Foot Troops? For what?

[Hasbulat]

I cannt understand a sence to use the foot troop at all.
Play the game at 1.62. Hired Khuzait mounted archers and Imperial cavalery.
Have advantage in most fights in the game. I start my siege fights with the dismount order and rush enemy easy.

[Pistachio]

Don't cavs spawn without horses in siege battles? Anyhow, I've tried running 90%+ cav armies before and the only issues I had was getting enough war horses and the cost/work of maintaining the numbers. But that was last year so I'm not sure if it applies to 1.6.2.

Usually when the war gets hotter and once I start losing more troops than I could replenish, my infantry proportions tend to go up. Cavs are nice, but I find it a bit of a hassle to maintain, unless the garrisons start stocking up Cav units for me to just take. Plus, I prefer to rely on Fians for tipping battles over and overall don't think Cavs are as lethal as they should be. I also like having melee infantry to throw at the enemies so that I can conserve other more expensive units.

Having lots of cav is fun, but personally, having a whole army of it is not convenient enough for my liking. But I have to say, the top tier cavs make excellent heavy infantry as well, so that's real nice.

[JuggerHobbit]

Cavalry is great for open map battles. Cavalry is awful for castle and town sieges. Cavalry also suffers in very tight maps with lots of terrain restrictions or trees, though those drawbacks are probably still outweighed by their benefits.
Don't siege and cavalry is tons of fun. Siege and you may have a bad time.

[[No In] Boomfunk]

Cavalry will easily lose against an Enemy that has Archers and Infantry in tight Defensive Formation.
They also suck in every Terrain that is not open

[AfLIcTeD]

They also seem to get murdered by the polearm/2handed swinging maniacs.

[Swordmouse]

A few reasons to run with at least some infantry:

- cheaper than cavalry
- they can soak missiles via shieldwall, directing fire away from your archers/cav
- they pin the enemy infantry so your calv can smash them from the flank ie "Hammer & Anvil"
- general/siege fodder. Why lose the investment of 50 warhorses when sieging a castle when you can lose 50 cheap infantry instead?

[Machiavelli]

you want to run a good contingent archers. they get alot of kills before the main clash begins.

great for minimizing casualties. infantry is good to keep the front busy, while your cav circle around, kill everything. maybe move the archers to the side if possible.

cav very expensive too.

[RJboxer]

Originally posted by Sheepify:

Originally posted by Fellington:

you want to run a good contingent archers. they get alot of kills before the main clash begins.

Or... you could get Wildlings. Who do the same, then get even more kills when the main clash happens >.>

What do you mean I'm fixated?

I see you write about them a lot. I thought you were joking. I'm still not sure if you are or are not. I can tell you full fian runs will be awesome. you get killed super super super easy. so the game is impossible. That could be a fun way to play. But yeah, Full ANYTHING is a sure fire recipe for losses.

But this "wildling" what are you referring to? Are they good? bad? I dunno. I thought you were making game of thrones references the first few times I saw you post it lol

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Hasbulat:

... I start my siege fights with the dismount order and rush enemy easy.

Most high-tier units are fairly effective fighters, even dismounted ones. It's generally been a pretty common thing in Warband, too. But, the unit roster was much smaller there than it is in Bannerlord. Swadian Knight parties were popular. :) (I think the high-tier Vaegirs were viable there as well.)

There's only so much "uber" you can put into a unit until it's going to be pretty uber in anything it tries to do.

The problem - With reduced damage, I could see this being an easy strategy. But, with standard 1:1 damage, risking expensive high-tier cavalry isn't really worth it.

Specialized besiegers, though, are definitely worth the costs. They tend to be tanky, too, with good shields and close-combat capability. They wouldn't be a hindrance on any battlefield even if it wasn't a siege.

On Balancing - That may be an issue for some units considering their gear. IMO, for instance, any HA unit of any type shouldn't have really high-grade chest/arm armor and maybe low-coverage head gear. Athletics should be a bit lacking, too, to help reduce their dismounted effectiveness a bit.

[RJboxer]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Originally posted by Hasbulat:

... I start my siege fights with the dismount order and rush enemy easy.

Most high-tier units are fairly effective fighters, even dismounted ones. It's generally been a pretty common thing in Warband, too. But, the unit roster was much smaller there than it is in Bannerlord. Swadian Knight parties were popular. :) (I think the high-tier Vaegirs were viable there as well.)

There's only so much "uber" you can put into a unit until it's going to be pretty uber in anything it tries to do.

The problem - With reduced damage, I could see this being an easy strategy. But, with standard 1:1 damage, risking expensive high-tier cavalry isn't really worth it.

Specialized besiegers, though, are definitely worth the costs. They tend to be tanky, too, with good shields and close-combat capability. They wouldn't be a hindrance on any battlefield even if it wasn't a siege.

