Which Faction Needs the Most Love and Work?

[Neofd10]

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.

An excellent case for Battanian archers. Just need Devs to actually add them in.

 

[five bucks]

Well said, its emmersion breaking for battania not to have commoner archers.

Name one actual reason why.

 

[Neofd10]

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.

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).

The battanians are meant to be based off the Welsh, Irish and the Picts. In the early middle ages the main strengths of Welsh were strong missile infantry (especially archers), spearmen and at the time they had the best cavalry in britain. The picts main strength seams to be decient cavalry, missile troops and spearmen. The Irish had their main strengths being light infantry, sound cavalry and missile infantry. With the exception of the Gallowglass, shock infantry wasn't much of a thing they did (unless you mean ambushing and mobility but that doesn't count as people think of warriors who wield 2 handed weapons when it comes to shock infantry). Even if you look at the iron age Celts, whom the devs said only have limited influence, their main strengths were sword and spear infantry and powerful cavalry (basically how battania is at the moment). Celtic cavalry had a huge impact on Roman cavalry. Only the Dacians are really focused on shock infantry. For those reasons I think it is wrong to make Battania into a shock infantry nation as it disregards the cultures they were inspired from and it would be more accurate to their historical sources to make them into the light cavalry faction in comparrison. Light infantry and Archers is definitely the way Battania should go if they want to do justice to the factions they are meant to repesent (which is what every other faction in the game does). I'm sorry if I sound rude, its not intentional, its just my Welsh blood flowing passionately.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

The battanians are meant to be based off the Welsh, Irish and the Picts. In the early middle ages the main strengths of Welsh was strong missile infantry (especially archers), spearmen and at the time they best cavalry in britain. The picts main strenth seams to be decient cavalry, missile troops and spearmen. The irish had thei main strengths being light infantry, sound cavalry and missile infantry. With the exception of the Gallowglass, shock infantry wasn't much of a thing they did (unless you mean ambushing and mobility but that doesn't count as people think of warriors who wield 2handed weapons when it comes to shock infantry). even if you look at the iron age celts (whom the devs said only have limited influence, their main strengths were sord and spear infantry and powerful cavalry (basically how battania is at the moment). Celtic cavalry had a huge impact on roman cavalry. Only the Dacians are really focused on shock infantry. For those reasons I think it is wrong to make Battania into a shock infantry nation as it disregards the cultures they were inspired from and it would be more accurate to their historical sources to make them into the light cavalry faction in comparrison. light infantry and Archers is definitely the way Battania should go if they want to do justice to the factions they are ment to repesent (which is what every other faction in the game does). I'm sorry if I sound rude, its not intentional, its just my Welsh blood flowing passionately.

Thank you.

 

[Neofd10]

Thank you.

stop it you'll make me blush. And reading back on what I wrote, I made a mess of the presentation, with all those brackets and stuff.

 

[Neofd10]

Name one actual reason why.

Thats a good question.

When I look at it, them having noble archers, loads of forest bandits with bows (who are battanian peasants), having the wolfskins with bows (I know they are nobles, but still), having commoner archers only for garrisons (strange), having the ranger in multiplayer (a peasant archer), having armed battanian traders and companions with bows and the fact they live in the woods so ambushing and hunting are both done extensively. Also archery was done by everybody for thousands of years before the era of Bannerlord, and every faction should have at least one commoner archer in my opinion (even the Vlandians, but only one and very weak). Ordinary bows and longbows are very simple and easy to make, and would be highly valued in cultures that rely on hunting and gurrilla tactics (as the Battanians are). Horses, decient armour and blades are fare more expensive and prized, so all of these should be much more difficult for the battanian peasant to get a hold of compared to the humble cheap bow- the peasants of other cultures aren't having any trouble getting them so why the battanians who live in the WOODS in a decient climate? Are we to believe that every common man able to draw a bow went rogue and became a bandit (unless given garrison duties)? That is incredibly far fetched.

Also in Warband the Vaegirs (who are the desendants of the Sturgians north of Battania) have the best archers in the game. This wouldn't make sense if the Aserai would become the archer faction as they are nowhere near the Sturgians, where as Battania in on their doorstep. The Vaegirs did apparently inherit their archers and light infantry from the Battanians. The Aserai specialise in light cavalry, which I think represents the arabian,moorish etc asthetics and culture far better than archers. Cavalry is the most iconic part of an islamic faction, not so much the archers. The Empire are inspired from a mix of the "Byzantium" empire (as we call it today) and the classical Roman empire. the former is best known for its Cavalry (particularly the Cataphracts) and the latter heavy legions of infantry. Turning either the Aserai or the Calradic empire into an archer faction doesn't make sense to me. The only other faction which could become the archer faction is Sturgia as they are the ansestors of the Vaegiers (good luck making Taleworlds make that huge adjustment and making most fans like it). Sturgia should be the infantry faction as they are positioned to the south of the nords and therefore recieve lots of nordic influence. It was this case historically with the slavic peoples as they were primarilly focused on infantry fighting in the nordic style, and it wasn't until later in the middle ages where they changed to become focused on cavalry and horse archers due to the demand of curcumstance and outside influence. In the same way my first point explains this and makes Sturgia's transition into the Vaegiers very interesting.

