• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

[Beta e1.6.5] AI combat ability seems very low, even at max difficulty

Users who are viewing this thread

yehrom

Squire
M&BWBWF&SVC
I am back after a long break and just started a new campaign.

In e.1.5.9 and previous versions, on foot fight used to be tricky with a fresh character.
In this beta e.1.6.5, I was able to defeat hideout's bandit leader very easly without any fighting attributes (Vigor 2 and 0 in related skills, 0 in athletics) and had also no difficulty to win tournaments within lords.

Just a feeling or AI combat abilities were severly nerfed ? Or difficulty settings bug ?
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
fighting attributes (Vigor 2 and 0 in related skills, 0 in athletics) and had also no difficulty to win tournaments within lords.
Yeah it doesn't do ****. You can have zero skill and all melee weapons work fine. speed doesn't matter because the AI won' t try to run behind you or anything. Been this way for most of EA. I think there were some changes but it was a lot earlier the 1.5.9.
 
Yeah i get this too. I am just beating everyone easy . the Ai should use foot work and block more. plus if the armour worked there could take more hits ( which it dosen't).
 

YouMoMCallME

Sergeant
I am back after a long break and just started a new campaign.

In e.1.5.9 and previous versions, on foot fight used to be tricky with a fresh character.
In this beta e.1.6.5, I was able to defeat hideout's bandit leader very easly without any fighting attributes (Vigor 2 and 0 in related skills, 0 in athletics) and had also no difficulty to win tournaments within lords.

Just a feeling or AI combat abilities were severly nerfed ? Or difficulty settings bug ?

At this point, AI is not dangerous at maximum difficulty.

There are mods:

(but it's for version 1.6.2)


these mods partially solve the problem with stupid AI
 

Rulin

Regular
I think your own experience with the game plays a huge role here. A new player will get crushed by a system that adds additional debuffs for lower levels, because they do mistakes by default. Like blocking or attacking in the wrong direction. But I guess there should be nothing wrong with it being an option for higher difficulties. OP didn't mention at what difficulty the game is set.
 
You can have zero skill and all melee weapons work fine.
It's not a problem with stats or character progression, it's an AI problem.
They just made her dumber.

Honestly, not being bound to any trivial parameter that costs me time to be "leveled" and whose purpose would be to "increase the number of damage" inflicted, is the best thing for me.

This game should be more action oriented than parametric.

Characters with more athleticism should not be perpetually faster than those with less athleticism.
Because in reality, even a person who does not know how to do 20 meters of very fast sprint can perform a quick step for half a second, resulting (momentarily) faster.
The AI suffers from a lack of tactics (which there was in previous versions) and the inability to perform fast non-spamable steps, as well as the player lacks such ability.
In this game, dodging a shot is only feasible if the athletics are very high and you move ridiculously fast, so much so that you change direction in an unnatural way.
Under a given athletic threshold, dodging does not exist, only enemy error exists.
Having an extra defensive mechanic, for both the player and the AI, would make the AI more capable of getting out of range of our attacks, and would make the combat system deeper in general.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
It's not a problem with stats or character progression
Sure it is, if you have ZERO SKILL you should be clumsy and slow. It should feel rewarding to build the skill up and become competent! Higher skilled troops should beat the ****ing :poop: out of lower skilled ones with no exception! SKill means you block and parry and kill the enemy, it means nothing else. There is no other merit of measurement but killing opponents in combat! They :poop:'d the bed on combat and troop balancing and char progression, they need to clean it up and wash the sheets!

Warband got it right pretty much, it's slow and clunky with low weapon skills and gets competent and then exceptional feeling!

Honestly, not being bound to any trivial parameter that costs me time to be "leveled" and whose purpose would be to "increase the number of damage" inflicted, is the best thing for me.
It's not supposed to be JUST damage, it's supposed to be over all ability to wield the weapon competently at all, that means you go to take a swing at a Knight and he kills you dead before you can even extend your attack, he's so much better then you! He can do that all day, to hundreds of POS noobs if needed because he's (or she )a professional trained soldier, trained in the weapons they carry!

