Archers are stupid

[Arkyll]

Archers need to be told how to shoot in a formation.

- They refuse to shoot if someone is standing in front of them. Not even directly in front of them, just generally in the proximity of them.

- Their smooth brains are only able to shoot something that they have direct line of sight of.

- They will often focus fire on random cavalry instead of a mass of enemies that are a greater threat toward them.

I have lost and won games because of rogue cavalry units running around preventing archers from being useful.

You can literally place a horde of archers on the direct flank of an infantry battalion and they will still find a way to shoot at some Vlandian's pet goldfish instead.

 

[hruza]

- They refuse to shoot if someone is standing in front of them. Not even directly in front of them, just generally in the proximity of them.

Because arrows can pass through solid objects?

- Their smooth brains are only able to shoot something that they have direct line of sight of.

Yea, indirect artillery and radio correction was not invented in Bannerlord yet. Try hiring some talented engineer? I saw couple hanging around in taverns.

- They will often focus fire on random cavalry instead of a mass of enemies that are a greater threat toward them.

AI target preference can be wonky but also random cavalry can seem like a greater threat to an archer standing in front of it's lance then some infantry formation on the other side of the field that needs to be eliminated in clever tactical plan you have in your head. Battlefield command and control was an issue on the Medieval battlefield and so this is not entirely unrealistic.

I have lost and won games because of rogue cavalry units running around preventing archers from being useful.

Good to hear. It's always refreshing to see AI using it's cavalry against player archers properly.

You can literally place a horde of archers on the direct flank of an infantry battalion and they will still find a way to shoot at some Vlandian's pet goldfish instead.

AI (including of player units) have certain order of preference in which it will target enemy formations. Cavalry for example first targets enemy horse archers then archers then infantry (as far as I remember) and so on. There might be also difference in which order you use (charge, advance, sergeants take command). It would certainly help if devs would make clear to the player things like this to avoid frustration when player does something with certain intention only to see AI doing something completely unexpected. In my opinion bigger problem then limitations of the AI, which will always be present, is when player does not know those limitations and thus can't control his units because he does not know the rules of AI behavior.

Also making it possible for player to order his units to attack particular enemy formation is something that I would like to see implemented.

What I certainly don't want to see is archers shooting through other archers and friendly troops and archers shooting target they can't see. Because that frankly would be stupid and immersion breaking. It certainly was in the Warband. So kudos to devs for fixing that.

 

[Arkyll]

Because arrows can pass through solid objects?

Not actually in direct line of fire.

Yea, indirect artillery and radio correction was not invented in Bannerlord yet. Try hiring some talented engineer? I saw couple hanging around in taverns.

You dont need line of sight to know there is a massive army over a hill.

AI target preference can be wonky but also random cavalry can seem like a greater threat to an archer standing in front of it's lance then some infantry formation on the other side of the field that needs to be eliminated in clever tactical plan you have in your head.

Clever tactical plan like shooting the huge enemy formation in front of them?

Good to hear. It's always refreshing to see AI using it's cavalry against player archers properly.

Good to see cavalry abusing archers lack of priority targeting AI?
That isnt a good thing at all, especially considering that you are entirely reliant upon what the archers feel like shooting at.

Apparently Generals didnt give archers orders in Medieval times.

They just told them to shoot at whatever they felt like.

Pull the other leg.

 

[Aurex]

They're a little wonky, that's for sure. Still, the most glaring issue I see with their behavior is that they ignore certain obvious threats (massed infantry about to charge them) and often just stand in place as if there were no targets. Their behavior in sieges is even worse: they refuse to use cover in a moderately intelligent way and they can easily see the end of battle while having been standing idle on the far side of the walls, never having shot a single arrow.

 

[Arkyll]

They're a little wonky, that's for sure. Still, the most glaring issue I see with their behavior is that they ignore certain obvious threats (massed infantry about to charge them) and often just stand in place as if there were no targets. Their behavior in sieges is even worse: they refuse to use cover in a moderately intelligent way and they can easily see the end of battle while having been standing idle on the far side of the walls, never having shot a single arrow.