If Battania became a shock infantry faction instead, we would have two infantry factions right next to each other (Sturgia vol 2), which I would not like due to wanting uniqueness and Variation. If you really want to make factions unique, why are you picking on one of the very few factions that already is unique, even if you add common archers (which should happen) as they have archery only nobles, they generally have poor armour and lack strong cavalry (as well as having a distinct visual which all cultures in game have). Why do you not desire to change the other blander factions instead- the Calradic empire factions for example. Personally I think the Khuzaits could loose their foot archer line and replace that with slings (they can represent slaves who are not given the honour of fighting with a bow as bows). If you want to have a faction with no foot archers you have the Vlandians (crossbows dont count) and the Khuzaits (ONLY if you impliment my idea, which I like). Why on Earth would you choose the Battanians of all peoples.

Actually if you look at the Fians they are a shock infantry/archer hybrid (due to powerful 2 handed weapons), so if your opposed to having archers for both Common tree and noble tree (which I think would make Battania incredibly unique and represent the perfect forest faction people want), you must definitely be opposed to three shock infantry lines. The Fians are basically Gallowglasses as many of them used short bows (rather than battania's longbows). The devs description of warrors using 2 handed weapons probably refers to the Fians- just give them some Dane axes rather than greatswords if you want- would actually be more historical.

If you really want to have two units of shock Infantry in main tree, why not argue to replace the spear line with them and have common archers to allow the shock infantry to be useful, every faction has heavy infantry, and having the battanians be the only faction without it will be far more unique. I personally like spearmen and don't support this, but it makes far more sense for a unique, fun and do-able experiance than refusing to grant common archers. Wild infantry charges with no missile support will fail. Were as archers and shock infantry make the perfect ambush duo as the archers weaken and shock the enemy and provide cover for the shock infantry to charge in and do damage and also cover their retreat. The spearmen are useful for holding and protecting archers, so I'd keep them personally.

Finally the sources that the Battanians come from lead towards an archer and light infantry faction. Both the Welsh and Scots/Picts having good archers and spearmen and the irish light infantry and light cavalry. The Irish did use bows too, by both the kerns and Gallowglasses, I'm also very sure that the Caledonians used archer tactics, and I want to point out that the north Welsh did make good use of archers, though they were best known for spears (the opposite being true for the south Welsh). During the early middle ages the infantry of the Picts and even more so the Welsh fought in shield wall formations, much like the Angles, Saxons, Danes etc. I'm not certain with the irish as to whether they used shield walls (probably did when the vikings came), but they definitely didn't use shock infantry. Since Shock infantry was rare amoungst these people, the only option you have for making them a shieldwall infantry faction, but that describes Sturgia (which based on the positioning of the factions and from history makes sense). As a result, archers fit the faction very nicely.

I do commend you for in wanting to satisfy all the cultures of the sources, but the tree you proposed doesn't make sense for all the reasons mentioned above- plus the Fians do not represent Welsh archers well at all as welsh archers were almost always commoners, Welsh nobles (Uchelwyr in Welsh) were typically fighting as cavalry or dismounted as melee infantry. The Teulu, who were the bodyguards were made up of Uchelwyr and fought as cavalry. For that reason if you want to represent South Wales better, give Battania common archers, as the Fians (as already mentioned) are basically gallowglasses with longbows instead of shorter bows. the Gallowglasses were used as a bodyguard so the fians fit well as a noble unit

Even if you look to the classical era, historically it wasn't long for the continental Celts to abandon the wild charge in favour of phalanx formations and chariots for cavalry. . Even if missile tactics was frowned upon, they still used bows on occation, and slings, and it would only be the commoners who'd use them. The infantry also used javelins before an engagement, but thats not skirmishing. I will grant that the classical Britons were very old fasioned in their tactics (chariots and wild charges) due to not having any outside influence, but that actually argues in our favour as the battanians are surrounded by powerful enemies and have been fighting the Calradic empire for centuries. By now they definitely would have evolved (as the post Roman celts did and like the classical Gauls etc did) and either mimick their opponants or apply tactics that successfully counter the enemys strength- think Gaul cavalry and phalanx's, Scottish pikes etc. AND even when the classical Celts favoured wild charges, they weren't proper shock infantry as most people might think (with a 2 handed weapon or dual wielding weapons). But instead used one handed weapons with shields (with those shields being large)- which does not make them a good candidate for shock infantry. I know you have the Dacians, but they are the excepion to the rule and we can't have the Battanians fairly representing celtic culture if their entire troop tree is centred around Dacians with Gaelic names and appearance.

Everywhere I look, this faction is crying out for archers, and add that with the fact that they have been marketed as the archer faction, it just seams weird to oppose such a simple change. Hopefully this massive essay will finally give me those beautiful archers that I've been dreaming of! Lol probably not, but I have had fun writing this. I'm now finished with my very indepth defence to having Battanian archers.

