest in the idea.

Even in a perfectly 'balanced' Bannerlord, I can still see shock troops being bullied if we suppose ranged troops form a sensible counter to them. Without enough cavalry to chase down archers, the only other way shock troops will be allowed any sort of fighting chance is to give them proper ranged support to thin out enemy volleys.

@Apocal answered you in regards to snowballing already. That argument can still be made against the Khuzait's stupid troop tree.

Just taking away melee cavalry is more than enough. Common archers are not this horrible deal you're making them out to be. There are good reasons for it, you just say nah because of your skewed idea of 'uniqueness' at all costs and this weird notion that Welsh longbowmen were some sort of elite nobles and that the Gaels need to over represent Battania, as opposed to trying to create a more holistic, well rounded Celtic inspired faction that doesn't try to adhere too closely to real life.

A faction having a gimmick that they do better doesn't automatically make them "one-note". The player still has all the other troop types to choose from in the faction as well. It just means you see a higher representation of a certain type of warrior in your armies. No need to exaggerate.

Are you actually arguing for Fians to be removed from the noble branch and replaced by cavalry? If not, then that part of your post is irrelevant to the overall discussion. My argument is that Battania's only bow users should be elites to represent the fact that bow users were rare in Celtic armies overall, and that the South Welsh were elite archers.

Fallacious logic, tbh. Just because people download a mod that happens to homogenize the factions a bit doesn't mean they don't like it for any other reason, or that they even noticed the homogenization, or that they even liked the mod! They are more likely downloading mods for the sake of variety, which if anything, supports my argument that variety in vanilla is important. I have seen plenty of people say that the factions feel too similar already. For two examples from this very thread, shikaka's and dreed's posts on page 2.

I think you misunderstand my goals. There are two points to having unique faction specialties and weaknesses. One is so that enemy armies feel different to fight against, because there is a certain troop type they won't have, and a certain type they'll have more of. Eg: if you fight Khuzaits, you're guaranteed to face lots of ranged cavalry but no pike infantry, and if you fight Battania, you face lots of shock infantry but no melee cavalry. So your tactics will be totally different when facing Battania than when facing Khuzaits, which provides new challenges and thus interesting variety. Whereas if they both could field all the same troops (just with slightly different equipment), then your tactics would always be exactly the same no matter what country you're fighting. Point 2 is the same but in reverse (recruiting primarily from one army as the player in an "only-this-faction" playthrough means you use different tactics in each playthrough). This is the point of uniqueness. It's not to make a Battanian shock infantry troop stand out compared to a Line Breaker (not sure where you got that idea).

Battania would still have shield infantry, ranged cavalry, light infantry, and elite ranged infantry of their own all available to deal with enemy archers. They wouldn't be underpowered in a scenario where the game became balanced. Also, most Battanian melee troops would have javelins.

As I already said to Apocal: The game is not going to be horribly imbalanced forever (other than a worst case scenario where TW gives up listening to the community, in which case why bother discussing this at all). Making game design suggestions on the basis of a permanently imbalanced game is foolish. If you really thought it was impossible to balance cav-heavy faction troop trees, then the only logical option would be to remove most of Khuzaits' cavalry, and you obviously don't support that, since you state a good thing about them is that they're the "horse horde faction". Therefore, currently poor EA balance is not a good argument against Battania being shock troop-focused. It's also not an argument for Battania having regular archers, because right now Battania is doing fine without them.

Common archers are a bad deal because you still haven't given a good reason why they should exist. All you've done is argue why my idea is bad. Let's weigh up the reasons you have provided for your idea, vs. the ones I have provided for mine:

• Your idea (regular archers): Because a devblog mentioned it as something Battania is good at (this isn't a good reason because fians existing already satisfies this); and because an unknown number of other people want it (not a good reason without numbers to back it up).
• My idea (shock infantry): Because Battania's in-game culture description says they specialize in great axes and two-handed swords. Because ancient Celts overall rarely used the bow, but were well known for crazy infantry charges. Because it will increase the variety in the game's weapon representation and factions, which is good for gameplay.

Troop trees should be free to be messed with in every which way so that you don't have the Swadian Knight problem of one blatantly OP troop (or troop tree) reducing all the battle tactics down to acquiring as many as possible then winning forever.

