SP - General [POLL] Unit behaviour by class

Users who are viewing this thread

tumblr_n494zp6h8v1r00vopo2_500.gif

Deep in your heart, you already know the answer. :iamamoron: ?
Yes ik, but I hope i'm wrong lol
 
Just to be that guy, what do you do if you have a super mixed army with multiple troops of each category, but want to divide one or two of the said categories?

Wouldn’t there be a lack of space? I guess players could reorganise these manually, but it sounds quite dreadful (in this scenario).
 
Just to be that guy, what do you do if you have a super mixed army with multiple troops of each category, but want to divide one or two of the said categories?

Wouldn’t there be a lack of space? I guess players could reorganise these manually, but it sounds quite dreadful (in this scenario).

"Every player who wants to use more types of the same category always sacrifice slots of others."

No unit tree offers ALL types of units, and even if the player wants to be that lord with all types, a simple army organization it's a fair price to pay. Note that this "limitation" will not be very different from what already exists in the game! If today you split your infantry using the "Skirmisher" slot you will continue to use that and units because they don't have throwing weapons will attack normally.

In many roleplaying games, your class basically determines what kind of equipment and even what kind of behavior is expected of your character.
That said, along with @Terco_Viejo I bring up the suggestion that units in Bannerlord behave based on their category / class / role-function.

For this, it is also necessary to create new categories and applying to keybinds we have the following proposal:

[ 1 ] INFANTRY
They already have the proper designation in the game.

[ 2 ] RANGED
They already have the proper designation in the game.

[ 3 ] SKIRMISHER
Already inserted in the game, but behave like infantry. They should behave like guerrillas and also seek to flank in melee combat.
(The Ai group behaviour shall not decide to charge until all missiles have been launched).

[ 4 ] RANGED CAVALRY
Changed name from "Horse Archer" to include units with throwing weapons and camel or elephant mounts as well.
(The Ai group behaviour shall not decide to charge until all missiles have been launched).


[ 5 ] CAVALRY
They already have the proper designation in the game, riding around the map and seeking to attack the flanks.

[ 6 ] HEAVY CAVALRY
Already inserted in the game, but not used. I suggest behaving like a Shock Cavalry.

[ 7 ] HEAVY INFANTRY
Already inserted in the game, but not used. They should receive cohesion and discipline benefits, but suffer movement penalty.

[ 8 ] PIKE INFANTRY
Added category, the only type of infantry capable of using the Spear Brace mechanics.

[ 9 ] SHOCK INFANTRY
Added category, units that attack fast and with low morale drop penalty.

[ 0 ] BODYGUARDS
Added category, units that preserve their original category and can be selected into a single group focused on the lord's protection.
(Ideal to place your companions, for example).

[ ' ] SELECT ALL

EDIT / IMPORTANT: This suggestion also brings keybind customization.
Every player who wants to use more types of the same category always sacrifice slots of others.

For example: If you only have mounted archers in your army and you want to control 4 groups of mounted archers, you must transfer the units on the battle map between the slots you defined previously through the keybind customization.
Full control of your army's composition.

This allows a range of options for the player. If I want to put a certain unit in other category / class, it will adapt to that new function.
Possible scenarios according to this proposal:

1. If the category is applied, it would force pikeman to behave differently from the other infantry types, creating a truly functional pike unit.
2. If not equipped with missile weapons, ranged cavalry will engage in melee combat normally. The skirmishers too.
3. If I select an archer and put him in the infantry category, he would automatically switch to melee mode and advance with the infantry units.
4. If I select an knight and put him in the pike infantry category, he would dismount and could use the spear in Spear Brace mode.
5. If I select an crossbowman and put him in the skirmisher category, he will not decide to charge until all missiles have been launched.
6. If I select an infantryman and put him in the heavy cavalry category, he will mount in stray horses that are close to him and will accompany the cavalry.

And so on...

A small change was made to the main post:

Light Cavalry was removed and is now Cavalry (standard cavalry found in game).

*To standardize as Infantry / Heavy Infantry and remove ambiguity of behavior between Light Cavalry and Ranged Cavalry.
 
Last edited:
@Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds @Gaerlim @MRay

I would appreciate a response to this suggestion explaining why it is accepted or not accepted.
Or, in addition to "I'll bring this in internally", what did you personally think of the idea?

We NEED Bodyguard and reserve Groups. Bodyguard for companions and reserve for ... a reserve.

