when Spies come available, you might get accurate number enemy army sizes ?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Stupid, stupid AI
- Thread starter archaicwarrior
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Even spies don't do headcounts of the enemy army. The amount should be somewhat more accurate, but nowhere near accurate
**Iphicrates**
Sergeant
I like the idea of hiding the numbers. This could be directly related to the "scouting" skill. With low scouting you could only see the rough estimates, (small, moderate, large army etc), and accurate numbers would be visible only from very close distance (too close to run away from if an enemy army is fast enough). With higher level in scouting player could see accurate numbers from further away, thus making more strategical moves (like "tactical withdrawal"). The ability to accurately estimate the numbers should be tied to commander's scouting skill for the IA as well, thus making lords with formidable scouting and high level tactics better commnaders.
A Spy clan role would be amazing, it could be based on a characters Roguery skill. Both the player, and the Ai factions would have to send these units on missions to spy on towns, villages, castles, and armies to gain more detailed information about them such as; Army count, Unit type, Income, Food Supply, etc. and then apply this newly obtained information to their strategy and decision-making. This system would also allow the player to roleplay as a spy during their playthrough by utilizing the Roguery skill to infiltrate enemy armies or settlements and sell useful information to the highest bidding faction, or for their respective liege lord. This way both the player and the Ai have more simulated realistic field of view on the campaign map and won't be able to be omniscient through fog of war without a properly and strategically placed network of spies.
Hiding exact numbers of parties from player is discussed about 4-5 years ago. We tried something like ?-0..9 ??-10..99 ???-100..999 or something like this. For about 1 year development we go with that feature then it is removed. It created another problems I could not remember exactly what they were.
At least for example player started a siege after waiting outside 3-4 days and after building siege equipments and when he enters siege battle he sees there are much more garrison compared to he expected. At that point player will probably give up that siege and go another target. This is a time loss and it can be a repetative action not so fun to play that way however we are forcing player to play that way to be more succesfull. Its same on map, get closer to a party learn exact number and run away if you are 0.1 faster, player need to look tooltips compare speed all time. There can be some percentage of players want to play like this of course it can be optional but as a general game rule it does not suit well. There was another problems as I said which I can not remember and finally this feature is removed.
However in paper it seems a good idea but it does not suit well our M&B series. It can be used in another similar game design of course.
Last edited:
Nawari
Veteran
I saw a few "errors" like this too. I am not sure this is an "error". I don't know if these were errors or simply because there is no intention in the game for this faction to increase its influence on the map. The Sturgia, I've never seen them conquer the map. Raganvad, is not a "conqueror", the Sturgians are looters, mercenaries, a "poor" faction, above all. I don't know if there wasn't the will of the developers, as the "storyboard" at the start of the game would indicate, to make a faction for players who want to play mercenaries. Playing the Sturgia, unless I am shown otherwise, is playing a faction that is not programmed for expansion, which would explain their unaggressive attitude, they are only defending their small territory. They're just trying not to disappear from the map. True or false ?
I think it lacks above all, at the beginning of the game, a more explicit "storyboard" to better understand the attitude of each faction. However if one reads everything that Raganvad says, the other factions when they speak of the Sturgans, their reputations are not to be "loosely united" and "unreliable".
I would add that they easily join other factions. This is their "versatile" side. Above all, it lacks a storyboard with more texts to better understand the attitude of each faction even if we have a lot of clues in the speeches of the lords during the main quest, for those who can read between the lines
I would add that sometimes there are "retreats" which are due to the total number of troops the faction has. If it is in overall troop deficit, I suppose, maybe the developers could confirm it, that the game decides to "retreat" to keep the faction as long as possible. And as regards the Sturgians, they are always "on the borderline", which may explain their cautious attitude.
I think it lacks above all, at the beginning of the game, a more explicit "storyboard" to better understand the attitude of each faction. However if one reads everything that Raganvad says, the other factions when they speak of the Sturgans, their reputations are not to be "loosely united" and "unreliable".
I would add that they easily join other factions. This is their "versatile" side. Above all, it lacks a storyboard with more texts to better understand the attitude of each faction even if we have a lot of clues in the speeches of the lords during the main quest, for those who can read between the lines
I would add that sometimes there are "retreats" which are due to the total number of troops the faction has. If it is in overall troop deficit, I suppose, maybe the developers could confirm it, that the game decides to "retreat" to keep the faction as long as possible. And as regards the Sturgians, they are always "on the borderline", which may explain their cautious attitude.
Last edited:
Maybe a future mod ?
Thanks, your reply is much apperciated
Nawari
Veteran
Thank you very much too
For the immersively inclined, suggestions on how to model how Player might actually assess enemy force composition:
1) Ratio of player Light Cavalry to AI's: light cav--even in hilly/forested terrain--was the premier source of field intelligence, with their (fast) mounts able to penetrate enemy picket lines to nip in close to an army on the march to do head counts of each troop type, then flee back to own force. Relative strength of enemy light cavalry was chief determinant in effectiveness; while combat experience played a significant role, allowing scouts to assess bearing, condition of equipment, adherence to marching order, etc. of observed force. [for playbalance, light cav was usually less useful in large engagements due to poor armor.]
2) Spies (with access to courier): who could reveal detailed description of troop types and force levels of garrison, or of an army that passed within observation distance. Brytenwalda mod had a Spy feature that was (unfortunately) dropped for Viking Conquest.
3) Specialized Scout Infantry: some civilizations had specialized foot (and horse) scouts operating solo or in very small units, that were precursors to modern Scout-Snipers, LRRP's, etc. who would communicate observations back to base with carrier pigeons, smoke signals, etc.
4) Field Officer "Trickster" Skill: an attempt to quantify historical attempts (and successes) of generals to make their force appear larger--or smaller--to the enemy, mislead as to its actual location, its battle readiness, supply levels, etc.
Modelling these variables in game could be challenging, but they all break down into variables that mask force strength, and those that reveal it. Bannerlord already has party tracks interpretation (dependant on scout skill) for determining party size.
1) Ratio of player Light Cavalry to AI's: light cav--even in hilly/forested terrain--was the premier source of field intelligence, with their (fast) mounts able to penetrate enemy picket lines to nip in close to an army on the march to do head counts of each troop type, then flee back to own force. Relative strength of enemy light cavalry was chief determinant in effectiveness; while combat experience played a significant role, allowing scouts to assess bearing, condition of equipment, adherence to marching order, etc. of observed force. [for playbalance, light cav was usually less useful in large engagements due to poor armor.]
2) Spies (with access to courier): who could reveal detailed description of troop types and force levels of garrison, or of an army that passed within observation distance. Brytenwalda mod had a Spy feature that was (unfortunately) dropped for Viking Conquest.
3) Specialized Scout Infantry: some civilizations had specialized foot (and horse) scouts operating solo or in very small units, that were precursors to modern Scout-Snipers, LRRP's, etc. who would communicate observations back to base with carrier pigeons, smoke signals, etc.
4) Field Officer "Trickster" Skill: an attempt to quantify historical attempts (and successes) of generals to make their force appear larger--or smaller--to the enemy, mislead as to its actual location, its battle readiness, supply levels, etc.
Modelling these variables in game could be challenging, but they all break down into variables that mask force strength, and those that reveal it. Bannerlord already has party tracks interpretation (dependant on scout skill) for determining party size.
As a player , why use tracking info if you can move near the army and see actual size. Maybe tracking info should be repeated instead of actual unit / army size ?
Similar threads