This is why I think faction specialties should be expressed by having two different choices of the same unit archetype by T5. In this way, you can show that a faction's culture is predisposed to a certain type of warfare, and naturally represent that type of warrior more in their armies, but without creating the issue of an OP unit that the player just ends up stacking. I like your other idea of distinct mechanics also.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

A faction having a gimmick that they do better doesn't automatically make them "one-note". The player still has all the other troop types to choose from in the faction as well. It just means you see a higher representation of a certain type of warrior in your armies. No need to exaggerate.

Are you actually arguing for Fians to be removed from the noble branch and replaced by cavalry? If not, then that part of your post is irrelevant to the overall discussion. My argument is that Battania's only bow users should be elites to represent the fact that bow users were rare in Celtic armies overall, and that the South Welsh were elite archers.

Fallacious logic, tbh. Just because people download a mod that happens to homogenize the factions a bit doesn't mean they don't like it for any other reason, or that they even noticed the homogenization, or that they even liked the mod! They are more likely downloading mods for the sake of variety, which if anything, supports my argument that variety in vanilla is important. I have seen plenty of people say that the factions feel too similar already. For two examples from this very thread, shikaka's and dreed's posts on page 2.

I think you misunderstand my goals. There are two points to having unique faction specialties and weaknesses. One is so that enemy armies feel different to fight against, because there is a certain troop type they won't have, and a certain type they'll have more of. Eg: if you fight Khuzaits, you're guaranteed to face lots of ranged cavalry but no pike infantry, and if you fight Battania, you face lots of shock infantry but no melee cavalry. So your tactics will be totally different when facing Battania than when facing Khuzaits, which provides new challenges and thus interesting variety. Whereas if they both could field all the same troops (just with slightly different equipment), then your tactics would always be exactly the same no matter what country you're fighting. Point 2 is the same but in reverse (recruiting primarily from one army as the player in an "only-this-faction" playthrough means you use different tactics in each playthrough). This is the point of uniqueness. It's not to make a Battanian shock infantry troop stand out compared to a Line Breaker (not sure where you got that idea).

Battania would still have shield infantry, ranged cavalry, light infantry, and elite ranged infantry of their own all available to deal with enemy archers. They wouldn't be underpowered in a scenario where the game became balanced. Also, most Battanian melee troops would have javelins.

As I already said to Apocal: The game is not going to be horribly imbalanced forever (other than a worst case scenario where TW gives up listening to the community, in which case why bother discussing this at all). Making game design suggestions on the basis of a permanently imbalanced game is foolish. If you really thought it was impossible to balance cav-heavy faction troop trees, then the only logical option would be to remove most of Khuzaits' cavalry, and you obviously don't support that, since you state a good thing about them is that they're the "horse horde faction". Therefore, currently poor EA balance is not a good argument against Battania being shock troop-focused. It's also not an argument for Battania having regular archers, because right now Battania is doing fine without them.

Common archers are a bad deal because you still haven't given a good reason why they should exist. All you've done is argue why my idea is bad. Let's weigh up the reasons you have provided for your idea, vs. the ones I have provided for mine:

• Your idea (regular archers): Because a devblog mentioned it as something Battania is good at (this isn't a good reason because fians existing already satisfies this); and because an unknown number of other people want it (not a good reason without numbers to back it up).
• My idea (shock infantry): Because Battania's in-game culture description says they specialize in great axes and two-handed swords. Because ancient Celts overall rarely used the bow, but were well known for crazy infantry charges. Because it will increase the variety in the game's weapon representation and factions, which is good for gameplay.

I still think your idea is way too one dimensional, especially if we go with the complete removal of their melee cavalry. And from a balance perspective, I still don't see any sense in your proposed ideas for troops either, especially with your idea for wildlings and oathsworn. And are the Picts really known for heavy infantry? If it were up to me to design them based on the Brythonic Celts, it would be something like:

Oathsworn= Heavy infantry with a shield, long spear, single throwing spear and their choice of hand weapon to represent a Northern Welsh spearman.

Wildling= Medium infantry with a shield, two sets of javelins or javelins+throwing spear and choice of hand weapon to represent Irish Kerns.

Gallowglass= Heavy infantry with two handers, javelins and a targe to represent the Norse Gael influence.

Hunter= Light infantry with a crossbow and whatever mix of weapons they fancy. I think if you wanted to actually represent the Picts better, you would do them with crossbowmen.

If you wanted them to be limited, why can't the common archers be a tier 4 unit like the Aserai's? This will make them still rather uncommon to see, but at least they do exist for those that want to build a more Welsh inspired celtic army without having to scrounge around for nobles.

