Which Faction Needs the Most Love and Work?

Users who are viewing this thread

Is it really possible to give each empire separate troop trees without causing save compatibility issues? If they go for it, say bye to your saves. I personally wouldn't mind tbh, and I am actually working on separate troop trees for a mod.

It would be more fun if the Empires had some more evocative names. I would be curious to hear ideas for them though.

That aside though, there needs to be more noble civilian clothes for the factions. Walking into keeps to see a raggedy Vlandian lord is immersion breaking. At least here, the Empire has some noble outfits.

Truth be told, as nice as it would be to see every faction being unique, Taleworlds and we should really just leave it mods to correct. Honestly I don't know why Taleworlds and the community isn't thinking along these lines more. Taleworlds should stop converting mods into native features, as well as stop trying to balance things and focus on completing the game so that the modders can go to work without having tons of new patches constantly breaking their mods and disrupting everyone using those mods gameplay.

I have no doubt that once the game stabilizes, we will be able to mod in unique troops for each and every one of the empires factions if we want.
 
Battania not having archers in their regular tree is a good thing. The factions in the game already feel very similar in terms of what their armies can do. Battania not having normal archers is one of the only things that makes them feel unique as a faction.
In practice its completely stupid though. Battanian AI armies contain stupid amounts of cavalry, way too much for a faction that's not characterised by cavalry. It just doesn't work.

Truth be told, as nice as it would be to see every faction being unique, Taleworlds and we should really just leave it mods to correct. Honestly I don't know why Taleworlds and the community isn't thinking along these lines more. Taleworlds should stop converting mods into native features, as well as stop trying to balance things and focus on completing the game so that the modders can go to work without having tons of new patches constantly breaking their mods and disrupting everyone using those mods gameplay.

I have no doubt that once the game stabilizes, we will be able to mod in unique troops for each and every one of the empires factions if we want.
I hope to get a mod for separate empire troops working myself, so yeah. If nothing else, count on mods.
 
In practice its completely stupid though. Battanian AI armies contain stupid amounts of cavalry, way too much for a faction that's not characterised by cavalry. It just doesn't work.
+1
It would be far more fitting if Battania's thing was "no cavalry" (since, you know, forests). The only problem is that in the current state of balance, that would make them far too weak.
 
+1
It would be far more fitting if Battania's thing was "no cavalry" (since, you know, forests). The only problem is that in the current state of balance, that would make them far too weak.
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.
 
In practice its completely stupid though. Battanian AI armies contain stupid amounts of cavalry, way too much for a faction that's not characterised by cavalry. It just doesn't work.
I fully agree that Battania has too much cavalry, and I would absolutely support them having their melee cavalry unit replaced by a different kind of unit. But not a ranged infantry unit, something else more unique. Perhaps a javelin-equipped shock infantry unit instead.
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.
It's pretty simple: Every single faction has a regular ranged infantry unit, except Battania. So, if you give them a regular ranged infantry unit, they are definitely going to end up less unique.

Battania has not one, but *two* specialities listed in their lore: foot archery and shock infantry charges. The Fians represent the archery side, the falxmen represent the shock infantry side. So, the specialty is represented just fine.

As for your second sentence, infantry don't have to look to their nobility for inspiration in fighting methods. For example, the Empire has a heavy cavalry unit for its nobles, but it has no regular heavy cavalry unit.

On a separate point, it also makes thematic sense for the Battanians to have no regular archers when you consider their historical inspiration. Battania is mainly inspired by the Celts of the 600s-1100s period- the Irish, Picts, Gaels, and North and South Welsh- plus a little bit of Ancient Continental Celts. Among all these groups, the only ones known for using bows were the South Welsh, who were elite masters of the longbow (and also the small sub-group of Gaels called the Dal Raita). All other Celts rarely used bows until the Viking invasions introduced them, and even after that, not much. The North Welsh were better known for their use of spears, the Irish for two-handed axes and javelins, the Picts/Gaels for heavy infantry and javelins, and finally the Ancient Celts were known for mass shock infantry charges and javelin throwing skirmishing cavalry.

So if Battania is meant to be a grouping of different types of Celt, then having only a few elite archers in an army makes sense. And if you don't care about the historical side at all, then not giving Battania a default archer keeps them unique in that regard. Bannerlord has a problem already with different faction troop trees being too similar.
 
Last edited:
foot archery was supposed to be Battania's specialty just like the Khuzait have horse archers or the Vlandians their heavy knights.
Khuzaits don't have the best horse archers (Aserai do), Vlandians don't have the best heavy cav (the Empire or maybe Sturgia does). The faction lore only matches actual faction troops in some places by coincidence.
 
I fully agree that Battania has too much cavalry, and I would absolutely support them having their melee cavalry unit replaced by a different kind of unit. But not a ranged infantry unit, something else more unique. Perhaps a javelin-equipped shock infantry unit instead.

It's pretty simple: Every single faction has a regular ranged infantry unit, except Battania. So, if you give them a regular ranged infantry unit, they are definitely going to end up less unique.

Battania has not one, but *two* specialities listed in their lore: foot archery and shock infantry charges. The Fians represent the archery side, the falxmen represent the shock infantry side. So, the specialty is represented just fine.

As for your second sentence, infantry don't have to look to their nobility for inspiration in fighting methods. For example, the Empire has a heavy cavalry unit for its nobles, but it has no regular heavy cavalry unit.

On a separate point, it also makes thematic sense for the Battanians to have no regular archers when you consider their historical inspiration. Battania is mainly inspired by the Celts of the 600s-1100s period- the Irish, Picts, Gaels, and North and South Welsh- plus a little bit of Ancient Continental Celts. Among all these groups, the only ones known for using bows were the South Welsh, who were elite masters of the longbow (and also the small sub-group of Gaels called the Dal Raita). All other Celts rarely used bows until the Viking invasions introduced them, and even after that, not much. The North Welsh were better known for their use of spears, the Irish for two-handed axes and javelins, the Picts/Gaels for heavy infantry and javelins, and finally the Ancient Celts were known for mass shock infantry charges and javelin throwing skirmishing cavalry.

So if Battania is meant to be a grouping of different types of Celt, then having only a few elite archers in an army makes sense. And if you don't care about the historical side at all, then not giving Battania a default archer keeps them unique in that regard. Bannerlord has a problem already with different faction troop trees being too similar.
I don't know about you, but Veteran Falxmen sure feel like skirmishers with the amount of throwing axes they lop around. Another shock trooper... but with javelins would run into the same redundancy issues as Oathsworn and Wildlings.

I don't buy your justification either, considering how much archery is attributed to Battania. Javelin skirmishers isn't something that gets brought up all that much for Battania (though it doesn't feel wrong for them to have them at all tbf). With such attention to archers, their lack of them just feels so sorely underrepresented. Not to mention it really doesn't work in BL either- traditional celtic warfare revolving around cattle raids, ambushes and small engagements simply are not a thing. A different army is needed- preferrably one with archers.

I really REALLY don't see the benefit of this so called' uniqueness. And its not like you can't make them unique either- just make them unarmoured, quick moving archers with big axes or something.
 
I don't know about you, but Veteran Falxmen sure feel like skirmishers with the amount of throwing axes they lop around. Another shock trooper... but with javelins would run into the same redundancy issues as Oathsworn and Wildlings.

I don't buy your justification either, considering how much archery is attributed to Battania. Javelin skirmishers isn't something that gets brought up all that much for Battania (though it doesn't feel wrong for them to have them at all tbf). With such attention to archers, their lack of them just feels so sorely underrepresented. Not to mention it really doesn't work in BL either- traditional celtic warfare revolving around ambushes and small engagements simply are not a thing.
I would have a 2h axe-wielding shock trooper who is more heavily armored than the falxman and carries javelins, I think that would be good differentiation. Oathsworn and Wildlings can easily be differentiated more too; exaggerate their equipment more so the Oathsworn is a heavily armored sword and board user with no spear, and the Wildling is a long pike user with throwing javelins but no sword and shield.

As for the justifications:
1- Don't you think we might be giving undue weight to the handful of sentences dedicated to describing the factions? They aren't set in stone and can easily be changed, as we have seen in-game lore changed recently. What's more important is making the factions different and varied to play and thus more fun. Gameplay is more important.
2- Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument for giving Battania regular archers is based on, if I understand correctly, two snippets of lore. First, their appearance in the Battle of Pendraic, where they send a hail of arrows out of the woods followed by a wild charge. Second, this snippet from the devblogs: "They are masters of the longbow, the night raid, the sudden wild charge out of the woods".
Now to me, neither of those things in any way imply that Battania has to have regular infantry archers. If they have elite noble archers, those conditions are still satisfied.
When you go to pick Battania as a civilization, the lore for them says: "their fierce warriors paint their faces when going to battle and use great axes and two-handed swords with deadly efficiency." It doesn't mention bows at all!

