-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
SmurfInHell said:
I would like to note that friendly fire incidents could be lowered by adding real formations as well as "stances" that focus on fighting in lines. the melee where the armies scatter around and everyone fights one person never happened and for good reason. not only is it a very lethal way of holding battle which makes retreat almost impossible. it also increases the chance you hurt your comrades. when fighting in formation you can be fairly sure the guys facing you are the enemy and the ones who have their back or sides towards you are friends.
on that note I would like to either see stances or alternative attacks. "stances" should be sets of attacks which are used for different purposes. I'm not talking about some weird martial art or forgotten swordsmanship but rather holding the spear under the arm or over the arm or using a sword for stabbing or slashing. this would mean you can adapt to a situation without hampering your options. a sword "stance" which has four froward stabs for instance would be useful to use in tight battles. alternative attacks could possible do this without stances by pressing keys while attacking. however, I am a complete noob at the fighting part so I would like to invite people who can actually play the game to give their opinions.
I see your comment on how hard it is to see rags in a pitched battle and I agree. this could be the reason your skirmishers decide to take on your own right flank instead of the enemy's. this is also the reason you outfitted your right flank with standard bearers which display your banner, to make sure the skirmishers know who to skirmish. furthermore, according to this thread soldiers used battle cries to distinguish between the groups
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dh5vp/how_much_friendly_fire_occurred_during_massive/
that would be a cool feature.
when it comes to colourblindness though I would say that's your problem and invite you to turn on floating banners. there is only so much that can be done. especially when trying to be realistic.
in the end if the battles would be made more realistic friendly fire would mostly be a case of misidentification between groups or an annoying wind diverting the course of your arrows.
but I do agree that toggles are the best solution. the main question would be what should be default? as a strategy player I like to see a more deep command system involving formations and friendly fire but I now that there are a lot of people who have their focus on other parts of the game.
EDIT:
why not? it is not that hard to implement and I think everyone agrees this should be toggleable. the rags themselves should in fact be one of the many options for identification the player can choose and might not even be the preferred method for most situations.Dest45 said:
MrMundy
Banned
I suggest you actully try playing a mod after you added friendly fire for ranged weapons of any kind. Mods involving firearms become incredibly frustrating, and having your Archers fire at the enemy will end up with you and your cav catching arrows as soon as you ride in.
Rags would first off be something a bunch of people wouldnt like and what would be unpracticle as soon as you are further away from your units then 30 meters. And at a range less then that you can just differ between the troups by their armor.
Rags would first off be something a bunch of people wouldnt like and what would be unpracticle as soon as you are further away from your units then 30 meters. And at a range less then that you can just differ between the troups by their armor.
MrMundy said:
Until we can play a game created with this feature (that has a AI and battle orders to handle this case), this is not a good argument. WB AI was not created to handle this, as the devs simple disabled it from the game. We have no idea how this would work on a game like WB2.
well... my whole argument is based around me hoping the ai won't be stupid. I am not saying friendly fire is a good thing for warband. in real battles the role of archers was to fire before the charge started and then either stay back or assist as light infantry.MrMundy said:
I'd say rags can have some use in scenarios like an ambush in a dense area where people will be close to each other and not in a formation. something like an ambush in a forest for instance, especially if both parties are clothed similarly. off course here you want something more than a bit of rope. you'd rather have a whole sleeve or a bandana but in general the idea of pieces of clothing showing your allegiance sounds good to me. yes, one wouldn't expect this on the battlefield but not every fight is a battle.
SmurfInHell
Squire
SenorZorros said:
I actually considered this: the formation type fighting being able to heavily reduce the amount of friendly fire (at least in melee combat). It would somewhat help with your archers as they could shoot into the far back ranks of the enemy formation negating the chance to hit your own troops, but as people have mentioned what about when you're cav are specificaly attacking those in the back to disrupt the formation? Then your archers become just as much a boon to your army as a bane.
