Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

[Fedora Master]

1. Go to bandit hideout
2. Press F4
3. ???
4. PROFIT

 

[Aemar]

Archery is overpowered. A force of roughly 100 strong-ish archers can obliterate any rabble army at least triple in size without taking casualties. Those forest bandits haven't even been upgraded to Fians, as I don't have the Disciplinarian trait yet.

 

[ArchAngel]

It is just that recruits are useless vs mass archery and AI loves to mass them, not level them anywhere and take them into important battles. Once they work on enemy AI and logic, it will be different.

 

[Quatlo]

I'm fine with arrows instagibbing lightly armoured troops, but its ridiculous how tier 4-5 troops die in 2 arrows despite running around in high-level gear.

 

[Fedora Master]

I'm fine with arrows instagibbing lightly armoured troops, but its ridiculous how tier 4-5 troops die in 2 arrows despite running around in high-level gear.

Remember to manually put them in shield wall, that helps.

 

[AgentFransis]

Forest bandits are very good archers as it is. Obviously against a similarly sized rabble they can clean house, but if the enemy has enough bodies to rush you and not route, if they have proper infantry with shields and if they have cavalry then it's no longer an auto win. Also of course not all terrain is good for archery and they're rubbish in sieges.

 

[Andnjord]

Archery is overpowered. A force of roughly 100 strong-ish archers can obliterate any rabble army at least triple in size without taking casualties. Those forest bandits haven't even been upgraded to Fians, as I don't have the Disciplinarian trait yet.

I've gotten both the Armour Does Something and Training Perk Fix and the combination of them helps massively with the issue.

The fist mod means armoured troops don't get machine-gunned quite as badly as before, and the second one since it applies to the AI too means you face a lot more shielded and at least moderately armoured troops. You'll massacre unarmoured rabble, but you'll be seeing a lot less of them.

 

[Razzoriel]

Arrows historically werent very deadly, their whole purpose was to soften up morally or injure infantry before a charge. Javelins and throwing axes were way more deadly up until armor started to become more common. Horse archery was different because it allowed constant strafing on open grounds.

I havent played Bannerlord yet, but as people are claiming, 2-3 arrows to kill is too little. Id say 2-3 HEADSHOTS could be okay. On troops without helmets.

 

[Spectacle]

Arrows historically werent very deadly, their whole purpose was to soften up morally or injure infantry before a charge. Javelins and throwing axes were way more deadly up until armor started to become more common. Horse archery was different because it allowed constant strafing on open grounds.

I havent played Bannerlord yet, but as people are claiming, 2-3 arrows to kill is too little. Id say 2-3 HEADSHOTS could be okay. On troops without helmets.

That would make archery really boring for the player, shooting would be a waste of time when you could attack in melee for quick kills instead.

 

[Razzoriel]

Arrows historically werent very deadly, their whole purpose was to soften up morally or injure infantry before a charge. Javelins and throwing axes were way more deadly up until armor started to become more common. Horse archery was different because it allowed constant strafing on open grounds.

I havent played Bannerlord yet, but as people are claiming, 2-3 arrows to kill is too little. Id say 2-3 HEADSHOTS could be okay. On troops without helmets.

That would make archery really boring for the player, shooting would be a waste of time when you could attack in melee for quick kills instead.

I know, a compromise can be made, or specific bows could be more or less powerful. Specific arrows could solve this instead of Warbands traditional damage bonus with better arrows.

Location damage is also not a thing, which makes it even less powerful. Its hard to balance, but IMO Warband's archers were okay; you had to have two headshots for tougher troops, and shields nullified most of their use.

 

[Razzoriel]

Didnt WFaS had a 1 musket shot per kill for unarmored troops and 2-3 for armored?

 

[Peachcurl]

Arrows historically werent very deadly, their whole purpose was to soften up morally or injure infantry before a charge. Javelins and throwing axes were way more deadly up until armor started to become more common. Horse archery was different because it allowed constant strafing on open grounds.

I havent played Bannerlord yet, but as people are claiming, 2-3 arrows to kill is too little. Id say 2-3 HEADSHOTS could be okay. On troops without helmets.

That sounds like mixing things up: impact of using bow and arrow in a battle (which includes accuracy), and the deadliness of an actual hit (does not consider accuracy).

 

[Spectacle]

I think the main reason why archers are so strong in Bannerlord is that AI armies tend to be made up of recruits and other low tier troops without shields or much armor. If you run a custom battle of infantry vs archers then you'll see that with shields up the infantry only take minor losses before they get close and slaughter the archers in melee.

 

[Fedora Master]

Anything fun you can do with a captured king? I stumbled across Caladog in the woods.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

I think they're just like any other lord at the moment. Higher ransom maybe

 

[ArchAngel]

Anything fun you can do with a captured king? I stumbled across Caladog in the woods.

Chop Chop!

 

[Quatlo]

Forest bandits are very good archers as it is. Obviously against a similarly sized rabble they can clean house, but if the enemy has enough bodies to rush you and not route, if they have proper infantry with shields and if they have cavalry then it's no longer an auto win. Also of course not all terrain is good for archery and they're rubbish in sieges.

The problem is, melee infantry wont be able to catch up with archers if you micro them properly - and by "micro" only thing you have to do is press "Advance" order.
They will start behaving like skirmishers in total war and kite the enemy.
Shit is hilariously broken

 

[ArchAngel]

Forest bandits are very good archers as it is. Obviously against a similarly sized rabble they can clean house, but if the enemy has enough bodies to rush you and not route, if they have proper infantry with shields and if they have cavalry then it's no longer an auto win. Also of course not all terrain is good for archery and they're rubbish in sieges.

The problem is, melee infantry wont be able to catch up with archers if you micro them properly - and by "micro" only thing you have to do is press "Advance" order.
They will start behaving like skirmishers in total war and kite the enemy.
Shit is hilariously broken

They also move more than they shoot which is irritating. You get more dps out of them if you manually control them.

 

[thesecret1]

Arrows historically werent very deadly, their whole purpose was to soften up morally or injure infantry before a charge.

They were pretty deadly if they managed to hit. Salvos of arrows weren't, mainly because they didn't hit that often and because the infantry had enough time to protect itself with a shield, but if the arrow did hit, then that soldier was out of the fight. Different models of bows would affect range and armor penetration, but even a shitty shortbow would take a lightly armored fighter out of comission.

Id say 2-3 HEADSHOTS could be okay.

You must be a mighty warrior of unparalleded endurance and willpower. Personally, if I took a headshot to the head and had an arrow piercing my brain, I'd just keel over and die rather than continue swinging a two hander.

 

[Brozef]

So I upgraded my PC and have the game another shot. Runs mostly fine now.
Finally got around to the banner and was shocked to find that there is voice acting in the game. Well at least a couple lines by the female questgiver. I guess it is unfinished yet, but if was hilarious to hear the first voice line after some 30 hrs, only for the NPC to fall silent again after two sentences.
Quality Turkish craftsmanship. Tembel Türkler.

 

[vota DC]

I think the main reason why archers are so strong in Bannerlord is that AI armies tend to be made up of recruits and other low tier troops without shields or much armor. If you run a custom battle of infantry vs archers then you'll see that with shields up the infantry only take minor losses before they get close and slaughter the archers in melee.

Yeah this Is one of the reasons.
Also;
-accuracy Is the same from max range. Never had any reason to use the hold fire command to save amminitions unlike warband. What they did developers for looter Stones? They nerfed stones accuracy, that means skill accuracy doesn't work much. High skill means you can ready aim faster but with low skills you will never miss anyway if you take your time.
-damage from max range and point blank is exactly the same

Ah sturgia infantry seems to lose in melee against sturgia archers, except t5.

I think that if they reduce accuracy and damage from very high distance they could add stuff like chance to knockback if they deal 30+ damage without become Op.

 

[Fedora Master]

The big battles, when they work, are just beautiful.

 

[Fedora Master]

The Hero Cataphract:

 

[RK47]

They need to implement a war goal in mind.
Kingdoms just continue to fight with total annihilation or sudden random truce.
There needs to be a mechanic to simulate war fatigue and what the attacker/defender objectives are before they pursue an end to the war.
Maybe a certain threshold on casualties/nobles captured/villages razed would make one side more likely to offer a truce.
Or else it's just all so pointless.

 

[Razzoriel]

Arrows historically werent very deadly, their whole purpose was to soften up morally or injure infantry before a charge.

They were pretty deadly if they managed to hit. Salvos of arrows weren't, mainly because they didn't hit that often and because the infantry had enough time to protect itself with a shield, but if the arrow did hit, then that soldier was out of the fight. Different models of bows would affect range and armor penetration, but even a shitty shortbow would take a lightly armored fighter out of comission.

Id say 2-3 HEADSHOTS could be okay.

You must be a mighty warrior of unparalleded endurance and willpower. Personally, if I took a headshot to the head and had an arrow piercing my brain, I'd just keel over and die rather than continue swinging a two hander.

Its not out of ordinary for humans drenched with adrenaline to keepfighting with an arrow through cheek, nose cavity or eyesocket. No distinction is made there so my point stands.