I forgot to mention the fact that half the time they refuse to fire for absolutely no reason.

Sieges especially, where both sides tend to stare each other to death.

 

[WNxSpectre]

Archers need to be told how to shoot in a formation.

- They refuse to shoot if someone is standing in front of them. Not even directly in front of them, just generally in the proximity of them.

- Their smooth brains are only able to shoot something that they have direct line of sight of.

- They will often focus fire on random cavalry instead of a mass of enemies that are a greater threat toward them.

I have lost and won games because of rogue cavalry units running around preventing archers from being useful.

You can literally place a horde of archers on the direct flank of an infantry battalion and they will still find a way to shoot at some Vlandian's pet goldfish instead.

They have one incredible ability though, and that is the ability to fire into a mass of friendly and enemy soldiers and somehow not kill any friendly units. Truly impressive.

 

[Discount_Blade]

Dunno. I've never had issues with archers. And my archers during siege battles are deadly. However, the enemy archers during siege battles tend to be deadly as well. I probably lose as many archers in a single siege as I do 2-3 field battles. And I have higher archer death rates in sieges, not wounded.

 

[Discount_Blade]

My only real complaint is cavalry. One single infantryman can just stop one horseman during the charge instantaneously with only minimal damage to infantryman! Just by standing in the way???? Yeah no.

 

[hruza]

Not actually in direct line of fire.

I have no problem with archers not shooting if they have clear line of fire. Make sure they are in skirmish formational and not deeper then 2 rows. Then they will all shoot most of the time.

You dont need line of sight to know there is a massive army over a hill.

How, with telepathy? Indirect fire is a modern thing. They might have been able to shoot at the static object that they saw before and have at last approximate estimate where it lies in relation with objects that they can see. And then I doubt that too. But shooting at a mobile target they can't see and have no idea where it is? Sorry, nope. "Over the hill" is not sufficient targeting information. You know where enemy is in relation to the "hill", because you see them. But they don't.

Clever tactical plan like shooting the huge enemy formation in front of them?

Exactly, your clever tactical plan that exposed them to enemy infantry and cavalry charge at the same time

Good to see cavalry abusing archers lack of priority targeting AI?

AI priority been different from your priority is not lack of priority. I said that AI can be wonky in this, but you can't expect AI to be as good as human one. I consider lack of clarity about AI target priorities to be bigger problem then fact that it's not as good as human I. For example do you know what is the difference between various attack commands (charge, advance, take command)? Because I don't know. I know some differences from experimenting, or I think I know, but I have no clear idea of what the differences are in principle. That is a major problem. Game is out for many months and we still don't know what those orders do. If somebody have a link to description, please post it.

That isnt a good thing at all, especially considering that you are entirely reliant upon what the archers feel like shooting at.

I said that having ability to order targeting specific enemy formation would be a good thing to have. I don't think it's a critical thing but it would certainly prevent issues like ones you're having and would improve playability.

Apparently Generals didnt give archers orders in Medieval times.

They just told them to shoot at whatever they felt like.

Pull the other leg.

Medieval battles were not RTS games where general could click friendly and enemy units and micromanage where they shoot. And Medieval combatants were not brainless emotionless computer bots. Command and control was not trivial.

 

[hruza]

My only real complaint is cavalry. One single infantryman can just stop one horseman during the charge instantaneously with only minimal damage to infantryman! Just by standing in the way???? Yeah no.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Third Law of Motion, Isaac Newton

And this is how third law of motion looks like in horse to people interactions:



That "infantrywoman" stopped horse all right. True, not without damage (she died), but not without damage to the horse either. In a game with relatively simple AI that is not very good at preventing collisions, implementing realistic damage from collision would mean that both your and enemy armies would die few seconds after meeting in the middle of the battlefield in one huge pile of corpses.

 

[The Horrorlord]

idk if you do this but with my archers i hit f3-f1 and force their focus onto the armies. hope it helps.