The real reason I didn't suggestion a heavier emphasis on formation fighting is due to one simple reason: AI programming. Sure it's possible to add in some pretty basic yet strong foundations for the AI to follow. Mods have done it quite effectively, but when the battles start getting intense with the cav charging and getting in the mix, infantry formations clashing on two or three fronts from different lords, it simply becomes a mess. The AI archers, from my personal experience, have in many mods with formations created a constant stream of knocking the arrow then never releasing because something gets in the way of their target before they shoot. Imagine if friendly ranged fire was on. You either A.) have your archers kind of idle providing significantly less support or B.) have them take chances at hitting your own troops and let them keep shooting.
While the different stances is interesting I'm going to be 100% honest. When it comes to multiplayer having different stances could, and would most likely, cause a lot of problems. If someone is using a stance with spears for instance how would it be blocked by someone using a stance with a sword that has 4 directional attack while the spear has 4 different attacks, but all thrusts at different elevations? It could possibly add a whole new level to the gameplay, but more than likely it would just be annoying fluff to constantly switch between in combat. People would attempt to be pressing X (or w/e key) to toggle stances and stance dance while attempting to feint. What about all of the animations that go into this? Would it be possible to correctly animate switching both between the main 4 directional swings and the different swings/thrusts accompanied by the different stances? Would spears have 3 stances, lances have 2 stances, and swords have 4? What would these stances be? How would they function? How do you block them? Should it only be multiplayer? Is this amount of effort in getting stance setup even the best fix scenario for friendly fire in general?
In the end there's a ton of drawbacks to something like this. It would require people to conform to a mold they do not sign up for (E.G. switching from 4 directional attacks to also including various stances functioning differently), a large amount of animation work / smoothing for the developers (which if it did not work out as they wanted would just end up being wasted development time), and the overall amount of questions on how the mechanic itself would function to fit the AI (which will need to be programmed how to use it effectively btw) along with the use in a multiplayer setting.
On the note of rags/cloth yea, it would be difficult to see at some ranges :/ Especially from horseback leading into a charge in which two groups of infantry are fighting. Though your point about banners is spot on, and I hope to see more about that. Speaking of various flanks/divisions I am anticipating the ability to better setup divisions of units. That way on a battlefield you can have 2-3 sets of infantry running around. That way the whole "Friend is almost always behind you" would become a little less prominent (as you're right that happens a ton in the current game). This would also affect tactics heavily as in the real world it was common to have two diversions of light infantry and heavy infantry. In fact when I think of these two seperations I always think of Hannibal's famous battle in which he baited the enemy into attacking his center piece of light infantry (which was uncommon to do), then instead having his heavy infantry encircle the flanks.
Battle cries are interesting, but how would that actually work out in effect? I mean, cool for ambience but how often am I going to be able to hear the battle cries giving orders over the loud clash of steel in game? Would I even want to hear that? Technically other instruments could provide the same feel, but I question as to how useful it would be overall. More than likely though it would end up just being a sound that accompanies when you give some X order. Like, Everyone-Charge would have a specific set of lines. Would be interesting to see how you could actually make that work, though I do not require it in the base game.
I think to sum up everything while a lot of this is interesting talk, I feel most of it requires a lot more time for getting the mechanic right, or just overall would force to much of a specific type of immersion/realism/"gameyness" on the playerbase without their say so. All of this is perfect setup for mods (like you and many others have mentioned). My real want for Bannerlord is for them to focus on hammering on a solid game engine with vast capabilities. Along with this to focus on adding various options and in depth customization so that people can gear more towards the realism (E.G. No floating banners / better formation combat) vs people who are more interested in playing the game itself. As you said toggles are the best solution
NOTE: On the AI bit I should add that my reasoning is the AI hasn't been able to advance to a level I believe it capable of handling some of these things effectively. The siege gameplay shows they still have some problems, and while they may be vastly improved... I still don't feel confident the AI can handle as many things. I'm hoping the ability to setup different divisions will allow for multiple "flank / skirmish" engagements on the sidelines while the main bulk of the armies crush in the center. Especially if AI Lords do different things based on their personalities. A honourable lord will take the front and center piece then hold it to his troops whittle to nothing. An aggressive lord will take the intiative and attempt to overwhelm the target. Slightly more underhanded lords will take flanks and attempt to skirt the battle until the main groups engage. If you have 3-4 different lord types in an army it could cause battles to go differently, while still not being a complete "Random slogfest" as to what the lord decides to do.
