i didnt say it was entirely those troops, it was heavily composed of those troops. around 75% gunners and archers 25% melee and cav troops.

I dont play only one troop type cause thats a dumb way to play and isnt fun IMO. of course if youre gonna specifically go for the most OP thing in a game and build an entire army out of it, youre gonna have an easy time. if you do this thats fine, but disagree with asking for the game to be balanced around your specific playstyle.

i would agree with making gun units more expensive and slower to upgrade, but disagree with tweaking their damage, range, stats etc...

"300 of the best gunners (in the country) obliterate an equal force of 300 infantry units (at range)" is perfectly fine and how it should be. if you have enough money, make enough to support those daily wages and specifically go for that type of playing, you *should* have an easy time IMO. that makes perfect sense.

It's the pike and shot era of Japan. Knowing when to use range and when to use melee is important more than ever, or else range will always win. That's the point of the transitional period of this time. Eventually, range will replace melee, but for now they each have their part to play.

While it's true that firearms are bit OP, I don't think that's inherently problematic. The essential issue lies in the fact that, despite guns being expensive and rare weapons, infantry units can currently be upgraded to gun units at relatively low cost.

IMO, upgrading to matchlock infantry should require matchlock firearms themselves, similar to how upgrading infantry to cavalry requires horses.

Given the current rarity of matchlocks, assembling significant numbers is quite challenging, so adjusting their price and availability slightly might be reasonable.

In any case, if you manage to overcome these economic challenges and successfully field a large number of matchlock infantry capable of overwhelming enemy forces, that should be considered a legitimate reward for your strategic efforts and economic management. I believe this would be balanced from a gameplay perspective and historically accurate as well.

By the way, as a Japanese player, it is delightful and fascinating to see international players discussing game balance by referencing Japan's Sengoku period history. Many thanks to the developers for enabling this engaging experience.

But ranged units should not be able to just obliterate melee infantry & cavalry alike with almost no losses. This is not 18th century line infantry combat, this is still the pike & shot era, were guns had some hefty drawbacks, like being inaccurate at distance (and currently they are way to accurate), or having trouble at high humidity or rain (haven't seen that ingame so far).

Gun units at this time still needed to be protected by melee units or otherwise they would just have been overrun. But this is just not the case ingame, were ranged units (bow & guns) at a critical mass just win against anything. Thats just not how history has been, armies at the time still used melee and cavalry units. The absolute funny thing is that the most OP ranged unit isn't even a gun unit, but the Veteran Yumi Hattamoto from Tokai, which just beats every other unit ingame. So just making guns more expensive doesn't fix this problem. If you mass them, nothing will get close, not even cavalry.
You can't do this with infantry and you also can't do this with cavalry, especially because these tend to die, so your ranged units actually are the ones that tend to be at max level first.

So either some of the units get toned down, or armor actually gets tweaked so they do what they supposed to do. Right now armor is pretty much paper, and battles are over really quick due to everything dying to ranged attacks.

Originally posted by Restway:

IMO, upgrading to matchlock infantry should require matchlock firearms themselves, similar to how upgrading infantry to cavalry requires horses.

Yeah that already got proposed by someone on Discord and I think thats a good idea. Then there would still a look at the Veteran Hattamotos needed, because these also obliterate just anything.
Ideally theres some combat triangle like ranged>infantry>cavalry>ranged. Every unit should have its purpose and be beaten by at least one thing. As soon as you have one unit that is above all others you have the potential to break the game.

Originally posted by Xanth™:

But ranged units should not be able to just obliterate melee infantry & cavalry alike with almost no losses. This is not 18th century line infantry combat, this is still the pike & shot era, were guns had some hefty drawbacks, like being inaccurate at distance (and currently they are way to accurate), or having trouble at high humidity or rain (haven't seen that ingame so far).

Gun units at this time still needed to be protected by melee units or otherwise they would just have been overrun. But this is just not the case ingame, were ranged units (bow & guns) at a critical mass just win against anything. Thats just not how history has been, armies at the time still used melee and cavalry units. The absolute funny thing is that the most OP ranged unit isn't even a gun unit, but the Veteran Yumi Hattamoto from Tokai, which just beats every other unit ingame. So just making guns more expensive doesn't fix this problem. If you mass them, nothing will get close, not even cavalry.
You can't do this with infantry and you also can't do this with cavalry, especially because these tend to die, so your ranged units actually are the ones that tend to be at max level first.