So you can see, the argument for giving Battania regular archers is based on very little. If it's your personal preference then fine, but please say so. I want to see Battania be more unique for gameplay reasons.

And finally, not all Celtic warfare revolved around small engagements, for example the Battle of Clontarf, where the Irish fought in large numbers against the Vikings and won; although the Irish had inferior armor, they had superior numbers, and used javelins.
I really REALLY don't see the benefit of this so called' uniqueness. And its not like you can't make them unique either- just make them unarmoured, quick moving archers with big axes or something.
Let me answer that first question with another question. Imagine a game of Bannerlord where every faction had exactly the same troops just reskinned. Then ask yourself, why does that sound not fun? Now can you see the benefit of factions having unique strengths and weaknesses?

Giving Battania "the same thing everyone else has, but slightly different" is less bad for their uniqueness, but it's still bad. And like I said, I don't see any good reason why you would do that.

Right now, almost every faction can field in their armies heavy infantry, shock infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, and ranged infantry. It's rare to find factions who can't do all those things. Two examples of in my opinion good troop tree design are Khuzaits and Vlandia. Khuzaits' specialty is very clear (2 ranged cavalry units) and its weakness is very clear (lacks infantry). Vlandia's specialty is very clear (2 melee cav units) and its weakness is very clear (no ranged cavalry). Battania should be like them, having a clear strength and clear weakness. And based on their actual in-game lore they're perfect candidates for having the strength of shock infantry.
 
It's rare to find factions who can't do all those things. Two examples of in my opinion good troop tree design are Khuzaits and Vlandia. Khuzaits' specialty is very clear (2 ranged cavalry units) and its weakness is very clear (lacks infantry).
Darkhans exist and for awhile were hands down the best infantry in the game. They certainly aren't the worst now.
 
2- Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument for giving Battania regular archers is based on, if I understand correctly, two snippets of lore. First, their appearance in the Battle of Pendraic, where they send a hail of arrows out of the woods followed by a wild charge. Second, this snippet from the devblogs: "They are masters of the longbow, the night raid, the sudden wild charge out of the woods".
Now to me, neither of those things in any way imply that Battania has to have regular infantry archers. If they have elite noble archers, those conditions are still satisfied.
There's another very clear reference in game - the Wolfskins. Battanian culture, Battanian equipment, referred to by some Battanian wanderers. Their troop line represents the single non-noble line allowed to a minor clan, for the only minor Battanian clan: the devs chose archers. It would perfect sense for the Battanian roster to include a similar, lightly armoured, non-noble archer unit.
 
I would have a 2h axe-wielding shock trooper who is more heavily armored than the falxman and carries javelins, I think that would be good differentiation. Oathsworn and Wildlings can easily be differentiated more too; exaggerate their equipment more so the Oathsworn is a heavily armored sword and board user with no spear, and the Wildling is a long pike user with throwing javelins but no sword and shield.

As for the justifications:
1- Don't you think we might be giving undue weight to the handful of sentences dedicated to describing the factions? They aren't set in stone and can easily be changed, as we have seen in-game lore changed recently. What's more important is making the factions different and varied to play and thus more fun. Gameplay is more important.
2- Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument for giving Battania regular archers is based on, if I understand correctly, two snippets of lore. First, their appearance in the Battle of Pendraic, where they send a hail of arrows out of the woods followed by a wild charge. Second, this snippet from the devblogs: "They are masters of the longbow, the night raid, the sudden wild charge out of the woods".
Now to me, neither of those things in any way imply that Battania has to have regular infantry archers. If they have elite noble archers, those conditions are still satisfied.
When you go to pick Battania as a civilization, the lore for them says: "their fierce warriors paint their faces when going to battle and use great axes and two-handed swords with deadly efficiency." It doesn't mention bows at all!

So you can see, the argument for giving Battania regular archers is based on very little. If it's your personal preference then fine, but please say so. I want to see Battania be more unique for gameplay reasons.

And finally, not all Celtic warfare revolved around small engagements, for example the Battle of Clontarf, where the Irish fought in large numbers against the Vikings and won; although the Irish had inferior armor, they had superior numbers, and used javelins.

