Battle Terrain System: Thank You Taleworlds

[bestmods168]

I tested campaign with the Empire. I joined the Empire as a vassal and joined their army. Just let the game run by itself.
"An Aserai army of 853 chases the sieging Empire army of 539. The speed of the two armies are dead even. The chase goes on until the chasing army corners the Empire army into a mountain wall. The battle takes place. Once again, I let ai play as to not influence the outcome. In my experience, generally when the odds are like this with ai vs ai, the smaller number usually loses. However, due to the battle terrain system, being cornered on the mountain side on the campaign map allowed us to start at the top of the mountain. The Aserai was forced to go up the slope and their cavalry was slow as heck. The Empire won after their first infantry block got destroyed and another reinforcement block came to take their place. The remaining 100-200 Aserai retreated.

@developers, I've noticed that the Aserai cavalry isn't aggressive. They tend to stay put until its too late where they lose a good chuck on their cavalry before they start attacking. This is not the same for Vlandia and Empire. Their cavalry usually smash into enemy infantry with success.

 

[Moton]

Cool. Never thought about the terrain system this way. It opens up more strategy than I first thought.

 

[Chiprel]

Battle terrain system idea is really great. Problem is with autocalc/autoresolve when ai fights ai on world map. It doesn't take any terrain like that into account. The battle only went differently as you watched it/was part of it. If 2 ai parties fought there without you looking(being in battle) the other party would win

 

[Julio-Claudian]

Yeah I love the new maps. I think they need to work on where on the map you spawn though, often its the wrong side of a river or just not on the spot on the battle map which corresponds to the position on the campaign map.

 

[bestmods168]

Battle terrain system idea is really great. Problem is with autocalc/autoresolve when ai fights ai on world map. It doesn't take any terrain like that into account. The battle only went differently as you watched it/was part of it. If 2 ai parties fought there without you looking(being in battle) the other party would win

Definitely. I think it needs to be aligned with how the battle really plays out on the battlefield. The formula must be unbalanced somewhere. Hope its tweaked to be more predictable.

Yeah I love the new maps. I think they need to work on where on the map you spawn though, often its the wrong side of a river or just not on the spot on the battle map which corresponds to the position on the campaign map.

I made a recommendation back then that the maps should have tags to more accurately spawn in battle. Such tags could be 10% forest, 60% plain, river=yes, etc. I know that it will be a lot of maps, but maybe this can be limited to 25%, 50, 75, 100, etc. I've played quite a few bridge battles and it definitely needs improvement. I'm definitely seeing what you're seeing too.

 

[Chiprel]

Autocalc for battles is very very simple and I doubt they have engine capabilities to change it now.
Topic made 2+ years ago on reddit with explanation:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Just read and see how bad it is :p

 

[bestmods168]

Autocalc for battles is very very simple and I doubt they have engine capabilities to change it now.
Topic made 2+ years ago on reddit with explanation:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Just read and see how bad it is :p

 

[Madeloc]

Think it’s good.
Aserai cavalry are also mounted skirmishers, they tend - as HA - to go on the right to be able to throw their Jeered.
They don’t charge straight forward as Vlandians, Imperial, any cavalry without any throwing weapons.

 

[bestmods168]

Think it’s good.
Aserai cavalry are also mounted skirmishers, they tend - as HA - to go on the right to be able to throw their Jeered.
They don’t charge straight forward as Vlandians, Imperial, any cavalry without any throwing weapons.

the cavalry in question didn't have throwing weapons. I was surprised to find them sitting back and doing nothing. Maybe the calculations told them that they were at a disadvantage.

 

[froggyluv]

Autocalc for battles is very very simple and I doubt they have engine capabilities to change it now.
Topic made 2+ years ago on reddit with explanation:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Just read and see how bad it is :p

Modders for M&B1 did a decent job of building up a better more robust Auto-Calc that took terrain, actual weapons and armor into account -why cant Bannerlord? There should be nothing about the Engine which cant just crunch numbers and even if there were you could always use a bridge software

 

[Mad Vader]

It's just formulas, nothing to with "engine capabilities".

 

[Danijongo]

Spoiler: Battle Statistics in various formations & terrains

this is one video out of numerous but the consensus is that terrain is not really a factor.

This is all brilliant really but as some nerds in the community have tested out, for the most part the terrain actually plays a smaller role than we would like to think.

Perhaps archers shooting from above at slower targets going straight-uphill and cavalry being slower and more prone to stuck in a blob instead of open-field charges give this an element of play.
All in all it seems if you put identical formations head-on with different terrain advantages: all outcomes would still reach the same 50-50% and it's a bit lackluster of an element to consider. (unless you really micro-manage around it)

There's still ways to improve this but it's definitely welcomed as a feature nonetheless.

 

[Ogagon]

Spoiler: Battle Statistics in various formations & terrains

this is one video out of numerous but the consensus is that terrain is not really a factor.

This is all brilliant really but as some nerds in the community have tested out, for the most part the terrain actually plays a smaller role than we would like to think.

Perhaps archers shooting from above at slower targets going straight-uphill and cavalry being slower and more prone to stuck in a blob instead of open-field charges give this an element of play.
All in all it seems if you put identical formations head-on with different terrain advantages: all outcomes would still reach the same 50-50% and it's a bit lackluster of an element to consider. (unless you really micro-manage around it)

There's still ways to improve this but it's definitely welcomed as a feature nonetheless.

The only thing the terrain can affect is the cavalry.
Archers don't suffer much even if there's a height disadvantage, and infantry uses shields, runs too fast for their legs, and doesn't really get bogged down as much as they should.
Still, infantry's only role for me was to protect the mini-nukes that the archers shoot out.

 

[bestmods168]

The only thing the terrain can affect is the cavalry.
Archers don't suffer much even if there's a height disadvantage, and infantry uses shields, runs too fast for their legs, and doesn't really get bogged down as much as they should.
Still, infantry's only role for me was to protect the mini-nukes that the archers shoot out.

Do you think it will be too "fantasy" if disadvantage troops get stat penalties and such? The only method I can think of this getting implemented would be to allow the navi meshes to be given the terrain properties like on the world map. That would be a lot of work though.

 

[Nawari]

Admittedly, "battle" is the most successful side of this game.
They would have released a battle game with no map, no campaign, no sandbox, they would have avoided criticism, but I wouldn't have bought it.