On Balancing - That may be an issue for some units considering their gear. IMO, for instance, any HA unit of any type shouldn't have really high-grade chest/arm armor and maybe low-coverage head gear. Athletics should be a bit lacking, too, to help reduce their dismounted effectiveness a bit.

there is no "dismounting" of cavalry in sieges. Someone is theory crafting, and has no idea what they are talking about.

Cavalry ONCE lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng ago, actually got a bonus in sieges. That was patched

Horse Archers, once were uber... lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng ago. They too were nerfed, multiple ways, but most significant in my mind, was the targeting. They hit about 90% LESS than they used to. That's a big deal.

Cavalry and Horse archers Once, didn't need horses to upgrade iirc. Didn't they at one time, just upgrade when u clicked the button?

When Cav and HA, NEEDED horses the horse cost was so frikkin astronomical it was impossible to field cav armies, without javelins. (and good luck finding ANY fief with a horse for sale)

All this was PRE-Khuzait nerf.

Now HA are the same as any other troop, unless u exploit the "attack/retreat" bug. Which I thought was patched out. but it's hard to tell, I see people state it as if they can still do it. but they also state stuff that was out of date a year ago. So I assume they probably don't play.... but on the OFF CHANCE you can still attack/retreat with no losses, over and over.. yeah thats an exploit. Not a sign HA are OP.

But, since HA, and Cav are nerfed, They no longer get the siege bonus, They no longer can shoot people from 200 yeards away with 99% accurcacy while moving. They now need horses to upgrade, those horses can be expensive. (and for a few patches, super super hard to find). They are not the end all, be all troops.

This is probably because the new "meta" from the developers, is mixed armies with large amounts of cavalry. this is why Battania Constantly has 40% of their army as cav late game (they never used to). It's why every faction in the game has a cavalry as their Noble troop except Battania, it is why there are way way way way more villages producing cavalry/horses then before, even as reecently as a few patches ago.. There are now perks to HELP the fiefs produce even MORE cavalry. Castles now make more noble troops than regular (thus more cavalry) etc...

The list goes on and on. But yeah, the game currently is Cavalry focused, in a combined arms army. BUT, where they stink.. as has been mentioned, is in Sieges and terrains that aren't open.

Regardless, On legit. You can not steam roll the map with any singular type of unit. Infantry, ranged, cav etc. There are too many checks and balances, and Rock/Paper/Scissors wins the day.

[Onimaho]

Originally posted by RJboxer:

Regardless, On legit. You can not steam roll the map with any singular type of unit. Infantry, ranged, cav etc. There are too many checks and balances, and Rock/Paper/Scissors wins the day.

What about with high morale looters?

[Hasbulat]

Originally posted by Sheepify:

Originally posted by Hasbulat:

I cannt understand a sence to use the foot troop at all.
Play the game at 1.62. Hired Khuzait mounted archers and Imperial cavalery.
Have advantage in most fights in the game. I start my siege fights with the dismount order and rush enemy easy.

Because elite cavalry costs (and should cost much more than it does right now, as well).

200 Wildlings will do the work as well, and probably with fewer casualties regardless of battle type and terrain. And good luck with sieges with your cavalry.

Yes, cavalery is expensive!
Otherwise whole economy is temporary completely brocken!
I am in midgame now - youcould buy all artisians products in most cities cheaper then at the farms.
A city provides less taxes in 10 years, then a single crafted weapon costs. Same with workshops!
Its terrible and should be balanced soonest.

With 1.61-62 it is easy to collect full army setup of a cavalery early. And they are easy to level to significant level.

So, having full horsed army, have no problems with sieges.

And I tried an army setup based on batanians - lot of casualties! Too much after each more or less compicated battle!
And fians Ilove are not overkiller anymore. Dont know why.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by RJboxer:

..
Cavalry and Horse archers Once, didn't need horses to upgrade iirc. Didn't they at one time, just upgrade when u clicked the button?

I don't recall that, but it's possible. If so, it was a very early thing.

When Cav and HA, NEEDED horses the horse cost was so frikkin astronomical it was impossible to field cav armies, without javelins. (and good luck finding ANY fief with a horse for sale)

Money flowed a lot more freely before the Workshop nerf, so the cost wasn't really huge. It was the availability that was the big stumbling block for me.

..This is probably because the new "meta" from the developers, is mixed armies with large amounts of cavalry. this is why Battania Constantly has 40% of their army as cav late game (they never used to). It's why every faction in the game has a cavalry as their Noble troop except Battania, it is why there are way way way way more villages producing cavalry/horses then before, even as reecently as a few patches ago.. There are now perks to HELP the fiefs produce even MORE cavalry. Castles now make more noble troops than regular (thus more cavalry) etc...

One issue that was fixed was that Lords weren't choosing appropriate upgrade paths to get cavalry units. Mexxico, IIRC, detailed that in the "snowballing" thread. They balanced it out a bit so Lords would build towards cavalry, but I don't recall what their minimum target was.

The list goes on and on. But yeah, the game currently is Cavalry focused, in a combined arms army. BUT, where they stink.. as has been mentioned, is in Sieges and terrains that aren't open.

Many cavalry are great units, but I still see weapon-switching behavior issues now and then. That is... annoying.

Regardless, On legit. You can not steam roll the map with any singular type of unit. Infantry, ranged, cav etc. There are too many checks and balances, and Rock/Paper/Scissors wins the day.

I wouldn't say this is a "planned" thing. It's just the aggregation of mechanics. Cavalry, foot, missile ... They all have their natural counters provided units are of equal effectiveness at what they're designed to do. If you stop cavalry, they're dead. Can hit melee without worrying about being hit, they're dead. Can mow through units not designed to withstand being mowed through, they're dead. :) "Super Units" can be seen, though, so I don't mean that such things can't exist. It's just a sort of natural effect of different capabilities.

Warband was most definitely a "rock, paper, scissors" sort of unit roster with specific units being "best in class" regarding their effectiveness. Bannerlord is going to eventually have something like that, but I don't know that it's going to be "balanced." We'll see a handful of specific units being best-in-class, but still find strong rosters in factions/branches that don't themselves contain best-in-class units. Well, that's the hope...

I really wish there was a good, updated, unit stat and gear chart. I don't have confidence in the Wiki's numbers/descriptions. I'd love to see a running "this is what TW is fiddling with" read on all the units and their gear/stats/etc.

[Muscarine]

Infantry is bottom tier, like with every single similar game out there, included strategy games like Total War

There only purpose is meat shield

That's it

Nobody can balance that right because it's simply a natural dynamic
Range beats infantry
Mobility beats range and infantry
Range + Mobility beats everything by a massive margin

i.e. Khan's guards are still by far the most powerful units in the game, and since 1.6 they're even more common to recruit, to the point where it's basically pointless to recruit any other unit if you want to play optimal (you don't have to mind you)

Even better (or worse i guess), since they almost never die, couple deaths here and there even outnumbered 5 to 1 on max difficulty, there's 0 downtime, meaning you can swarm from one target to another without ever needing to patch wounds or take a break to refill your losses

And during actual battles that means you only have 1 group to manage, barely any micro involved, it's braindead easy, extremely economic and efficient

Compare all that to infantry and you get the picture

[RJboxer]

Originally posted by Sheepify:

Originally posted by RJboxer:

But this "wildling" what are you referring to? Are they good? bad? I dunno. I thought you were making game of thrones references the first few times I saw you post it lol

End of Battanian skirmisher foot line - "Battanian Wildling."

They have stats similar to Sturgian infantry BUT come with javelins. Which means they can reasonably counter melee cavalry, and gank horse archers, even before they get to them.

Very reliable in melee, and their shields mean they can also do a number on ranged troops. Plus, they have very high athletics, so they don't just waddle toward their targets.

Oh, and because that whole troop line is shield+one-hander+thrown javelins, they level up pretty fast from even T2 onwards, since they don't need to risk getting into melee but can get kills by throwing crap at enemies.

In case it's not clear yet, I like them. A lot. They are probably the best troop line for non-cheesy casualties-will-be-had gameplay - which helps raise medicine, too.

thanks for answer. I was aware of the troop, but didn't know if you were joking (or being sarcastic, or truly liked them). I rarely use them because I like the Falxman or whatever there name is. The dudes with the Rhomphaia.

I've made wildlings before, but always worked under the assumption, Fians will be my ranged, so I need NON-Nobles to be my cavalry and infantry. Thus I always skipped Wildlings. I wonder how well they would be in a siege. (Meaning if I had more wildlings than Fians.. would it be good to defend with... hmmmm)

i'll give them a shot. Im in a vlandia campaign now, but I own Pen Cannnock, and pendraic castle. Maybe I will add some wildlings to my arsenal :)

[mortache]

Originally posted by Muscarine:

Infantry is bottom tier, like with every single similar game out there, included strategy games like Total War

There only purpose is meat shield

That's it

Nobody can balance that right because it's simply a natural dynamic
Range beats infantry
Mobility beats range and infantry
Range + Mobility beats everything by a massive margin

i.e. Khan's guards are still by far the most powerful units in the game, and since 1.6 they're even more common to recruit, to the point where it's basically pointless to recruit any other unit if you want to play optimal (you don't have to mind you)

Even better (or worse i guess), since they almost never die, couple deaths here and there even outnumbered 5 to 1 on max difficulty, there's 0 downtime, meaning you can swarm from one target to another without ever needing to patch wounds or take a break to refill your losses

And during actual battles that means you only have 1 group to manage, barely any micro involved, it's braindead easy, extremely economic and efficient

Compare all that to infantry and you get the picture

In the middle ages, the only reason why anyone ever used infantry was because they had not enough resources for horses. Horses are expensive and you have to feed and care for them. Both of which are basically non-existent in the game. A bunch of legionaries and a bunch of knights cost the same upkeep and food.