Armies not attacking each other at war?

[chillboy]

Armies not attacking each other even in a face-to-face situation, they like just pass by each other, both armies have about the same size and neither of them is fleeing, they just literally pass by each other...

I feel like the AI lords are obsessed with the siege, ignoring field battles, is this a potential issue or is this intended?

Edit: I'm on 1.20

 

[Pt.C]

In ea, no matter how outrageous it is, it's going to look normal......

 

[great_khan]

the biger problem is out side troop and city defender cant join to each other, if you atack the atacker city defender dont come out and help you. and ai wait till atcher numbers rediuce then atcking them.

 

[mfuegemann]

If the armies are of alomst the same strength (not necessary numbers only) they should avoid open confrontation until there are allies near.
Every commander should think further than the next battle, so for me such behaviour, if intended, is quite feasable.

 

[ironiccookies]

I think the AI sets its priority first. If it wants to siege, it'll siege. Even if it has 300 army of high tier troops and there's an enemy army of 300 with only recruits. We know to kill all those recruits. The AI doesn't.

 

[paladinx333]

This seems to be new behavior with 1.1.0+. The AI has been altered in some fairly disturbing ways. They are also attacking towns deep inside enemy territory while ignoring targets closer to home.

In my current game the Khuzait besieged a city of the Western Empire, marching their army through the lands of the Northerm and Southern Empires to get there. I never saw such behavior prior to 1.1.0.

Someone has obviously been reworking the AI and so far their efforts seem to have made things worse.

 

[Pejot]

That's probably caused by their target priorities. Both armies chose some fief to besiege so they don't give a **** about anything around them. This problem occurs to me since release. Only field battles are when one army tries to break siege of another one. Haven't seen a single filed battle in the middle of land all of them near settlments.

The AI tends to have 2 priorities:
1. Besiege
2. Break siege

I see them only choosing between those two.

They should add some "crash enemy main force before going on besiegieng rampage"

 

[Pt.C]

:Hello, enemy.
:What's up?
:I'm going to tear your house down.
:Cool, let's to see who destroys faster!

 

[Catskinner]

If the armies are of alomst the same strength (not necessary numbers only) they should avoid open confrontation until there are allies near.
Every commander should think further than the next battle, so for me such behaviour, if intended, is quite feasable.

This. I know this isn't a strictly historical game but has more than a nod to it. If you look at conflicts like the Hundred Years' War, commanders avoided field battles like the plague unless they were pretty much certain they could win. Consider the English retreat, avoiding battle, that culminated at Agincourt. The battle was only fought because the English couldn't escape.

 

[Pt.C]

This. I know this isn't a strictly historical game but has more than a nod to it. If you look at conflicts like the Hundred Years' War, commanders avoided field battles like the plague unless they were pretty much certain they could win. Consider the English retreat, avoiding battle, that culminated at Agincourt. The battle was only fought because the English couldn't escape.

Under normal circumstances, passive-aggressive tactics could easily lead to a court-martial...

 

[Catskinner]

Under normal circumstances, passive-aggressive tactics could easily lead to a court-martial...

I agree, but only in a later period of history than this game draws upon (Admiral Byng for example). To use the HYW as an example again, armies spent much more time avoiding each other by sieging or going on chevauchees than engaging in potentially disastrous field battles. This seems to chime in with activities in the game where armies will raid rather than face a battle at near even odds.

 

[Pejot]

I agree, but only in a later period of history than this game draws upon (Admiral Byng for example). To use the HYW as an example again, armies spent much more time avoiding each other by sieging or going on chevauchees than engaging in potentially disastrous field battles. This seems to chime in with activities in the game where armies will raid rather than face a battle at near even odds.

Yep but they also used natural passages to stop enemy advance. Destroyed villages and raided cities were a huge problem so they tried to stop enemy before they could destroy their land. Of course there were exceptions of these were defender needed to use guerilla tactics and fortifying in strategic places because he didn't stand any chance in field.

There's lack of such tactics in bannerlord. Everything is around besieging/breaking sieges.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

This. I know this isn't a strictly historical game but has more than a nod to it. If you look at conflicts like the Hundred Years' War, commanders avoided field battles like the plague unless they were pretty much certain they could win. Consider the English retreat, avoiding battle, that culminated at Agincourt. The battle was only fought because the English couldn't escape.

Field armies avoiding each other is fairly believable, armies literally walking past each other is not.

Also the Hundred Years War is fairly exceptional in how much raiding and sieging there was compared to open engagement. I don't think we should look at it as the archetypical feudal war. Armies would sometimes fight even if they weren't sure of victory because to retreat would mean the collapse of their political order anyway. Individual lords might be frustrated by constant jockeying, and kings would be wary of their army just disintegrating over time. Pitched battles in the middle ages were rare but they weren't just a last resort.

 

[chillboy]

This seems to be new behavior with 1.1.0+. The AI has been altered in some fairly disturbing ways. They are also attacking towns deep inside enemy territory while ignoring targets closer to home.

In my current game the Khuzait besieged a city of the Western Empire, marching their army through the lands of the Northerm and Southern Empires to get there. I never saw such behavior prior to 1.1.0.

Someone has obviously been reworking the AI and so far their efforts seem to have made things worse.

I really hope they can introduce the concept 'border' into the game when it's formally released, I'm on 1.20 (nearly 800 in-game days so far), the territory of all factions are so intertwined that it doesn't make any sense. When at war, you'd take huge risk to go deep into the territory of enemies' land, not like current game(1.20) lords just like knocking about randomly.

Edit: I actually played a mod with something like a 'gate' in Warband(12th) and it's really fun, because the terrain actually matters, some castles/settlements have pretty advantageous positions, it's fun because you need step-by-step siege, because all those 'gate' castles will block you from going further when at war.

 

[chillboy]

That's probably caused by their target priorities. Both armies chose some fief to besiege so they don't give a **** about anything around them. This problem occurs to me since release. Only field battles are when one army tries to break siege of another one. Haven't seen a single filed battle in the middle of land all of them near settlments.

The AI tends to have 2 priorities:
1. Besiege
2. Break siege

I see them only choosing between those two.

They should add some "crash enemy main force before going on besiegieng rampage"

Indeed, there are a lot of things need to take into consideration when at war, it's far more than just siege and break-siege.

 

[Maximuuus]

Yea I see the exact same impossible behaviour... A 350 army walking on a straight line to beseige an ennemy castle in the middle of nowhere... And this ennemy 500 army just walking on the opposite direction to beseige another castle...

They were 10m from each other, running to their improbable objective...
It looks they didn't see each other......

 

[Earth Dragon]

Armies not attacking each other even in a face-to-face situation, they like just pass by each other, both armies have about the same size and neither of them is fleeing, they just literally pass by each other...

I feel like the AI lords are obsessed with the siege, ignoring field battles, is this a potential issue or is this intended?

Admittedly only read a few comments.

Many of these armies have been summoned to meet up with another army. They are following orders. I believe you can click on the ally army and read that is what they are doing.

On a side note, I really wish faction Lords had the ability to summon you to an, with an influence penalty if you don’t make it. I’ve decided to take a couple weeks break from the game to let some of these issues get ironed out and come back in. I control the entire eastern range of Aserai territory from Tamnuh to Husn Falq for my lady Rhegae, and I’d really like to keep this play through going with some more meat to the game and some fixes!!