I hope that gives a good enough answer, sorry it is wordy.

 

[five bucks]

The battanians are meant to be based off the Welsh, Irish and the Picts. In the early middle ages the main strengths of Welsh was strong missile infantry (especially archers), spearmen and at the time they best cavalry in britain. The picts main strenth seams to be decient cavalry, missile troops and spearmen. The irish had thei main strengths being light infantry, sound cavalry and missile infantry.

I can tell you the Battanians are based on the following Celtic groups.
North Welsh: Known for their spearmen (spear infantry).
South Welsh: Known for their elite longbowmen (elite ranged infantry).
Picts: Known for their wild lightly armored shock infantry charges with swords (shock infantry).
Gallowglasses (post-Viking Picts/Irish): Known for their Viking-style two-handed axes (shock infantry).
Irish: Known for the kern, light skirmisher infantry with shields, spears and javelins. Never used the bow in great numbers and didn't use it at all pre-Vikings.
Ancient Celts: Overall, not just the Dacians but all ancient Celts were known by the Romans for having long swords and charging wildly (shock infantry).

Dionysius said about the Celts: "their manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target, as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all."

Blend all types of Celts together and what stands out the most commonly about them? Shock infantry.

All Celtic groups used cavalry to some extent, but in quite small numbers and primarily for skirmishing with javelins. The Ancient Celts were the Celts with the most developed cavalry forces, but even of them, Tacitus said: "the strength of the Celts is in their infantry." Medieval Celts lived in places with terrain unsuitable for heavy cavalry. So it makes no sense for Battania to be melee cavalry specialists. Their javelin cavalry troop should stay, but their melee cavalry troopline should go.

If Battania were to have elite archers and regular archers, that would make them entirely unrepresentative of the Celts as a whole, because Celts as a whole did not field bows in large numbers. So real life is an argument against regular archers in the troop tree, not for them.

With the exception of the Gallowglass, shock infantry wasn't much of a thing they did (unless you mean ambushing and mobility but that doesn't count as people think of warriors who wield 2handed weapons when it comes to shock infantry). Only the Dacians are really focused on shock infantry.

Gallowglasses, Picts, and ALL sorts of Ancient Celts (not just Dacians) used sword or great axe-armed shock infantry extensively.

On top of that, you have Battania's culture description in the game literally saying that they charge into battle with great swords and great axes. Yet they don't have any greataxe unit in their actual faction right now.

Also, there is no shock infantry specialist faction in Bannerlord yet.

Finally, to give Battania regular archers like every other faction has would objectively make them less unique, and more like every other faction, when faction armies feeling too similar is already a problem for Bannerlord as it is.

So there are 3 good reasons for Battania to be the shock infantry faction; and -2 good reasons for them to have regular archers.

I'm sorry if I sound rude, its not intentional, its just my Welsh blood flowing passionately.

You're not being rude at all, don't worry. I am being passionate too because my motivation isn't only to portray history, but also to create well-varied gameplay.

When I look at it, them having noble archers, loads of forest bandits with bows (who are battanian peasants), having the wolfskins with bows (I know they are nobles, but still), having commoner archers only for garrisons (strange), having the ranger in multiplayer (a peasant archer), having armed battanian traders and companions with bows. they live in the woods so ambushing and hunting are both done extensively.

Forest bandits aren't battanian peasants in Bannerlord. You're getting confused with something from Warband.
Wolfskins are fians, yes. That isn't a point for common archers though.
All factions in multiplayer have different names and equipment from the ones in singleplayer, because they have separate dev teams developing at different times, and MP devs mostly ignore SP lore so that they can have whatever troops the player wants to have in MP.
Companions have all sorts of unique equipment that doesn't in itself reflect what a common troop is "supposed" to have.
Neither living in the woods, nor hunting, nor ambushing people absolutely require a bow; much hunting is done with javelins, traps or spears, and ambushes are totally possible with melee weapons.

Also archery was done by everybody for thousands of years before the era of Bannerlord

No it wasn't. Just ask the Irish (one of the main inspirations for Battania). The bow never really gained any sort of popularity there. Javelins were what they used, as did most Celts.

Ordinary bows and longbows are very simple and easy to make. decient blades are fare more expensive and prized, so all of these should be much more difficult for the battanian peasant to get a hold of compared to the humble cheap bow

Javelins and spears are even easier to make and learn to use than a good bow and arrow.

Also in Warband the Vaegirs (who are the desendants of the Sturgians north of Battania) have the best archers in the game. The Vaegirs did apparently inherit their archers and light infantry from the Battanians.

Leaving aside that continuity between Warband and Bannerlord is an absolute mess (just look at Sargoth): That makes no sense at all. The Vaegirs' location in Warband is almost on the other side of the map from the Battanians' location in Bannerlord. A much more sensible explanation is that the Vaegirs learned archery from being invaded by the Khuzaits. (Similar to what happened in real life when the Mongols invaded the Kievan Rus). Or hell, maybe they just learned it on their own. Saying they "inherited" it is a massive stretch with no evidence.