The suggestion is flexible about removing the Bodyguard class to assign [ 0 ] to SELECT ALL.
However, with the proposed customization the player will have ways to organize his army and assign these roles.
This suggestion is even better if we take into account the suggestion of a "pre-battle deployment" in Bannerlord!
 
I think these are some really fantastic ideas (both the group designations/categories for troops and the AI behaviours for those) and they have my backing. We will make sure to bring it up at the next feedback meeting!
 
I think these are some really fantastic ideas (both the group designations/categories for troops and the AI behaviours for those) and they have my backing. We will make sure to bring it up at the next feedback meeting!

Thank you, @Callum I'll group my most relevant posts here:

1- Main post
2- Army customization
3- Limited scenario is even better than the current one
4- Another pratical scenario

This will bring a great contribution to the gameplay! The idea here is to develop the game's units on and off the battlefield, both in the organization and in the performance of the units in battle and we can keep tweaking until we reach the best and definitive version!
I will be waiting for new feedbacks! @MRay this might also fit with the idea of icons for units, not only bandits.
 
Last edited:
Editing a reserved post (check this out, @Callum and @MRay ), I bring you another practical example:

We would have both possibilities, changing the class of the unit in our party (as is already possible) and pre-determining the composition in the settings, from 0 to 9. Now let's go to a practical scenario:

  • Suppose I am a general of Sturgia and I have customized my army as follows:
    [1]
    Infantry I
    [2] Infantry II
    [3] Shock Infantry
    [4] Heavy Infantry I
    [5] Heavy Infantry II
    [6] Ranged Infantry
    [7] Skirmisher
    [8] Cavalry
    [9] Heavy Cavalry

  • My units will be distributed normally according to their default class. All infantry units will be placed in [1] Infantry I.
    So, when I want, if I want, I'll have the [2] Infantry II slot to split my infantry warriors, already on the battlefield.

  • If I recruit units with classes other than the one I pre-set in the settings, it will automatically replace a duplicate class.
    So if I have pikemen in my army, the Pike Infantry class will override slot [2] Infantry II automatically on the battlefield.
And this will happen with all the duplicated classes, until you have all the classes from 0 to 9, if you had all kinds of troops in your army.
 
Last edited:
I love the idea.

In case of light and heavy infantry I would suggest to change it to shielded and non shielded infantry. Right now I always split those two cause putting shielded infantry together with units without shields make both types die faster. Also I would keep light and heavy Cavalry cause they have different purposes. Light Cavalry is more for distracting, flanking and attacking from the rear while heavy is for frontal charge to break enemy formation.

I'm one of those who is suggesting the usage of more groups since the release. Personally I always organise my army so I have:
Light infantry (mostly recruits, to and shock inf)
Heavy infantry (shielded 1h)
Archers
Crossbowman
Light Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry
Horse Archers
Pikeman.

Archers and crossbows are splitted cause Archers are faster runners and shooters and they have lower range so I can pu them in front and fallback just before the clash. Crossbows have higher range so I put them in the back or use them against shielded infantry.

Heavy (shielded) infantry is in front in shieldwall and they receive the first clash.

Light inf is behind them and they either help them or I.move them to the side to flank the enemy.

Pikeman are defending crossbows and archers (after they fallback) from cav.

Heavy cav charges in the beginning of battle if AI is defending so they break the enemy and make it easier for inf to finish them off. I'm also using it for charging at the back of enemy inf or flank.

Ligh cav is either attacking flank or I used them to take down archers in the back of enemy inf.

I think that battles should start in some pause mode where we could organise our army (similar to big battles but with more options).

As for bodyguard group, I can't find any use for that. Usually my companions are assigned as captains and I'm leading one of the Cavalry units or I'm just staying in the back to help where I'm needed.
 
I love the idea.

In case of light and heavy infantry I would suggest to change it to shielded and non shielded infantry. Right now I always split those two cause putting shielded infantry together with units without shields make both types die faster. Also I would keep light and heavy Cavalry cause they have different purposes. Light Cavalry is more for distracting, flanking and attacking from the rear while heavy is for frontal charge to break enemy formation.

Currently, in formation, warriors without shields stand behind of shielded warriors. I like this behavior and I see no need to separate these type of units beyond those already suggested. Separating would make it impossible to create barbarian units without standard equipment, for example. Also, warriors can have their shields broken in battle, that's no reason to change your category, right?