Eh, as long was friendly fire would be toggle-able I'd say okay, but if it wouldn't be then it shouldn't even be programmed in. It doesn't add anything to the game except for a great way to waste troops and money every time you fight in a siege or get ambushed. Yeah I get it if you want the challenge for field battles, but if the game remains like Warband as far as what types of battles you'll be fighting, the vast majority of field battles is just bandit-stomping and the majority of lategame action is sieges.
On a related note, I would actually really love for there to be more/easier ways to take a fief without a bloody siege. For example, if you start a battle outside a fief, that fief's garrison will join the battle, and if they are defeated the castle will automatically go to your faction. The AI should also be a lot less hardline about redrawing entire borders for treaties. If lords, now following the same rules as the player, take longer to replenish and replenish with low-quality troops at first, a faction should account for that when evaluating how badly it's losing the war, and if it will be more detrimental to them to deplete their forces completely or just hand over a fief that they can recapture later.
On a related note, I would actually really love for there to be more/easier ways to take a fief without a bloody siege. For example, if you start a battle outside a fief, that fief's garrison will join the battle, and if they are defeated the castle will automatically go to your faction. The AI should also be a lot less hardline about redrawing entire borders for treaties. If lords, now following the same rules as the player, take longer to replenish and replenish with low-quality troops at first, a faction should account for that when evaluating how badly it's losing the war, and if it will be more detrimental to them to deplete their forces completely or just hand over a fief that they can recapture later.
crodio said:
Nope, it's totally impossible even from a modding perspective. Once arrows hit allies the game doesn't even register them so you can't use that to wound the AI manually via scripts. What's hilarious is that there's a cheat which lets the AI control your player, and if you have a bow equipped you'll quickly get loads of friendly fire kills.
What people don't seem to grasp is, in medieval times, battles were not on the total war scale , no real formations and maneuvers , just packed rubble arranged in categories . Peasants on one side, men at arms on one side ,archers on one side knights or mounted units on the other . Armies were rarely in the thousands , lords could rarely field armies over 300+ without breaking their economy , and for this mount and blade is very accurate, from hard recruitment to army max size , that is one of the main reasons I like the game . Large armies don't really change anything or help immersion in anyway its only for fun. There is nothing like having 50 handpicked personally trained troops and terrorizing some villages and being a pain in a lords ass . The formation system in bannerlord is very necessary but not a game changer , once again that shows Taleworld's accuracy . No matter how you arrange your troops , in the end it becomes a mindless rush and clash and mindless sword swinging , thats how it was . Friendly fire should be enabled too , it was a real hazard in war ,you can't have immersion without it.
I know it won't happen, but I'd really love to have battles play out on the world map. My favourite 'battles' in Warband were not when two large marshal parties blobbed together, but moments after those blob for whatever reason dissolve and it changes into bunch of skirmishes between small groups of lords, while player is able to decide where and when her/his party should strike. Yeah, it feels cheaty when you can defeat much stronger army this way by jumping to help party that got ganged on by enemy, while on the other hand parties of your side that engaged lone lord together stay relatively fresh, but... well, it feels more immersive. You get a friendly nod from a lord you just helped and you two part your ways to fight somewhere else. Nothing more bitter than to win a bunch of skirmishes this way and still being forced to retreat because there's just not enough allies left in combat. Bonus points if lords that you abandoned in those resistance pockets give you the 'where the hell were you?' dialogue option as greeting next time you meet them.
