-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
正在查看此主题的用户
^because this
Where is the option "I want to see Fianns burn in hell because they are an aberration" ?
That's the one I would check in the poll
.
Palentine Guards are the most OP units in the game. Try quick battle and do 100 Palentine Guards on hold fire vs 100 Heroic Line Breakers on hold fire and see how it ends.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Armour not providing sensible protection against ranged attacks is the fundamental reason why Fians are overpowered, and why almost all archers and horse archers and crossbowmen are OP (except the pathetic Sturgian Veteran Bowman).
Fians themselves are actually probably okay, and don't need a targeted nerf, a general nerf to ranged damage against armour should cut it.
Fians themselves are actually probably okay, and don't need a targeted nerf, a general nerf to ranged damage against armour should cut it.
I think it's a mix of different factors. Fian Champions are very good archers, good at melee and have pretty strong armor, so they likely win the archer vs archer match up against every other, stand a good chance against most infantry and cavalry for some reason isn't that good against archers. Horse archers are likely to beat them up tho, because of how bad archers are at aiming against them.
Fian Champions being so high level means they have a higher chance of only being wounded instead of dying. On top of that, recruiting nobles is easy, without going out of your way they can easily make up 30-50% of your army. And, unlike other nobles, you don't need to bother with horses, which makes it much easier to upgrade them.
So, being easy to recruit, more likely to get wounded instead of dying than other troops, strong enough to do pretty good against basically everyone and easy to upgrade, it makes sense that even without doing it on purpose they'll end up forming the majority of your army if you frequently recruit from Battania.
It's cool in a way but it'd be cooler if they at least struggled against cavalry lol
Fian Champions being so high level means they have a higher chance of only being wounded instead of dying. On top of that, recruiting nobles is easy, without going out of your way they can easily make up 30-50% of your army. And, unlike other nobles, you don't need to bother with horses, which makes it much easier to upgrade them.
So, being easy to recruit, more likely to get wounded instead of dying than other troops, strong enough to do pretty good against basically everyone and easy to upgrade, it makes sense that even without doing it on purpose they'll end up forming the majority of your army if you frequently recruit from Battania.
It's cool in a way but it'd be cooler if they at least struggled against cavalry lol
I don't use Fians (but good however unarmored archers of a custom troop tree) and I know how dangerous it is to fight against armies with high amount of top tier ranged troops. The reason why Fians are so good is that in BL ranged and twohanded are very strong, also armor in vanilla is a help, despite what many people say, and Fians are expert archers (260 bow), well armored and have a twohanded sword. BTW it is an absolute joke that you can turn bandit troops into Fians, that has to stop.
Making armor stronger will not help that much, maybe it will make Fians even stronger because then they are even better against other archers and cavalry? In my game armor has an absorb factor of 2.5 instead of 1, and it does not change ranged superiority that much. What would help perhaps were to reduce the range, rate of fire and accuracy of ranged weapons, make shieldwalls and shield blocking better, make cavalry attack archers, make cavalry attacks better.
BTW my "tactic" against Fians etc. is to have a good amount of melee cavalry. It is terrible to fight against horsearchers or strong ranged armies without cavalry (I don't know why my foot archers cannot deal with horsearchers), as I saw in my previous campaign where I had a custom troop tree of unarmored melee and javelin troops as main force, I had few cavalry and I played as foot (big problem because you have to micromanage your cavalry, otherwise they are garbage). On the other hand it's refreshing to charge a line of Fians and see them struggling to decide wether to shoot or draw their mighty swords, while being pushed around by the riders among them, only to be finally getting cut or stabbed down.
Making armor stronger will not help that much, maybe it will make Fians even stronger because then they are even better against other archers and cavalry? In my game armor has an absorb factor of 2.5 instead of 1, and it does not change ranged superiority that much. What would help perhaps were to reduce the range, rate of fire and accuracy of ranged weapons, make shieldwalls and shield blocking better, make cavalry attack archers, make cavalry attacks better.
BTW my "tactic" against Fians etc. is to have a good amount of melee cavalry. It is terrible to fight against horsearchers or strong ranged armies without cavalry (I don't know why my foot archers cannot deal with horsearchers), as I saw in my previous campaign where I had a custom troop tree of unarmored melee and javelin troops as main force, I had few cavalry and I played as foot (big problem because you have to micromanage your cavalry, otherwise they are garbage). On the other hand it's refreshing to charge a line of Fians and see them struggling to decide wether to shoot or draw their mighty swords, while being pushed around by the riders among them, only to be finally getting cut or stabbed down.
It's armor. It's always been armor. Since day one. It just doesn't work. A high-powered ranged unit like Fians will kill an enemy in 1-2 shots regardless of how good their armor is. We tried to tell Taleworlds (repeatedly) but they just plugged their ears with their fingers, closed their eyes, hummed, and buried their heads in the sand.
Add in the Fian's range, rate of fire, equipment, and melee capabilities, and it's easy to understand why they have been the prevailing meta since EA launched. All you have to do is gather a sizeable number of them, get into a battle, F1+F1, leave the room, and then come back 5 minutes later to the conclusion of a perfect victory.
Add in the Fian's range, rate of fire, equipment, and melee capabilities, and it's easy to understand why they have been the prevailing meta since EA launched. All you have to do is gather a sizeable number of them, get into a battle, F1+F1, leave the room, and then come back 5 minutes later to the conclusion of a perfect victory.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
That doesn't sound like the changes your mods made actually do much to buff the effectiveness of armor against ranged attacks, because if I understand correctly, it's not as simple as increasing the absorb factor.
Blunt damage totally ignores the absorb factor of armor currently. And arrows/bolts deal a significant portion of their damage as blunt damage, dealing the rest as pierce damage which also ignores 25% of armor, while rocks are obviously all blunt damage. So basically, all ranged attacks ignore much of the absorption factor of armor.
Rather than just increasing the absorb factor, the damage and armor formulas should be changed so that:
* Blunt damage does not totally ignore armor values.
* Arrows/bolts deal less blunt damage.
* as well as the absorbtion factor of armor increasing a bit.
* And, make archers wear slightly less good armor than melee fighters.
With the end goal that, rather than taking (on average) 3 bodyshots for a T5 archer to kill a T5 troop as it is currently, instead it would take (on average) 9 bodyshots. This would be a significant nerf to ranged troops and hopefully help bring them in line with melee troops.
Rate of fire could stand to be decreased by a small amount. But range and accuracy are fine, and shieldwalls and shield blocking seem pretty good as of a few patches ago.
I would also counterbalance all these nerfs to archers by slightly reducing the strength of shields against arrows a little bit.
Agree absolutely.
最后编辑:
Well making armor not junk isn't going to effect the highest tier ranged units much. What it should do is make lower tier ones useless against high tier units and only good for clearing out other low tier troops. I mean even if it took fians and KG twice as many shots to kill other t6 units they would still be the best just from being able to get in that damage at range. Of course if they make cavalry better at landing it's attacks that'd be a big help to.
Why do you need tactic against them? Battania never has enough of them to matter.
But you can't unless you get a perk to do it which takes 150 leadership. If you lead armies to get 150 leadership you played the game to far already for it even matter if you can do it or not. You could have a dozen garrisons filled to the brim with whatever troops you want by then anyways.
Before I started my Aserai campaign I gathered 50 of them. They didn't have much replenishment chance, maybe 10-20 from prisoners because I didn't go to Battania later. Still 15 survived my whole campaign.
But in case of my North Empire campaign, I didn't do it. I hired some when I fought on their territories and converted prisoners, still at the end I had 50 fian champions and about 10 on lower levels. I didn't use the bandit conversion either, because it's ridiculous.
But in case of my North Empire campaign, I didn't do it. I hired some when I fought on their territories and converted prisoners, still at the end I had 50 fian champions and about 10 on lower levels. I didn't use the bandit conversion either, because it's ridiculous.
Fians and fian champions should not exist in the game. Doesn't make sense that everyone can become a perfect archer with the best armor money can buy yet they are not themselves lords of their own kingdoms or wealthy enough to not need to be recruited by some other lord.
The problem is that fians have such high tier armor and are so accurate despite shooting so fast. If you shoot fast, your accuracy should be reduced. All that armor on should make your firing rate slightly slower and fatigue you a bit faster as well.
The type and amount of training required is the equivalent of training someone in archery 40hrs per week since they are 5yrs old and had no other work to distract them from that singular focus.
The problem is that fians have such high tier armor and are so accurate despite shooting so fast. If you shoot fast, your accuracy should be reduced. All that armor on should make your firing rate slightly slower and fatigue you a bit faster as well.