This wouldn't make sense if the Aserai would become the archer faction as they are nowhere near the Sturgians, where as Battania in on their doorstep.

There is no need for the Aserai to be near anybody to develop an archer culture on their own. The Sarranid Master Archers were some of the best archers in Warband. And the real-life culture the Aserai are based on, the Sassanids/early Caliphates, put high value on archery skill.

The Aserai specialise in light cavalry, which I think represents the arabian,moorish etc asthetics and culture far better than archers. Cavalry is the most iconic part of an islamic faction, not so much the archers.

Aserai are said to be primarily based on the Sassanids and early Caliphates. These cultures did have famous elite heavy cavalry (the clibanarii), yes. But they also had javelineers, and famous archers. "The archers formed the elite of the Persian infantry. They were trained to deliver their arrows with extreme rapidity, and with an aim that was almost unerring. Sometimes the archers, instead of thus fighting in line, were intermixed with the heavy horse, with which it was not difficult for them to keep pace." This same article also says that Sassanian archers were considered above the rest of the infantry, and were only second to the elephants and heavy cavalry knights in the Sassanian army.
I also don't mean they should be just an "archer faction." Aserai should be a "ranged infantry" faction, with a dedicated javelineers branch (tweaking their existing Veteran Infantry) and a dedicated archers branch (Master Archer). This will make them the faction with the most dedicated ranged infantry units. They will still have plenty of cavalry, and also horse archers.

Sturgia should be the infantry faction as they are positioned to the south of the nords and therefore recieve lots of nordic influence. It was this case historically with the slavic peoples as they were primarilly focused on infantry fighting in the nordic style, and it wasn't until later in the middle ages where they changed to become focused on cavalry and horse archers due to the demand of curcumstance and outside influence. In the same way my first point explains this and makes Sturgia's transition into the Vaegiers very interesting.

If Battania became a shock infantry faction instead, we would have two infantry factions right next to each other (Sturgia vol 2), which I would not like due to wanting uniqueness and Variation.

Shock infantry and Heavy infantry can be quite different.

Shock infantry wield two-hander axes or swords, and use less armor than normal. They charge wildly into battle to inflict morale shock. They counter heavy infantry (thanks to their ability to chop up shields and armor). They should be (when Cav AI starts working properly) countered by melee cavalry, as they cannot form a proper shieldwall or brace pikes for self-defense.

Heavy infantry wield one-handers with large shields, and use more armor than normal. They advance slowly behind a protective shieldwall. They counter foot archers (thanks to their better armor and shields) and are countered by shock infantry (whose weapons are designed to break shields and armor).

Dividing infantry into distinct sub-groups is a good thing for variation. Because there are 6 factions in the game. If you don't have at least two infantry factions, then you're going to have to have two cavalry factions, or two generalist factions, or two archer factions, etc.

If you divide infantry into three distinct groups, you can make factions distinct like so:
* Battania: 2hander shock infantry (veteran falxman, gallowglass-inspired unit)
* Sturgia: shielded heavy infantry (heavy spearman, heavy axeman)
* Empire: long spear infantry (legionary, menavliaton)
* Aserai: ranged infantry (master archer, veteran skirmisher)
* Khuzaits: ranged cavalry (noble horse archer, non-noble horse archer)
* Vlandia: melee cavalry (noble lancer, non-noble lancer)

Why do you not desire to change the other blander factions instead- the Calradic empire factions for example. Personally I think the Khuzaits could loose their foot archer line and replace that with slings (they can represent slaves who are not given the honour of fighting with a bow as bows). If you want to have a faction with no foot archers you have the Vlandians (crossbows dont count) and the Khuzaits (ONLY if you impliment my idea, which I like). Why on Earth would you choose the Battanians of all peoples.

The Battanians don't have "no foot archers." The Fians are foot archers.

If you really want to have two units of shock Infantry in main tree, why not argue to replace the spear line with them

Because Celts overall used spear infantry a lot and didn't use archers much.

the Fians do not represent Welsh archers well at all as welsh nobles were typically cavalry or dismounted melee infantry

Yes, but since (a) the Fians already exist and are an extremely well known Battanian unit, (b) it makes Battania VERY unique in gameplay terms to be the only faction with no noble cavalry (unlike every other faction) and no common archer (unlike every other faction), and (c) "noble" units (who are not literally nobles in the sense of landholders-- they're just elite troops) is the best way of representing that the South Welsh were amazing with bows but Celts as a whole were not; it is the best course of action when taking both gameplay and historical representation into account. The priority here goes something like this:
1- make factions vaguely represent their source material (high priority)
2- create the most unique faction troop trees possible (mid priority)
3- make factions accurately represent their source material (low priority)

and add that with the fact that they have been marketed as the archer faction

Where? I have already responded to this. Battania's promo art shows *no* archers. Battania's culture description explicitly says they charge into battle with great two-handed axes/swords. There is no advertisement from Taleworlds anywhere saying "this is the faction who MUST have commoner archers." Just about any reference you can find to Battania having bows is just a reference to Fians.

The entire reason the idea of Battania having common archers ever came about is people not understanding the difference between "elite unit" and "predominant unit". There's nothing actually in the game to support it, and it's a bad idea from a gameplay perspective and unrepresentative of the historical inspiration.

I'm now finished with my very indepth defence to having Battanian archers.

I'm finished discussing this too, if people want to make the game's factions even more similar and repetitive than they already are and Taleworlds decides that's somehow a good idea, then I can always edit XMLs myself. Everyone can be happy in the end. I just like the thought of people getting a more varied, closer-to-history experience.

 

[HumanCancer]

every, its all garbage for 2021 standards

 

[Neofd10]

I can tell you the Battanians are based on the following Celtic groups.
North Welsh: Known for their spearmen (spear infantry).
South Welsh: Known for their elite longbowmen (elite ranged infantry).
Picts: Known for their wild lightly armored shock infantry charges with swords (shock infantry).
Gallowglasses (post-Viking Picts/Irish): Known for their Viking-style two-handed axes (shock infantry).
Irish: Known for the kern, light skirmisher infantry with shields, spears and javelins. Never used the bow in great numbers and didn't use it at all pre-Vikings.
Ancient Celts: Overall, not just the Dacians but all ancient Celts were known by the Romans for having long swords and charging wildly (shock infantry).

Dionysius said about the Celts: "their manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target, as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all."

Blend all types of Celts together and what stands out the most commonly about them? Shock infantry.

All Celtic groups used cavalry to some extent, but in quite small numbers and primarily for skirmishing with javelins. The Ancient Celts were the Celts with the most developed cavalry forces, but even of them, Tacitus said: "the strength of the Celts is in their infantry." Medieval Celts lived in places with terrain unsuitable for heavy cavalry. So it makes no sense for Battania to be melee cavalry specialists. Their javelin cavalry troop should stay, but their melee cavalry troopline should go.

If Battania were to have elite archers and regular archers, that would make them entirely unrepresentative of the Celts as a whole, because Celts as a whole did not field bows in large numbers. So real life is an argument against regular archers in the troop tree, not for them.

Gallowglasses, Picts, and ALL sorts of Ancient Celts (not just Dacians) used sword or great axe-armed shock infantry extensively.

On top of that, you have Battania's culture description in the game literally saying that they charge into battle with great swords and great axes. Yet they don't have any greataxe unit in their actual faction right now.

Also, there is no shock infantry specialist faction in Bannerlord yet.

Finally, to give Battania regular archers like every other faction has would objectively make them less unique, and more like every other faction, when faction armies feeling too similar is already a problem for Bannerlord as it is.

So there are 3 good reasons for Battania to be the shock infantry faction; and -2 good reasons for them to have regular archers.

You're not being rude at all, don't worry. I am being passionate too because my motivation isn't only to portray history, but also to create well-varied gameplay.

Forest bandits aren't battanian peasants in Bannerlord. You're getting confused with something from Warband.
Wolfskins are fians, yes. That isn't a point for common archers though.
All factions in multiplayer have different names and equipment from the ones in singleplayer, because they have separate dev teams developing at different times, and MP devs mostly ignore SP lore so that they can have whatever troops the player wants to have in MP.
Companions have all sorts of unique equipment that doesn't in itself reflect what a common troop is "supposed" to have.
Neither living in the woods, nor hunting, nor ambushing people absolutely require a bow; much hunting is done with javelins, traps or spears, and ambushes are totally possible with melee weapons.

No it wasn't. Just ask the Irish (one of the main inspirations for Battania). The bow never really gained any sort of popularity there. Javelins were what they used, as did most Celts.

Javelins and spears are even easier to make and learn to use than a good bow and arrow.

Leaving aside that continuity between Warband and Bannerlord is an absolute mess (just look at Sargoth): That makes no sense at all. The Vaegirs' location in Warband is almost on the other side of the map from the Battanians' location in Bannerlord. A much more sensible explanation is that the Vaegirs learned archery from being invaded by the Khuzaits. (Similar to what happened in real life when the Mongols invaded the Kievan Rus). Or hell, maybe they just learned it on their own. Saying they "inherited" it is a massive stretch with no evidence.

There is no need for the Aserai to be near anybody to develop an archer culture on their own. The Sarranid Master Archers were some of the best archers in Warband. And the real-life culture the Aserai are based on, the Sassanids/early Caliphates, put high value on archery skill.

Aserai are said to be primarily based on the Sassanids and early Caliphates. These cultures did have famous elite heavy cavalry (the clibanarii), yes. But they also had javelineers, and famous archers. "The archers formed the elite of the Persian infantry. They were trained to deliver their arrows with extreme rapidity, and with an aim that was almost unerring. Sometimes the archers, instead of thus fighting in line, were intermixed with the heavy horse, with which it was not difficult for them to keep pace." This same article also says that Sassanian archers were considered above the rest of the infantry, and were only second to the elephants and heavy cavalry knights in the Sassanian army.
I also don't mean they should be just an "archer faction." Aserai should be a "ranged infantry" faction, with a dedicated javelineers branch (tweaking their existing Veteran Infantry) and a dedicated archers branch (Master Archer). This will make them the faction with the most dedicated ranged infantry units. They will still have plenty of cavalry, and also horse archers.