SmurfInHell said:SenorZorros said:
I actually considered this: the formation type fighting being able to heavily reduce the amount of friendly fire (at least in melee combat). It would somewhat help with your archers as they could shoot into the far back ranks of the enemy formation negating the chance to hit your own troops, but as people have mentioned what about when you're cav are specificaly attacking those in the back to disrupt the formation? Then your archers become just as much a boon to your army as a bane.
The real reason I didn't suggestion a heavier emphasis on formation fighting is due to one simple reason: AI programming. Sure it's possible to add in some pretty basic yet strong foundations for the AI to follow. Mods have done it quite effectively, but when the battles start getting intense with the cav charging and getting in the mix, infantry formations clashing on two or three fronts from different lords, it simply becomes a mess. The AI archers, from my personal experience, have in many mods with formations created a constant stream of knocking the arrow then never releasing because something gets in the way of their target before they shoot. Imagine if friendly ranged fire was on. You either A.) have your archers kind of idle providing significantly less support or B.) have them take chances at hitting your own troops and let them keep shooting.
While the different stances is interesting I'm going to be 100% honest. When it comes to multiplayer having different stances could, and would most likely, cause a lot of problems. If someone is using a stance with spears for instance how would it be blocked by someone using a stance with a sword that has 4 directional attack while the spear has 4 different attacks, but all thrusts at different elevations? It could possibly add a whole new level to the gameplay, but more than likely it would just be annoying fluff to constantly switch between in combat. People would attempt to be pressing X (or w/e key) to toggle stances and stance dance while attempting to feint. What about all of the animations that go into this? Would it be possible to correctly animate switching both between the main 4 directional swings and the different swings/thrusts accompanied by the different stances? Would spears have 3 stances, lances have 2 stances, and swords have 4? What would these stances be? How would they function? How do you block them? Should it only be multiplayer? Is this amount of effort in getting stance setup even the best fix scenario for friendly fire in general?
In the end there's a ton of drawbacks to something like this. It would require people to conform to a mold they do not sign up for (E.G. switching from 4 directional attacks to also including various stances functioning differently), a large amount of animation work / smoothing for the developers (which if it did not work out as they wanted would just end up being wasted development time), and the overall amount of questions on how the mechanic itself would function to fit the AI (which will need to be programmed how to use it effectively btw) along with the use in a multiplayer setting.
On the note of rags/cloth yea, it would be difficult to see at some ranges :/ Especially from horseback leading into a charge in which two groups of infantry are fighting. Though your point about banners is spot on, and I hope to see more about that. Speaking of various flanks/divisions I am anticipating the ability to better setup divisions of units. That way on a battlefield you can have 2-3 sets of infantry running around. That way the whole "Friend is almost always behind you" would become a little less prominent (as you're right that happens a ton in the current game). This would also affect tactics heavily as in the real world it was common to have two diversions of light infantry and heavy infantry. In fact when I think of these two seperations I always think of Hannibal's famous battle in which he baited the enemy into attacking his center piece of light infantry (which was uncommon to do), then instead having his heavy infantry encircle the flanks.
Battle cries are interesting, but how would that actually work out in effect? I mean, cool for ambience but how often am I going to be able to hear the battle cries giving orders over the loud clash of steel in game? Would I even want to hear that? Technically other instruments could provide the same feel, but I question as to how useful it would be overall. More than likely though it would end up just being a sound that accompanies when you give some X order. Like, Everyone-Charge would have a specific set of lines. Would be interesting to see how you could actually make that work, though I do not require it in the base game.