So either some of the units get toned down, or armor actually gets tweaked so they do what they supposed to do. Right now armor is pretty much paper, and battles are over really quick due to everything dying to ranged attacks.

Originally posted by Restway:

IMO, upgrading to matchlock infantry should require matchlock firearms themselves, similar to how upgrading infantry to cavalry requires horses.

Yeah that already got proposed by someone on Discord and I think thats a good idea. Then there would still a look at the Veteran Hattamotos needed, because these also obliterate just anything.
Ideally theres some combat triangle like ranged>infantry>cavalry>ranged. Every unit should have its purpose and be beaten by at least one thing. As soon as you have one unit that is above all others you have the potential to break the game.

Originally posted by Xanth™:

But ranged units should not be able to just obliterate melee infantry & cavalry alike with almost no losses. This is not 18th century line infantry combat, this is still the pike & shot era, were guns had some hefty drawbacks, like being inaccurate at distance (and currently they are way to accurate), or having trouble at high humidity or rain (haven't seen that ingame so far).

Gun units at this time still needed to be protected by melee units or otherwise they would just have been overrun. But this is just not the case ingame, were ranged units (bow & guns) at a critical mass just win against anything. Thats just not how history has been, armies at the time still used melee and cavalry units. The absolute funny thing is that the most OP ranged unit isn't even a gun unit, but the Veteran Yumi Hattamoto from Tokai, which just beats every other unit ingame. So just making guns more expensive doesn't fix this problem. If you mass them, nothing will get close, not even cavalry.
You can't do this with infantry and you also can't do this with cavalry, especially because these tend to die, so your ranged units actually are the ones that tend to be at max level first.

So either some of the units get toned down, or armor actually gets tweaked so they do what they supposed to do. Right now armor is pretty much paper, and battles are over really quick due to everything dying to ranged attacks.

Originally posted by Restway:

IMO, upgrading to matchlock infantry should require matchlock firearms themselves, similar to how upgrading infantry to cavalry requires horses.

Yeah that already got proposed by someone on Discord and I think thats a good idea. Then there would still a look at the Veteran Hattamotos needed, because these also obliterate just anything.
Ideally theres some combat triangle like ranged>infantry>cavalry>ranged. Every unit should have its purpose and be beaten by at least one thing. As soon as you have one unit that is above all others you have the potential to break the game.

I see what you're saying. The firearms in this game could be a bit more inaccurate to balance them out, especially if it encourages a bunch of matchlock militia instead of solo marskman. Otherwise, I don't think there's a way for the devs to code in anything like reliability issues with the weapon within the scope of what Bannerlord already allows.

Still, an accuracy nerf should balance things out enough to be realistic, though do expect waves of cheap firearm units to still be a viable strategy.

My only issue with guns in this mod is how ridiculously accurate they are. Multiple times I find myself getting one tapped by some gunner on the walls during a siege. Also cav with guns are insanely strong.

Originally posted by PlantEater:

My only issue with guns in this mod is how ridiculously accurate they are. Multiple times I find myself getting one tapped by some gunner on the walls during a siege. Also cav with guns are insanely strong.

I agree with the first part. Cavalry with guns has always been strong. The trade-off is they are expensive, so you will only have to prepare against a handful of them. Ground ranged units and pikemen help against them.

Cav and good ranged certainly seems to work. Give everyone time to shine.

I think this problem can be solved by making gun range and accuracy closer to historical fact.
The effective range of guns during the Sengoku period was 50 meters.
The range of a gun was much shorter than that of a bow.
The accuracy rate of guns used by ordinary soldiers during the Sengoku period was 20-30%.
Even Akechi Mitsuhide, who was said to be a master gunner, only hit his target seven out of ten shots.
Despite this, people at the time praised Akechi Mitsuhide's shooting technique for its "accuracy."
I think the game balance would be improved if we shortened the gun range, reduced the accuracy, and tripled the number of bullets per soldier.

no offense but if you knew anything about the time period of the game and or history you would know that the range units are 100% accurate for this mod and i think they did superbly.