Shock infantry and Heavy infantry can be quite different.

Shock infantry wield two-hander axes or swords, and use less armor than normal. They charge wildly into battle to inflict morale shock. They counter heavy infantry (thanks to their ability to chop up shields and armor). They should be (when Cav AI starts working properly) countered by melee cavalry, as they cannot form a proper shieldwall or brace pikes for self-defense.

Heavy infantry wield one-handers with large shields, and use more armor than normal. They advance slowly behind a protective shieldwall. They counter foot archers (thanks to their better armor and shields) and are countered by shock infantry (whose weapons are designed to break shields and armor).

Dividing infantry into distinct sub-groups is a good thing for variation. Because there are 6 factions in the game. If you don't have at least two infantry factions, then you're going to have to have two cavalry factions, or two generalist factions, or two archer factions, etc.

If you divide infantry into three distinct groups, you can make factions distinct like so:
* Battania: 2hander shock infantry (veteran falxman, gallowglass-inspired unit)
* Sturgia: shielded heavy infantry (heavy spearman, heavy axeman)
* Empire: long spear infantry (legionary, menavliaton)
* Aserai: ranged infantry (master archer, veteran skirmisher)
* Khuzaits: ranged cavalry (noble horse archer, non-noble horse archer)
* Vlandia: melee cavalry (noble lancer, non-noble lancer)

The Battanians don't have "no foot archers." The Fians are foot archers.

Because Celts overall used spear infantry a lot and didn't use archers much.

Yes, but since (a) the Fians already exist and are an extremely well known Battanian unit, (b) it makes Battania VERY unique in gameplay terms to be the only faction with no noble cavalry (unlike every other faction) and no common archer (unlike every other faction), and (c) "noble" units (who are not literally nobles in the sense of landholders-- they're just elite troops) is the best way of representing that the South Welsh were amazing with bows but Celts as a whole were not; it is the best course of action when taking both gameplay and historical representation into account. The priority here goes something like this:
1- make factions vaguely represent their source material (high priority)
2- create the most unique faction troop trees possible (mid priority)
3- make factions accurately represent their source material (low priority)

Where? I have already responded to this. Battania's promo art shows *no* archers. Battania's culture description explicitly says they charge into battle with great two-handed axes/swords. There is no advertisement from Taleworlds anywhere saying "this is the faction who MUST have commoner archers." Just about any reference you can find to Battania having bows is just a reference to Fians.

The entire reason the idea of Battania having common archers ever came about is people not understanding the difference between "elite unit" and "predominant unit". There's nothing actually in the game to support it, and it's a bad idea from a gameplay perspective and unrepresentative of the historical inspiration.

I'm finished discussing this too, if people want to make the game's factions even more similar and repetitive than they already are and Taleworlds decides that's somehow a good idea, then I can always edit XMLs myself. Everyone can be happy in the end. I just like the thought of people getting a more varied, closer-to-history experience.

Well done with all that, I commend you for you work. I don’t agree with several aspects, but your case of still valid. I’ve already made my strongest case and you yours, but I've got some more up my sleeve. Passion for this game is definitely something we share, which is cool.

*I know I shouldn't stick on this topic anymore, but I want to make some last points (this could be long, I do apologise). I do like your ideas to make Battania more shock infantry focused, (some very cool ideas). Your planed troop tree does pick out the primary strength of each faction, which is ok, however it leaves us with a strange tree that I don’t think would work well or make sense for a single nation to have all of these things together- especially considering how they should evolve to face their powerful enemies. It’s better to focus on a single complex goal which is why I think Battania should be the “ambush” faction- which makes the archer-shock infantry focus the best choice, as they would turn to gurrilla warfare.

*I know the North Welsh and Scots/Picts were good with spears, but do we need to represent every cultures military strengths? Both of those peoples had decent archers themselves, and personally I’d use the Iron Age Celts as an influence for architecture and the falxmen (dacians also had a good archery tradition too). Not to mention that every single faction in the game has good spearmen- having spearmen, but disregarding archers is no where near as unique as the opposite. Not giving Battania archers is NOT Unique at all as Vlandia are doing that already- not a single bowman their rouster (crossbows are very different).

*Making Battania to only be the shock infantry faction with heavy infantry support will be found by most people to be very boring and very similar to Sturgia- just flipped. YES I know shock infantry is different to heavy infantry- but if you look at your proposed troop tree, it is virtually identical to Sturgia- the only difference is having a second shock infantry line as opposed to Sturgia's archer line (not very unique dispite your strong claims to the contrary). I do agree that spears are a very wide spread weapon and that every culture used them, but for Battania we could sideline them- you'll see in the proposed troop tree later. (In case you mention it, the wildling is basically the same as the Sturgian heavy axeman)- Battania would end up with FOUR infantry units under your troop tree.

*If you make Battania into an Infantry faction and the Aserai into an archer/ranged faction, you'll end up with- 2 infantry factions at the top of the map, two heavily armoured cavalry factions in the middle, and two ranged factions at the bottom and right side. That would be very strange.