 

[WNxSpectre]

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Third Law of Motion, Isaac Newton

And this is how third law of motion looks like in horse to people interactions:



That "infantrywoman" stopped horse all right. True, not without damage (she died), but not without damage to the horse either. In a game with relatively simple AI that is not very good at preventing collisions, implementing realistic damage from collision would mean that both your and enemy armies would die few seconds after meeting in the middle of the battlefield in one huge pile of corpses.

This is why Footmen desperately need a braced command, that would tell them to brace their spears against the ground to work as a spear wall against cavalry charges. The damage from charging into such a spear should be huge, along the lines of the couch lance at full speed.

 

[Doktor Barber]

mine will generally shoot as long as they can shoot over anything thats in front of them.
whether or not you can shoot over a hill depends on the arrows trajectory and if you were to just draw the bow less to compensate it will do no damage, and no that pop culture thing where archers shoot way up into the sky and let the arrows fall down was not actually done.
i agree about the cav thing though, while it does make sense for them to shoot at a closer target, the whole damn unit shouldnt be pivoting out of formation to face them. You can atleast manually tell them to face a certain direction, even if it is annoying to have to do.

 

[hruza]

This is why Footmen desperately need a braced command, that would tell them to brace their spears against the ground to work as a spear wall against cavalry charges. The damage from charging into such a spear should be huge, along the lines of the couch lance at full speed.

That wouldn't solve the problem because cavalry would simply suicide themselves on braced spears. In real life, cavalry did not collide in to "braced" spear or pike formations. In Bannerlord AI will happily do that. But we have been discussing it here:

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/suggestion-braced-formation-command.441082/

And please don't take me wrong, I would very much like bracing in SP, just not at the expense of making cavalry useless.

 

[WNxSpectre]

That wouldn't solve the problem because cavalry would simply suicide themselves on braced spears. In real life, cavalry did not collide in to "braced" spear or pike formations. In Bannerlord AI will happily do that. But we have been discussing it here:

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/suggestion-braced-formation-command.441082/

And please don't take me wrong, I would very much like bracing in SP, just not at the expense of making cavalry useless.

Well yes I mostly agree with you that the AI would need to be made reluctant to charge into such formations, unless the enemy commander had very poor leadership skills, which sometimes should be the case. I think from time to time if you trigger the formation change after the cavalry have committed to a charge, you should be able to catch them, by cunning timing. It would be very rewarding to out fox a mounted opponents army in this manner.

I do agree with the point that Cavalry should be knocking footmen down when they collide at speed and doing greater damage when at high speed. But to offset the advantages this brings, Footmen need to be able to initiate a defensive line. Taleworld's has mentioned that they are working on such spear bracing.

 

[hruza]

Well yes I mostly agree with you that the AI would need to be made reluctant to charge into such formations, unless the enemy commander had very poor leadership skills, which sometimes should be the case.

Case does not lie just in command, thing is, horse is intelligent being with self preservation instincts. It will not willingly impale itself:

I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it.

The Art of War by Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[WNxSpectre]

Case does not lie just in command, thing is, horse is intelligent being with self preservation instincts. It will not willingly impale itself:

I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it.

The Art of War by Niccolo Machiavelli

For the most part we appear to agree and you make good points regarding some details I may have overlooked. I respect your contributions to the conversation.

 

[D0c1]

If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it.

Horse dies after slamming head-first into the wall at Rodeo | Daily Mail Online

A Horse was killed after slamming head-first into the wall at Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo bronc riding event.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[hruza]

...

Those are accidents, not horses deliberately running in to walls.

For the most part we appear to agree and you make good points regarding some details I may have overlooked. I respect your contributions to the conversation.

Likewise and much appreciated!

 

[CalarTheMerciless]

They're a little wonky, that's for sure. Still, the most glaring issue I see with their behavior is that they ignore certain obvious threats (massed infantry about to charge them) and often just stand in place as if there were no targets. Their behavior in sieges is even worse: they refuse to use cover in a moderately intelligent way and they can easily see the end of battle while having been standing idle on the far side of the walls, never having shot a single arrow.

I completely agree, siege defenders and attacking archers are messed up. Currently about 50% shoot the others look around confused until you shoot them in the face.