I think to sum up everything while a lot of this is interesting talk, I feel most of it requires a lot more time for getting the mechanic right, or just overall would force to much of a specific type of immersion/realism/"gameyness" on the playerbase without their say so. All of this is perfect setup for mods (like you and many others have mentioned). My real want for Bannerlord is for them to focus on hammering on a solid game engine with vast capabilities. Along with this to focus on adding various options and in depth customization so that people can gear more towards the realism (E.G. No floating banners / better formation combat) vs people who are more interested in playing the game itself. As you said toggles are the best solution
NOTE: On the AI bit I should add that my reasoning is the AI hasn't been able to advance to a level I believe it capable of handling some of these things effectively. The siege gameplay shows they still have some problems, and while they may be vastly improved... I still don't feel confident the AI can handle as many things. I'm hoping the ability to setup different divisions will allow for multiple "flank / skirmish" engagements on the sidelines while the main bulk of the armies crush in the center. Especially if AI Lords do different things based on their personalities. A honourable lord will take the front and center piece then hold it to his troops whittle to nothing. An aggressive lord will take the intiative and attempt to overwhelm the target. Slightly more underhanded lords will take flanks and attempt to skirt the battle until the main groups engage. If you have 3-4 different lord types in an army it could cause battles to go differently, while still not being a complete "Random slogfest" as to what the lord decides to do.
when it comes to archers, their role should stop the moment the melee-units engage. That is, unless you want to risk your own troops. This is historically correct so I don't see a problem. Normally archers had spend all their arrows before the engagement anyway. While I do admit that this would mean archers become significantly weaker they still play a huge role pre-engagement and this deficit could be balanced against. Your problem is my feature
. I am going to take your word on stances. However, what would your opinion be on alternate attacks? I get that it would be hard to find buttons for them but I'd imagine this could give the best of both worlds. One remark I have to make though is that stances are nor supposed to fix friendly fire but rather to enable different approached in different cases e.g. fighting in a tight formation.
I completely agree with your points on banners and setup so I won't respond further. The battle cries were mostly fluff and I agree a hard way to identify troops. It would also make the battles even more noisy. I think the main reason to have them would be for immersion. It would be nice to be able to pick your own battle cry though this might be a bit hard.
On that note I would like to have the option to have your orders only affect limited range requiring them to be signalled either by battle cries, signs or music.
When it comes to the mould would say everything is a mould anyway. It is important to have a solid core, but the game should still be a game and not a modding platform. I'd like to see the various options and in depth features in vanilla instead of having to resort to mods.
I really think that stances are actually a pretty great idea and already kind of implemented, you just use x to switch. For example, in warband throwing axes and some javelins can be switched between being thrown and being used for melee.
Expand this so that in bannerlord, polearms can cycle between being thrown, a stance where 3 attacks are swinging/bludgeoning, and a stance where all 4 attacks are stabs from different directions. This doesn't at all complicate things for the defender as you just have to use the same old 4 directional blocks, it just gives the wielder of the weapon more flexibility; for example, if you want *prisoners, use the bludgeoning swings. The ability to have solid multidrectional stabs might also be the buff that spears so desperately need (so long as AI are programmed to use them better)
*(I say this bit on the assumption that the prisoner system will be fairly unchanged from vanilla warband, but I would really really love if they grafted Viking Conquest's system of how people can be knocked out by blows from sharp weapons too)
Also, friendly fire is **** and if its enabled it MUST be toggleable.
Expand this so that in bannerlord, polearms can cycle between being thrown, a stance where 3 attacks are swinging/bludgeoning, and a stance where all 4 attacks are stabs from different directions. This doesn't at all complicate things for the defender as you just have to use the same old 4 directional blocks, it just gives the wielder of the weapon more flexibility; for example, if you want *prisoners, use the bludgeoning swings. The ability to have solid multidrectional stabs might also be the buff that spears so desperately need (so long as AI are programmed to use them better)
*(I say this bit on the assumption that the prisoner system will be fairly unchanged from vanilla warband, but I would really really love if they grafted Viking Conquest's system of how people can be knocked out by blows from sharp weapons too)
Also, friendly fire is **** and if its enabled it MUST be toggleable.
why is friendly fire ****? we already placed the caveat that the ai needs improvement. once that is implemented it will be fairly rare anyways.
I do say though that friendly fire does need to be kind and ignore some of the border cases e.g. just hitting an ally with the sword of your tip while slashing at an enemy. I still remember how hard it was to prevent friendly fire when npc's in skyrim ganged up on an enemy.
