combat AI in Bannerlord suck!

Users who are viewing this thread

emo_edjiboye

Regular
Seriously, the combat is not just a little bad, but utterly awful! From fighting on foot to cavalry to range, everything feel bad and counter-intuitive. These are my reasons why I believe this is so:

- First of all, infantry, the supposed backbone of any army, is terrible in Bannerlord. Do you want to know how to beat any noble on foot in a tournament even at the very start of your game? Just continuously side-step around them. yep it's that simple, because the AI doesn't know how to hit a moving target IN MELEE! If running circles around the AI is too hard, you can spam-block with your weapon indefinitely until the time is right because the AI will not change attack direction in response to the player. I point this out because in Warband the AI did change attack direction if you block to early! this is one of the first thing I noticed when I recently went back to Warband and it caught me off guard (literally). A Warband player can't announce their moves like an anime protagonist, the AI will simply respond to it; block too soon and the AI will strike from another direction, wind up for a strike at a bad time and the AI will counter-attack.

speaking of blocking, in Warband infantry actually use their shields (crazy, right?), and they don't wait until they're already shot at to do it. They simply raise their shields at the start of battle and only lower them when in melee range of the enemy. In Bannerlord using shields is more of a suggestion to the AI. Who cares about living, am I right?! I don't understand... why- just why does it take 2-3 arrows to the chest for the AI to go "oh, that's right! I have a shield"? The only reliable way for the player to make their troops raise their shields is to use shield wall, which is a terrible formation because troops will block each others' attacks and so will die in melee.


- Now all these problems are magnified with cavalry. There is some discussion as whether cavalry is too powerful or too weak. Some say cavalry changes are too deadly and hard to counter, others say it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. This is because the AI is a little random on when it wants to work or not. There are times that the AI will work perfectly and will continuously cycle-charge the enemy without bugging out. When this happens cavalry can single-handedly win a battle with very few losses. Other times the AI just feels a little depressed I guess and will decide to end it all by standing still in a ocean on enemy infantry, slowly dying to basic recruits. I'm of course joking, of course, because that would at least make a little sense!

Seriously though, why do cavalry just do nothing while surrounded by infantry is a bit of a mystery, but I do have a theory: you see, when cavalry charges they aren't charging as a group, instead each horseman is charging towards their own single target. this seems fine, but have you ever notices that the AI will sometimes switch targets? like, it will be charging one target then suddenly turn around and charge towards another one? It's a little more noticeable in infantry as it's kind of bizarre to see them do it. Well, imagen this with cavalry. I believe that when ever they get even a little stuck it messes with the AI and causes them to constantly switch targets and because of that they are unable to commit to an attack. They will have their swords wound up to strike, but will just sit there confused, not knowing who to attack or charge at, all while being attacked on all sides.


- This might be a little controversial, but I don't think range (bows in particular) is overpowered. The more powerful crossbows can kill in 1-2 shots, bows in 2-3 shots, but I think that's fine. however, the AI's refusal to use their shields properly is what makes range infuriating. Range should more or less simply be the counter troops with two-handed weapons as well a being trash-killers; there is supposed to be a rock-paper-scissors like relationship with range beating two-handed, two-handed beating shield-infantry, and shield-infantry beating range. But as of now range kind of beats everything especially if you bring in horse-archers. It's not even bows fault that they're so powerful, the AI just don't use their shields properly. That's why simply nerfing bows won't work, as it's more of a mechanical issue than one of stats, and nerfing range will indirectly buff two-handed troops and then we'll have a different problem.


- Also, f**k rock and f**k looters.


what do you think? anymore examples of bad combat AI? I have more, but I didn't want to write an essay just the basics.
-
 
Yeah, battles are pretty bad, not like real medieval battles, more like a mosh pit of teenagers .

I'm going to do a "What Battle should be like" post in suggestions \ Single play, section soon.

.
 

SGT_Night

Knight
WBNW
Seriously, the combat is not just a little bad, but utterly awful! From fighting on foot to cavalry to range, everything feel bad and counter-intuitive. These are my reasons why I believe this is so:

- First of all, infantry, the supposed backbone of any army, is terrible in Bannerlord. Do you want to know how to beat any noble on foot in a tournament even at the very start of your game? Just continuously side-step around them. yep it's that simple, because the AI doesn't know how to hit a moving target IN MELEE! If running circles around the AI is too hard, you can spam-block with your weapon indefinitely until the time is right because the AI will not change attack direction in response to the player. I point this out because in Warband the AI did change attack direction if you block to early! this is one of the first thing I noticed when I recently went back to Warband and it caught me off guard (literally). A Warband player can't announce their moves like an anime protagonist, the AI will simply respond to it; block too soon and the AI will strike from another direction, wind up for a strike at a bad time and the AI will counter-attack.

speaking of blocking, in Warband infantry actually use their shields (crazy, right?), and they don't wait until they're already shot at to do it. They simply raise their shields at the start of battle and only lower them when in melee range of the enemy. In Bannerlord using shields is more of a suggestion to the AI. Who cares about living, am I right?! I don't understand... why- just why does it take 2-3 arrows to the chest for the AI to go "oh, that's right! I have a shield"? The only reliable way for the player to make their troops raise their shields is to use shield wall, which is a terrible formation because troops will block each others' attacks and so will die in melee.


- Now all these problems are magnified with cavalry. There is some discussion as whether cavalry is too powerful or too weak. Some say cavalry changes are too deadly and hard to counter, others say it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. This is because the AI is a little random on when it wants to work or not. There are times that the AI will work perfectly and will continuously cycle-charge the enemy without bugging out. When this happens cavalry can single-handedly win a battle with very few losses. Other times the AI just feels a little depressed I guess and will decide to end it all by standing still in a ocean on enemy infantry, slowly dying to basic recruits. I'm of course joking, of course, because that would at least make a little sense!

Seriously though, why do cavalry just do nothing while surrounded by infantry is a bit of a mystery, but I do have a theory: you see, when cavalry charges they aren't charging as a group, instead each horseman is charging towards their own single target. this seems fine, but have you ever notices that the AI will sometimes switch targets? like, it will be charging one target then suddenly turn around and charge towards another one? It's a little more noticeable in infantry as it's kind of bizarre to see them do it. Well, imagen this with cavalry. I believe that when ever they get even a little stuck it messes with the AI and causes them to constantly switch targets and because of that they are unable to commit to an attack. They will have their swords wound up to strike, but will just sit there confused, not knowing who to attack or charge at, all while being attacked on all sides.


- This might be a little controversial, but I don't think range (bows in particular) is overpowered. The more powerful crossbows can kill in 1-2 shots, bows in 2-3 shots, but I think that's fine. however, the AI's refusal to use their shields properly is what makes range infuriating. Range should more or less simply be the counter troops with two-handed weapons as well a being trash-killers; there is supposed to be a rock-paper-scissors like relationship with range beating two-handed, two-handed beating shield-infantry, and shield-infantry beating range. But as of now range kind of beats everything especially if you bring in horse-archers. It's not even bows fault that they're so powerful, the AI just don't use their shields properly. That's why simply nerfing bows won't work, as it's more of a mechanical issue than one of stats, and nerfing range will indirectly buff two-handed troops and then we'll have a different problem.


- Also, f**k rock and f**k looters.


what do you think? anymore examples of bad combat AI? I have more, but I didn't want to write an essay just the basics.
-
Perfect thread, right on the spot ??
 

bodhi

Sergeant
I just remember the epic viking invasion of Wessex in Viking Conquest. 45 minute multiwave battle on a massive open field, with really nicely programmed battle AI. Those tight, well ordered, viking shield walls slowly approaching followed behind by a line of Berserkers were terrifying. I think they made a lot of changes to the battle AI in VC.
 

Bratok

Regular
Seriously, the combat is not just a little bad, but utterly awful! From fighting on foot to cavalry to range, everything feel bad and counter-intuitive. These are my reasons why I believe this is so:

- First of all, infantry, the supposed backbone of any army, is terrible in Bannerlord. Do you want to know how to beat any noble on foot in a tournament even at the very start of your game? Just continuously side-step around them. yep it's that simple, because the AI doesn't know how to hit a moving target IN MELEE! If running circles around the AI is too hard, you can spam-block with your weapon indefinitely until the time is right because the AI will not change attack direction in response to the player. I point this out because in Warband the AI did change attack direction if you block to early! this is one of the first thing I noticed when I recently went back to Warband and it caught me off guard (literally). A Warband player can't announce their moves like an anime protagonist, the AI will simply respond to it; block too soon and the AI will strike from another direction, wind up for a strike at a bad time and the AI will counter-attack.

speaking of blocking, in Warband infantry actually use their shields (crazy, right?), and they don't wait until they're already shot at to do it. They simply raise their shields at the start of battle and only lower them when in melee range of the enemy. In Bannerlord using shields is more of a suggestion to the AI. Who cares about living, am I right?! I don't understand... why- just why does it take 2-3 arrows to the chest for the AI to go "oh, that's right! I have a shield"? The only reliable way for the player to make their troops raise their shields is to use shield wall, which is a terrible formation because troops will block each others' attacks and so will die in melee.