Let me answer that first question with another question. Imagine a game of Bannerlord where every faction had exactly the same troops just reskinned. Then ask yourself, why does that sound not fun? Now can you see the benefit of factions having unique strengths and weaknesses?

Giving Battania "the same thing everyone else has, but slightly different" is less bad for their uniqueness, but it's still bad. And like I said, I don't see any good reason why you would do that.

Right now, almost every faction can field in their armies heavy infantry, shock infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, and ranged infantry. It's rare to find factions who can't do all those things. Two examples of in my opinion good troop tree design are Khuzaits and Vlandia. Khuzaits' specialty is very clear (2 ranged cavalry units) and its weakness is very clear (lacks infantry). Vlandia's specialty is very clear (2 melee cav units) and its weakness is very clear (no ranged cavalry). Battania should be like them, having a clear strength and clear weakness. And based on their actual in-game lore they're perfect candidates for having the strength of shock infantry.
Veteran Falxmen already wear some heavy armour now, so your idea still isn't all that unique in function. Are you sure we're talking about the Veteran Falxmen? You know? The guys with the rhomphaia and not the falx? Because those guys will absolutely do job better than anything you can come up with.

Oathsworn and Wildlings could be differentiated, but your way about it makes no sense. Sword and board only units would suck from being so hyper limited, all infantry in BL make use of some extra capabilities beyond just one note roles. And pikes don't make any sense at all for a skirmishing light infantry type of unit. I would settle with just giving Oathsworn a throwing spear in place of their javelins, and Wildlings a second stack of javelins in place of their spear. That way you have two truly unique troops.

Concerning justifications.

I base it on the notion that we have been informed about Battania's descriptions as an archer faction, but also that there needs to be an archer faction. Everyone else is able to straight up outgun the Battanians in a skirmish, and if you give Battanians too shock troops, they'll be suffer even more. Archers in good quantity need to exist for Battania to actually let shock troops do anything. If they have no means to nullify enemy fire, you just end up with an army of pin cushions.

I also base this on the fact that just giving them common archers would not make them any less unique in the least bit, especially if you take away something else.

So yeah, I guess its subjective, but it certainly doesn't come out of nowhere. And A LOT of people want it. In the same vein as your logic, nothing about the entries say Battania can't have common archers, and I believe common archers don't make a faction less unique.

'Reskinning' is not how I'd put the significant changes to troops at all. I think you can give all factions a good variety of troops, and still give them enough distinct characteristics to be unique and interesting. Lets say we take Imperial Archers vs a theoretical Battanian archer. Imperial archers can have the advantage in armour, which lets them kill other archers in ranged shootouts as well as making them more resilient in melee combat. Battanian archers meanwhile can be near naked and armed with longbows+two handers. They will move faster than any archer and potentially out skirmish anyone given enough finesse, but perform extremely poorly if damage comes to them in any way.

Just from that, you've got two seemingly similar units in similar roles, but with different capabilities. You can absolutely do this with other archers, and in fact I have. In my mod, Imperial and Battanian archers do what I mentioned. Sturgians get shields so that they act more like ranged support melee infantry, the Aserai get more damage and skill than anyone at the cost of melee proficiency, while the Khuzaits get to be a weird 'balanced' archer.

In regards to your troop tree thing, I did not come to your conclusions. The Khuzaits are a terrible example, and represent everything wrong with your little 'uniqueness' for uniqueness sake. Their overload of cavalry units in their troop tree is exactly what lets them dominate and snowball on the map. Its unique, sure. But completely imbalanced. That, and as @Apocal mentioned, they actually have infantry who are capable of rivalling legionaries for some reason. All they lack is shock infantry, but dismounted Khan's Guard do that job plenty well.

Vlandia is just weird and needs some tuning. I think they could use a bit more cavalry, and zero pikemen. Pikemen suck, and I don't think TW will ever make them good.

Battania is easy to make unique even then. Take away their melee cavalry and done. You have a unique foot focused troop tree. Adding common archers doesn't detract from that at all. We don't need to deny them their archers.
 
