Could this AI behaviour be improved?

Users who are viewing this thread

bishey

Recruit
I recently saw a short clip on YouTube.


I know that TommyKay has been doing a recent Bannerlord play-through so I'm assuming the game branch is 1.5.9.

Here we can observe a 800 strong Khuzait army chasing a 600 strong Sturgian army. Another 400 strong Sturgian army is sieging a city nearby. The 600 strong army gets in range of the 400 strong army and feels confident in attacking the Khuzait army. The 400 strong army briefly stops their siege to raid a village, goes in the direction of the 600 strong army but then they go back to sieging. The Khuzait army ends up engaging the 600 strong Sturgian army and presumably beats them and the 400 strong army continues with the siege as they watch their friends die.

Can this behaviour be improved? @mexxico
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
We did some developments for these cases months ago. I am not sure if in same situation 1.6.0 armies act same. If you can get save file from TommyKay or create similar case somehow and send me save file I can examine this situation.

By the way breaking a siege is so costy in terms of time (maybe sieger built several equipments and ready to start attack) and without map event starts (enemy engages our other army) it is not logical for besieger to give up siege. If we make this possible AI sieges can be broken by player by approaching AI siegers and doing back and forths. However here map event started (also close) so AI should give up siege. Maybe here map event is out of range for attacking (even it is at seeing range) so I need to examine deeply. If a save game is provided I can examine.
 
Last edited:

[Rei]

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Can someone please attest to this, that it still behaves in the same way?

Cuz I'm fairly sure it does.
 

bishey

Recruit
I don't have a similar save file I'm afraid. Since this is on the TommyKay clip channel, I'm sure the actual gameplay took place days ago, if not weeks. I'm sure the save file is long overwritten.

I don't think this is a massive issue because it's so rare but it doesn't look great for the AI. Your point about breaking sieges being costly makes sense but the army broke siege to go raid a village for 2 seconds before going back to their siege. You can see this by pausing the video when he hovers over the 400 strong army.

If they can break siege to raid a village, they should probably break siege to help an ally army as well. Extending the detection range for allies currently fighting might be helpful and lore wise, we can assume the friendly armies send messengers to each other.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I have a savefile where an AI army of around 1200 will not only begin but also maintain a siege with against a settlement with 1500+ defenders in it.
vfeJ2th.png

People asked for AI armies to act stupidly so now we all have to live with... this.
 
I have a savefile where an AI army of around 1200 will not only begin but also maintain a siege with against a settlement with 1500+ defenders in it.
vfeJ2th.png

People asked for AI armies to act stupidly so now we all have to live with... this.
Yes! 💪
But that's also because the player is with them and they don't value the player's strongness fully, to facilitate possibility of defensive siege for the player!
It's been that way for awhile and I don't know it's changed.

What I would like for the AI (and the player's faction) to commit to a target and then also support it and only deviate form the goal if a significant change happens, not just a minor change in numbers!

For instance in that thread where I complained about the AI changing target too much, what I would want is for them to be committed to attacking that 1 fief as it is best target initially, then wait at siege camp and if power changes, they call in more power and wait to attack with even odds at least, and only break if say a counter siege is beginning or a threshold of raids is met and they call it off and go into a defensive mode or such.

Really they should have patrol parties and "bring me more food" parties to facilitate a real attack too, so thier is less likely to be a raid epidemic or starvation issue, unless the enemy really is just outplaying them.
 
Last edited:

iRkshz

Regular
We did some developments for these cases months ago. I am not sure if in same situation 1.6.0 armies act same. If you can get save file from TommyKay or create similar case somehow and send me save file I can examine this situation.

By the way breaking a siege is so costy in terms of time (maybe sieger built several equipments and ready to start attack) and without map event starts (enemy engages our other army) it is not logical for besieger to give up siege. If we make this possible AI sieges can be broken by player by approaching AI siegers and doing back and forths. However here map event started (also close) so AI should give up siege. Maybe here map event is out of range for attacking (even it is at seeing range) so I need to examine deeply. If a save game is provided I can examine.
this is a very common situation
if one army has priority, it will not help a friendly army in trouble - I think the problem is in priorities, the AI has a very low priority to help a friendly army, if under siege or is going to stop the siege from his fief
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
What I would like for the AI (and the player's faction) to commit to a target and then also support it and only deviate form the goal if a significant change happens, not just a minor change in numbers!
I increased the defender's numbers by four times and adjusted the power bar from being roughly 3:1 in their favor to being slightly against them... not just with my party but with an entire army.

The campaign AI is rock-stupid, dumb as **** about this now.
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
I have a savefile where an AI army of around 1200 will not only begin but also maintain a siege with against a settlement with 1500+ defenders in it.
vfeJ2th.png

People asked for AI armies to act stupidly so now we all have to live with... this.
Lots of players wanted to experience more sieges where player is at defender side. So if player is at a castle or settlement it's defenders are currently counted as 70% of their real power is and player's strength is counted as 35% of it's real power. Normally AI does not prefer making a siege to a settlement which has equal inside power to it's current power.

8-MjK.jpg
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Lots of players wanted to experience more sieges where player is at defender side. So if player is at a castle or settlement it's defenders are currently counted as 70% of their real power is and player's strength is counted as 35% of it's real power. Normally AI does not prefer making a siege to a settlement which has equal inside power to it's current power.

8-MjK.jpg
Oh, I know. I was originally one of the people asking for this.

I'm just saying it is bad and makes the AI do really stupid things all the time. Maybe it should only count the player's party, so they don't try to siege the town my entire army is waiting inside?
 
Last edited:

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
We can lower 70% - 35% thing and make it something like 80% - 48%. I think these cases should be rare because player is usually out of settlement. Still will consider changing constants a bit.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
We can lower 70% - 35% thing and make it something like 80% - 48%. I think these cases should be rare because player is usually out of settlement. Still will consider changing constants a bit.
I edited my post but you cross-posted first: maybe it should only count the player's party, so the enemy army doesn't try to siege the town my entire army is waiting inside?
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
Yeah currently all player army strength is counted as 35% of it's power. I will change constants a bit so
player party power will be counted as 40% (was 35%)
player army member will be counted as 60% (was 35%)
other parties will be counted as 80% (was 70%)
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Yeah currently all player army strength is counted as 35% of it's power. I will change constants a bit so
player party power will be counted as 40% (was 35%)
player army member will be counted as 60% (was 35%)
other parties will be counted as 80% (was 70%)
Awesome, thanks. I know I was originally one of the people asking for this but it is really annoying seeing the AI do so much silly stuff over the past few weeks.
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
Awesome, thanks. I know I was originally one of the people asking for this but it is really annoying seeing the AI do so much silly stuff over the past few weeks.
It's normal. Sometimes both sides can be bad we are trying to find perfect balance. So lets try middle.
 
that's why i play with cheat. so i can sit far away and watch armies get into an organic fight without calculating my elite forces in the vicinity. so i can teleport in to join the battle, cause other wise. half of the allied lords won't show up due to my super party being there.
 

Lesbosisles

Knight
It's normal. Sometimes both sides can be bad we are trying to find perfect balance. So lets try middle.
I hope it won't lead us back to situation when AI would never siege a settlement unless it gathers a 15k men doomstack, leaving the defenders no chance.

Or to situation when AI would never besiege a settlement when a player party is inside.
 

The Great Grub

Sergeant
i encountered something extremely similar to what happened in this clip a month back and i think it made me uninstall the game again haha
 
Top Bottom