The type and amount of training required is the equivalent of training someone in archery 40hrs per week since they are 5yrs old and had no other work to distract them from that singular focus.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
The fundamental and obvious problem is that armour provides incredibly unrealistically weak protection against arrows. In real life you could fire 10 arrows into a guy wearing double mail or lamellar, and not even slow him down.
"During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:
...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks."
In Bannerlord you shoot 3 arrows into the torso of a guy wearing high quality mail or lamellar and he dies.
It's actually frustrating seeing people throw up all sorts of random wacky complex solutions when the problem is obvious and right in front of our noses, and the solution is obvious.
ARMOUR WORKING IS WHAT BALANCED ARCHERS IN REAL LIFE, PEOPLE
Bluko88
Sergeant
They're a Tier 6 Foot Archer, are they supposed to be bad?
Go figure the highest Tier Foot Archer unit in the game is the best Foot Archer. IDK I don't have a problem with them. If they carried shields, then yeah they might be a problem in terms of sheer versatility. But they still get killed by other Archers, still don't fare very good versus Cavalry - unless the Cavalry gets stuck in melee with them or has no support.
Heck Legionaries advancing in Shield Wall will still generally win against them or at least do serious damage. Not that OP, it's just in this game it's very easy to cheese the A.I. with Archers.
The only outright broken unit is Khan Guards. Literally a cheat code with F4 F1+F3 to win any field battle.
However even as OP as they are, they have a weakness. Nothing but Khan's Guard will absolutely suck in offensive siege battles. Even with the best micro you are going to take heavy losses against any decent garrison. Try it; 100 Khan Guards versus a mix of 140 or so T4/T5 units isn't just going to steam roll them. Granted the Siege Map in question can have a serious impact, but you can pull off Archer Cheese with any decent Archer unit, even more so with some shield units.
If you leave the A.I. to its own design the silly Kevin Garnets will get crushed in most any offensive siege.
I'd be a lot more concerned with buffing Foot Spearmen, like Vlandian Pikeman which are total garbage. Then there's the whole $#!&&% Sturgian Bowmen line, are they supposed to be a joke? Watchmen should barring a Shield, at least get a Spear. On and on I can go.
As long as we never get any Tier 6 Vlandian Butter Snipers that'll one hit kill you through a Shield or hitting your bare foot. Though considering how poor Vlandian Banner Knights are mounted, Vlandia could almost use the help...
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
I think Fians should be strong. Let them keep their good armour, bows and hell let them be good in close combat too. Ffs, they are meant to be the best archer, they better damn well be worth the effort to get.
The problem is that armour doesn't do **** and that nobles are way too easy to recruit now. There's nothing special about a Fian Champion at all.
If they buff armour and reduce the amount of Fians you can get, I think people wouldn't have a problem.
The problem is that armour doesn't do **** and that nobles are way too easy to recruit now. There's nothing special about a Fian Champion at all.
If they buff armour and reduce the amount of Fians you can get, I think people wouldn't have a problem.
If they buff armor (which they should) fians would be even more OP. They would be unkillable by anything but elite cataphracts. All heavy foot units would be too slow and their shields/armor would break under the torrent of arrows.
Fians should cost at least 3 times more than any other t6 unit if their loadout remains unchanged.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I'm asking (and I think other people are too) that armour should be buffed against ranged attacks specifically. I can't see that buffing Fians hugely.
(Though it would also be nice to have other damage formulas rejigged so that blunt damage doesn't ignore so much armor.)
I do agree in general terms that ranged units should have slightly worse armour than melee units. A while back I wrote a thread which suggested many changes to the troop trees, including that ranged units should have armour which is roughly a tier below that of their melee counterparts.
(Though it would also be nice to have other damage formulas rejigged so that blunt damage doesn't ignore so much armor.)
I do agree in general terms that ranged units should have slightly worse armour than melee units. A while back I wrote a thread which suggested many changes to the troop trees, including that ranged units should have armour which is roughly a tier below that of their melee counterparts.
The armor and damage relation in BL is problematic in several ways. I don't take into account the armor material, as it is in the files but seemingly not used, so armor is just a number. I also ignore locational damage, although that would be a very important factor to remove insta-death if the big toe or little finger is hit by a javelin or bolt.