We have a limitation of types of units (keys from 0 to 9) and the suggestion is precisely the easiest way to accommodate all these possibilities.

[ 5 ] CAVALRY and [ 6 ] HEAVY CAVALRY are already on suggestion!

Archers and crossbows are splitted cause Archers are faster runners and shooters and they have lower range so I can pu them in front and fallback just before the clash. Crossbows have higher range so I put them in the back or use them against shielded infantry.

Heavy (shielded) infantry is in front in shieldwall and they receive the first clash.

Light inf is behind them and they either help them or I.move them to the side to flank the enemy.

Pikeman are defending crossbows and archers (after they fallback) from cav.

Heavy cav charges in the beginning of battle if AI is defending so they break the enemy and make it easier for inf to finish them off. I'm also using it for charging at the back of enemy inf or flank.

Ligh cav is either attacking flank or I used them to take down archers in the back of enemy inf.

I think that battles should start in some pause mode where we could organise our army (similar to big battles but with more options).

As for bodyguard group, I can't find any use for that. Usually my companions are assigned as captains and I'm leading one of the Cavalry units or I'm just staying in the back to help where I'm needed.

These ways of using the archers and crossbowmen separately, such as deploying a "light troop" can be achieved using the Skirmishers category. So you'll be able to achieve the SAME RESULT and won't compromise the amount of (suggested) categories available.

I think that battles should start in some pause mode where we could organise our army (similar to big battles but with more options).

As for bodyguard group, I can't find any use for that. Usually my companions are assigned as captains and I'm leading one of the Cavalry units or I'm just staying in the back to help where I'm needed.

Yeah, this suggestion is even better if we take into account the suggestion of a "pre-battle deployment" in Bannerlord!
And the suggestion is flexible about removing the Bodyguard class to assign [ 0 ] to SELECT ALL.
 
Currently, in formation, warriors without shields stand behind of shielded warriors. I like this behavior and I see no need to separate these type of units beyond those already suggested. Separating would make it impossible to create barbarian units without standard equipment, for example. Also, warriors can have their shields broken in battle, that's no reason to change your category, right?

This is a good behaviour but:
1. It doesn't always work. When You have too many non shielded they stand in front together with shielded. They die easier and create holes in formation.
2. Even if they are in the back they are useless cause they cannot attack from behind and they are not able to replace a shielded one in front.

As for shields broken during battle. Yes this shouldn't change their category and they usually die quite fast after that or the battle is in the ending stage so it makes no difference.

My standard setup uses 8 slots so You still have 2 available. So on top of what I wrote You can have shock troops and selectall/bodyguards and I'm ok with archers in skirmishers category
 
This is a good behaviour but:
1. It doesn't always work. When You have too many non shielded they stand in front together with shielded. They die easier and create holes in formation.
2. Even if they are in the back they are useless cause they cannot attack from behind and they are not able to replace a shielded one in front.

As for shields broken during battle. Yes this shouldn't change their category and they usually die quite fast after that or the battle is in the ending stage so it makes no difference.

My standard setup uses 8 slots so You still have 2 available. So on top of what I wrote You can have shock troops and selectall/bodyguards and I'm ok with archers in skirmishers category

img5_2048.jpg


I really understand your point, however, I still think separating between regular units and heavy (supposedly elite) units is more advantageous than separating shielded and unshielded units. Some examples:
  • It's friendlier to both native and modded game.
    In this mod that I'm still developing, I have Wolfskin Falxman, a shock infantry with a variation of equipment that makes 4 out of 10 warriors also use shields, using falxs as one handed weapons too. Note that in the same way this make it possible to create infantry units that do not have standard equipment, ideal for warbands (think from real barbarian units to Middle Earth orcs).

  • You are able to separate the elite troops from the weaker ones.
    As you have stronger units in your army, these units are supposed to be better equipped and creating a shieldwall by mixing these elite units with other weaker units with weak shields will also greatly compromise the formation. It is better to keep an unshielded warrior behind the formation than to place a weak shield in the front line. Note that separate infantry from heavy infantry can make you rely heavily on your shielded elite troops, otherwise separate shielded from unshielded you obligatorily mix these units with these units.
 
img5_2048.jpg


I really understand your point, however, I still think separating between regular units and heavy (supposedly elite) units is more advantageous than separating shielded and unshielded units. Some examples:
  • It's friendlier to both native and modded game.
    In this mod that I'm still developing, I have Wolfskin Falxman, a shock infantry with a variation of equipment that makes 4 out of 10 warriors also use shields, using falxs as one handed weapons too. Note that in the same way this make it possible to create infantry units that do not have standard equipment, ideal for warbands (think from real barbarian units to Middle Earth orcs).