I do say though that friendly fire does need to be kind and ignore some of the border cases e.g. just hitting an ally with the sword of your tip while slashing at an enemy. I still remember how hard it was to prevent friendly fire when npc's in skyrim ganged up on an enemy.
SmurfInHell
Squire
SenorZorros said:when it comes to archers, their role should stop the moment the melee-units engage. That is, unless you want to risk your own troops. This is historically correct so I don't see a problem. Normally archers had spend all their arrows before the engagement anyway. While I do admit that this would mean archers become significantly weaker they still play a huge role pre-engagement and this deficit could be balanced against. Your problem is my feature
I am going to take your word on stances. However, what would your opinion be on alternate attacks? I get that it would be hard to find buttons for them but I'd imagine this could give the best of both worlds. One remark I have to make though is that stances are nor supposed to fix friendly fire but rather to enable different approached in different cases e.g. fighting in a tight formation.
I completely agree with your points on banners and setup so I won't respond further. The battle cries were mostly fluff and I agree a hard way to identify troops. It would also make the battles even more noisy. I think the main reason to have them would be for immersion. It would be nice to be able to pick your own battle cry though this might be a bit hard.
On that note I would like to have the option to have your orders only affect limited range requiring them to be signalled either by battle cries, signs or music.
When it comes to the mould would say everything is a mould anyway. It is important to have a solid core, but the game should still be a game and not a modding platform. I'd like to see the various options and in depth features in vanilla instead of having to resort to mods.
I do agree on the role of archers. Their role in an actual realistic setting is to spend all their arrows before the engagement if possible then act as light infantry. The real problem is that seems to only happen in siege battles. In field battles I most often found that if I had the more infantry that meant I had less archers than my enemy. It would be a wise decision to get into the thick of the fight as soon as possible because the enemies ranged power outmatched my own. If I had more ranged units the enemy lord would attempt a flank with Cav and I would constantly be losing archers simply due to their inability to handle mounted units will. Even with good positioning of terrain on top of hills, behind rivers, and with my melee units set to encounter the incoming charge. The incoming charge of infantry/cav would be larger than my infantry/cav force since my army had more archers. It was a balancing act of sorts. If battles were a bit more on the prolonged side, or I had the ability to better pick what my battle terrain would actually look like / deployment phase I wouldn't mind it near as much. A real catch 22: Have enough archers that you want to prolong engagement? Enemy AI has more infantry/cav to spread out when they charge you causing you to lose if they simply have decent tier units with shields. Have too little archers to make a long term archer fire exchange worthwhile? Charge the enemy or they will whittle you down. It's one of the key reasons for not having AI archer friendly fire, but again toggles are best the option.
The stances thing takes into consideration that all weapons would have different attack stances. I could understand SOME weapons have different stances, but that kind of is already taken care of to some extent via the X key. E.G. The two handed axe to polearm setup or javelins from throwing to melee. The case of spears is unique though. If they were one of the few to get an "x" stance change (say between polearm and two handed) I could see that being both viable and still making sense from a blocking standpoint. Example: If in the polearm state while wearing a shield you get 2 stabs an upper and lower. While in the polearm state without a shield you get an upper and lower stab with the side swings. In the two handed state (requires no shield) you would get a low stab, an overhead swing (blunt damage unless the tip strikes which because bannerlord has better weapon location detection on hit is very viable and also allows items like naginatas to be better represented in hit detection), and 2 side swings. In this case you are actually getting only 2 stances similar to the previous game toggled by x (A two handed and polearm state), but each state functions differently for different ranges. The two handed could not be used with a shield, but a polearm stance with shield gives two different directions of attack perfect for formation fighting and support, while not being restrictive without a shield. Furthermore allowing for pike attacks against enemy cav to still be effective with 2 directional stabs, whereas normally you would only have one directional stab (which stab is most effective form of the pike).
So stances for all weapons may not be a good idea, but it is fantastic to be expanded upon for specific weapons that kind of need the help or will not be balanced. A sword does not need different stances to be effective because it's prowess is in the ability for four directional attacks at all times shield or not though it loses out on reach.