Yeah, I guess I should not have used my mod's mild success as evidence, but how about this then? My mod achieves quite a bit of variety just fine without straight up taking fundamental faction elements away. You don't need to be denying Battania common archers to give them variety.

I would actually tone down the number of cavalry the Khuzaits have. Tier two horse archers from the common tree is absurd. At best, they should only get them at tier 3, and ideally the AI should be forced to spend horses for upgrading. Still more cavalry than anyone, but not to the snowballing degree as before. I still think a cavalry bonus makes sense- cavalry were stronger than infantry after all.

Aren't you yourself putting way too much stock on the in game culture description too? They're very generalistic and not all that good at describing the military strengths of each faction. I mean by your logic, Sturgia ought to be the archer faction due to the description of being "good hunters and wanderers". But we don't go by that at all.

And no, I'm not justifying my answer with a dev blog, but rather what has been spoken about in lore. In Pendraic, the Battanians specifically ambush the Imperial vanguard with a hail of arrows, before butchering them with falxmen. So from that, I would expect archers to be as prominent as shock infantry.

If you want my reasonings for common archers, then here:
- Because archers were a prominent element of Battanian involvement in Pendraic. The description of their impact suggests they couldn't have been a small contingent of elites, but rather a larger ambush group. Therefore common archers to represent them makes sense.
- Because having every Battanian army comprise predominantly of infantry is going to get dull, no other faction is necessarily that simple.
- Because if their melee cavalry needs to be replaced, they should get something they don't already have, not something I consider frankly redundant.
- Because its consistent, and not everything needs to be about variety for variety's sake. Getting rid of melee cavalry is already enough to make them different, there is absolutely no need to deny them common archers.

I don't think we can agree at all.

 

[five bucks]

I still think your idea is way too one dimensional, especially if we go with the complete removal of their melee cavalry. And from a balance perspective, I still don't see any sense in your proposed ideas for troops either, especially with your idea for wildlings and oathsworn. And are the Picts really known for heavy infantry? If it were up to me to design them based on the Brythonic Celts, it would be something like:

Oathsworn= Heavy infantry with a shield, long spear, single throwing spear and their choice of hand weapon to represent a Northern Welsh spearman.

Wildling= Medium infantry with a shield, two sets of javelins or javelins+throwing spear and choice of hand weapon to represent Irish Kerns.

Gallowglass= Heavy infantry with two handers, javelins and a targe to represent the Norse Gael influence.

Hunter= Light infantry with a crossbow and whatever mix of weapons they fancy. I think if you wanted to actually represent the Picts better, you would do them with crossbowmen.

If you wanted them to be limited, why can't the common archers be a tier 4 unit like the Aserai's? This will make them still rather uncommon to see, but at least they do exist for those that want to build a more Welsh inspired celtic army without having to scrounge around for nobles.

Yeah, I guess I should not have used my mod's mild success as evidence, but how about this then? My mod achieves quite a bit of variety just fine without straight up taking fundamental faction elements away. You don't need to be denying Battania common archers to give them variety.

I would actually tone down the number of cavalry the Khuzaits have. Tier two horse archers from the common tree is absurd. At best, they should only get them at tier 3, and ideally the AI should be forced to spend horses for upgrading. Still more cavalry than anyone, but not to the snowballing degree as before. I still think a cavalry bonus makes sense- cavalry were stronger than infantry after all.

Aren't you yourself putting way too much stock on the in game culture description too? They're very generalistic and not all that good at describing the military strengths of each faction. I mean by your logic, Sturgia ought to be the archer faction due to the description of being "good hunters and wanderers". But we don't go by that at all.

And no, I'm not justifying my answer with a dev blog, but rather what has been spoken about in lore. In Pendraic, the Battanians specifically ambush the Imperial vanguard with a hail of arrows, before butchering them with falxmen. So from that, I would expect archers to be as prominent as shock infantry.

If you want my reasonings for common archers, then here:
- Because archers were a prominent element of Battanian involvement in Pendraic. The description of their impact suggests they couldn't have been a small contingent of elites, but rather a larger ambush group. Therefore common archers to represent them makes sense.
- Because having every Battanian army comprise predominantly of infantry is going to get dull, no other faction is necessarily that simple.
- Because if their melee cavalry needs to be replaced, they should get something they don't already have, not something I consider frankly redundant.
- Because its consistent, and not everything needs to be about variety for variety's sake. Getting rid of melee cavalry is already enough to make them different, there is absolutely no need to deny them common archers.