This game should be more action oriented than parametric.
>that picture of the paper boss from spiderman

Characters with more athleticism should not be perpetually faster than those with less athleticism.
Sure they should and what's more low athletics troops (which should be all low tier troops) should be much slower even with low weight! A trained soldier in heavy gear should still be able to lap a POS noob troop in his panties, because he's trained at doing so and low tier troop is not!
In this game, dodging a shot is only feasible if the athletics are very high and you move ridiculously fast, so much so that you change direction in an unnatural way.
Under a given athletic threshold, dodging does not exist, only enemy error exists.
Dodging doesn't exist period 🩸, if you're bunz out infront of a guy with a ranged weapon they're gonna shoot you, either shoot them first or take cover!
 
SKill means you block and parry and kill the enemy, it means nothing else
You are contradicting yourself.
You're just saying:
it is a problem of capacity (therefore AI, movement mechanics, defense mechanics, and attack mechanics) and not of character characteristics.

You can have an AI that has 1000 strength, but if it doesn't execute attacks and defend itself because it is a fool, that "1000 strength" number doesn't tell you that that unit is stronger than one that has 20 strength but dodges everything, parries everything and it always hits you.
It's not supposed to be JUST damage, it's supposed to be over all ability to wield the weapon competently at all, that means you go to take a swing at a Knight and he kills you dead before you can even extend your attack, he's so much better then you! He can do that all day, to hundreds of POS noobs if needed because he's (or she )a professional trained soldier, trained in the weapons they carry!
And I repeat: what do the characteristics center with the ability of AI to know how to predict and respond to attacks?
I can understand if you said: 1-handed and 2-handed weapons makes animations with these weapons faster.
Well, but if the AI is imbecile, as I described above, and it is imbecile regardless of skills or characteristics, where is the strength of this unit?
In becoming unnaturally fast because he has "big numbers" but then he doesn't know how to defend or attack?
And even if the numerical contribution compensates for the imbecility of the AI, the lack of movement mechanics (fast ducking with squatting, jumping smoothly without all that final end-lag), attack and defense (like step-dodge, which is a dodge, and when I say dodge I don't mean the nonsense put in video games usually, I mean a quick step to get out of the enemy range or to suddenly approach the enemy) makes the combat system repetitive and shallow as well as unrealistic since it denies the player ability that in reality a fighter possesses.
Numbers, they DO NOT GIVE YOU this deep combat system.
The mechanics give you that and this depend on how well crafted they are.
And if you want to tie parameters to these mechanics, you are free to do so, being careful to balance them.
>that picture of the paper boss from spiderman
I don't know what you're talking about, I don't play spiderman and by "action game" I don't mean what you mean from what I understand.
By action game I mean games with combat systems less tied to arbitrary parameters and more to mechanics. Obviously these mechanics must be linked to some variables, so I opt for systems linked to physical laws.
For example in a white weapon fighting game I look a lot at movement mechanics and "gameplay realism" rather than "historical accuracy" for the simple reason that, as in kingdom come deliverance, historical accuracy (in animations) and their requiring constraints such as the tracks linked to the lock on, lead the system to be woody and slow, not based on reflexes but on the identification of attacks coming from a given direction whose recognition depends on how much you know about fencing .
So the game tends to be slow and boring, although the choreography is perfect. So a player who expects to move the sword quickly ends up playing a "point and click fixed on rails", with beautiful choreographies.
Sekiro, on the other hand, doesn't aim for historical accuracy at all, but the gameplay feel of deflecting attacks is what makes the gameplay "realistically adrenaline-pumping".
So we have the paradox that:
a game based on historical accuracy ends up not being adrenaline-pumping and slow, when in reality the clashes would have fast attacks and the adrenaline would skyrocket.
A game that isn't historically accurate at all ends up having a realistic gameplay feel.
Here is bannerlord, with the action component (4 directions of attack and defense) it tends to have a "realistic though not historically accurate gameplay", because if you think about it it does what sekiro does, not kingdom as deliverance.

