Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
27,828
1. Go to bandit hideout
2. Press F4
3. ???
4. PROFIT
 

Aemar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
6,055
52514D53B636BAF060BA2A2E1E3F96CD1E1EFC10


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

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,889
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

Arcane
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
941
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.
 

AgentFransis

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
979
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

Arcane
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
3,027
Location
The Eye of Terror
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.
 
Last edited:

Razzoriel

Genos Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
104
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

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
8,363
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

Genos Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
104
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

Genos Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
104
Didnt WFaS had a 1 musket shot per kill for unarmored troops and 2-3 for armored?
 

Peachcurl

Cipher
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
8,794
Location
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
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

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
8,363
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.
 

Quatlo

Arcane
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
941
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

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,889
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

Arcane
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
5,681
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

Savant
Patron
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
231
Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
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

Augur
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
2,259
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.
 

RK47

collides like two planets pulled by gravity
Patron
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
28,396
Location
Not Here
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin
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.
 
Last edited:

Razzoriel

Genos Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
104
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.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom