Recent content by NamingIsHard

  1. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    I think it's fantastic you're interesting in how this works, but I unfortunately can't put more time into explaining it out. I'd recommend looking up gaming architecture and what goes into a game engine and how it works with your computers resources

    Simply put increasing this limit is much farther reaching and complicated than it sounds. Like Kentucky said it has to do with how the software uses memory and processing directly

    I'm extremely cynical of TaleWorlds, but I don't judge them at all for not trying to work on this even as much as I'd like to see larger battles
    I come from CS background so I do know about how the machine works(though not familiar with game design major). And from what I know, this kind of crash does not look like induced by incapability of computing resulted from complexity/structure issues, as explained above.
  2. I heard battle size of Bannerlord is capped at 2048, but why?

    Why? It's really not important from an engineering perspective. What benefit will a higher number of troops at a battlefield at once give you? You will feel pretty much the same thrill with 2048 troops at once. Those troops are not even real players. The only one experiencing the battle is you. There's no importance to that number like it would in an MMORPG or a vcon app.
    I do not understand what you mean by "engineering perspective". But as a video game, from player perspective, it did affects gaming experience. Reinforcement issue has been discussed above. Another example I can come up with is tactics. With a small battlesize like 500 each side(which is the current cap), tactics and commanding troops won't affact battle much(players can barely have reserved/mobile forces that is effective enough to do something by themselves, so most battles are just one-wave rush and that's it, choice of tactics has been narrowed down)
    Wait, seems I got a point. Did TW put the upper cap to give themselves a reason for not implementing a better command/squad system and better tactic AI?
    By the way, if your so-called "engineering perspective" concept is true, why did TW put effort to increase availiable battlesize so that with same hardware, Bannerlord can support much larger battle than Warband? Any explanation?
  3. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    It's probably neither. The fact that it's a power of two suggests that it's due to a limitation of how the code uses hardware and memory directly.
    The power of 2 cap suggests that kind of guess, and that's also what I have originally thought. But a year has passed and still no official interpretation released, regardless of so many similar forum posts.
    Performance usually isn't linear or gradual, for example in warband a texture of size 2048 would load and be rendered about 10 times faster than a texture of size 2047.
    Normally not linear, but normally gradual. I don't quite understand what you are saying in the second sentence, do you mean "slower" instead of "faster"?
    Also you can take a look at the picture and comment I posted above
  4. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    The crash is not due to increased amount of computation. The crash is because you've surpassed the game engines limitation.

    Use a mod which allows you to increase this cap and watch your CPU when the game crashes. I doubt it'll be maxing out
    Picture attached. The CPU and GPU occupation drops suddenly when I tried to load the battle scenes, which suggests the game has even not at least tried to do the job when the point has been passed.
    1QRXtyA.png
  5. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    The game engine is the same for everyone regardless of machine and it's an entity cap. More than likely because going up another power of 2 would have been too intensive for even the most powerful machines.
    It may not be able to go much higher than 2048, but then the performance is supposed to drop differently for differnent machines. Not like now, it suddenly crashed after passed an identical point for all machines no matter how the game perform before the point. In Warband, if you keep increasing battlesize, performance will drop gradually to some point you can not actually play the game (for example, super-low FPS)before crash. But in Bannerlord, the machine may perform normally before the break point and suddenly crash after the point has been passed. Most video games works in the Warband way.
    The crash is not due to increased amount of computation. The crash is because you've surpassed the game engines limitation.

    Use a mod which allows you to increase this cap and watch your CPU when the game crashes. I doubt it'll be maxing out
    Wait, did you say it's not hardcoded? Now you are saying it is hardcoded.
    What do you mean by "engine limitation"? If by that you mean developer manually implement that limitation in engine, then it is hardcoded.
    If by that you mean the algorithm and structure of the engine is not efficient enough and induced this limit, then this is due to increased amount of computation.
    I have tried, and obviously my CPU is still capable when the game crashed
  6. Laggy menus

    Did you turn on cheat mode? Cheat mode will permit access to a cheat inventory on left-hand side of screen when you open your inventory directly(by directly I mean not when talking to a merchant), that cheat inventory is extremly lengthy and require much more time to load
  7. I heard battle size of Bannerlord is capped at 2048, but why?

    Yes, each troop in Bannerlord has it's own independent AI. Total War Games may look impressive, but there's a reason they don't let you actually fight, and that's because it's all visual simulation to make it look like a massive battle when infact there's not a whole lot actually happening behind the scenes. It looks great for sure, but you wouldn't actually be able to interact with those soldiers if you was down there with them.

    AI in Bannerlord need to be able to fight dynamically, having freedom of movement, selecting the closest target, accessing that targets blocking direction, choosing it's own, predicting it's movement to correctly throw javelins or fire projectiles at. None of this would work with the Total War Style of AI implementation and all of these calculations can add up to be very intensive with a large amount of troops.
    I know what you mean, that's why I focus on pathfinding part. Current AI do not support complex commandng, during field battle, most time we only have several big clusters of units before final charge(and fight normally end fast after that, or number of units on field reduced greatly after that, and during the fight we do not need complex pathfinding but simply find the closest enemy), so if pathfinding for units of a single cluster is computed as a whole, computational burden would be reduced greatly.
    The reason they limit the troops is so the product they release is stable, if they increased the cap to 10,000, and advertised it as such, there would be a lot of backlash when people realise their machine can't handle it. There may also be some engine limitation in there, so they decided to cap it at what they thought was the highest acceptable value.
    We are talking about PC, not console, common sense: select game setting with respect to your machine when playing on PC, the game can support something does not mean your machine can also support the same thing. Simple examples: DLSS/4k. Why can people understand that common sense when talking about graphical issues but cant understand when talking about battlesize? Recall Warband when we do not have such upper cap, will you further increase battlesize when you have already been suffering from significant performance loss? Your logic is really weird. DO NOT TREAT PLAYERS AS IGNORANT MONKEYS.
    It's just more efficient to hardcode a number than to do various calculations related to your settings, size of the modules, available resources, etc every time the game runs.
    Then at least allow players do the choice themselves. Not like hard-coded this way.
    Maybe because every trooper might be described in the code with a number which will be translated as a binary symbol combination of I and 0 which seems to be 10 bits big so: 0000000001 is Trooper #1 for the engine and 1111111111 is trooper #2048. For another one you would need to make the engine understand that there are numbers greater than "10 binary digits". Might be engine-related. But it is indeed a power of 2 which might make one guess this could be an allocation thing or something hard-coded. I mean, you must explain to the program what to do with the input it gets and if it is like "there are 2048 troopers possible" because it only accepts a 10-digit number as denominator we cannot simply make it 4096 by adding another digit because then the program will be confused. Maybe something like that. Maybe they thought when making the game years ago "well, we cannot imagine that PCs will be able to handle a larger number than roughly 2000, so we use the 10-digit solution as denominator. I do not know. Maybe I just had a bad coffee and am seeing things.
    That may be an explanation, but it is still weird since the limitation you described also need to be manually implemented(since this is not the upper cap of binary number machine can accept and understand). And if it were simply an allocation space issue, then it is suppsoed to be simple to alternate.(As far as i can image, like simply increase to a much larger number that no machine can actually reach, then game will crash with respect to capability of corresponding machine)
    My guess is that doubling the hardcoded maximum from 2048 to 4096 (i.e. adding a bit, the smallest possible increase) would cause a significant performance drop that would make *all* battles run worse on *all* systems, raising the minimum and recommended requirements on the CPU side.

    They probably already took a hit from going for 2048 instead of 1024, but did it because they didn't want to lock themselves out of offering sizes over 1000 in the future without a refactor.
    That might be the case, algorithm complexity may increase exponentially. But still, at least allow players to alternate the setting themselves, at least through mod. Common sense: modify product, which is Bannerlord under this context, at your own risk. DO NOT TREAT PLAYERS AS IGNORANT MONKEYS.
    Anyway, with a mod you can increase the battle size to whatever you want (in the .NET code) but the underlaying (low level/rendering) module crashes above 2k when it gets this number, suggesting that there is a hardcoded buffer/list with that maximum size, and if you give a bigger number, it overrides and corrupts memory - and crashes the whole game.
    That's what I'm trying to ask: why and how is such cap implemented in the lower level code?
  8. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    It's an engine limitation, not some hardcode that can be removed.
    Then it's very weired why this cap is exactly the same for everyone and every machine. Normally if crash is induced by engine, through memory leak or something like that(since this crash is related to increased amount of computation required), the break point is supposed to be higher for better machine.
  9. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    Yeah it would be great. I don't think a game engine upgrade will ever happen though. I don't know if that's even possible without rebuilding the game, I hope it is.
    Not sure why there is a 2048 cap on battlesize. If it were hard-coded like this
    Code:
    if battlesize>2048:
        raiseerror and exit
    then it woule be very simple to remove this cap.
    If this cap were resutled from algorithm and structure of engine, then the reason behind would be very interesting topic to discuss. Like it's very weird to have a specific number common for every machine being the break point
  10. Do you Think Bannerlord Will be More 'Feature Complete' than Warband was When it Leaves EA?

    Played since about 2006(can't remember exactly, may be 2005 or 2007, at ending of my primary school), when playthrough started at Zendar. That very first version I have ever played is very bareboned, but Warband later is "feature complete" from my perspective. But for Bannerlord, it is mainly graphic and battlesize improvement, when you are talking about features, almost all newly-added features,compared to Warband, are incomplete.
  11. Would the regions system open the door for ZOI control of castles, cities, and settlements

    Ambushing was a planned feature, however, after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well with the way our sandbox plays out, and ultimately, it wasn't much fun for the player.
    TBH, this just like typical TW comments on discarding features. Looks like it is talking about something at the first glance, but after a closer and careful inversitgation, it does not give any actual information, but only the result: discarded.
    And more importantly, if no players have ever seen a demo about this feature, how do you konw it's not much fun for the players?
  12. Militia & Starvation changes

    Real problem here is :
    we have 2 effects and each feed each other
    prosperity -> construction (construction is calculated from prosperity directly)
    construction -> prosperity (by default project housing)
    So this creates a loop. prosperity -> construction -> more prosperity -> more construction
    This sounds like something resembles multiplier effect of simple short-run model in macroeconomics, so it is supposed to be easy to accomodate this problem by manipulating numbers.
    But I still believe the root of this prospersity/food-related issues lies elsewhere.
    If by design the development team expects a normal Bannerlord playthrough run for at most 20-30 years(in-game), this approch is ok, but family/clan system looks redundant if this is the case. If the development team expects a normal Bannerlord playthrough can run for generations, then it's not good idea to put a soft cap that can be reached in one generation on prospersity of fief. (Though tbh current content of Bannerlord can't support such a long playthrough) Well, surely it's possible to make the soft cap only reachable after generations by doing nothing but numerical manipulation, but then this part of the game will be boring. Player cannot intereact much with this part of game, simply sit there and watch. I'm not major in game design during university, but my friend recommends a textbook for game design major called 'player make decisions', I really like this idea, player should be allow to make decision so they can intereact with the game world.
    So my point is that player should be given more space to manage their fief, like food production.
  13. Recruit prisoners to garrison?

    I can only tell you Improved Garrison mod can do it. Don't expect any features that may increase complexity from TW, at least before ending of EA
  14. Would the regions system open the door for ZOI control of castles, cities, and settlements

    I've been using the Improved Garrisons mod lately and I LOVE it.

    I hate late-game bandit patrols nuking all my villagers parties and stifling growth. I also hate having a single enemy party of like 50 dudes pillage a town.

    Now, I can make a patrol of 50 battanian heros and 50 legos that decimate everyone in sim battles. lol
    Not sure why, though after I installed improved garrison, bandits are cleared out, but Clear Bandit quest become more, just weird.
    Dude, they planned and explicitly axed just that "ambush" feature because they couldn't design it right and found their design annoying to their short attention span stress tester Callum. It was in one of them devblogs.
    Is that so? I can't remember if there is such devblog, may you provide a link to that?
    Haven´t they already said that they won´t add a patrol feature?
    I can remeber they have talked about that, but can't remember if it is out of consideration forever or only temporarily due to priority
  15. Would the regions system open the door for ZOI control of castles, cities, and settlements

    Don't make it so complicated.
    We only need a few steps to let castle/cities have control over their region
    1. implement legion quest, a feature in late pre-release dev diaries but not in game
    2. rebalance supply system so a legion cannot carry so many supplies that they do not need to refill their inventory from forming to disbanding
    3. then legion have to and is able to send sub-troops to gather supply
    4. let settlement be able to send out partrols
    5. partrols can clearout bandits or fight enemy troops
    6. then entering this region is now risky for small enemy troops, including supply-gathering troops. Action of large enemy legion is also restricted because of supply line issues.

    this is medieval warfare, not modern warfare, army can hardly maintain control over a large region, or a long frontline, normally they did that in a point to point fashion, not plane to plane fashion
Top Bottom