Archers are stupid

[D0c1]

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

accidents because horses seems to be stupid enough to run at walls and cars instead of stopping or changing their running path.

 

[WNxSpectre]

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





Likewise and much appreciated!

True, but worth paying attention to how hard it was for that horse to suddenly stop or change direction at full speed.
Also warhorses are specially trained to follow their riders commands even when their instinct should otherwise be telling them to flee for their lives, amidst all kinds of dangers.

 

[hruza]

accidents because horses seems to be stupid enough to run at walls and cars instead of stopping or changing their running path.

And people seems to be stupid enough to hit the lamp posts. Accidents are not evidence of stupidity. They are evidence of existence of accidents and nothing more.

True, but worth paying attention to how hard it was for that horse to suddenly stop or change direction at full speed.
Also warhorses are specially trained to follow their riders commands even when their instinct should otherwise be telling them to flee for their lives, amidst all kinds of dangers.

That's true, but that's the case when horse does not have time to stop or change direction from the moment it have noticed the danger. In a cavalry charge it have plenty of time to react because it can see enemy formation from afar, which is why Machiavelli write about horse "checking his gait". Btw, cavalry charges were rarely performed at maximum speed. Horses galloping at maximum speed can't hold formation (see citation below). Byzantine cataphracts performed charge even at walk.

Also, horses are notorious to get spooked easily, and by most unexpected reasons. Spooked horses are know to act in all sorts of stupid ways (most of those accident videos show spooked horses).

In order to maintain formation and to preserve the freedom to manoeuvre, all of the riders in the attacking formation would need to have their horses in at most a collected canter, on the same lead – in a headlong gallop, it is not realistically possible to maintain formation, or to remain on the same lead, and without collection, it is not possible to execute the pinpoint manoeuvres required.

Even without other stressors, being able to bring your horse into collection on command, and to control its lead while in movement, requires advanced horsemanship skills – not just an easy familiarity in the saddle (though that certainly helps), but acquired skill in horse and rider.

For the individual miles, maintaining formation discipline and calibrated speed is not just a challenge in terms of holding position relative to his comrades, but in terms of controlling the horse. Horses in a group tend to act as a herd. If one horse begins galloping, all will, and it is then exceedingly difficult to re-establish control (which explains why officers regularly dealt harshly with a trooper who broke ranks and dashed forward). Also, a stampeding herd is liable to overlook obstacles such as ditches, caltrops or stakes, and will be upon them before they can react.

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages

 

[D0c1]

And people seems to be stupid enough to hit the lamp posts

people hit lamp posts because they're not looking/phased out while walking. one can't phase out while sprinting.
are you going to ignore what's happening irl and believe the words of that guy?

 

[hruza]

people hit lamp posts because they're not looking/phased out while walking. one can't phase out while sprinting.
are you going to ignore what's happening irl and believe the words of that guy?

That guy was commanding armies of Florence in several battles and experienced cavalry charges in person. Yes I very much believe his words and will ignore videos of random accidents that are evidence of nothing.

 

[D0c1]

That guy was commanding armies of Florence in several battles and experienced cavalry charges in person

can you cite the battles he commanded and the cavalry charges he witnessed?
wikipedia says he commanded the siege of pisa and maybe the siege of parto.
i failed to find what battles he participated in.

 

[hruza]

can you cite the battles he commanded and the cavalry charges he witnessed?
wikipedia says he commanded the siege of pisa and maybe the siege of parto.
i failed to find what battles he participated in.

He commanded Florentine army during invasion and capture of Pisa and then during invasion of Tuscany and Florence by Ramon de Cardona during War of the League of Cambri. I can't give you details of any of those evets.

 

[CalarTheMerciless]

I thi k you guys are forgetting about the existence of blinders. They are specifically so that animals will charge a line of men. If a horse cant see and is trained to trust you it will hit a wall of spears and flesh at speed.

A war horse cost a small fortune as it was conditioned to ignore the fact it was blind and the sounds of violence / screaming / surprise sounds.

So will a horse charge a wall of pikes sure, depending on its training.

 

[Megumin]

- 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.

I also get that issue when I have to many archers. Solved it by putting them in loose formations.


Also I did not expect this thread to suddenly turn into posting videos of horses getting badly injured or killed on camera...

 

[hruza]

I thi k you guys are forgetting about the existence of blinders. They are specifically so that animals will charge a line of men. If a horse cant see and is trained to trust you it will hit a wall of spears and flesh at speed.

A war horse cost a small fortune as it was conditioned to ignore the fact it was blind and the sounds of violence / screaming / surprise sounds.

So will a horse charge a wall of pikes sure, depending on its training.

Nope, that's not how blinders work:

How Do Horse Blinders Work?

Horse’s have the largest eyes of any land mammal. As you can imagine, this provides them with an incredible field of vision. Astonishingly close to 360 degrees, most equine experts agree that a horse can see around 350 degrees. Because horses are naturally prey animals, they rely on their impeccable eyesight to alert them of a threat. While this is an excellent trait in the wild, it can present challenges for riders.

Horse blinders work to effectively restrict a horse’s field of vision, forcing the horse to focus on what is in front of them. By minimizing possible distractions to the sides and rear of the horse, blinders often help a horse to perform with greater focus and dedication. Additionally, horse blinders eliminate the potential for spooking, something that can cause disruption or possible injury during a race or pulling work.

What Horse Blinders Are Used For: Everything You Need to Know

Blinders make horses to see and focus better on what's in front of them and not made them blind.

 

[Arkyll]

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

Actually they were not exposed to either. That is why it was a such a "clever tactical plan" (you know, flanking) and why I am making this post.

Stop speaking with a high horse attitude and acting as if you have context when you dont.

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.



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.

Why are you even arguing about this then? If you know that the system is flawed then why are you picking apart my criticisms, when the ability to target specific formations would (presumably) stop this hap-hazard-omni-directional-shooting problem.

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.

But we are playing an RTS game? What is your angle with this statement exactly?

Bannerlord is not a realistic medieval battle simulator, a good example being the paper Armour.

 

[Arkyll]

Oh and to add, I wasn't necessarily even referring to being able to attack targets over opaque terrain in the OP, but their inability to shoot over friendly troops (within safe margins) at times.

 

[hruza]

Why are you even arguing about this then? If you know that the system is flawed then why are you picking apart my criticisms, when the ability to target specific formations would (presumably) stop this hap-hazard-omni-directional-shooting problem.

I newer said that system is flawed. I said that AI is newer going to be as good at target picking as human. So scale your expectations and try to incorporate it in to your tactics. If you stop putting AI in to situation it can't handle the way you want, you would be less frustrated.

Archer target picking is not perfect but it's reasonable. Nowhere near as bad as you are trying it to look.

But we are playing an RTS game? What is your angle with this statement exactly?

No, we are not. We are playing RPG game.

Bannerlord is not a realistic medieval battle simulator, a good example being the paper Armour.

Realistic medieval battle simulator doesn't exist.

 

[hruza]

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.

 

[Arkyll]

I newer said that system is flawed. I said that AI is newer going to be as good at target picking as human. So scale your expectations and try to incorporate it in to your tactics. If you stop putting AI in to situation it can't handle the way you want, you would be less frustrated.

Archer target picking is not perfect but it's reasonable. Nowhere near as bad as you are trying it to look.



No, we are not. We are playing RPG game.



Realistic medieval battle simulator doesn't exist.

You are just in denial at this point.

If you are managing to interpret 'shoot the mass of infantry in direct line of fire and sight' as a """high expectation""", then I am sorry, but you clearly have a LOW STANDARDS problem. It really isnt much to ask, and im not sure why it is even a debate when you yourself said that the game could do with a targeting command.

And no, you are wrong, Bannerlord is in-part an RTS game. Thats literally half the appeal of the battles. What game have you been playing?

 

[Arkyll]

Anyway, so this is what I was referring to about archers not shooting if people are "in front" of them

20210326221251-1 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20210326221251-1 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

The enemy are a good distance away and the friendlies in front are arranged in a way that they wouldnt be shot into the back of their heads.
Yet only about half of them can be bothered to shoot.

Why cant they just shoot over or around?

And if it really isnt possible to shoot over or around, then I would prefer a better system of splitting archers into numerous groups so that I can separate them into ugly looking thin lines.

 

[Apocal]

And if it really isnt possible to shoot over or around, then I would prefer a better system of splitting archers into numerous groups so that I can separate them into ugly looking thin lines.

F1+drag and drop.

 

[WNxSpectre]

I thi k you guys are forgetting about the existence of blinders. They are specifically so that animals will charge a line of men. If a horse cant see and is trained to trust you it will hit a wall of spears and flesh at speed.

A war horse cost a small fortune as it was conditioned to ignore the fact it was blind and the sounds of violence / screaming / surprise sounds.

So will a horse charge a wall of pikes sure, depending on its training.

Anyway, so this is what I was referring to about archers not shooting if people are "in front" of them

20210326221251-1 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20210326221251-1 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

The enemy are a good distance away and the friendlies in front are arranged in a way that they wouldnt be shot into the back of their heads.
Yet only about half of them can be bothered to shoot.

Why cant they just shoot over or around?

And if it really isnt possible to shoot over or around, then I would prefer a better system of splitting archers into numerous groups so that I can separate them into ugly looking thin lines.

Id like to see a collective fire command to tell archers to fire together enmasse to hammer the enemy collectively. It would be cool if the unit in command of their formation also would yell "Knock!" to tell them to prepare their arrows, and then "Loose!" to signal them to collectively fire.

 

[WNxSpectre]

But we are playing an RTS game? What is your angle with this statement exactly?

Bannerlord is not a realistic medieval battle simulator, a good example being the paper Armour.

His point is that in real life battles can be chaotic and difficult to command, so there should be a degree of this in the game, along with a need for unit commanders to take control of units on the field at times.

Bannerlord is meant to be an immersive sandbox game with many elements, battle field strategy being only one of those elements. This is not Total War, if you come into this game expecting it to be Total War then you are will be disappointed.

 

[Arkyll]

His point is that in real life battles can be chaotic and difficult to command, so there should be a degree of this in the game, along with a need for unit commanders to take control of units on the field at times.

Except at this stage there appears to be less control than what would have been possible.

If you are to tell me that archers did not get given targets to shoot at in history, I am sorry but you are mistaken.

Bannerlord is meant to be an immersive sandbox game with many elements, battle field strategy being only one of those elements. This is not Total War, if you come into this game expecting it to be Total War then you are will be disappointed.

And this is also not an argument for less control.

Bannerlord has the advantage over Total War in being able to play as your own character, your own soldier in battle as opposed to being an omnipresent god figure in command over everyone.
So already the comparison with Total War in doesnt bear fruit because the system is already fundamentally different.

Wanting the ability to command archers with more autonomy is not tipping that holy balance into slippery slope RTS-Total War territory.