Do you want more complex features, such as proper formation behaviour in Bannerlord?

[Stratigo]

Realistic battles seems better, more realistic to medieval mob fighting ... but it's not formation fighting.

We need both, realistic mob fighting and realistic formation fighting, depending on unit training. For example, Greek hoplites would only fight in a phalanx where as their opponents gaulish warriors would only fight in mob.

.

This is true for neither hoplites or gallic warriors.

Hoplites fought in a semi coherent mob until the hellenistic period and the transition to long pikes (best exemplified by the macedonians).

Gauls.... fought in a semi coherent mob because forming a shield wall is intuitive and effective. Indeed, it is possible the gauls fought in more coherent formations. Certainly celtic migrations through greece saw some success in conflict with the distinctly superior to classical hoplites hellenistic armies.

 

[danEN]

Fully agree with the sentiment and the mechanic displayed.

But I have no idea why this is labelled as a "complex" mechanic, perhaps it is more complex under the hood, but from a gameplay perspective it is not so.
The reason I point this out is because adding complex mechanics can be ignored because of the "danger" of making the game not welcoming to newcomers. But the comparison between vanilla battles and RBM's, isn't simple vs complex. Vanilla battles look buggy, unrefined, illogical, poorly paced, and unfun. Those are the reasons to add this mechanic to vanilla, not complexity.

If you are actually trying to argue for complex mechanics, this poll and thread aren't a good way to do it. Instead it gives an impression of the people who want the mechanic in the OP.

It doesn't matter, we all understand the point he's making

I'd also say the mod does actually add more complexity to the AI over vanilla, however small you want to debate it, the AI not acting like feral zombies is already more complex intelligence

 

[Madeloc]

If what already exists could work properly, that would already be a progress.

For example a Shield Wall, and not the morron-idiotic units turning and showing their ass to ennemy archers because one cavalier passed them by... would be a huge step forward...
The way battles are managed by the game gives place to impossible casualties in reality.

Also that stupid cavalry on flanks IMPOSED by the game, with AI (we cannot actually spek about AI it is not AI, it is just reading : reading-what-the-player-is-doing and not acting properly in reaction to another action, so speaking of intelligence, of any king is a language abuse).
Cavalry, for this example should be an extra, that you use maybe to turn the battle in your favor, instead of that, a gang of morrons, charging with neither any harmony, nor common sense, they are often the highest tier troops, thebest equiped, and suffer the higher casulaties... what's the problem, Bob? (I'm speaking to Bob )

 

[Madeloc]

we are not the part of the market they're trying to sell BL to

I gree with you. The topic here is money, not making a game and making it to have it working perfectly, or at least working good. Like all the rest IRL.

 

[Svang]

The game badly needs mods like these, without them it doesn't matter how many Total Conversion mods are made, they will all play like ****.

 

[John_M]

It doesn't matter, we all understand the point he's making

I'd also say the mod does actually add more complexity to the AI over vanilla, however small you want to debate it, the AI not acting like feral zombies is already more complex intelligence

Point is that it isn't an argument for more complex gameplay, but a specific improvement. It's asking, "do you like better gameplay?" while showing a fix to something broken, of course everyone will agree. It has no extrapolation to other places.

Everyone agrees when the example discussed is a specific feature everyone likes. The conclusion "people like complex mechanics" I don't think will change what Taleworlds does, except perhaps implement the specific suggestions raised.

 

[danEN]

Point is that it isn't an argument for more complex gameplay, but a specific improvement. It's asking, "do you like better gameplay?" while showing a fix to something broken, of course everyone will agree. It has no extrapolation to other places.

Everyone agrees when the example discussed is a specific feature everyone likes. The conclusion "people like complex mechanics" I don't think will change what Taleworlds does, except perhaps implement the specific suggestions raised.

But he gave RBM only as an example of what he believes a more complex feature could look like, the thread is based around overall opinion on complexity in the game I think, not just RBM, I don't think he was specifically listing RBM as the main topic, it's just easier to give one example to make his point

do you want more complex features such as but not limited to proper formation battles?

 

[Madeloc]

The conclusion "people like complex mechanics" I don't think will change what Taleworlds does, except perhaps implement the specific suggestions raised

I think we do not ask for complex that does not work.

Already, relatively basic, that works well is ok.

So : "relatively basic, that works well" means : not a complete army showing is back to ennemy archers because 2% of the ennemy army (a couple of cavaliers) has passed the lines by...

 

[Philozoraptor]

For example a Shield Wall, and not the morron-idiotic units turning and showing their ass to ennemy archers because one cavalier passed them by... would be a huge step forward...
The way battles are managed by the game gives place to impossible casualties in reality.

This is already done in RBM, we had to tell the main formation to focus closest infantry formation (melee or ranged) if it exists and they stopped turning towards random cavalry (few nearby troops will ofcourse turn once cav is extremely close). I will do "few" videos in following days to show all RBM features, so people know what to expect when they download the mod.

 

[Madeloc]

Just coming out of a battle and cavs are definitively in BL : unable, inapt, annoying, disturbant. Of anything. They just cannot

This is already done in RBM, we had to tell the main formation to focus closest infantry formation (melee or ranged) if it exists and they stopped turning towards random cavalry (few nearby troops will ofcourse turn once cav is extremely close). I will do "few" videos in following days to show all RBM features, so people know what to expect when they download the mod.

Thanks. Very good. And thanks to the modders.

This is a problem that must though be solved by TW, it cannot be an option from a mod, it must be a vanillia requirement. Since it's one of the basics of this game (combat).

Humanity is itself already not intelligent in general and through observable results... and it pretends to create AI...

 

[bestmods168]

The game badly needs mods like these, without them it doesn't matter how many Total Conversion mods are made, they will all play like ****.

Lol. I thought of this a long time ago. It came up to my mind because there were quite a few insecure and egotistic modders who felt they were above others. But in my mind, I was thinking that they can act like that, but at the end of the day both sides in game will just clash and become a clusterf_ck. It didn't matter how good their 3d assets were, etc. Same disappointment.

 

[SGT_Night]

but at the end of the day both sides in game will just clash and become a clusterf_ck. It didn't matter how good their 3d assets were, etc. Same disappointment.

exactly what i think

 

[Nalgasucia507]

+1 @Philozoraptor

 

[Count_Morfetico]

Yes please!
Although I did never use 'realistic battle mod', I hear great things about it.
And while I've had my deal of fun with bannerlord, (and vanilla battles) the video examples showed to me it could improve in ways i didn't consider before.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Point is that it isn't an argument for more complex gameplay, but a specific improvement. It's asking, "do you like better gameplay?" while showing a fix to something broken, of course everyone will agree. It has no extrapolation to other places.

Everyone agrees when the example discussed is a specific feature everyone likes. The conclusion "people like complex mechanics" I don't think will change what Taleworlds does, except perhaps implement the specific suggestions raised.

I think you're reading too much into it. There are half a dozen poll threads like this with a loaded question which amounts to "do you want the game to be better or worse?". It's just circlejerking and confirmation bias, I don't think even the people making the polls intend for them to be taken that seriously.

 

[Ser Jon]

Looking at the videos, it is pretty much night and day.

It is night and day, yes. I seriously cannot go back to the game without the combat mod, it's insane. I agree if they aren't going to aim for it themselves, they need to at least get into talks to get it implemented into the game officially.

 

[archaicwarrior]

This is true for neither hoplites or gallic warriors.

Hoplites fought in a semi coherent mob until the hellenistic period and the transition to long pikes (best exemplified by the macedonians).

Gauls.... fought in a semi coherent mob because forming a shield wall is intuitive and effective. Indeed, it is possible the gauls fought in more coherent formations. Certainly celtic migrations through greece saw some success in conflict with the distinctly superior to classical hoplites hellenistic armies.

"semi coherent mob"... ??? I'll check the historic documents for that ... hmmm, no, definitely says phalanx. Infact Greeks fought in Files. but if you don't want to code that, that's ok, modders will eventually,

.

 

[Mad Vader]

I think you're reading too much into it. There are half a dozen poll threads like this with a loaded question which amounts to "do you want the game to be better or worse?".

I think I'll start one with that question and deadpan through explaining the voting choices. I'll also change the name to MadVader_TaleWorlds to get instant credibility.

 

[Philozoraptor]

Lol. I thought of this a long time ago. It came up to my mind because there were quite a few insecure and egotistic modders who felt they were above others. But in my mind, I was thinking that they can act like that, but at the end of the day both sides in game will just clash and become a clusterf_ck. It didn't matter how good their 3d assets were, etc. Same disappointment.

By a chance, is there a direction where angry mob could be sent? Asking for a friend of course.

 

[Stratigo]

"semi coherent mob"... ??? I'll check the historic documents for that ... hmmm, no, definitely says phalanx. Infact Greeks fought in Files. but if you don't want to code that, that's ok, modders will eventually,

.

XD What documents you checking mate?

I'm here rocking thucydides as my primary. Who you got?

Almost every classical historian alive will tell you the greeks fought in semi coherent mobs. The spartans were slightly (and I mean slightly) more organized using music to keep an even pace, which other classical greeks did not do, so when they advanced there was no way for them to tell how to keep pace, meaning parts of the line would bulge. Then they would charge without much consideration of formation, opening all sorts of gaps in their lines, but hoping the shock would carry the day (if it did not, then you get some seriously bloody battles as mobs of hoplites mush together in a rough line and murder each other relatively slowly)

Coherent ranks and files is attested in the hellenic period, which is after the classical period. And after hoplites (as defined as a guy carrying a hoplon, you know, that big ol' shield) when greek armies were mostly using pikes. We don't have a lot of great sources for the classical powerhouses of athens and sparta militarily at this time (and neither power was actually important in the period. Sparta tried twice to rebuild its wider empire and macedon trivially trounced them both times), and the dominant city state of Thebes were burned to the ground by alexander and so we have very little for them too, but we DO have good sources of the macedonians, and how easily they folded the existing city state and ethnos militaries into their own phalangite system.