Darkhans exist and for awhile were hands down the best infantry in the game. They certainly aren't the worst now.
Balance was indeed poor in the past and is still poor, and subject to change like everything else. The point is more that if/when TW eventually succeeds in balancing the game, then Khuzait lacking melee infantry choices relative to other factions will determine what is considered their weakness.
There's another very clear reference in game - the Wolfskins. Battanian culture, Battanian equipment, referred to by some Battanian wanderers. Their troop line represents the single non-noble line allowed to a minor faction, for the only minor Battanian faction: the devs chose archers.
Minor factions aren't a reference to what the main faction is meant to be like. Vlandia has Brotherhood of the Woods- which is bow focused, despite Vlandia only having crossbows in their regular army with zero bows- and Company of the Golden Boar- which are crossbow infantry. If you went by these two for your idea of Vlandia, you would think they had no cavalry at all and were an entirely ranged army.

Also, go read the description for the Wolfskins, it says that they are mainly comprised of the sons of the wealthy. In other words, they're Highborn Youth on gap year, and that's why they use bows just like the Battanian noble line, because it's a thing Battanian nobility does. Wolfskins are consistent with the way Battania already is.

Veteran Falxmen already wear some heavy armour now, so your idea still isn't all that unique in function. Are you sure we're talking about the Veteran Falxmen? You know? The guys with the rhomphaia and not the falx? Because those guys will absolutely do job better than anything you can come up with.

Oathsworn and Wildlings could be differentiated, but your way about it makes no sense. Sword and board only units would suck from being so hyper limited, all infantry in BL make use of some extra capabilities beyond just one note roles. And pikes don't make any sense at all for a skirmishing light infantry type of unit. I would settle with just giving Oathsworn a throwing spear in place of their javelins, and Wildlings a second stack of javelins in place of their spear. That way you have two truly unique troops.

I base it on the notion that we have been informed about Battania's descriptions as an archer faction, but also that there needs to be an archer faction. Archers in good quantity need to exist for Battania to actually let shock troops do anything. If they have no means to nullify enemy fire, you just end up with an army of pin cushions.

I also base this on the fact that just giving them common archers would not make them any less unique in the least bit, especially if you take away something else.

So yeah, I guess its subjective, but it certainly doesn't come out of nowhere. And A LOT of people want it. In the same vein as your logic, nothing about the entries say Battania can't have common archers, and I believe common archers don't make a faction less unique.

I think you can give all factions a good variety of troops, and still give them enough distinct characteristics to be unique and interesting. Lets say we take Imperial Archers vs a theoretical Battanian archer. Imperial archers can have the advantage in armour, which lets them kill other archers in ranged shootouts as well as making them more resilient in melee combat. Battanian archers meanwhile can be near naked and armed with longbows+two handers. They will move faster than any archer and potentially out skirmish anyone given enough finesse, but perform extremely poorly if damage comes to them in any way.

In regards to your troop tree thing, I did not come to your conclusions. The Khuzaits are a terrible example because their cavalry units in their troop tree let them dominate and snowball on the map. Its unique, sure. But completely imbalanced.

Vlandia is just weird and needs some tuning. I think they could use a bit more cavalry, and zero pikemen. Pikemen suck, and I don't think TW will ever make them good.

Battania is easy to make unique even then. Take away their melee cavalry and done. You have a unique foot focused troop tree. Adding common archers doesn't detract from that at all. We don't need to deny them their archers.

I like your ideas for the Oathsworn and Wildling, and we both agree Battania should lose their melee cavalry, which is good. As for the Vet. Falxman, its armor could go down a grade. It could be the glass cannon, while the 2h axeman unit could be the tankier but less powerful option. Having two types of shock infantry would cement Battania as the shock infantry specialist faction, something Bannerlord lacks, which feeds into my next point.

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.

Your three other points - shock troops being too weak without archers in large quantities to back them up, Khuzaits being overpowered, pikemen sucking- can all be answered in one. All these things happen because the game is currently poorly balanced. This (hopefully) isn't a permanent situation, so it shouldn't be a reason for including or not including certain troop types. Ideally, by the end of development, all troop types should be much better balanced. Therefore, how powerful certain types of troop are now should be irrelevant. The only question should be making the faction troop trees provide player choice, feel different to each other, and make them similar to their real-life inspirations.

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.
 
Last edited:
Minor factions aren't a reference to what the main faction is meant to be like. Vlandia has Brotherhood of the Woods- which is bow focused, despite Vlandia only having crossbows in their regular army with zero bows- and Company of the Golden Boar- which are crossbow infantry. If you went by these two for your idea of Vlandia, you would think they had no cavalry at all and were an entirely ranged army.

Also, go read the description for the Wolfskins, it says that they are mainly comprised of the sons of the wealthy. In other words, they're Highborn Youth on gap year, and that's why they use bows just like the Battanian noble line, because it's a thing Battanian nobility does. Wolfskins are consistent with the way Battania already is.
There are three more arguments for a Battanian archer focus I would add:
  1. This concept art. Might be forest bandits, but probably not nobles
  2. Arena games are a pretty close representation of faction focus, and Battanian tournaments focus strongly on bows and 2h-weapons (with zero horse involvement)
  3. Battanians are pretty clearly the "forest faction" (faction bonus, home terrain, concept art). The forest -- bow connection just makes sense on several levels -- see also your quoted brotherhood of the woods, or the forest bandits. Archers work best with some form of defense from melee assault, and forests are a good natural defense, especially from cavalry, both in-game and IRL. Look where the archers were placed at the battle of Agincort. And, to quote the wiki page
The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favoured the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud through which the French knights had to walk.
It's not that archers per se just murder everything, it's that archers protected from melee attacks are good at wearing an enemy down over time with ranged attacks (same with HA).
So yeah, Battania should IMO have a strong archer focus and very little cavalry instead of the other way around.
One of the main fixes that helped the snowballing issue was increasing the percentage of mounted units in parties for every other faction.
It would really suck if the long-term solution to mounted units currently being straight up better than non-mounted units in every way would be to give them in equal measure to every faction. IMO they should just count as 1,5 units.
 
Last edited:
One of the main fixes that helped the snowballing issue was increasing the percentage of mounted units in parties for every other faction.
That was one of multiple fixes, I admit I'm not following it closely but browsing that thread, if I'm reading him right, Mexxico credited the great recent improvement in snowballing to "improvements at short term AI calculations (which helps smaller parties catching bigger army when they are overpowered instead of making back and forths) and financial developments at mercenary hirinig issues and improved war - peace calculations and improvements at long term target selection AI (further targets now selected less) and reducing passive xp gain of AI lords".

Either way, it's no longer a big enough issue that it should be a reason for not making factions be unique. In future, going by the current trajectory, it should be even less of an issue. So it's irrelevant to the discussion.
There are three more arguments for a Battanian archer focus I would add:
  1. This concept art. Might be forest bandits, but probably not nobles
  2. Arena games are a pretty close representation of faction focus, and Battanian arena games focus strongly on bows and 2h-weapons (with zero horse involvement)
  3. Battanians are pretty clearly the "forest faction" (faction bonus, home terrain, concept art). The forest -- bow connection just makes sense on several levels -- see also your quoted brotherhood of the woods, or the forest bandits.
It's not that archers per se just murder everything, it's that archers protected from melee attacks are good at wearing an enemy down over time with ranged attacks (same with HA).
So yeah, Battania should IMO have a strong archer focus and very little cavalry instead of the other way around.
1: Yep, note the quarterstaff, they're bandits. I don't think concept art is a very good reason to decide troop trees anyway, but here's an actual Battania concept art with no archers in it.
2: Because the tournaments are often things the nobles do, and Battanian nobles do archery.
3: If such a connection exists, the Fians already satisfy it. You know what else forests are good for? Melee ambush charges by shock infantry. The Battle of Teutoberg Forest being a prime example.

You misunderstand me: I totally agree with Battania having very little cavalry, I think they should lose the melee cavalry (replaced by a shock infantry unit).
 
Let's play :iamamoron: .

As for Battania, I've said it before; the fiann archetype and all its noble lines seems to me an aberration. Furthermore, I would drive the fiann into exile by taking them out of the troop tree and turning them into a minor mercenary faction very much in line with what was told about them in the legends of Dál Riata. Without hesitation and categorically, after that conversion I would replace them with the wolfskins as they add absolutely nothing to the lore.

I am of the opinion that Battania needs archer units in the basic troop tree (see why) and that the noble line should be cavalry (see explanation) and also ordinary skirmishers units.

And on top of that, even Battanian garrison units I would equip with crossbows (Pictish tradition). And speaking of crossbows, all the crossbow line that the empire's troop tree has, I would drop them completely (read explanation why).

In short, all factions need more love. There needs to be a conscious structuring of the armour values of the items and how they are distributed throughout the troop trees following the aesthetic style of each faction. Also, I am of the opinion that the troop trees need a partial restructuring (in some cases even more so) of the roles by function for each archetypal unit.
 