Cut is kind of bad against armor but easily usable and fast and there are cutting weapons in the game with huge damage, so it compensates the bad-against-armor effects (hello Khan Guards ...).
Pierce is better against armor, and piercing damage in our timeframe (late early, early high medieval period) was the common anti-armor damage, as a spear can with a certain chance of success defeat mail or weaker scale/lamellar. Don't overestimate the cited sources about the arrows sticking out of the armor without any effect on the wearer. It all depends on range. There are also many early and high medieval sources about people with bows or crossbows which could pierce through the thickest of armor. Often it is not clear wether such reports are meant as realistic description or are fantasy or exaggerations (like future historians deciding about firearms effects based on a John Wick movie ...). Projectiles in BL are already less effective the farer the range, but the effectiveness has to be reduced much more, so that ranged weapons can effect only at closer range, maybe 75 m and less.
Then we have the allmighty Blunt, ignoring almost all armor in the game. Strange why these super weapons weren't more common on real battlefields.
A better armor system firstly has to reduce the effect of Blunt. Blunt should actually only be effective against armor on twohanded weapons or if the head is hit (not doable in the engine, I think, although there is locational damage). Top-heavy maces shouldn't be so fast, faster than swords which is mind numbing. Armor solutions like in RBM combat module, where you need a mace and nothing else, don't please me that much.
Weapons with Cut should be bad against armor, but swords should have more thrust damage and thrusting should be easier. It's ridiculous that you can cut faster in a wide arc than stab in a direkt line.
Polearms with Cut should be better against armor than swords but not as good as piercing weapons generally. Polearms with Pierce should be the way to go normally. Which demands to make spears better weapons in the game (possible, as mods like Spear Rework show).
The relation of damage of and protection against Pierce has to be finetuned. It's so sad that the material of armor cannot be a factor in the formula (or can it?).
The mod I use for armor increases the absorb factor from 1 to 2.5 and has some modifiers for the kind of damage. With a certain formula it reduces severly the Cut damage going through armor and also reduces Blunt damage to be only a bit better than Pierce. Let's take a damage of 40 against an armor of 30, than vanilla is Blunt = 31, Cut = 17, Pierce = 23. With the mod it's Blunt = 18, Cut = 9, Piece = 17. Ok, that does not solve entirely the ranged problem which is Pierce damage.
Before I used the mod I doubled the armor numbers of metal body armor and metal helmets, which was not as satisfying. Maybe doubling the armor of helmets would be still a good idea, given the fact that helmets were by far the most important life saver and piece of armor in history.
However, with RBM AI module for example the NPCs block much more and better, in and out of shieldwall, so the armor is less a factor. That's in my opinion much better against ranged in general than better armor, also simply because the units in BL should not have so much armor as seen in the game. Making armor very strong is foremost a help for (twohanded) players with the best armor on them while leading their high armor elite armies against the less armored (actually more realistically formed) lord armies.
Cut is kind of bad against armor but easily usable and fast and there are cutting weapons in the game with huge damage, so it compensates the bad-against-armor effects (hello Khan Guards ...).
Pierce is better against armor, and piercing damage in our timeframe (late early, early high medieval period) was the common anti-armor damage, as a spear can with a certain chance of success defeat mail or weaker scale/lamellar. Don't overestimate the cited sources about the arrows sticking out of the armor without any effect on the wearer. It all depends on range. There are also many early and high medieval sources about people with bows or crossbows which could pierce through the thickest of armor. Often it is not clear wether such reports are meant as realistic description or are fantasy or exaggerations (like future historians deciding about firearms effects based on a John Wick movie ...). Projectiles in BL are already less effective the farer the range, but the effectiveness has to be reduced much more, so that ranged weapons can effect only at closer range, maybe 75 m and less.
Then we have the allmighty Blunt, ignoring almost all armor in the game. Strange why these super weapons weren't more common on real battlefields.
A better armor system firstly has to reduce the effect of Blunt. Blunt should actually only be effective against armor on twohanded weapons or if the head is hit (not doable in the engine, I think, although there is locational damage). Top-heavy maces shouldn't be so fast, faster than swords which is mind numbing. Armor solutions like in RBM combat module, where you need a mace and nothing else, don't please me that much.
Weapons with Cut should be bad against armor, but swords should have more thrust damage and thrusting should be easier. It's ridiculous that you can cut faster in a wide arc than stab in a direkt line.