  • You are able to separate the elite troops from the weaker ones.
    As you have stronger units in your army, these units are supposed to be better equipped and creating a shieldwall by mixing these elite units with other weaker units with weak shields will also greatly compromise the formation. It is better to keep an unshielded warrior behind the formation than to place a weak shield in the front line. Note that separate infantry from heavy infantry can make you rely heavily on your shielded elite troops, otherwise separate shielded from unshielded you obligatorily mix these units with these units.

I understand this and I would really love to be able to use such tactic but it's not working. Units in 2+ line don't do anything until unit from 1st line falls. They are unable to attack from the back and when unshielded goes to fill the gap in shieldwall it's not as effective as any shielded one doing so. This creates a gap in formation and makes it break and fall.
 
I like this idea a lot and it makes this seem more like a strategy game than just a simple action game. However, the system would definitely have to be heavily customizable. Obviously, with a smaller company, this wouldn't work particularly well and rather would be for larger battles, but you still might want to use it to an extent with a smaller company. Even if this doesn't get implemented, which is probably the case, I wonder if it could be modded in.
I understand this and I would really love to be able to use such tactic but it's not working. Units in 2+ line don't do anything until unit from 1st line falls. They are unable to attack from the back and when unshielded goes to fill the gap in shieldwall it's not as effective as any shielded one doing so. This creates a gap in formation and makes it break and fall.
That's not a problem with the philosophy, it's a problem with the game's formation combat. Formations like you're describing were in VC and other mods and it worked quite well. Formations should be the go-to in Bannerlord than simply selecting "charge". If this whole suggestion was implemented, either by TW or a mod, the formation combat would also have to be fixed at the same time.
 
some nice ideas in this thread. Personally I'm in favor of anything that improves the battle UI.

The more customization the better especially if it will affect unit behaviors.
 
Lots of great suggestions here and I'm glad to see it's been brought forth by @Callum , looking forward to news about it.

There's already been shadow of behavior based on group/formation/order but it would be much better to be more fleshed out in a transparent way that is understandable and usable by the player. I also support the idea of having certain buffs applied to some units or groups as I want all units to be valuable and have a useful role to play, but there is a limit to what can be done just with behavior/gear alone.
 
Slightly misunderstood, but I got it now. Categories having set behaviors to them, on top of more appropriate categories.

Honestly, loving the ideas, especially the latter half of your post where you said what would happen if one type was put into another category. We need this stuff.
 
This does seem like a genuinely good idea, and I really do hope that it gets added into the game. Specifically, I do like the aspect of adding a bodyguard group. That would give the feeling of being, well, special a little bit more, something that I think is needed.
 
Bodyguard roles for lords/player sound great for a variety of reasons, and redefining "horse archer" as "ranged cavalry" to take into account jav cav and camelry, are particularly good ideas. Well done.

I'd be in favour of this idea, but simplified a little: heavy cavalry and cavalry share similar behaviour so they could be condensed into the single role of "melee cavalry", and skirmishers (which basically means javelin users) share similar behaviour to other ranged foot units, so they could be condensed into the role of "ranged infantry". As much as we may hate it, TW wants this game to work for console, so I think simplification of good ideas where possible is important.

That would give you 8 categories, and leave the 9 key free for "everyone", and the 0 key free for a spare player-assigned category:

1: Auxiliary Infantry (good for looters, farmers, T1 recruits who don't have any special equipment, and other units that don't fall into any of the other categories).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

2: Pike Infantry (troops with braceable polearms).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

3: Damage Infantry (troops with high damage two-handers).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

4: Shield Infantry (troops with large shields).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

5: Ranged Infantry (troops using a crossbow, bow or javelins as a primary).
Default behaviour: Attempt to keep out of range and constantly fire projectiles, when all ammo is used up charge into melee.

6: Ranged Cavalry (troops using a bow or javelins as a primary on horseback).
Default behaviour: Attempt to keep out of range and constantly fire projectiles, when all ammo is used up charge into melee.

7: Melee Cavalry (troops using melee weapons as a primary on horseback).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range to attack once, attempt to leave, repeat.

8: Bodyguards (by default, the highest tier troops in the army).
Default behaviour: Follow commander.

9: Everyone.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom