[Captain Mode][Debate area-poll] Who should decide which weapon the bots use, the player or the AI?

[Suspicious_Man]

One thing I will say here is that I think I see where TW is coming from on this one. We need to look at the AI issues from a single player perspective.

Assume that we get what we ask for, and players get total control of which weapons/gear to use. We have buttons to toggle shield use, spear use, etc. If players make use of these new controls, then presumably it's because the AI wasn't selecting the correct gear/item themselves for the situation. If the AI already did the correct thing, there would be no need for the controls, right? It then follows that the AI that the player fights against will ALSO be making those sorts of incorrect choices, and giving the player weapon controls only serves to give them an advantage over the AI. There isn't anyone telling the enemy AI to weapon switch in single player games. In this situation, the ideal solution isn't to give the player more control, it's to fix the AI so the player doesn't NEED control.

We see cases like this in this very thread, where pikemen in a shieldwall are standing there holding their pikes with shields on their back. Or when enemies are engaged in melee, and a player riding in on a lone horse forces all of the enemy infantry to pull out spears. Clearly these are AI defects, and giving players control won't stop enemy AI pikemen from forming shieldwalls with their pikes out. TW is much better served by fixing the underlying AI so that players can't game the system in single player OR multiplayer.

The thing I think that isn't addressed by that argument is that in some situations the player may be planning to do something that the AI cannot forsee or that is suboptimal. Like maybe as an intimidation tactic you want to put your shields away and just run straight at the enemy with pikes out. I think these plays should be allowed, so I still favor giving optional control to players, but I totally understand wanting to address AI issues first and foremost so that manual control isn't really needed.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

One thing I will say here is that I think I see where TW is coming from on this one. We need to look at the AI issues from a single player perspective.

Assume that we get what we ask for, and players get total control of which weapons/gear to use. We have buttons to toggle shield use, spear use, etc. If players make use of these new controls, then presumably it's because the AI wasn't selecting the correct gear/item themselves for the situation. If the AI already did the correct thing, there would be no need for the controls, right? It then follows that the AI that the player fights against will ALSO be making those sorts of incorrect choices, and giving the player weapon controls only serves to give them an advantage over the AI. There isn't anyone telling the enemy AI to weapon switch in single player games. In this situation, the ideal solution isn't to give the player more control, it's to fix the AI so the player doesn't NEED control.

We see cases like this in this very thread, where pikemen in a shieldwall are standing there holding their pikes with shields on their back. Or when enemies are engaged in melee, and a player riding in on a lone horse forces all of the enemy infantry to pull out spears. Clearly these are AI defects, and giving players control won't stop enemy AI pikemen from forming shieldwalls with their pikes out. TW is much better served by fixing the underlying AI so that players can't game the system in single player OR multiplayer.

The thing I think that isn't addressed by that argument is that in some situations the player may be planning to do something that the AI cannot forsee or that is suboptimal. Like maybe as an intimidation tactic you want to put your shields away and just run straight at the enemy with pikes out. I think these plays should be allowed, so I still favor giving optional control to players, but I totally understand wanting to address AI issues first and foremost so that manual control isn't really needed.

And it is entirely legitimate and laudable that Taleworlds wants to adjust the AI as much as possible so that it performs effectively in any situation.

My question is, why instead of evolving the weapon switching commands that we had at the player's disposal in Warband, has the decision making been simplified for the player?

At least give me the option! yes ofc... there are different units with different weapons equipped... ok ...forget about orders based on weapon damage/usage... simplify it to the decision between primary and secondary weapon.

I've been very vocal on the subject and have spoken at length; however I think this comment from Ling (player and CM competitive scene coordinator) hits the nail on the head.

Ling* said:
How is adding an option for people to switch weapons for their ai too complicated?? That's just downright insulting. It's not rocket science, If my men have swords and spears both and I want them to use one over the other, I would simply press 1 button (let's say F 8 and it would cycle from that units primary weapon to it's secondary weapon. That's not too complex for players even your average joe can figure that out, and if he doesn't want to he doesn't have to use it, it would be an OPTION for players who want more control to have. The ai isn't smart enough to know when it is strategically viable to use a certain weapon, and this limits player choice and overall impact on the battlefield. I may as well just put my men on charge and eat popcorn at this rate, is that what we are striving for?

Stuff like this man... Frustrates me.

I want an Ai autonomous enough to carry out basic decision-making performance; leave the complex ones to the player. I don't want this:





And I reiterate... here on the forum we have been advocating this solution since almost mid 2019.... not to mention the existing buried posts here or threads on reddit and the Steam page.

Spoiler: Some threads

how to make your AI swap weapons?
Add more orders to increase player control over AI weapon usage under F4
AI command menu (F-Keys) needs an option to make units switch their weapons
b0.8.0 Now more than never we need a switch weapon type command
Switching Weapons in Commander Mode?
Specific weapon/shield commands
Ability to force your units to equip a certain weapon?
Battle Command: Switch Weapon ---> mine
.
.
.

 

[Younes]

I seriously don't know why people think this is a problem, you can literally just not use it and let the AI do it at will.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I seriously don't know why people think this is a problem, you can literally just not use it and let the AI do it at will.

I am not versed in the dark arts of programming, much less in dealing with the programming of an AI. However, as profane as I may be in this, I find it curious that a hold fire-fire at will command is a far cry from what is called for here; forcing a particular weapon usage at the player's will.

- By default, let the AI act autonomously.

- Each agent (both player and bot) has gear allocated in 4 slots. Rearrange the items taking into account the role of each unit. Define the weapon slots, primary and secondary for each unit.

Item0
Item1
Item2
Item3

For example:

This is fine​	This is not (see below next row)​	This is not (see below next row)​
<NPCCharacter id="vlandian_pikeman" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.fine_pike_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.vlandia_sword_4_t4" /> [...]	<NPCCharacter id="mamluke_palace_guard" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.aserai_2haxe_2_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.southern_throwing_axe_1_t4"/> [...]	<NPCCharacter id="imperial_legionary" <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.empire_sword_5_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.fortified_kite_shield" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.imperial_throwing_spear_1_t4" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="vlandian_pikeman" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.fine_pike_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.vlandia_sword_4_t4" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="mamluke_palace_guard" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.aserai_2haxe_2_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.southern_throwing_axe_1_t4" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="imperial_legionary" <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.imperial_throwing_spear_1_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.empire_sword_5_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.fortified_kite_shield" /> [...]

- All polearms are considered primary weapons if equipped. In the case of javelins, it is up to the player to define their use; for melee, by hold fire + force use of the primary weapon or for ranged action (default/ fire at will).

- If ordered to change a secondary weapon for a unit that does not have a secondary weapon equipped or these are ranged weapons, the behaviour to be followed would be to keep using the primary weapon.

Edit (+)

---

- If the agent has equipped a polearm (non-throwable spear/lance) + throwable spear/javelin (or >1), the main weapon condition should be given to the throwable one and assign the spear in the item2 slot, in which case a conditioner should be set "if the item0 projectile is depleted, force item2 as the main weapon".

<NPCCharacter id="battanian_oathsworn" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.highland_spear_4_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.battania_large_shield_b" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.battania_sword_4_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item3" id="Item.northern_javelin_3_t4" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="battanian_oathsworn" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.northern_javelin_3_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.battania_sword_4_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.highland_spear_4_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item3" id="Item.battania_large_shield_b" /> [...]

- If the agent has two secondary weapons equipped, set a conditioner so that the "system" randomly picks between the available options, item1 or item2.

<NPCCharacter id="vlandian_voulgier" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.vlandia_polearm_1_t5" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.western_2hsword_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.vlandia_sword_2_t3" /> <equipment slot="Item3" id="Item.western_throwing_axe_1_t1" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="vlandian_voulgier" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.vlandia_polearm_1_t5" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.western_2hsword_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.vlandia_sword_2_t3" /> <equipment slot="Item3" id="Item.western_throwing_axe_1_t1" /> [...]

(*) The ordering of item1 and item2 (which takes precedence over which) shall reflect the interrelation of weapon type-skills with weapon type.

---

Bring the same kind of programmed behaviour that the hold fire-fire at will command has (where you force NOT to use the weapon) to a new button (s) where you define a forced use of weapons. Here I was basically commenting about this, which I'm not implying it has to be "that way" or with those specific keybinds... just give me the option to:

1. - Force use of primary weapon (player control)
2. - Force use of secondary weapon (player control)
3. - Use any weapon at will (back to default - AI control)

 

[vfkaseke]

I am not versed in the dark arts of programming, much less in dealing with the programming of an AI. However, as profane as I may be in this, I find it curious that a hold fire-fire at will command is a far cry from what is called for here; forcing a particular weapon usage at the player's will.

- By default, let the AI act autonomously.

- Each agent (both player and bot) has gear allocated in 4 slots. Rearrange the items taking into account the role of each unit. Define the weapon slots, primary and secondary for each unit.

Item0
Item1
Item2
Item3

For example:

This is fine​	This is not (see below next row)​	This is not (see below next row)​
<NPCCharacter id="vlandian_pikeman" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.fine_pike_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.vlandia_sword_4_t4" /> [...]	<NPCCharacter id="mamluke_palace_guard" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.aserai_2haxe_2_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.southern_throwing_axe_1_t4"/> [...]	<NPCCharacter id="imperial_legionary" <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.empire_sword_5_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.fortified_kite_shield" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.imperial_throwing_spear_1_t4" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="vlandian_pikeman" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.fine_pike_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.vlandia_sword_4_t4" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="mamluke_palace_guard" [...] <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.aserai_2haxe_2_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.southern_throwing_axe_1_t4" /> [...]

<NPCCharacter id="imperial_legionary" <Equipments> <EquipmentRoster> <equipment slot="Item0" id="Item.imperial_throwing_spear_1_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item1" id="Item.empire_sword_5_t4" /> <equipment slot="Item2" id="Item.fortified_kite_shield" /> [...]

- All polearms are considered primary weapons if equipped. In the case of javelins, it is up to the player to define their use; for melee, by hold fire + force use of the primary weapon or for ranged action (default/ fire at will).

- If ordered to change a secondary weapon for a unit that does not have a secondary weapon equipped or these are ranged weapons, the behaviour to be followed would be to keep using the primary weapon.

Bring the same kind of programmed behaviour that the hold fire-fire at will command has (where you force NOT to use the weapon) to a new button (s) where you define a forced use of weapons. Here I was basically commenting about this, which I'm not implying it has to be "that way" or with those specific keybinds... just give me the option to:

1. - Force use of primary weapon (player control)
2. - Force use of secondary weapon (player control)
3. - Use any weapon at will (back to default - AI control)

Amazingly overkill explanation. I love it.

 

[Danny5]

It looks awkward when bots change their weapons one bot at a time, they look like recruits! If only they can do it at the same time

 

[Ling*]

It makes no sense that this idea would ever be rejected. This command is absolutely essential for players to be able to have more control over their troops. It is completely optional and does not at all impact casual players who don't want to use the additional micro. It has been the cause of a serious Ai exploit which has been highlighted by the captain mode community where players will send a small force of cavalry to draw out spears and pikes of shock troops who use them as secondary weapons and then they engage with their larger melee force. The Ai who detect enemy cav nearby will keep fighting using their pikes and spears instead of switching to the appropriate primary weapon. The player needs to have the ability to override this behavior otherwise this exploit is just going to keep happening, it's utterly ridiculous. If you want to have a completely hands-off approach to large battles, then why don't we just take control away from the player completely and just run simulation battles all day long if there's no point in us actually commanding our troops? It's the same thing with Focus Fire, if you allow the Ai to make these decisions for the player they are always going to be outsmarted by someone with a brain because as soon as we are able to identify a repeatable pattern of behavior we are going to exploit that behavior to our advantage.

Adding a Switch Weapons command should be a top priority and I would be willing to debate anyone on the dev team who thinks otherwise. Seriously, @Dejan I would love to talk to the person/people who are against this idea and to show them first hand why this is a serious issue. This is not to say that you shouldn't work to improve the Ai, as improving the ai is always a good thing and will improve the game immensely, but this doesn't mean you can't also give the player more control, it's not a "one or the other" situation and it baffles me to think why that's even a thought.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

It makes no sense that this idea would ever be rejected. This command is absolutely essential for players to be able to have more control over their troops. It is completely optional and does not at all impact casual players who don't want to use the additional micro. It has been the cause of a serious Ai exploit which has been highlighted by the captain mode community where players will send a small force of cavalry to draw out spears and pikes of shock troops who use them as secondary weapons and then they engage with their larger melee force. The Ai who detect enemy cav nearby will keep fighting using their pikes and spears instead of switching to the appropriate primary weapon. The player needs to have the ability to override this behavior otherwise this exploit is just going to keep happening, it's utterly ridiculous. If you want to have a completely hands-off approach to large battles, then why don't we just take control away from the player completely and just run simulation battles all day long if there's no point in us actually commanding our troops? It's the same thing with Focus Fire, if you allow the Ai to make these decisions for the player they are always going to be outsmarted by someone with a brain because as soon as we are able to identify a repeatable pattern of behavior we are going to exploit that behavior to our advantage.