Polearms with Cut should be better against armor than swords but not as good as piercing weapons generally. Polearms with Pierce should be the way to go normally. Which demands to make spears better weapons in the game (possible, as mods like Spear Rework show).
The relation of damage of and protection against Pierce has to be finetuned. It's so sad that the material of armor cannot be a factor in the formula (or can it?).
The mod I use for armor increases the absorb factor from 1 to 2.5 and has some modifiers for the kind of damage. With a certain formula it reduces severly the Cut damage going through armor and also reduces Blunt damage to be only a bit better than Pierce. Let's take a damage of 40 against an armor of 30, than vanilla is Blunt = 31, Cut = 17, Pierce = 23. With the mod it's Blunt = 18, Cut = 9, Piece = 17. Ok, that does not solve entirely the ranged problem which is Pierce damage.
Before I used the mod I doubled the armor numbers of metal body armor and metal helmets, which was not as satisfying. Maybe doubling the armor of helmets would be still a good idea, given the fact that helmets were by far the most important life saver and piece of armor in history.
However, with RBM AI module for example the NPCs block much more and better, in and out of shieldwall, so the armor is less a factor. That's in my opinion much better against ranged in general than better armor, also simply because the units in BL should not have so much armor as seen in the game. Making armor very strong is foremost a help for (twohanded) players with the best armor on them while leading their high armor elite armies against the less armored (actually more realistically formed) lord armies.
many people may disagree with this opinion but i think it is very logical and has some place in terms of making archers less op. it's to make headshots no longer do bonus damage but instead, neck shots do.
surprisingly, this game has a neck hitbox , it's smaller than the head but with some practice you can still reliably hit it.
the reason i suggest this is because in real life. the helmet is usually the thickest armor someone has on them, and on top of that everybody has a skull and is most intent on protecting it.
we are trained to think headshot do the most damage. that's because of firearms in video games. and how a bullet will bounce around and create much bigger internal wound once it penetrates the skull. while an arrow through the head will do significantly less damage, as it just creates a clean hole, damaging a much smaller amount of tissue, with almost no shockwaves, a large caliber's shockwave alone is enough to scramble the brain and kill a person.
real life bow hunters would never go for headshots since it has the greatest chance to miss and the animal has the most amount of natural protection there due to the skull which could prevent a clean kill even when the shot is perfect. in a sense these bow hunters aim to do the maximum amount of damage in 1 shot while maintaining the highest probability of accuracy. even against none-moving targets. they almost exclusively go for the chest where the heart and lungs are.
and the dommed shape of both the skull and the helmet will allow none directly hits and weaker hits to deflect off rather than have all the energy directed into the target. and all shields. even the smallest of bucklers are at least the size of your head and people will prioritize blocking their heads.
everything together adds up to the head being the area least prone to ranged attacks rather than the most. maybe change the spot for the critical damage bonus from the head once... idk the neck sounds pretty promising.
surprisingly, this game has a neck hitbox , it's smaller than the head but with some practice you can still reliably hit it.
the reason i suggest this is because in real life. the helmet is usually the thickest armor someone has on them, and on top of that everybody has a skull and is most intent on protecting it.
we are trained to think headshot do the most damage. that's because of firearms in video games. and how a bullet will bounce around and create much bigger internal wound once it penetrates the skull. while an arrow through the head will do significantly less damage, as it just creates a clean hole, damaging a much smaller amount of tissue, with almost no shockwaves, a large caliber's shockwave alone is enough to scramble the brain and kill a person.
real life bow hunters would never go for headshots since it has the greatest chance to miss and the animal has the most amount of natural protection there due to the skull which could prevent a clean kill even when the shot is perfect. in a sense these bow hunters aim to do the maximum amount of damage in 1 shot while maintaining the highest probability of accuracy. even against none-moving targets. they almost exclusively go for the chest where the heart and lungs are.
and the dommed shape of both the skull and the helmet will allow none directly hits and weaker hits to deflect off rather than have all the energy directed into the target. and all shields. even the smallest of bucklers are at least the size of your head and people will prioritize blocking their heads.
everything together adds up to the head being the area least prone to ranged attacks rather than the most. maybe change the spot for the critical damage bonus from the head once... idk the neck sounds pretty promising.
最后编辑:
