Tactical decisions on the battlefield should play a bigger role in deciding the tide of battle

Users who are viewing this thread

Currently, Bannerlord suffers from the same thing that Warband did. Despite being given commands, I hardly find myself doing any tactical maneuvering on the battlefield besides ordering my troops to charge. This essentially leads to two blobs simply slamming into each other. It possesses no tactical depth and to be honest I'm surprised that Taleworlds hasn't fixed this with Bannerlord. One possible way to fix this is formations.
Take this mod as an example of how formations should actually be:


Essentially, the current decisions and formations you do in battle don't matter. All that matters is numbers.
Another thing that irks me about the battles is flanking maneuvers. Flanking maneuvers should be devastating not only to troops but to their morale. More often than not, it was a flanking maneuver that decided the tide of battle, which is why cavalry was such a critical unit.

In other words, its really disappointing that battles haven't changed since the days of Warband, and they should really be overhauled.
 
I agree with your request and think formations and AI in general should be more effective. I also want more options like targeting or prioritizing a type on unit with a formation.

I would also like to save troop formation and pre-Battle placement so I don't have to do every single time by hand.

I also would like troops to change formation type on their own such as ammo-less HA become part of the Cav fomation, de-horsed HA become part of archer... and so on. I've played warband mods with this, it doesn't seem like much to ask for. This is super important because whichever HA runs out of ammo 1st basically suicides by charging along into the enemy.

I do have a very different experience then you in combat though. I have to constantly position, face, and drag around by the hand all my troops or they do nothing right and die easily. Charging is only for when the enemy starts to route. Letting the AI charge or do it's f6 stuff is horrible, unless you are facing a much weaker force.
 
I think VC is the closest thing were are going to get in terms of tactics actually working. You pull the wrong move in that DLC and your force could be wiped out.
 
Currently, Bannerlord suffers from the same thing that Warband did. Despite being given commands, I hardly find myself doing any tactical maneuvering on the battlefield besides ordering my troops to charge. This essentially leads to two blobs simply slamming into each other. It possesses no tactical depth and to be honest I'm surprised that Taleworlds hasn't fixed this with Bannerlord. One possible way to fix this is formations.

...

Essentially, the current decisions and formations you do in battle don't matter. All that matters is numbers.

Why do you think formations would change this?

Another thing that irks me about the battles is flanking maneuvers. Flanking maneuvers should be devastating not only to troops but to their morale. More often than not, it was a flanking maneuver that decided the tide of battle, which is why cavalry was such a critical unit.

In other words, its really disappointing that battles haven't changed since the days of Warband, and they should really be overhauled.

Flanking attacks actually do provide a pretty noticeable morale hit. It just doesn't matter because stuff dies so fast once in contact. Watch for units breaking and running and you'll see a few break away and flee the moment flanking forces start to hit them, with a few others following.
 
I think the battlefields are actually too small (enemy cavalry is in your face some seconds after loading), all the movement is too fast, the melee combat is too suicidal (although I use a mod which makes the AI use their shields annoyingly effective), the cavalry is partly overpowered, partly too weak. So many formations don't make sense. Couple this with the stupid friendly AI in the frequent battles where you don't have overall command, and ...
 
I've found that charging everyone will result in losses, but micromanaging can result in no losses. So there's definitely a reward for managing your troops carefully.

By the way, have you tried F6? This will give you nice looking formations, and you can still command units if needed.
 
Currently, Bannerlord suffers from the same thing that Warband did. Despite being given commands, I hardly find myself doing any tactical maneuvering on the battlefield besides ordering my troops to charge. This essentially leads to two blobs simply slamming into each other. It possesses no tactical depth and to be honest I'm surprised that Taleworlds hasn't fixed this with Bannerlord. One possible way to fix this is formations.
Take this mod as an example of how formations should actually be:


Essentially, the current decisions and formations you do in battle don't matter. All that matters is numbers.
Another thing that irks me about the battles is flanking maneuvers. Flanking maneuvers should be devastating not only to troops but to their morale. More often than not, it was a flanking maneuver that decided the tide of battle, which is why cavalry was such a critical unit.

In other words, its really disappointing that battles haven't changed since the days of Warband, and they should really be overhauled.


You are dreaming dude. They literally can't even get the AI to go up ladders. How do you expect them to get the AI to move in separate formations and conduct >charge tactics?
 
overhaul the whole battle system?
.... Maybe in the next game.
I thought this game was supposed to have the overhauled battle system. Currently there is little difference to Warband. ?
The only major difference I can tell is that enemy cavalry will not instantly charge ahead of their allies into the opposing mainline and instead try to flank. Considering that's what 20 years of Total War managed to achieve AI wise too we won't be seeing much more here either. I actually thought they had someone who is really good with AI working on integrating it deeply in the engine when they showed the AI dev blogs and talked about the matter. I was wrong and deluded.
 
Woe to Bannerlord if it weren't for the mods...
Francis-Underwood-Looks-at-Camera-House-of-Cards.gif


I have read and agreed with all of you; I have been commenting on it for a long time in thread The tactical way: beyond the melee cluster (sorry for the spam). Here I quote my "latest concerns", which I still maintain to this day.

More than a month with the game released I am about to update the thread with a bunch of personal feedback.

As we have all noticed I can already testify that there is something strange going on with AI in combat. In Dev Blog 25/10/18, everything that was mentioned was incredible on paper; however in the game it is not running satisfactorily.

In Bannerlord we have the option to divide troops in battle; a feature that I personally use often and I am very grateful for its implementation.


Infantry:

I've tried everything to carry out different tactics on the battlefield to test the limits of the AI; and I have to say that these are currently low.

I wonder, should a bot leave a formation and thereby ignore a player's order? My answer is a resounding no; the AI must stay within its movement capsule, not make any "tactical" decisions beyond self-protection. Well, this happens absolutely every time in game.

Why do the bots of a line formation which are waiting for an enemy unit to attack suddenly charge within a few meters to it without any charge order being given? This should not be so, or I understand that this should not be so.

For example, I've tried splitting an infantry unit in two by arranging each one in line manually forming a V (inverted wedge tactic) to try to encircle the enemy. As I say, before receiving enemy contact, my bots charge against them without my permission. The most worrying thing is that not all of them are charging, the ones that are farthest from the V-axis do it by intersecting and the ones that are farthest from the V-axis remain motionless without knowing what to do.

When all this escalates badly, is when I decide to split an infantry unit into 3. Three groups in order to "advance" in line formation. When making contact with the enemy, the central unit acts correctly by holding the enemy's attack, however the side units tend to cluster towards the center of the enemy unit. When the two side units are manually signaled their flank position (U arms) they without charging or advancing order ordered charge against the enemy bot units positioned at the sides.

It is absolutely necessary to implement the order (recover from warband) to use weapons. Another case in which the AI decides "too much"; it is the player who should assign how, when and where.

I still think that the passive behavior programmed for the AI in shieldwall formation is not appropriate. If you want to continue with this kind of behavior for Ai, implement width commands (bring back the F8 - Tighter formation/ F9 - Looser formation command) and then be able to articulate high density ranks as an analog shieldwall where the bots do remain aggressive.

Ranged:

In general, they do their job well, but there's a problem that still exists Issues with archery's ai in close formation. It is not always possible to deploy to a loose formation (where all the bots fire normally); therefore there are still formations where the bots in the secondary rows do not fire, thus losing tactical effectiveness. For example, I have an infantry unit in a circle formation and a ranged unit within it.

If I have them in line they shoot the enemy and rotate, unless it is a unit composed of a large number of bots, which leave the circle of protection provided by the infantry. I lose tactical effectiveness.

If I place them in the loose-column, they automatically go outside the limits of infantry protection. I lose tactical effectiveness.

If I set them in shieldwall-wedge, because of the problem mentioned above; the bots in the secondary rows do not fire. I lose tactical effectiveness.

If I arrange them in a circle-square, the only ones that fire are the bots that have an enemy in their focal field. I lose tactical effectiveness.

Cavalry:

Without a weapons use command, this unit in SP does not unleash its full potential. Charges to enemies from behind (anvil and hammer) or to those who retreat are not executed with the forcefulness that this procedure requires.

An example of the shortcomings of the AI. A cavalry unit split in two prepares to face an enemy infantry unit. The cavalry units are placed in a wedge formation at a considerable distance from the enemy (A1---------E------------A2). A1 is then ordered to charge and after a lapse of 5 seconds A2 is ordered the same. Therefore A1 will charge E first and keep it focussed on them while A2 charges from behind. This maneuver should be devastating and surprisingly it is not. Replace A1 with an infantry unit and the result remains the same. Enemy infantry hardly suffers any heavy casualties.

Mounted Ranged:

I like the way the main behavior of this type of unit is programmed. I like that they form a rotating circle by keeping the enemy inside while firing at it. What I don't like is that once the projectiles run out, the AI decides to charge on their own. I think they should be programmed to keep circling with their comrades until they all run out of ammunition. Once this happens, it would be more logical for the formation to look for the player as a "follow me". Assuming that the player has been killed, then yes, carry out the charge

We are back to the point of the imperative need to implement the use of weapons order. For this type of unit it is essential to.

I think it would be interesting to implement a harassment/skirmish order or function to any mounted projectile unit. Just as infantry units equipped with javelins throw them before close combat, so should cavalry. For cavalry equipped with a bow I like the currently programmed behavior of circling around the enemy. However, it should also be possible to have an order to execute circles without keeping the enemy inside. I'm talking about cantabrian circles or manoeuvres in a encircling way like the caracole.

Hot spots:

A statement to be set in stone: The user always decides what, when, where and how in battle command. To make this impossible, impoverishes the player's playable experience.

In short, the bot as an individual must always be subordinated to the structure of the formation. The bot will only leave the formation when it is annihilated, flees or is ordered to retreat.

A fighting bot will always remain aggressive. It is the player who will always have to modify its behavior by positioning with respect to an enemy unit.

A bot on foot should not run unless ordered to charge. The user is the one who decides the pace. Engage Enemy Order (Alternative replacing Advance order)

The follow command keeps too much space between the player and the following bots. I think that this space should be greatly reduced.

The fallback command still doesn't work. The bots still turn their backs to the enemy when this command is executed. This should not be the case under any circumstances. The bots should always fall back facing the enemy. Fallback order does not work properly

Implementing an order to use weapons is vital. Battle Command: Switch Weapon

Implementing a system to " focus fire/ focus attack " should have been considered as a natural evolution for the franchise. Focus fire on enemy unit

The colliders of each bot should be reviewed. The living space of each bot should be increased as we can see today that the bodies of the bot suffer a totally disproportionate overlap. Agent overlap issue in flock movement

Hitboxes and hurtboxes should be checked. A lot of inconsistences with shields Body parts hitboxes leave a lot to be desired / Shield hitboxes are extremely imprecise / Inconsistency damage & hitboxes with overhead guard.

At the moment the game does not offer anything beyond the melee cluster.


I'd also like to add this:

1. It's absurd to see ala speedy gonzalez charges of troops with elevated athletics. The troops must run "at human speed" and the heavier their weapons the slower (without reaching the absurd that we see in the MP).

2. I have the feeling that AI-controlled cavalry (both allied and enemy) never reach a maximum charge speed; I explain. A cavalry charge should start trotting on its long distance, at a medium distance start gaining speed at gallop, and in the last meters (>50m) bring the speed to the maximum. An F1+F3 with these characteristics to an enemy unit from the flank or behind the enemy line should be devastating. This doesn't happen in the game these days (both because the bots miss the blow and because of the low ramming damage the horse has)... I've carried out massive charges with flanking maneuvers on the side and behind and the number of enemy survivors is surprisingly (for the worse) high.

3. The basic function of follow me should be adjusted. On foot, units cannot hang back as much as they do now (>5m). That distance should be much less with the span of movement in unison. On horseback the feeling is bigger, between 30 and 50 m difference between you and the formation (same horse).
 
I think the battlefields are actually too small (enemy cavalry is in your face some seconds after loading), all the movement is too fast, the melee combat is too suicidal (although I use a mod which makes the AI use their shields annoyingly effective), the cavalry is partly overpowered, partly too weak. So many formations don't make sense. Couple this with the stupid friendly AI in the frequent battles where you don't have overall command, and ...

This^, the battles are a mess and far too fast.
 
Bannerlord battles look great on the surface level, until you get past the surface level and you realize how garbage everything is and how nothing works the way it should.
 
even with larger battlefields a lot of the problems may not be fixed. I think proper formations and commands like @Terco_Viejo outlines could be extremely beneficial to allowing some basic strategies to actually work rather than just look cool.

I think overworld decisions should effect how the battles play out too. I was very disappointed when ambushing wasn't a thing, even though in the fluff it is battania's strength. I'm not sure how this would actually play out, but there could be some menus that set up the battle, maybe some skills like tactics that unlock options or make them more likely to succeed.

Say, if you decide to flank and succeed then your horsemen start behind the enemy. but if you fail then your horsemen show up to the battle late.
 
1) Battles should be much more slow. Melee figt between 1000 man lasts 1 minute. It is absurd. Slow pased battles with increase performance a lot, becouse right now my FPS drops from 75 to 30 in melee fight, becouse my CPU should calculate 10 000 hits and collisions in one second.
2) Battles should be formation based. As a player you choose this formation like "left wing" and order to atack enemy formation.
3) Before battles there should be set up stage. Want to be closer - good, want to be far away - good.
4) Reinforcnemts should spwan in the middle of formation, becouse trickling in is just horrible.
 
Battles should be much more slow. Melee figt between 1000 man lasts 1 minute. It is absurd. Slow pased battles with increase performance a lot, becouse right now my FPS drops from 75 to 30 in melee fight, becouse my CPU should calculate 10 000 hits and collisions in one second.

how would they do this? not like they can make them fight in slow motion. Maybe if tactics get improved upon battles will increase in length naturally.
 
Most of these issues would be fixed by having the AI in different formations that they almost never break off from. The idea of a charge command where people pick their own individual targets is ridiculous. Formations should only be commanded to attack other formations directly, not run around like lunatics with a thirst for death. It's so stupid when you see a guy running at you when he's completely surrounded and bound to die. Only looters should attack out of formation, and if your army is big enough they should just surrender the moment you touch their army.
 


There are actually different points at which certain commands should be used and I find it has a significant effect on how many troops are lost etc.
I usually don't even use f1/f3 with my infantry until near the end of the battle. Flanking and rear charges can actually be devastating. The Realistic Battles mod makes a huge difference.

The main thing I hate about battles is the way groups will prioritise 1 horse archer somewhere behind them over the hundreds of footmen directly in front of them. The way the AI behaves when receiving reinforcements is also just so dumb.
 
I thought this game was supposed to have the overhauled battle system. Currently there is little difference to Warband. ?
The only major difference I can tell is that enemy cavalry will not instantly charge ahead of their allies into the opposing mainline and instead try to flank. Considering that's what 20 years of Total War managed to achieve AI wise too we won't be seeing much more here either. I actually thought they had someone who is really good with AI working on integrating it deeply in the engine when they showed the AI dev blogs and talked about the matter. I was wrong and deluded.


Its becoming more and more clear that this is a warband reboot/remaster rather than an actual sequel.
 
Back
Top Bottom