I understand your reasoning on the last point
I wonder how far the devs can take us? It's always a mystery about where the resources should go!Sir_Newton said:
Stances are fine, so long as not all weapons have them IMO. No reason for swords or axes to have multiple X stances (unless maybe the axe has a sharp point on the other side, same thing applies to many warhammers. I think giving the spear 4 different directional stabbings is a bit much. It gives them reach, the already strong piercing damage, and requires people to block it from 4 different directions. Maybe if you set it up to have 2 directions as lower stabs and 2 as higher stabs that 2 of the attacks can be blocked by a low block and two can be blocked by high blocks. Though at that point what would be the purpose of having 4 "directions" when two could cover the same job just fine? People could argue "Oh it allows for better aiming at specific points of the body", but that is already covered by the work of your camera while swinging.
I think most people are in agreement over friendly fire, make it toggle-based with two different toggles. One for the player and one for the AI. Maybe even expand to AI ranged/melee and player melee/ranged for 4 options in total. That would not be too hard to do option wise (assuming friendly fire is coded in the first place).
SmurfInHell said:
honestly, I personally would like to see battles gain more weight. it's a bit stupid that you personally kill a couple thousand soldiers and bandits per campaign. imo, battles should be a lot rarer and a lot more epic. it should be something you have to prepare for, choose the location and establish positions. have a deployment phase, negotiate conditions, then wait until it is time to strike and finally attack. this however is another topic.
it is a problem that generally the best course of action is to get a couple dozen swadian knights and flatten armies trice the size of yours without breaking a sweat or even losing more than a few troops. clearly, something is wrong. I don't know how to counter it though it might help if the magic shields are removed and replaced by anti-arrow formations which are slow and offer little vision leading to suppressed troops. also, I want my archers placing stakes.
the catch-22 is also known as tactics. I don't really see a problem. if you have an archer-heavy army you should either go sit on a hill/ behind a river/in a swamp and defend. run to one of these places and make a stand there, use them to bait out the enemy while continuously falling back to one of these places or wait for reinforcements. archers aren't the best when it comes to a direct offense and battles were quite rare anyways because sieges tended to be easier for the defenders.
when it comes to stances, I think we agree considerably though I might see more options. for spears I can already think of overarm stabbing, underarm stabbing, overhead attacks and shortened underarm stabbing (where one grips the spear around the middle of the shaft to enable closer-range fights). I personally think four directional stabs are fine because the hit should be determined based on if the opponent is touched and the matter of deflection should not matter. if there is something pushing it away something is pushing it away. spears should be hard to block without either a shield or a polearm anyways. all four stabs would do is enable the player to hit more ares without additional frantic mouse movement.
now I think about it. we should also have the option to brace either by pressing a button or pressing the mouse buttons.
to conclude, even axes can have two stances. one which uses wild and strong swings and one which uses more contained weaker chops which pose less risk to your allies.
SmurfInHell
Squire
SenorZorros said:
Hm, the catch 22 is somewhat tactics, but I feel that BECAUSE of the magnet shields coupled with small battle areas the archers never get the chance to fully shine EXCEPT in the large siege battles where they have enough time to empty the quivers. I mentioned how even when using an archer heavy army on the hill or behind a river it's still not enough against a decently tiered army. Mainly because the decently tiered army has enough magnet shields coupled with heavy cav ON TOP OF the small field. If fields were expanded a bit to help compensate for the larger numbers it would help significantly. I think my experience in this area is slightly warped because I use a massive battle size change of 850 and can effectively handle it in most cases. This means that by the time my troops are able to get setup the enemy has advanced a quarter of the map already. Pre-deployment and larger fields helps this. Sieges offset this imbalance by providing more firing time overall for the archers.
