RAMBO TACTIC, DEAR CAPTAINS, CAST UR VOTE!

[Calabanar]

Have you encountered the problem of individual units "getting stuck" in some places on different maps? Do you know about other AI problems (archers, spearmen, cavalry), the solution of which, in addition to increasing the overall level of the game, would very likely lead to inadequate choice of Rambo tactics? Do you think that the use of defensive formations to destroy the units of the attacking squad by your captain is unacceptable (this is also Rambo in your opinion, isn't it)? Do you understand the importance of reconnaissance and ambushes in Captain's mode (as in real combat)?
Have you taken these situations into account when forming a proposal to bind/auto-attack a detachment when its captain is moved away, or is your proposal still slightly spontaneous and superficial? (no offense pls)

These points are all missing the mark.

If anything, ambushes would happen more often than ever. And as for reconnaissance, a cavalry detachment could do it, especially light cav which would then have a more tangible role.

What do Rambo tactics add to the game? It’s just skirmish with a bunch of reserve lives. That’s not the point of captain and it looks ****ing stupid.

 

[TheGioManDude]

Make the AI perform better would be my solution. The last time I played the cav did not even couch lance when you told them to charge. A better AI would solve a lot of the issues.

 

[Sigaretovic]

It sounds like some players think that because some game aspect do not function to their liking, they are allowed to use gamebreaking tactics. Great job guys... Nuts

 

[CaptainFracas]

Hello ?

Here is a solution I have in mind to solve the Rambo issue.
It's based on the morale system of the game "War of Rights" but adapted to Bannerlord Captain mode.
Here is what you need to know about how the system works if you're not familiar with it: https://steamcommunity.com/app/424030/discussions/0/1744479064004856409/

So in War of Rights which is a game with no bots, the main game mode is skirmish mode (it's a battle mode with 150 players+). It's based on a morale system. If the morale of one team goes down to 0, the team loses the game.
What's making morale loses in a team is when players die:

- Out of line state : If a player dies alone out in the open, then the team takes 100 % morale loses of one death.
- Skirmishing state: If a player dies in formation with his team mates nearby, but they are not forming a line, the morale lose is 60 % of one death.
- In formation state: If a player dies in a line formation, the morale lose is 20 % of one death.

This system works very well and makes people play together.


It could be adapted to the Bannerlord captain mode. It wouldn't affect the morale of the team, but the time of respawn of the captain player.
Right now, a captain that dies 1 km away from his regiment has the same time of respawn as if he dies shoulder to shoulder with his troops.
The system I'm explaining here would change this into this :
(time values are examples and I'm exaggerating those to help the explanation)

- Not commanding state: If a player dies alone far away from his regiment, then he would have to wait 2 minutes to be able to respawn.
- Disorganized state: If a player dies near his troops, but he's not in formation (like 2 to 10 meters) then he would have to wait 30 seconds to be able to respawn.
- Commanding state: If a player dies in formations with his troops (shoulder to shoulder or 1 to 2 meters away form the formation) then he could respawn instantly.

What would be the benefits of this system ?Adding time of respawn for the players who are ramboing will make them unable to command their troops for a long period of time. It will give a huge advantage to the opposing team and they will have plenty of time to take flags or/and to attack the regiment that is not controlled.

With this system players will still be able to scout and to leave their regiment behind. They can take a look at where the enemies are, but if they get too close to them, they have a chance of being taken down. If so, the opposing team knows that they have the advantage for a certain period of time.


On top of this, I have a suggestion: when the player is in "Not commanding state" (far away from his troops) then he shouldn't be able to command them. (It would be RP too as if the player is far away it seams normal that the troops can't hear him)

Adding this system with the futur improvements of AI that will be added, Captain Mode will be a plaisent game mode that will focus on the commandment of troops and the individual combat skills will not play a such decisive part as now.

 

[aLiaXXXanger]

Hello ?

Here is a solution I have in mind to solve the Rambo problem.
It's based on the morale system of the game "War of Rights" but adapted to Bannerlord Captain mode.
Here is what you need to know about how the system works if you're not familiar with it: https://steamcommunity.com/app/424030/discussions/0/1744479064004856409/

So in War of Rights which is a game with no bots, the main game mode is skirmish mode (it's a battle mode with 150 players). It's based on a morale system. If the morale of one team goes down to 0, the team loses the game.
What's making morale loses in a team is when players die:

- Out of line state : If a player dies alone out in the open, then the team takes 100 % of morale loses of one death.
- Skirmishing state: If a player dies in formation with his team mates nearby, but they are not forming a line, the morale lose is 60 % of one death.
- In formation state: If a player dies in a line formation, the morale lose is 20 % of one death.

This system works very well and makes people work together.


It could be adapted to the Bannerlord captain mode. It wouldn't affect the morale of the team, but time of respawn of the captain player.
Right now, a captain that dies 1 km away from his regiment has the same time of respawn as if he dies shoulder to shoulder with his troops.
The system I'm explaining here would change this this way:
(time values are examples and I'm exaggerating those to help the explanation)

- Not commanding state: If a player dies alone far away from his regiment, then he would have to wait 2 minutes to be able to respawn.
- Disorganized state: If a player dies near his troops, but he's not in formation (like 2 to 10 meters) then he would have to wait 30 seconds to be able to respawn.
- Commanding state: If a player dies in formations with his troops (shoulder to shoulder or 1 to 2 meters away form the formation) then he could respawn instantly.

What would be the benefits of this system ?Adding time of respawn for the players who are ramboing will make them unable to command their troops for a long period of time. It will give a huge advantage to the opposing team and they will have plenty of time to take flags or/and to attack the regiment that is not controlled.

With this system players will still be able to scout and to leave their regiment behind. They can take a look at where the enemies are, but if they get too close to them, they have a chance of being taken down. If so, the opposing team knows that they have the advantage for a certain period of time.


On top of this, I have a suggestion: when the player is in "Not commanding state" (far away from his troops) then he shouldn't be able to command them. (It would be RP too as if the player is far away it seams normal that the troops can't hear him)

Adding this system with the futur improvements of AI that will be added, Captain Mode will be a plaisent game mode that will focus on the commandment of the troops and the individual combat skills will not play a such decisive part as now.

Well, your proposal contains a very realistic approach to solving the problem discussed here ...
Calling it a problem, I somehow thought about this: before I met the discussion of Rambo tactics on this forum, I never considered its use as a problem, as some kind of deviation from the norm in the game itself. Yes, its use by the opponent (and partner) was forced to take this into account when choosing their own tactics, but this is no different from the need to adapt to any other tactical choice of opponents/partners (for example, many archers/cavalry or a full stack of shock infantry). The use of Rambo tactics for me personally is not very difficult and, on the contrary, in some way increases interest in this game due to the breadth of its tactical diversity. I know how to resist it and I can do it. Yes, this requires some experience and understanding of the game, but the ability to progress is perhaps the main factor in the formation of loyalty to any game. Isn't it?

 

[Sigaretovic]

Well, your proposal contains a very realistic approach to solving the problem discussed here ...
Calling it a problem, I somehow thought about this: before I met the discussion of Rambo tactics on this forum, I never considered its use as a problem, as some kind of deviation from the norm in the game itself. Yes, its use by the opponent (and partner) was forced to take this into account when choosing their own tactics, but this is no different from the need to adapt to any other tactical choice of opponents/partners (for example, many archers/cavalry or a full stack of shock infantry). The use of Rambo tactics for me personally is not very difficult and, on the contrary, in some way increases interest in this game due to the breadth of its tactical diversity. I know how to resist it and I can do it. Yes, this requires some experience and understanding of the game, but the ability to progress is perhaps the main factor in the formation of loyalty to any game. Isn't it?

Somehow i get the impression that you think people who oppose rambo suck at the game. Dude, its very simple. Most people inckuding the devs don't like it, because it defeats the purpose of the captain mode. Yes, captain mode. Not park mode. You know, command other units. Not park them.........

 

[Metherlance]

Like CaptainFracas say, add the rule "Look Out Sir":
You can only revive if you are at 20 meters (or less) of your units else your units charge.

 

[Zarthas]

Like CaptainFracas say, add the rule "Look Out Sir":
You can only revive if you are at 20 meters (or less) of your units else your units charge.

I like this, but I feel like there are a lot of times you can inadvertently get to be 20-40 meters from your troops during a chaotic melee and I don't want to discourage that from happening too much.

My pet solution for this has been:

-Link distance to your squad to revival time. <20 meters, no cooldown.
20+ Meters: +2 second for every 10 meters up to 20 seconds. (or whatever numbers work out, but make it a pretty harsh penalty to revive time if you are 100+ meters from your troops.)
-Add an "Overwhelming Odds" morale multiplier. If your team's remaining troop cost is 3x that of the opposing team, you accrue morale at double rate. That means instead of taking 30 seconds to fill a star when you have 50 infantry and there's one guy running loops on a horse, it takes 15 seconds.

I think these are pretty inline with the spirit and design of Captain mode already, and are "realistic" enough that they intuitively fit with the theme of the game mode.
If you are a long way from your squad, they can't tell you died and it will take longer for the next in the chain of command to assume control.
If you are outrageously outnumbered, you need to be in control of the objectives for it to make any strategic sense for you to stay in the fight.

The actual problem with solocav is that one cavalry player can affect the battlefield far far far too much. This just directly removes their ability to influence the battlefield for 20 seconds without having their troops nearby. If they play near their troops, you have some chance to damage the parked cavalry while they respawn.

If your entire enemy team is playing solo and you manage to kill all 6 rambos, there will just be no enemy opposition for the next 20 seconds at all. That time is needed to corral your troops properly and prepare them for the next rambo wave.

If you implement respawn cooldown and an odds multiplier, end-game solocav delaying would become impossible. Mid-game solocav Rambo play would still be possible but would become appropriately risky, instead of having almost no drawbacks.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

I don't think the way forward with the mode, is to implement "tethers", "leashes" or other restrictions like limited life's, extra cd on the respawn, or moral lose %, if you don't follow certain rules on the battlefield. I see suggestions like that as punishments, and that wont solve the underlying reasons why rambo is so "popular". If you listen to the teams that uses rambo tactics, they actually don't even like the tactic themselves. They do it not because they want their K/D ratio to be high, but they do it simply to win the match. Certain factions simply don't have other viable tactics vs other factions.

Captain mode is a tactical game. And you don't need to implement punishments to force players to play in a certain way. Because, to get utterly murdered and owned, and then lose the match, because your team have used their unit classes in a wrong way, is punishment enough. Personal skill, unit control and a great understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the different class combinations, is what makes a team strong, and the mode fun! And therefore we must NOT nerf good units, or implement rules that will put a limit on how many different tactics that is possible to use.

We need to turn the parameters in such a way, that the gameplay is open for as many tactics as possible!

This is my ideas of changes, that I think will open up the gameplay for a wide range of tactics and also make rambo an outdated tactic:

1: Cav AI need to be fixed. When you use the charge command very close to the target you want to charge, then the AI does a really good job actually. They will use couch, kill and do a lot of bump damage. Used correctly and in the right situations you will not even lose any cav. The problem is after the charge. They scatter and you need to collect them again with the "follow me" command, then line them up again and lead them back to the target you want to charge, and again use the charge command in the last second to get good hits. It's a lot of work, and it takes time. And I don't see many cav players doing this. It could be really cool if your cav units could regroup, line up and then attack the same target on their own after the initial charge, until you give other orders.

2: Archer AI and perks really really need a super fix. Their accuracy needs to be much better, like 25-35%% better. The "faster bow" perk needs to be removed and made the permanent fire rate of archers. Instead of the "faster bow" perk we need a "spears" perk! If the enemy cav attacks archers in their line of sight, they should change to spars fast on their own also. If the cav attacks from the flanks or from behind, the captain needs to hit "F4" and turn them to counter the attack. Their movement speed needs to be higher. Pre 1.5.0 you would get a speed buff if you used the "hold fire" command, we need that back. When archers are in melee mode they should have the same speed as non range classes. Also their visual field view needs to be much more narrower. They should ignore what happens around them. And what targets they should engage, should be 100% up to the archer captain to decide. If they are getting ambushed or flanked, and the captain don't notice, they will be "caught" and it will have consequences.

3: Infantry ranged attacks, both 1h and 2h classes, needs to have better accuracy and make more damage too. This will make non shielded classes to think twice and stay behind their own shield units, and not just rush through and charge on their own. The "square" formation command need to be fixed. It's ok that the "shield wall" command will limit inf movement speed, but why does the "square" command make all classes, even units with no shield, move slower too ? There should only be a speed reduction after you use the "shield wall" command. Unit classes with shields, should only go into "shield wall" if you use the command, and not automatically if you use any other formation. Another thing is the damage output when inf is in a shield wall. I think that need a small buff.

4: Skirmish classes need to be extremely good at range. They should have more javs, way better accuracy, damage and range, than normal infantry. So they will be a great support for archers in their range play. This will force the enemy into tight formations if they want to rush. And also open up for many "pre engagement" tactics. I also think a melee damage buff will be a good idea. In a melee engagement they make no kills vs any other class besides archers.

5: 2h unit classes need to be the overall masters and the real damage dealers in certain melee situations. Because they don't have any shields, and they have low armor. There will be no point in taking them if shield units make more or lees the same damage. I don't believe a 2h buff will make teams go full 2h rush. The range units will simply kill them. Pikes need a couch command, or some other mechanic so they can punish frontal cav attacks.

I know many players will think, that these changes will be a range hell on earth. BUT, there is a really really good counter to it all. Something that will force a certain class into the support role it is suppose to have. FULL CAV ATTACKS!!! With these changes, the range units cannot attack and fire 360 degrees around them. They will have to choose what direction they will engage in. When cav attacks enemy range units, it will force an opening to move closer to the enemy. The cav captain can also decide to send his squad to attack one group of range, and go rambo on another to disrupt and help his team. I don't even think there is a great need of class restrictions in tournaments, like they use in skirmish, with these changes @Ling*

 

[Zarthas]

I absolutely agree with you Olaf, but I think we have to contend with the reality of what TW is willing/able to do. I honestly believe implementing everything you suggested above would be a superior solution.
They just aren't going to resolve enough of the AI issues to make Captain mode what it is meant to be, full stop. TW is basically a skeleton maintenance crew at this point, they've demonstrated they are not interested in doing much of anything except nerfing throwing into the ground every patch.
I agree that any kind of tether/cooldown system is a bandaid/breakfix to solve a fundamental problem with the structure of the game, but I honestly believe it is the only suggestion that has any chance of being implemented, however slim it may still be.

I would contend that an Overwhelming Odds multiplier is solving a separate problem with endgame delaying behavior (tangentially related because this encourages K/DR solocav playing) and is pretty valid no matter what other changes are made.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

I absolutely agree with you Olaf, but I think we have to contend with the reality of what TW is willing/able to do. I honestly believe implementing everything you suggested above would be a superior solution.
They just aren't going to resolve enough of the AI issues to make Captain mode what it is meant to be, full stop. TW is basically a skeleton maintenance crew at this point, they've demonstrated they are not interested in doing much of anything except nerfing throwing into the ground every patch.
I agree that any kind of tether/cooldown system is a bandaid/breakfix to solve a fundamental problem with the structure of the game, but I honestly believe it is the only suggestion that has any chance of being implemented, however slim it may still be.

I would contend that an Overwhelming Odds multiplier is solving a separate problem with endgame delaying behavior (tangentially related because this encourages K/DR solocav playing) and is pretty valid no matter what other changes are made.

For me it is not about what TW have time to work on. Or are willing implement. It's 100% about how to make captain mode a really fun, intuitive and the best tactical game of its kind! I also think that TW would agree with me on many of my suggestions. I would rather wait another 10 updates for them to fix this the real way. Instead of a cheap "fix" that would transform it into something that on one really would be satisfied with.

Until now. When TW changes something they wont remove it again, even if it breaks the mode, for a long long time anyway. And after skirmish updates wont effect cap mode anymore we might see some real progress.

 

[FearSpear]

We should ask the winners of the Captain's League tournament what should change as they are the best Captain's mode players

 

[Ling*]

We should ask the winners of the Captain's League tournament what should change as they are the best Captain's mode players

As far as I know they are also for removing rambo lol

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

We should ask the winners of the Captain's League tournament what should change as they are the best Captain's mode players

The winners of CL2 already told TW how captain mode should be destroyed indirectly, since TW implemented skirmish changes to captain mode and tuned it into a skirmish game with more life's. Why do you think they were able to win it in the first place, with no clue about unit control?

Let's keep skirmish, and skirmish players out of a mode they hate and got no clue about. This is about how to fix captain mode.

 

[Ling*]

For me it is not about what TW have time to work on. Or are willing implement. It's 100% about how to make captain mode a really fun, intuitive and the best tactical game of its kind! I also think that TW would agree with me on many of my suggestions. I would rather wait another 10 updates for them to fix this the real way. Instead of a cheap "fix" that would transform it into something that on one really would be satisfied with.

I'm not sure how many people are going to wait around for the years it would take to fix all of the things surrounding the causes of rambo. A quick and easy solution would suffice. I'm not sure why you think it would kill captain mode, you can't kill something that is already dead.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

I'm not sure how many people are going to wait around for the years it would take to fix all of the things surrounding the causes of rambo. A quick and easy solution would suffice. I'm not sure why you think it would kill captain mode, you can't kill something that is already dead.

Many players would also leave the mode if a quick, cheap "fix", that wont repair the mode, would be implemented. I think me included. Better to do it the right way and let those player go skirmish or another mode, or even civ2 in the meanwhile. And when the mode is fixed, they will return to so many glorious battles! While we are in the EA phase those problems need to be addressed and fixed, later it is too late...

 

[Ling*]

Many players would also leave the mode if a quick, cheap "fix", that wont repair the mode, would be implemented. I think me included.

They already have left the mode as a direct result of Rambo. Fixing it would allow those players to actually come back and play. We actually had teams resign from the tournament because of other teams using Rambo as well. People don't like to play with it and they don't like to play against it, and the number of current players who queue for captain mode show exactly this. You even have some people who use rambo in public games being kicked from the match by their own teammates lol.

Genuinely the only people I have seen that are still advocating to keep this mechanic are players from VoV and WoV.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

They already have left the mode as a direct result of Rambo. Fixing it would allow those players to actually come back and play. We actually had teams resign from the tournament because of other teams using Rambo as well. People don't like to play with it and they don't like to play against it, and the number of current players who queue for captain mode show exactly this. You even have some people who use rambo in public games being kicked from the match by their own teammates lol.

I don't think it is that important to have a large playerbase compared to a game that actually works. We are in the EA phase. When the game is finished we will see a much greater pool of players I bet, IF they game works like it was supposed too....

 

[Ling*]

I don't think it is that important to have a large playerbase compared to a game that actually works. We are in the EA phase. When the game is finished we will see a much greater pool of players I bet, IF they game works like it was supposed too....

I very much disagree with you, without a playerbase it might as well not exist at all. EA or no EA, if you think people will come back rather than move on to new games I think you are mistaken. TW has a chance to preserve the fanbase that already exists for the game if they act quickly enough. If they don't resolve rambo completely soon then there will be nothing left to work with after EA. Custom servers for example, where we can adjust the game mechanics ourselves, and no one is left playing Vanilla.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

They already have left the mode as a direct result of Rambo. Fixing it would allow those players to actually come back and play. We actually had teams resign from the tournament because of other teams using Rambo as well. People don't like to play with it and they don't like to play against it, and the number of current players who queue for captain mode show exactly this. You even have some people who use rambo in public games being kicked from the match by their own teammates lol.

Genuinely the only people I have seen that are still advocating to keep this mechanic are players from VoV and WoV.

NC and VoV are really good at rambo tactics. WoV you wont see doing this, since WoV don't exists anymore. And everyone was doing this tactic in the CL2 also. Like I said in my previous post, those clans don't like to do this tactic. They do it because they got no other tactical options with certain factions vs other certain factions. It's not about K/D ratio, it's about to win also, or what is the point to play really?