Wait, you're persuading them to surrender now? I thought it was because you had overwhelming force meaning no chance to win so they'd just give up. And you said tactics (there's no fight, no leadership, nothing). If you think you should, then perhaps you think you should get tactics, leadership and charm by riding around the map with your warband. After all, you've a group of men...
Honestly, fine, get +1 charm, leadership and tactics for hunting down 5 looters and having them surrender with 200 troops behind you. Sounds legit.
Not going to continue engaging, we've clearly got different views. Some want everything on a plate. Whatever. I don't have any issues with the auto resolve at the moment. Fairly sure you'll be able to mod your +ve increments for looter clubbing if that's what you desire from the game.
Why do you argue for a detail like that ? It's absolutly not the point. If you want to be that precise, as i said, there is many things which doesn't really make sense, like in all video games. I gave a long list of Bannerlord absurdites. And at this point i wonder if you read the tread or if you are kinda stuck in your bubble. I never asked for "everythink on a plate". I just answered someone who said there would be no reward to have bandits surrending. My point was just to have a better AB which reflects more what we can achieve without it. I just asked for some way to remove this redondant aspect of the game. Chasing bandits serve no purpose mid-late game, that's all. The rest was just discussing. But obiouvsly you came here just to argue against something i didn't say. Still, even if it's not my point, each action is rewarded in this game. I don't see why, if bandits surrender, we couldn't have some XP points. Not much, but just a little something. Anyway, i think your message is not relevant. It's not an answer to my initial tread, which is about AB not reflecting the real fights, which is unquestionable, but a fact.
A lot of people are arguing against this suggestion by either bringing up realism or game difficulty.
Realism is a dead end argument when talking about video games. Most people don't want realistic games, and usually the line is drawn arbitrarily as to what they consider necessary or not in terms of realism. If Bannerlord was truly realistic then we'd lose men all of the time to disease and desertion, regardless of our shiny Morale Score or Food Variety.
In terms of difficulty: it is not hard to kill 20 bandits with 130 men. What is hard is actually managing to lose a single man in a fight like that - the auto-resolve should reflect this. To avoid exploits around experience and loot, I think forces that are outnumbered, say, 5 to 1, should always surrender, and attacking them should result in a cruel, reputation-damaging chase and not a battle. Different surrender thresholds could be put in place based on unit ranks, unit quantity, lord reputation etc.
The fact of the matter is that the current auto resolve system is completely broken. It has a fixed element when fighting looters (which is fine, but even then there are sometimes outrageous amounts of injuries), but an army of 100 should never lose men to an army of 10.
THANKS. Finally someone. Thanks because you expressed the idea better than me (probably because you english is better too ><). Anyway, you understood the issue. Hope someone from TW will see this.
You still take casualties with looters. The only difference is that they're all equipped with a blunt weapon in their first slot, so only do blunt damage which KO's rather than kills (thus the casualties become wounded rather than dead).
Actually the hard part would be chasing them down, since the AI will run from parties with that kind of numerical advantage. It becomes pointless arguing about the AR in that situation since a reasonable inference would be the player intended to fight the battle in the first place (otherwise why bother chasing the group down?). That's not really why autoresolve exists; it's purely there to expedite situations where you're forced into a battle where the outcome can be largely predetermined due to the force disparity, it's not intended or designed to replace the player taking control of their troops.
Yes for the first paragraph. But still. You can be sure you won't have any casualities, which reflect the reality. Yes 20 injuried in front of looters is not good or representative but it's better than dead i guess.
Again (and again) i just say it's boring. The point of a video game is to entertain the player. Video game has to have a leveling, a progression. And chase 7 bandits with 200 men because i know that i will loose a soldier in AB is not fun, it's just a bad implementation of a feature.
I actually used auto resolve for the first time last night. It saved me a ton of time. I have some shrubs that needed to level up and fighting 20 actual battles against looters would have taken at least two hours of my valuable gaming time. Instead I auto resolved a bunch of looter fights, got my men trained and got my army back to the front for some epic battles. I also took many prisoners which I turned in for influence.
I like AR the way it is. It kind of serves a purpose. It lets you ignore the crap battles so you can spend more time with the fun battles.
Totally agree. Exept one thing : it should work with all bandits this way, not only against looters.