I don't think we can agree at all.

There are five dimensions to my idea. 1: Shock infantry *2 (I would have the second shock infantry unit only branch into existence at T5). 2: Pike infantry. 3: Heavy infantry. 4: Ranged infantry. 5: Ranged cavalry.

I like your hypothetical Celt troop tree, but I'll point out that with two heavy infantry units, it would be open to exactly the same criticism you're levelling at me for having two shock infantry units in mine.

The Picts/Scots did not use crossbowmen as battlefield troops in Bannerlord's stated time period (600-1100). Crossbows were very small and light, only used for hunting in that time period as far as we know, there is only one depiction of a crossbow from then and it's being used from horseback to hunt fowl. Picts/Scots tended to fight as infantry or javelin cavalry way back to ancient times (the Caledonians for example using shields and swords), and after contact with the Vikings (creating the Norse-Gaels) and the invading Anglo-Saxons, Scots started to adopt mail.

Well are you getting rid of Fians or not? Because if you aren't, and you're adding common archers too, then they will definitely not be limited. And I don't want to get rid of Fians out of the elite line since they represent the South Welsh having the best archers in the world at the time. If people want to build an army which is particularly South Welsh (let's not forget the distinction between North and South here), but don't want to scrounge for nobles, that's a particularly obscure enough wish that it can be satisfied by them modding the game themselves. For vanilla troop trees the concern should be offering differentiation and representing the real-life source; the vanilla game can't be expected to satisfy every single strange desire someone might have.

Battania already don't have common archers, so it's not "taking away a fundamental element" to not give them to them. While it's true not giving Battania regular archers isn't the only way to make them unique, it is the best way when taking into account their inspiration and other faction troop trees, and when giving them the two different types of shock troops they're meant to have.

Why is it supposed to be absurd for Khuzaits to have T2 horse archers in the common tree?

The culture description is just 1 of four reasons I've provided for my suggestion, so I wouldn't say too much stock. Sturgia's culture description doesn't actually say anything explicit about their warfare methods; hunting isn't warfare, and hunting also doesn't even necessarily have to involve skill with a bow, because that same culture description calls Sturgians trappers. Battania's cultural description on the other hand very explicitly says they all charge into battle with 2h swords and great axes.

The hail of arrows at Pendraic can easily be explained by a group of Fians firing very quickly, or in large numbers. So you can't say Pendraic is meant to be some kind of proof that Battania has/should have regular archers. If you want archers to be prominent in Battania, they already are by being the elite units of the faction.

It's not dull to have a choice between every different type of infantry, plus elite archers, plus ranged cavalry. There's plenty of variety to be found under the umbrella term "infantry".

If you say that Battania should replace melee cavalry with something they don't already have, then giving them more ranged infantry will also be giving them something they already have! It's not redundant to give Battania another shock troop if it is done to make them more distinct from other factions, match their culture description, match their real life inspiration, and promote more weapon variety in the game.

I am not even sure what the word "consistency" is even meant to mean in this context, as I have shown there is no reason given anywhere in the game for Battania to have specifically common archers.

We can disagree, that's fine. Ultimately Taleworlds will probably never bother doing much changing of the troop trees as they should anyway (although I guess they did change the Sturgians because of that one guy who really hates Vikings for some reason). I have resigned myself to just changing .xml files and maybe putting up a mod myself one day, for everyone to ignore.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

And I don't want to get rid of Fians out of the elite line since they represent the South Welsh having the best archers in the world at the time.

The Welsh Longbow is massively, massively overhyped. While we don't know the exact poundage of premodern bows, archers across the world from China to Sudan to Kongo to pre-Columbian America had single piece bows of similar composition and size, and were probably more skilled. The Welsh in the era of longbows were also not Celts. Celtic culture had ceased to exist in any meaningful form around the year 1000.

 

[five bucks]

The Welsh in the era of longbows were also not Celts. Celtic culture had ceased to exist in any meaningful form around the year 1000.

That's just nonsense, to this day the Welsh are classed as a Celtic ethnic group and Welsh itself is one of the sole surviving Celtic-family languages. The Welsh in 1000 were very definitely (Insular) Celts.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

There are five dimensions to my idea. 1: Shock infantry *2 (I would have the second shock infantry unit only branch into existence at T5). 2: Pike infantry. 3: Heavy infantry. 4: Ranged infantry. 5: Ranged cavalry.