- Now all these problems are magnified with cavalry. There is some discussion as whether cavalry is too powerful or too weak. Some say cavalry changes are too deadly and hard to counter, others say it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. This is because the AI is a little random on when it wants to work or not. There are times that the AI will work perfectly and will continuously cycle-charge the enemy without bugging out. When this happens cavalry can single-handedly win a battle with very few losses. Other times the AI just feels a little depressed I guess and will decide to end it all by standing still in a ocean on enemy infantry, slowly dying to basic recruits. I'm of course joking, of course, because that would at least make a little sense!

Seriously though, why do cavalry just do nothing while surrounded by infantry is a bit of a mystery, but I do have a theory: you see, when cavalry charges they aren't charging as a group, instead each horseman is charging towards their own single target. this seems fine, but have you ever notices that the AI will sometimes switch targets? like, it will be charging one target then suddenly turn around and charge towards another one? It's a little more noticeable in infantry as it's kind of bizarre to see them do it. Well, imagen this with cavalry. I believe that when ever they get even a little stuck it messes with the AI and causes them to constantly switch targets and because of that they are unable to commit to an attack. They will have their swords wound up to strike, but will just sit there confused, not knowing who to attack or charge at, all while being attacked on all sides.


- This might be a little controversial, but I don't think range (bows in particular) is overpowered. The more powerful crossbows can kill in 1-2 shots, bows in 2-3 shots, but I think that's fine. however, the AI's refusal to use their shields properly is what makes range infuriating. Range should more or less simply be the counter troops with two-handed weapons as well a being trash-killers; there is supposed to be a rock-paper-scissors like relationship with range beating two-handed, two-handed beating shield-infantry, and shield-infantry beating range. But as of now range kind of beats everything especially if you bring in horse-archers. It's not even bows fault that they're so powerful, the AI just don't use their shields properly. That's why simply nerfing bows won't work, as it's more of a mechanical issue than one of stats, and nerfing range will indirectly buff two-handed troops and then we'll have a different problem.


- Also, f**k rock and f**k looters.


what do you think? anymore examples of bad combat AI? I have more, but I didn't want to write an essay just the basics.
-
Do you even RBM, bro?
 

LyonExodus

Regular
Honestly Bannerlord Ai is weak but strong at the same time.

I am yet to recall any game that gives you the ability of fighting with 1K actors at the same time( each with their own AI and not an Herd). The processing power it would take to make all of them smart could melt any PC without proper performance improvement.
And yes, the AI is getting better it's just a matter of time but this game doesn't work like Total War and you should keep that in mind
 

Askey

Sergeant
Honestly Bannerlord Ai is weak but strong at the same time.

I am yet to recall any game that gives you the ability of fighting with 1K actors at the same time( each with their own AI and not an Herd). The processing power it would take to make all of them smart could melt any PC without proper performance improvement.
And yes, the AI is getting better it's just a matter of time but this game doesn't work like Total War and you should keep that in mind
You can remove your nose from Taleworlds bottom now.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
You can remove your nose from Taleworlds bottom now.

Well he's actually right - but its really the initial engine which is to be praised, especially at the time it was made. To have up to 1000 units individually decide what to do on a battlefield counting every feint, block, parry, evasive, horses, arrow etc.. had simply never been done before. Total war are just dice rolls, they are not looking at every swing and deciding if its actually hitting what hit box when and adding physics modifiers to it.

Anyways i would say that we can agree to praise the capability of the initial engine while at the same time call out the lack of progression and the seeming ability of modders to do more with the engine now than the actual hired coders.
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
First I was about to write that the OP is talking nonsense/exaggerating, but then I realized that I use RBM AI module since long and cannot judge vanilla troop behavior at all. Luckily, it seems.
 

JedSlater

Recruit
Yeah, battles are pretty bad, not like real medieval battles, more like a mosh pit of teenagers .

me'm going to do a "What Battle should be like" post in suggestions \ Single play, section soon.

.
yeah, they just run all over the map chasing whatever, so you need to tell them what to do all the time, and where did the charge command go? when you give the command Sgt. in charge they need to stay in formation.

edit

something weird here, I'm not the user displayed with this post???? I'm JedSlater
 

SGT_Night

Knight
WBNW
yeah, they just run all over the map chasing whatever, so you need to tell them what to do all the time, and where did the charge command go? when you give the command Sgt. in charge they need to stay in formation.

edit

something weird here, I'm not the user displayed with this post???? I'm JedSlater
April 1st…
 
As if a noble lord would charge off, individually , chasing down enemies ... maybe a very young and stupid noble might, but the majority would stick to their HC formation .. make sure there are other noble lords next to them. .. and only charge at the end of the battle..

.
 

Helerek

Recruit
Boy I miss Warband cavalry that actually was tanky and deadly + charge damage. In bannerlord whenever I see 12 vlandian knights charging me all I hear is clown music and all their swings/spears miss for god knows what reason.
 
Top Bottom