The fiann archetype and all its noble lines seems to me an aberration. I would take them out of the troop tree and turning them into a minor mercenary faction very much in line with what was told about them in the legends of Dál Riata. Without hesitation and categorically, after that conversion I would replace them with the wolfskins as they add absolutely nothing to the lore.

I am of the opinion that Battania needs archer units in the basic troop tree (see why) and that the noble line should be cavalry (see explanation) and also ordinary skirmishers units.

In short, all factions need more love. There needs to be a conscious structuring of the armour values of the items and how they are distributed throughout the troop trees following the aesthetic style of each faction. Also, I am of the opinion that the troop trees need a partial restructuring (in some cases even more so) of the roles by function for each archetypal unit.
"Aberrations" are a good thing if you don't want your factions to feel too similar. Fian Champions are a good representation of the South Welsh Celts and their elite archers. The fact that the Celts as a whole hardly used bows at all, mainly focusing on javelins, means it's a good thing that Battania doesn't have regular archers, only elite ones. That's just speaking from the angle of real life inspiration, then there's also gameplay: every faction having nobles who are cavalry is just samey, honestly.

Having skimmed through your post and looking at the sections where Battania is mentioned, I can't find where you've justified why Battania "needs" archer units in the basic troop tree. In fact, nobody in this thread has really given a good reason for it so far.

At a glance at your troop tree I like some of the things I see and admire the effort you've put in, but when it comes to the changes you've posted here, all I can really agree with you on is that the faction troop trees do indeed need to be changed and their armor looked at also.
 
"Aberrations" are a good thing if you don't want your factions to feel too similar. Fian Champions are a good representation of the South Welsh Celts and their elite archers. The fact that the Celts as a whole hardly used bows at all, mainly focusing on javelins, means it's a good thing that Battania doesn't have regular archers, only elite ones. That's just speaking from the angle of real life inspiration, then there's also gameplay: every faction having nobles who are cavalry is just samey, honestly.

Having skimmed through your post and looking at the sections where Battania is mentioned, I can't find where you've justified why Battania "needs" archer units in the basic troop tree. In fact, nobody in this thread has really given a good reason for it so far.

At a glance at your troop tree I like some of the things I see and admire the effort you've put in, but when it comes to the changes you've posted here, all I can really agree with you on is that the faction troop trees do indeed need to be changed and their armor looked at also.
While it is true that the Celts never adopted, as other Indo-European peoples, the bow as a fundamental weapon in field battle, considering that it was not worthy of a warrior to kill his opponent from a long distance, considering it an act of cowardice, always preferring melee combat, and the fight with this face to face; its widespread use cannot be ruled out outright (remember that there are also sieges).

You refer to the Welsh archers, they never carried a panoply that combined a ranged weapon and a two-handed weapon such as a sword. Therefore, in my eyes a unit that misrepresents a legend and is equipped with a longbow and a two-handed sword (not to mention its armour), I repeat in my eyes is an aberration. There are much more interesting ways to give "a distinctive touch".

Taking your Welsh archers as an example, I will say that this archetype in Battania is entirely plausible by "celtification" in the common troop line, bows, slings and javelins being the holy trinity of ranged/skirmish weapons.

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.
 
Last edited:
Balance was indeed poor in the past and is still poor, and subject to change like everything else. The point is more that if/when TW eventually succeeds in balancing the game, then Khuzait lacking melee infantry choices relative to other factions will determine what is considered their weakness.
I'd bet money on Khuzaits keeping Darkhans as-is or close to it.
That was one of multiple fixes, I admit I'm not following it closely but browsing that thread, if I'm reading him right, Mexxico credited the great recent improvement in snowballing to "improvements at short term AI calculations (which helps smaller parties catching bigger army when they are overpowered instead of making back and forths) and financial developments at mercenary hirinig issues and improved war - peace calculations and improvements at long term target selection AI (further targets now selected less) and reducing passive xp gain of AI lords".

Either way, it's no longer a big enough issue that it should be a reason for not making factions be unique. In future, going by the current trajectory, it should be even less of an issue. So it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Those were campaign health improvements, but even without those people got more or less the same snowballing results just by reducing the Cav bonus. It also isn't a durable set of changes: if you introduce wider variance in faction party composition, it'll come right back up.
 
Back
Top Bottom