Adding a Switch Weapons command should be a top priority and I would be willing to debate anyone on the dev team who thinks otherwise. Seriously, @Dejan I would love to talk to the person/people who are against this idea and to show them first hand why this is a serious issue. This is not to say that you shouldn't work to improve the Ai, as improving the ai is always a good thing and will improve the game immensely, but this doesn't mean you can't also give the player more control, it's not a "one or the other" situation and it baffles me to think why that's even a thought.

Absolutely.


Regarding Dejan... on the previous page I also tagged him to see if after more than 5 months "something had changed" and we would get an official update. The thing is, I had thought he hadn't replied because maybe he had taken a few days off ... or it could also be that the stance hasn't changed one bit ... or it could be that they are considering implementing this approach after reconsidering it...

Everything "could be"... that's the Bannerlord experience™ baby!

You never know what's going to happen, until it happens at the right time™. I hope™ that together we can achieve this goal, I am by no means a guru, but such a "system" is so plausible that it is difficult for me not to see it implemented in the game.

---
In my previous comment I added two more situations as examples (Edit (+)).

 

[ShakenSpeare]

Yes, I think that by default the AI should automatically switch weapons when appropriate, like switching to spears for cavalry, enemies that aren't getting in close, and pulling out secondaries for close combat, etc. But the player should absolutely be able to dictate which weapons they're using at any given time. I don't see why anyone would say otherwise. That being said though, I kinda wish that this would also be mixed in with formations somehow. Like if I could have secondary weapons in the front row and spears in the second and/or third using their range and passing over the front row. VC had something like this if I remember right. I think about this from playing The Last Days lately, my Dwarven shield-wall has their 1h axes in front, and the spears directly behind, and they tear everything apart. This is also the case because the AI knows how to use the spears pretty well, even in confined spaces. Something that Bannerlord lacks.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Now that The Last Days has been mentioned....

@MadVader , I know the mere thought of anything MP related gives you a big sting in the crotch , however I'd like to ask your opinion concerning the topic of this thread (switching weapons orders for bots) as it would be applicable to SP eventually.

As a notorious coder versed in the dark arts of programming (I know you've worked with python, I assume you're capable with C#) I'd like to know if this kind of additions from a technical point of view are feasible and from a design point of view could add more value to the player's gameplay experience.

 

[Mad Vader]

Not really my area, but it's basic formation logic to sort troops into ranks by weapons and switch them to appropriate weapons (polearm or other). This logic is fairly simple and even doesn't cost much CPU, unlike more complex troop and formation AI.
Now reacting to situations by switching weapons is where the AI gets more complicated as it needs to discern threats from noise. But this is only for AI formations (therefore SP only), not for the player's guys.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Not really my area, but it's basic formation logic to sort troops into ranks by weapons and switch them to appropriate weapons (polearm or other). This logic is fairly simple and even doesn't cost much CPU, unlike more complex troop and formation AI.
Now reacting to situations by switching weapons is where the AI gets more complicated as it needs to discern threats from noise. But this is only for AI formations (therefore SP only), not for the player's guys.

I appreciate you dropping by here to comment

 

[Terco_Viejo]

@Callum , given Dejan seems to be off on holiday (plausible) and you are more willing to interact now, let me mention this message addressed to him in this thread to which you could now take a stand in a official stance as a Community Lead.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Well... neither Callum nor Dejan have dropped by after the call, so I guess the stance hasn't changed.

The poll has reached 100 votes with 86% vs 14%, and the result is, to be honest, quite remarkable imho; a result which could be added to Ling's poll.

Given that no dev intends to comment and the votes are what they are, for the time being I am leaving this thread to be buried by the sands of time.

Thanks to the participants involved.

 

[Welcome_To_Hell]

Bump