*Your point on making the Aserai an archer or ranged faction is by far your strongest counter in my opinion. However I feel it is not a good idea as in Warband the Saranids are well rounded rather than archer focused (we need to get away from factions focusing on a particular unit). To me the Aserai serve best as a well rounded faction like the empire- but where as the empire is defensive with heavy armour, the aserai would be more agressive. The Sassanids, the Islamic Caliphates are best known for their cavalry. the Sassanids for their Cataphracts/Clibanarii and the Caliphates for their fast hosemen. However both of these cultures were well rounded, particularly the Sassanids. Yes the Persians were famous for their powerful archers during ancient times, but thats too far back in history. I'm confident they continued to exist during the middle ages as an islamic Caliphate and they may have still had good archers. And that moves nicely to my next point...

*I am NOT saying that Battania should be an ARCHER FACTION, but they should take the more complex focus of being the Ambush/hit and run faction. Archers and shock infantry would make this work well. The Aserai are free to have excellent archers, and I would have it no other way, but we need to get away from the simplistic categories of archer faction, infantry faction etc. Archers should be used if they are needed or the tactics favoured by each faction. As the Aserai are the agressive, well rounded faction, they should have good archers to help with this. As the Battanians are a small, forest dwelling, ambush focused faction, they need archers too the help them gather food and furs, as well as helping the, in battle. Archers would prove to be invaluable for the Battanians in warfare as they can weaken their powerful opponents before they reach the lines of the infantry (javelins havent got the range nor the numbers of projectiles to do this well on their own).

So personally, why not merge our ideas together to get the best out of the faction. I know the Celts as a whole were not well known for archery, but nor were they known for 2 handed infantry (sword and shield infantry don’t make good shock infantry which is why I don't buy the claim that classical celts used shock infantry)- aside from the Dacians and the Gallowglasses (who existed from the 13th century), 2 handed weapons were not used much, and in comparrion bows were used more. The Britons (Welsh), picts and Scots made plenty of archers, the Irish used archers as much as they used 2 handed weapons and the common men amoung the classical celts used bows (especially the Dacians).
However, I do see why you are going for shock infantry as the wild charge is iconic even if not always accurate. Instead of trying to reconcile distinct factions to construct a random tree, why not focus of recreating the overall feel of the early medieval celts- having the shock infantry representing the Gaelic people and the Archers representing the Brythonic people. I think we should make Battania that truely unique and fun faction by making them into literal glass canons loosing a hail of arrows from the woods followed by a sudden charge by shock infantry- mixing your wish for shock infantry with our wish for common archers, wouldn't you agree?

So to you I propose this?

For first branch (shock infantry):
-Falxmen line- give them light armour and make them fast.
-And either- armoured 2 handed or even put the Fians here (fians are basically gallowglasses as they used 2 handed weapons and often used bows- but here they will use longbows rather than the short bows the gallowglasses often used historically)- I really like this second option as is is very versitile and keeps an iconic unit, just nerf their archery prowess.

For second branch (supporting skirmishers):
-Skirmishers- with two stacks of javelins, small shield and give them a spear- act as light infantry with light armour- but is versatile. This can act as Battania's spearman unit- and will be the weakest spearmen in game.
-Archers- with extra arrows, light armour, and whatever side arm people think is best- a one handed axe in my opinion. they will start off with more basic bows and build up to longbows.
-Mounted skirmishers, plenty of javelins- beween 2 or even 3 stacks of javelins- although that may be two much. Give them light armour (if any) and whatever side arm is wished.

For Noble branch:
-Armoured Mounted Nobles, plenty of javelins, decent armour as these guys are rich (keep them as medium cav though). They can be called either the Teulu or the Mormaer. They can use javelins, a shield, a spear (rather than a lance) and a sword. their appearance and lighter skirmishing focus will allow them to remain unique. As you are able to dismount all cavalry units I personally believe all nobles should be able to perform cavalry roles if they want- nobles should be versitile, they are rich after all.

*The troop tree idea above may not be the best suggestion, but is the best I can come up with

*the reason I think cavalry serve better than archers for battanian nobles is because archer nobles would be viewed as cowards and celtic nobles and kings had to prove their battle field prowess. So a melee cavalry (which can fight on foot if needs be) with javalins to throw in the charge- in true celtic fashion- would be awesome. If you want archer nobles, the Khuzaits and the Aserai are the best factions to cater for that as I've never heard of celtic nobles performing skirmishing roles while their lowborn kin steal all the glory of hand to hand fighting (glory and honor being important to the Celts)- and the nobles upheld this far more than the common Celtic men. Battlefield archers should therefore be commoners, not nobles. I should also mention that all the medieval celtic peoples utilized mounted nobles, who would dismount when needed. As nobles are the primary warriors, you need the speed of the horse to perform the skirmishes and raids quickly (which is what the historical cultures did).

*How else would you explain the shear numbers of forest bandits in battania if they aren't commoners, you'll never have that many nobles (they are clearly Battanians as they are mainly found mostly around Battania and turn into Fians- for whatever reason).

*the long swords used by the classical celts were ONE HANDED WEAPONS and were used with shields- they steriotypically used wild charges (shock tactics), but were not shock infantry as we know it. Their swords were described as long because the Romans etc were using short stabbing swords.

*You mentioned that the Irish did not use Bows much, and didn't use them at all before the viking. However, even if that is true (which it is to an extent, they used bows more than you think), Irish military tactics and weapon use does not relate well to the Battanian variety as Ireland is very Isolated from other cultures, where as Battania isn't. This meant that Ireland was very unque and its military was frozen in time. You also see the same happen to Britain before the Romans invaded, as they were isolated. However, as soon as there was outside presures and contact with other cultures both Britain and Ireland evolved. As the Battanians have been fighting powerful enemies for a very long time, they would have adapted to fight them either by copying their tactics or nullifying them with counter tactics (like the scottish schiltrons). I have just given a good reason to keep good spearmen there, but archers and shock infantry counter cavalry just as well- this is what the English did during the 100 years war (with their archers) and Irish did (with their cavalry), during their wars with the Normans as they didn't make good use of spears like the Scots or the Welsh. Archers and shock infantry make a great team for ambushes, raids and fast hit and run battlefield tactics.

*Yes, some of the cities are in the wrong place, but I would like that changed too.

*finally, allowing the Battanians to have plenty of archers, gives them a clear legacy in Warband as you see the peviously infantry focused foot faction, the Sturgians, become world famous for its archers (just like when the English adopted the longbow from the Welsh) as the Vaegirs. You could say they were pressured by the Khuzaits to do this, but why not both? Battanian archers are in high demand as it suits the factions aethetic very well as forest dwellers who hunt wild game, perform ambushes, are sneaky, mysterious (almost magical) and are nature focused. This is like the elves, who are more often that not, based off the celts- look at LOTR and The Witcher. People would like than I think. Adding commoner archers doesn't need to be a bad thing for a Celtic inspired faction.

I agree with you that we should leave this for the developers to decide (WE HAVE NO CHOICE ) , but I had to get my last points in there (I think you understand as you seem similar to me in that way in terms of being passionate about subjects that intrest you). Thank you for your response, Ive actually really enjoyed our debate. ? Ive more than earned the right to be known for making huge essays on why we should have Battanian commoner Archers.

 

[Neofd10]

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.

Ive got to say, your troop tree mod is perfection! Is it even possible to allow Taleworlds to simply copy and paste that into their game? I’ve no clue with coding etc, so there are probably complications with that, but they are game developers so shouldn’t be too hard for them. If the troop trees don’t change, I’m using your mod definitely.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Ive got to say, your troop tree mod is perfection! Is it even possible to allow Taleworlds to simply copy and paste that into their game? I’ve no clue with coding etc, so there are probably complications with that, but they are game developers so shouldn’t be too hard for them. If the troop trees don’t change, I’m using your mod definitely.

Compatibility issues mostly. What happens to everyone's saves? What happens to the old troops? Changing equipment, skills and etc is easy enough, but the removal of troops? That's a lot more tricky sadly.

 

[Neofd10]

Compatibility issues mostly. What happens to everyone's saves? What happens to the old troops? Changing equipment, skills and etc is easy enough, but the arrangement of troop trees? That's a lot more tricky sadly.

That is a shame, although now is the best time to do it if ever as it is early access.

 

[Calabanar]

Compatibility issues mostly. What happens to everyone's saves? What happens to the old troops? Changing equipment, skills and etc is easy enough, but the removal of troops? That's a lot more tricky sadly.

They could always change the troop trees for a non-save compatible update.

Give the empires some love... their shared common troop tree is fine, but at least give them different noble troop trees along additional mercenary companies.

 

[Neofd10]

They could always change the troop trees for a non-save compatible update.

Give the empires some love... their shared common troop tree is fine, but at least give them different noble troop trees along additional mercenary companies.

That would be awesome!!

 

[Apocal]

They could always change the troop trees for a non-save compatible update.

When have you ever seen one of those for BL?

I can still fire up my save games from March 31st.

 

[MostBlunted]

When have you ever seen one of those for BL?

I can still fire up my save games from March 31st.

But it´s still possible though. They can just do it and put it in the patch notes, people who wants to complete their playthrough can just keep using the old branch.

Of course stuff like this shouldn´t happen often but if needed they should do it.

 

[Calabanar]

When have you ever seen one of those for BL?

I can still fire up my save games from March 31st.

I never could but that probably has more to do with my extended use of mods

 

[warpowerfull]

I think diversifying the empire a bit would be good for the game. Right now its just a big blob of sameness right in the middle of the map, gets kind of boring after a while.

 

[GojoGem]

I think diversifying the empire a bit would be good for the game. Right now its just a big blob of sameness right in the middle of the map, gets kind of boring after a while.

Yes totally, they should wear different equipments and weapons to distinguish themselves from one another based on their leaders ideals

 

[Gandamula]

Any reason to Aserai wanders had more skills than the others?