But bannerlord is missing some mechanics that would deepen it.
And to balance them it would be enough to be "historically accurate".
The mechanics are:
- step-dodge, that is a fast NON-SPAMMABLE step and a short distance in any direction. You can use it to use it to get out of range of an enemy weapon such as a sword, or to suddenly get close to the enemy.
Spamming it could make it slower (like smash bross dodging, where the more you spam it, the slower and more inefficient and easily punishable it becomes).
There are no invincibility frames, no somersaults. A simple quick non-spamming and short distance step (about half a meter).
- squatting: a simple mechanic that can be used to dodge high horizontal slashes.
- jump without all this end lag. In case you are elevated with respect to the enemy and it is aiming at our games, it would be possible to jump to avoid being hit.
All three of these mechanics could be used without conflicting with the attack animations and therefore it would be possible to execute them with one attack in succession (to punish the opponent).
Obviously, to balance them, you could make the attack slower (due to several movements that are not easy to perform during these actions)
Sure they should and what's more low athletics troops (which should be all low tier troops) should be much slower even with low weight! A trained soldier in heavy gear should still be able to lap a POS noob troop in his panties, because he's trained at doing so and low tier troop is not!


You see, I consider you different situations but you do not place yourself in the situations that I make you present.
OBVIOUSLY a unit that has more athleticism in the long run and movements is faster than less athletic.
BUT, as in reality, even a slow person can ACT SUDDENLY.

The situation I am presenting to you is not a long situation, but a simple 1-on-1 battle.
Although the more athletic unit generally moves faster, if both units have step-dodge, it may happen that the slow unit uses it to approach without his opponent (generally faster than him), that does not use step-dodge but moves normally, can move away fast enough at that same juncture of time.
Or, if the character with more athleticism tends to spam attacks against the slower one, the latter would be perpetually under enemy attack and should ONLY BLOCK.
If he had the step-dogge, instead of blocking he could dodge backwards a horizontal slash that nearly reaches his face and execute a lunge, preventing the enemy from advancing recklessly.
Or he could sideways dodge a vertical slash.

In these situations, "local in space and time" should those numbers perpetually prevail?
Or the player's ability to know how to exploit the game mechanics?
I lean towards the second option because it makes combat more realistic in terms of gameplay and even historically accurate.
Dodging doesn't exist period 🩸, if you're bunz out infront of a guy with a ranged weapon they're gonna shoot you, either shoot them first or take cover!
I used the wrong term.
By shot, I didn't mean ranged weapon attacks but melee "hits".
This was what he was referring to.
In the case of hand-to-hand attacks, dodges do exist, just see any video of practicing in the use of weapons such as long swords.
Spacing is vital.
And the spacing is related to the ability to suddenly move in one direction (step-dodge) to reach that position that allows you to:
- get out of range of the enemy weapon (a sword for example)
- dodge a blow and then attack
- suddenly approaching to put the enemy under pressure

In the case of ranged weapons, such as bows and crossbows, the step-dodge is useful although not foolproof for those without shields.
Since the speed of movement of the character does not vary greatly once it is in motion, the predictability of the same is very high.
This leads an archer to shoot the arrow and hit it quite easily.
But in reality it is possible to take quick steps in the opposite direction of where you are running (or walking fast).
This could lead an archer to miss a few centimeters, but that centimeter could be enough to avoid getting hit.
Obviously, finding cover is always better, but it is necessary to give units with 2-handed weapons and without shields the possibility of going hand-to-hand against 1 archer 20 meters away. I hope I have made my thinking clearer.
I hope I have made my thinking clearer.
 
Top Bottom