I don't mind the magic shields TOO much so long as they do get toned down a bit. I do hope formations allow for better arrow mitigation. I find it hilarious when my soldiers are marching into a valley, yet instead of facing their shields up to the enemy archers they face down towards the infantry line in the valley they have yet to even meet simply because they are the closest enemy AI. In the same vein I hope the ability to force retreat certain units is now available. If I have start off the battle with a lot of arrows and they empty their quivers, I would tell them to retreat and tell my next group of reinforcements to come in. Not send my archers to their death so the game mechanic of more reinforcements can kick in. The AI should also be conscious of this and do the same if his archers run out and he has reserve forces to take their place.
Interesting take on stances! Still not 100% convinced on a four directional thrust for the spear. The spear already has more reach than a sword, and giving it 4 directional attacks of it's most powerful attack type (pierce) seems like it would just be overall better than a sword if a person can use their footwork effectively. On top of that they could just stance change into side swings if needed. While realistically a spear is hard to block it is hard to block because of speed more than anything. IRL a person wouldn't stab do a right / left stab. He stabs over/upper targeting different areas by using his hands to shift the targeted area. Think about attempting to stab from the 4 main directions. What would a right/left stab look like? You could stab INTO someone's right or left flank, but that would be because your body has shifted into position to do so, not because you bring your arms farther out to your left or right to do so. That would be bad form when dealing with a spear because it weakens your control over the polearm and opens up your other side to be attacked.
EDIT: 100% spot on with the bracing. Needs to be a thing, it was in with fire and sword and it worked great because it serves that exact purpose of breaking charges. In fact, I argue the ineffectiveness of spears with AI is partly due to their inability to understand keeping combat distance and the lack of bracing with a shield to stop charges while also protecting them from arrows. Would go a long way in helping formations.
4 directional stabs for spears would be quite balanced. There are already many weapons like long axes and greatswords with similar ranges as spears, but they outclass spears in almost every possible way. Besides, if the spearman is using a shield he loses his left directional stab.
If axes have multiple stances, one must be to use the blunt end as a bludgeon for prisoner-taking. Vikings were famous for taking captives, yet the nords use no blunt weapons so that isn't reflected well in warband
(let me here again suggest that Bannerlord should switch to the Viking Conquest system where enemies downed by sharp weapons can still be only wounded rather than killed)
If axes have multiple stances, one must be to use the blunt end as a bludgeon for prisoner-taking. Vikings were famous for taking captives, yet the nords use no blunt weapons so that isn't reflected well in warband
(let me here again suggest that Bannerlord should switch to the Viking Conquest system where enemies downed by sharp weapons can still be only wounded rather than killed)
I'm not someone who is going to decry deployment or larger fields although it might be fun if you actually need to deploy on the world map with a deployed army being slower but starting in a predetermined formation. I do think that might be beyond the scope of the game though because then you need to link the terrain of the world map 1 to 1 with the battle map and find a way to adapt to terrain. not that I would mind a 1 to 1 link. I think it would be awesome but it is not something I expect.SmurfInHell said:
magic shields are a balance issue and the bit they should get toned down is up for debate. I can't make a good judgement on this. I agree with retreating but I do think we should be able to determine the direction of the retreat. it is quite annoying when the recruits you told to fall back to run straight into the enemy and die.
when it comes to spear versus sword. I don't see a problem since spears were naturally superior weapons. swords were a sidearm. useful in some cases but not the primary weapon on a battlefield. atleast not without a shield. in my opinion the difference between a left-right stab would simply be the direction it points to relative to the camera. they would indeed be fairly similar. they could even be the same mid attack but I don't like wasting slots.
the problem with spears is not only that the ai can't hold combat distance but that combat distance can't be held at all. in real life the spear would be between the soldier and his enemy but because of how warband works after te attack the spear is held in a carrying position. maybe stances and bracing should be (partially) combined in this case. spears and other polearms could have a "carry" stance in which they are pointed upwards with the other stances pointing the polearm forwards resulting in less movement and some danger to the people in front but also hampering people and keeping the distance.
EDIT
well... the best way to capture prisoners is to encircle them and allow them to surrender. knocking prisoners out is a horrible way because it damages the goods to much.Sir_Newton said:
- Status
Similar threads