Infantry gunners in open field battles are manageable but in sieges they are an absolute nightmare because you cannot get to them easily. This is obviously historically accurate as a defender having an upper hand is normal. Your only option is to use a bow to pick them off or use a gun yourself. Depending on your skill with the bow you will either get randomly one-tapped by a gunner or slowly pick them off one by one. From a gameplay perspective is it a bit of a letdown if you want to just get in there with a katana and slash people up ( I fall under that category). Nerfing the range of the guns would be an option but I don't think that is possible. My only hope is that someone will create a submod where all gun units are removed. The Old World mod also has guns but the problem is not as bad there because you have access to insanely strong armor pieces, which is not possible here as it would break the historical accuracy. This is still a great mod though.

Originally posted by Holyshot:

no offense but if you knew anything about the time period of the game and or history you would know that the range units are 100% accurate for this mod and i think they did superbly.

No they aren't. The Tanegashima had a smoothbore barrel, which meant that you could only accuratly hit targets at around 50-75 yards. Modern tests with reconstructions revealed that hit rates rarely exceeded 30-40% on medium range. Aerodynamics also doesn't favor round bullets (they could drift to the side/up/down), like they would have been at the time and inconsistent powder loads are the nail in the coffin, when it comes to accuratly hit something, since every shot was different in how far it would have gotten.
So no Matchlocks definetly weren't accurate at all, Archers are much more effective when it comes to actually hit a target by aiming at it. With Firearms you just could not aim, and you also wouldn't be trained to aim, since Gunners would rely on volley fire to do the damage (or scare the enemy of).

Originally posted by PlantEater:

The Old World mod also has guns but the problem is not as bad there because you have access to insanely strong armor pieces, which is not possible here as it would break the historical accuracy. This is still a great mod though.

To be honest RBM depicts armor much much better than the vanilla damage formular. Right now armor is pretty much paper, since archers can just shred anything as easy as the best gunners. The Veteran Yumi Hattamoto just oneshot things from like 100m easily, which realistically just would not happen with the bows at that time (except if you lucky and hit a weak point of the armor).

Originally posted by Xanth™:

Originally posted by Holyshot:

no offense but if you knew anything about the time period of the game and or history you would know that the range units are 100% accurate for this mod and i think they did superbly.

No they aren't. The Tanegashima had a smoothbore barrel, which meant that you could only accuratly hit targets at around 50-75 yards. Modern tests with reconstructions revealed that hit rates rarely exceeded 30-40% on medium range. Aerodynamics also doesn't favor round bullets (they could drift to the side/up/down), like they would have been at the time and inconsistent powder loads are the nail in the coffin, when it comes to accuratly hit something, since every shot was different in how far it would have gotten.
So no Matchlocks definetly weren't accurate at all, Archers are much more effective when it comes to actually hit a target by aiming at it. With Firearms you just could not aim, and you also wouldn't be trained to aim, since Gunners would rely on volley fire to do the damage (or scare the enemy of).

Originally posted by PlantEater:

The Old World mod also has guns but the problem is not as bad there because you have access to insanely strong armor pieces, which is not possible here as it would break the historical accuracy. This is still a great mod though.

To be honest RBM depicts armor much much better than the vanilla damage formular. Right now armor is pretty much paper, since archers can just shred anything as easy as the best gunners. The Veteran Yumi Hattamoto just oneshot things from like 100m easily, which realistically just would not happen with the bows at that time (except if you lucky and hit a weak point of the armor).

I agree that firearm accuracy should be moderately nerfed and that arrows should not penetrate armor as much (same with rocks, those things are deadly against armor for some reason).

I feel like you'd need a pretty big nerf to overcome the advantage we have over the AI in tactics. Fians managed to be amazing in a setting that is far more anti-archer, but with our huge brains we can put them on hills.

Enemy ranged you can already just distract them by yourself as infantry move in or just send in the cavalry. Then a bunch of armored dudes with katanas kill the clothies with kamas. The maps will ensure sieges remain a series of killboxes for ranged units to fire into, you might just get hit less while waiting for the battering ram.

Archery is passive style gameplay and should always take a backseat in games with a focus on medieval combat