I like your hypothetical Celt troop tree, but I'll point out that with two heavy infantry units, it would be open to exactly the same criticism you're levelling at me for having two shock infantry units in mine.

The Picts/Scots did not use crossbowmen as battlefield troops in Bannerlord's stated time period (600-1100). Crossbows were very small and light, only used for hunting in that time period as far as we know, there is only one depiction of a crossbow from then and it's being used from horseback to hunt fowl. Picts/Scots tended to fight as infantry or javelin cavalry way back to ancient times (the Caledonians for example using shields and swords), and after contact with the Vikings (creating the Norse-Gaels) and the invading Anglo-Saxons, Scots started to adopt mail.

Well are you getting rid of Fians or not? Because if you aren't, and you're adding common archers too, then they will definitely not be limited. And I don't want to get rid of Fians out of the elite line since they represent the South Welsh having the best archers in the world at the time. If people want to build an army which is particularly South Welsh (let's not forget the distinction between North and South here), but don't want to scrounge for nobles, that's a particularly obscure enough wish that it can be satisfied by them modding the game themselves. For vanilla troop trees the concern should be offering differentiation and representing the real-life source; the vanilla game can't be expected to satisfy every single strange desire someone might have.

Battania already don't have common archers, so it's not "taking away a fundamental element" to not give them to them. While it's true not giving Battania regular archers isn't the only way to make them unique, it is the best way when taking into account their inspiration and other faction troop trees, and when giving them the two different types of shock troops they're meant to have.

Why is it supposed to be absurd for Khuzaits to have T2 horse archers in the common tree?

The culture description is just 1 of four reasons I've provided for my suggestion, so I wouldn't say too much stock. Sturgia's culture description doesn't actually say anything explicit about their warfare methods; hunting isn't warfare, and hunting also doesn't even necessarily have to involve skill with a bow, because that same culture description calls Sturgians trappers. Battania's cultural description on the other hand very explicitly says they all charge into battle with 2h swords and great axes.

The hail of arrows at Pendraic can easily be explained by a group of Fians firing very quickly, or in large numbers. So you can't say Pendraic is meant to be some kind of proof that Battania has/should have regular archers. If you want archers to be prominent in Battania, they already are by being the elite units of the faction.

It's not dull to have a choice between every different type of infantry, plus elite archers, plus ranged cavalry. There's plenty of variety to be found under the umbrella term "infantry".

If you say that Battania should replace melee cavalry with something they don't already have, then giving them more ranged infantry will also be giving them something they already have! It's not redundant to give Battania another shock troop if it is done to make them more distinct from other factions, match their culture description, match their real life inspiration, and promote more weapon variety in the game.

I am not even sure what the word "consistency" is even meant to mean in this context, as I have shown there is no reason given anywhere in the game for Battania to have specifically common archers.

We can disagree, that's fine. Ultimately Taleworlds will probably never bother doing much changing of the troop trees as they should anyway (although I guess they did change the Sturgians because of that one guy who really hates Vikings for some reason). I have resigned myself to just changing .xml files and maybe putting up a mod myself one day, for everyone to ignore.

Two forms of heavy infantry with very different functions though. The Gallowglass is specifically a shock infantry man with two hander and a very small shield. The new Oathsworn would just be a regular spear and shield infantry. There's a huge difference in the roles they, this is not at all a case of criticising myself. In comparison, your idea is effectively just two different types shock troops, which tbf isn't that bad. But still if we're going with variety, I think my approach satisfies that better.

Maybe, but we can't just transplant Picts, or even the Gaels 100% into Bannerlord without them looking out of place. Considering their regular exposure to Vlandians and the Empire, both of whom use crossbows, I would imagine the Battanians would come to appreciate crossbows as weapons of war. Even more so, seeing as crossbows have useful perks in ambush warfare. That, and I feel its way more unique anyway, and historical authenticity is secondary to feel and the 'cool factor'.

If I had my way, I wouldn't scrap them. I'd have two noble troop tree paths if anything. One to represent the Teulu/Riglach/Noble whatever cavalry, and another to represent a fun ranged heavy infantry unit. That being said, I'd make sure everyone else is a bit more opened up in terms of variety. And if I had to choose, I'd keep the Fians because I like them too much.

Who says they're meant to have two different shock troops? I don't believe we have to have 100% accuracy at all, especially when it makes little sense. And considering the enemies the Battanians face, there is no logic in them running around with so many shock troops, and not having some common archers.

I'll bring this up again, but from a tactical standpoint, Battania's whole military context is different to Brythonic Celts. Those Celts were not dealing with these well rounded combined arms forces like Battania is- it would not make sense for them to be fighting in the same manner just because 'historical inspiration'. Against well rounded, well equipped armies with a vested interest in taking you down, skirmisher tactics really won't cut it.

Access to T2 horse archers for the Khuzaits is reason why they dominate so much in autocalc. And no, its not even sensible either, considering the Khuzaits have become increasingly sedentary. I think tier 3 would be more reasonable, and that's at best. Still earlier access to horse archers than anyone else.

Maybe, but that sounds a lot harder to believe people are capable of firing a great big long bow that quickly, or that they would have that many nobles in a place. Common archers sound far more probable.

Variety maybe. But in practice, the composition of the forces would look way lopsided for infantry, varied or not. Fighting Battania would just be a matter of amassing a lot of archers, and winning. Unless you want shock troops to be arrow proof, they're going to die. Skirmisher cavalry be too few to do much. Fians will lose an archery duel against a greater force, which just leaves a few infantry with small shields. If they at least had more archers, fighting them would be a more different and complicated challenge.

Consistency in that every other faction has access to long ranged common troops, so in order to be consistent, Battania ought to have the same.

And go ahead and mod then, at least you aren't surprised your idea won't get much traction. Then again, I'm surprised I've come as far as I did with mine.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

That's just nonsense, to this day the Welsh are classed as a Celtic ethnic group and Welsh itself is one of the sole surviving Celtic-family languages. The Welsh in 1000 were very definitely (Insular) Celts.

The commonality of celts in the iron age wasnt langauge or ethnicity, it was material culture, social organisation and religion. I don't think it really makes sense to call the welsh longbow a Celtic weapon when by that time they were catholics with a feudal social structure and byzantine style medieval art.

Battania is definitely a complete mess of a faction, but it clearly draws way more from iron age celts than the insular "celts" of post roman britain.

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

I do not think that the various Empire factions need much difference between them - from a historical perspective, they way they set it up, is almost entirely on the Byzantine empire from Basil II to the Disaster at Manzikert (where the Seljuqs took over most of Anatolia - and gave rise to the Ottomans - and likely the ancestors of some TW Devs if you think about it). When Basil II took control of the Throne, he had to fight against two very popular generals in the Theme system - Bardas Phokas and Nikephoras Phokas who campaigned in Southern Anatolia and the Levant.

Anyway, history aside, the aesthetic makes sense though the main quest could be reworked in a way that the empire starts united and through Player choice (or other triggers) they can separate into what they are now. There is a reason they all end up very low in the scoring for Snowball testing - they fight themselves and others just as much and end up having most of their recruitment and manpower torched due to constant border raids.

I keep tagging him, and will do so again, but @Terco_Viejo has a very good thread about troop tree and cultural changes that align with both historical evidence *and* gameplay. I am a huge fan of the Empire losing that stupid Crossbow tree in favor of a dedicated, non-noble Light Cav (which will increase their Cav ratios to at least compete w/ Aserai and Khuzait). Their Noble line needs some work too - getting rid of Viglas, and starting them as "Heavy Horsemen" and extending that line into specializations similar to the Faris line. I would like to see an "armored" horse archer split added to their noble line, since outside of grinding T5 archers, there is no way they can keep up with the horse archer numbers of Khuzait. In late game I get into battles where they are rolling 150-200 T4+ HAs which are devastating in Auto-calc.

A lot of their troops need a rework as well - mostly in terms of Armor and the Bucellarii really need to have two quivers. Byzantine cataphracts and horse archers were based on their Eastern Sassanian/Parthian/Turkic counterparts since the Roman Empire started - so sabres, kontos (long two-handed spear) and bows / javelins are expected. Right now - outside of the initial charge (with massive numbers) - the Cataphracts do poorly in melee given their short ass sword.

Outside of that, some of the other factions need some love, Battania feels like they need more shock, light cav (similar to Vlandia's setup) and probably some noble line work. I know right now they're a mashup of Celt-Iberian, Gallic, Flemish, and Dacian - hard to really dial that down correctly given how anachronistic that is.

Vlandia feels nearly perfect for proto-Normans, though I feel their heavy cav needs and armor rework. I still feel Imperial Elite Cataphracts are better armored than Banner Knights - which should be the prototypical middle-Medieval knight in full plate armor plus full barding on the horse. Everything else is spot on - crossbowmen, pikeman, volgiers, etc. - that feels very Landsknecht which is also a perfect aesthetic for them. Sturgia feels just about right too, but could probably use some Ranged love, their infantry units are really good and I think the type of cav they employ is perfect - you could argue that they need a HA unit since the Kievan Rus (and later the Novgorodians as a Mongol Vassal) employed many types of mid-Asian and Turkic HA troops and settled them in their territory - but for gameplay I do not think they should have HAs unless all the factions end up looking the same.

Oh yeah, camel cataphracts, because why not lol.

 

[dev.Floyd]

Battania for sure!! They re forest ppl, they should have a good and common archer class (such as Fians, but less armored)

 

[five bucks]

The commonality of celts in the iron age wasnt langauge or ethnicity, it was material culture, social organisation and religion. I don't think it really makes sense to call the welsh longbow a Celtic weapon when by that time they were catholics with a feudal social structure and byzantine style medieval art.

You're just throwing red herrings all over the place and I'm not even sure why you got into this discussion to say all these unrelated things.
The Welsh were (and still are!) Celts by the very widely held consensus definition of Celts.

Whether they had influences from elsewhere in their artistic culture or social structure is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, when all we need to know is: they were Celts, they are explicitly cited as an inspiration for Battania by TW, and the South Welsh were very very good bowmen.

Battania is definitely a complete mess of a faction, but it clearly draws way more from iron age celts than the insular "celts" of post roman britain.

Just, like, read the devblog dude. https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/30
"As readers have probably guessed, the Battanians are inspired by the Celtic peoples of Western Europe - in particular, the Picts, Irish, and Welsh of the early medieval era."

 

[Shillslayer]

Sturgia, obviously.

 

[Yertyl]

There are five dimensions to my idea. 1: Shock infantry *2 (I would have the second shock infantry unit only branch into existence at T5). 2: Pike infantry. 3: Heavy infantry. 4: Ranged infantry. 5: Ranged cavalry.

I have a few problems with this...first, currently pikeman are essentially pointless. Second, while you can try to manouver a bit different with shock infantry (more flanking), skrimishers play essentially the same as normal infantry in my experience. So you might have some visual variety, but not much in tactical play, which for me matters most.

The hail of arrows at Pendraic can easily be explained by a group of Fians firing very quickly, or in large numbers. So you can't say Pendraic is meant to be some kind of proof that Battania has/should have regular archers. If you want archers to be prominent in Battania, they already are by being the elite units of the faction.

You do understand that noble units are very rare, right? There are not that many powerful village residents, and even for those noble units tend to be locked behind several walls of relationship, meaning you either need to do a lot of quests for the same person or have high-level perks.
In my current playthrough with an almost purely Sturgian army I have been able to hire exactly one Otroki before hitting level 10. This is after doing quite a few quests for Sturgian villages.

I have to ask: Have you tried playing an infantry-heavy Battanian army? I have, and it's just not very...fun compared to a more mixed army. For me, infantry tends to be the most tactically boring option independent of them having javelins or not. They have neither range nor speed to effectively flank, which drastically limits their options. You can try to pull some very mild flanking manouvers with shock infantry, but other than that, every battle tends to be the same routine. It's not even remotely comparable to what you can pull off with archers and horse archers in the mix.

 

[Midnitewolf]

I hope to get a mod for separate empire troops working myself, so yeah. If nothing else, count on mods.

Yeah I am sure there will be. I mean with Eagle Rising you can download a version of it that only changes two of the three factions so if that can happen, then you can obviously change the troop trees for each of the Empire factions independently. Honestly I am kind of surprised we haven't seen a mod doing this yet.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Outside of that, some of the other factions need some love, Battania feels like they need more shock, light cav (similar to Vlandia's setup) and probably some noble line work. I know right now they're a mashup of Celt-Iberian, Gallic, Flemish, and Dacian - hard to really dial that down correctly given how anachronistic that is.

Vlandia feels nearly perfect for proto-Normans, though I feel their heavy cav needs and armor rework. I still feel Imperial Elite Cataphracts are better armored than Banner Knights - which should be the prototypical middle-Medieval knight in full plate armor plus full barding on the horse. Everything else is spot on - crossbowmen, pikeman, volgiers, etc. - that feels very Landsknecht which is also a perfect aesthetic for them. Sturgia feels just about right too, but could probably use some Ranged love, their infantry units are really good and I think the type of cav they employ is perfect - you could argue that they need a HA unit since the Kievan Rus (and later the Novgorodians as a Mongol Vassal) employed many types of mid-Asian and Turkic HA troops and settled them in their territory - but for gameplay I do not think they should have HAs unless all the factions end up looking the same.

First I heard of Battania being considered 'Celt-Iberian'. And Flemish too! I have no clue where you got those ideas.

And I REALLY don't think you know who the Normans are if you think they need knights in full plate harness and think landscknect are great aesthetic. If anything, I consider the Vlandians to be the absolute worst in terms of that. What could have been a very early Medieval army ends up being this really lame mob of half arse Swadians- without cool stuff like great helms. Devs tried to play it safe with them, and now they look hideous and bland.

Why couldn't we have had a real dark ages styled army instead of the unimaginative mess we have now?

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

The commonality of celts in the iron age wasnt langauge or ethnicity, it was material culture, social organisation and religion. I don't think it really makes sense to call the welsh longbow a Celtic weapon when by that time they were catholics with a feudal social structure and byzantine style medieval art.

Battania is definitely a complete mess of a faction, but it clearly draws way more from iron age celts than the insular "celts" of post roman britain.

I don't see how they draw much of anything from Iron Age Celts either. Maybe Oathsworn and falxes? The general naming of everything suggests they're meant to more inspired by the residents of post Roman Britain, judging by butchered terms like Fian, kerns and etc.

Them not being the true continuation of Iron Age Celtic culture aside, referring to them under the umbrella term of Celt is just so much more convenient, we all get the jist of what's being spoken about when its said. I don't see any reason to be pedantic here.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Yeah I am sure there will be. I mean with Eagle Rising you can download a version of it that only changes two of the three factions so if that can happen, then you can obviously change the troop trees for each of the Empire factions independently. Honestly I am kind of surprised we haven't seen a mod doing this yet.

Dammit, didn't see this, but its not that simple actually. Although they're three factions, they all share the same culture xml. That's settlements, NPCs and etc that must be changed. You can just change them and expect nothing to happen.

 

[Neofd10]

Not if they had a focus in shock infantry and archery, their archers would trim the enemy ranks and their infantry charges would hack down the rest.

I don't get people saying if battania had more archers they would be the same as the other factions, maybe others have too many ranged units then no? foot archery was supposed to be Battania's specialty just like the Khuzait have horse archers or the Vlandians their heavy knights.

Their own nobility prefeer to fight with two handed weapons and longbows, i can't imagine that the common clansmen wouldn't look to their chieftains and highborns as cultural and warfare inspiration.

Well said, its emmersion breaking for battania not to have commoner archers. I don't get why some people (and even Taleworlds seamingly) are opposed to this. I don't think Battania should have no cavalry, but make it unique.

For me the factions that need the most love is Battania (for both troop tree and their architecture) and the Empire (for more variety)

Battania-
*Troops: NEEDS ARCHERS IN COMMON TROOP TREE. Also make most infantry and all cavalry focus on skirmishishing with either javalins or even slings, make the oathsworn line be melee only. Also have better celtic themed noble civilian outfits and give nobles horses for transportation around the map only (dismount for battles) they are nobles and shouldn't march on foot as thats beneath them.

*Architecture: The houses, castles and some cities need some changing as there is too much stone. I get that some of the cites and castle may have once been imperial settlements/strongholds but in that case we should be able to clearly see that imperial asthetic being merged with newer battanian additions with the houses, walls and keeps. All the other castles and possibly one of the cities should be moddeled off hillforts and have wooden walls and a great hall rather than a stone keep. Most of the ordinary houses should have their walls built from from wattle and daub rather than stone.

Empire-
*Variation: make the troops, architecture, clothing and some other stuff take some asthetic influence from their surrounding cultures, I know lots of people have mentioned this already so I won't go into too much depth here. All I will say is: Western empire = Battanian and limited vlandian influence (due to vlandians not being present on the continent that long), Northern Empire = Sturgian and some Khuzait influence, Southern Empire = Aserai and some Khuzait influence. I say some Khuzait influence as like the vlandians, they originally came from affar and didn't have as much time to influence culture, (even though culture can change quite fast at times, but whatever).

Let me know what you think.