[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_63_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the most important features of any single player game. Getting it right is key to the experience: it has to be almost invisible, so players (sort of) forget that they are playing against a machine. It has to be clever and fast enough to be a worthy opponent, but not too much – humans are fallible, after all; and ultimately the player, as the hero of the story, is supposed to win. It has to make use of the game mechanics at hand, not just to be fun and varied but to show the player what can be done. This rings especially true in a game such as Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, where skill-based combat and epic large-scale battles are at the core of the experience.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/83
Dev Blog 25/10/18
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
xdj1nn said:NPC99 said:Terco_Viejo said:NPC99 said:
Honestly I was not judging but analyzing the observed. I only buy from you what you say "Some element of chaos adds to the realism" if we correctly apply the skill of "strategy".
Formations with low-level recruits should operate in a more chaotic manner of course; on the contrary, a unit of imperial legionnaires is assumed to be highly disciplined when entering battle. What's more, will the AI be skillful enough to decide which weapon to use in x situation? How will the grouping work? How many different groups can we do? Will it be possible to split into two parts the same unit? It will be possible to position a unit physically within another one (see pikes squadron of the Spanish Tercios).
And all this refers to open-field battles, but what about sieges? how will the AI work with formations and strategy?
However disciplined the unit, I would expect their formation to be disrupted when advancing through a wood similar to the one in the video. If I remember correctly, Armagan said during a siege video that players could let the ai deploy a basic defensive formation (in a siege) or do everything themselves.
You're absolutely right, it would be incredibly awesome to see formations get chaotically scattered when fielding an army of peasants, while elite infantry never disbands formation and keep it close together.
What's more, having low tier troops run away more easily, while elite troops hold the ground unless they are nearly obliterated or something like that
Bear in mind that Bannerlord also includes loose skirmishing formations where elite troops should be able to keep their distance from their comrades while untrained troops should clump up for mutual support, making clearer targets for ranged fire. Either way, I don’t want to see artificially rigid formations and expect cavalry formations to be naturally ragged due to the horses involved.
I hope this means we get some really dumb and really smart lords as well. Make someone a bigger threat on the battlefield compared to others. A smart AI is great, but if every lord still does the same thing in the same situation than it can get predictable.Bjorn The Baker said:
With this explanation, this skill makes more sense right now.
Great blog Callum!
Great blog guys!
Blead said:I hope this means we get some really dumb and really smart lords as well. Make someone a bigger threat on the battlefield compared to others. A smart AI is great, but if every lord still does the same thing in the same situation than it can get predictable.Bjorn The Baker said:
With this explanation, this skill makes more sense right now.
Great blog Callum!
Great blog guys!
Also that would be interesting because killing a dumb lord would be a disaster if second in command/heir is a great commander.
...
now I wonder if there will be advisors or second in commands which may or may not be fully loyal to their boss.
And if there will be grand viziers who want to become caliph in stead of the caliph...
now I wonder if there will be advisors or second in commands which may or may not be fully loyal to their boss.
And if there will be grand viziers who want to become caliph in stead of the caliph...
I think that was kind of the idea of the families/clans, create tension inside the faction, and they've already shown how one clan can supplant the ruling clan through forcing a vote. What I think would be interesting to see, assuming you can still give part of your army to the command of an ai, would be if these 'captains' could possibly betray their generals, depending on relation level, etc. I.E. you give lord so-and-so command of the cav while you take the inf, but since you and lord so-and-so are both trying to marry the same chick, he never charges, leaving you and the rest of the inf. to get wiped out.
So much so that we have spoken of battle formations with pikes; I wonder: are there units of pikemen confirmed in Bannerlord? I think I've only seen spears... and the longest are cavalry ones.
Let's see if in the end we are going to be unable to make our Macedonian Phalanx, Scots Schiltron and Pike Squadron of the Tercios....
Edit: Yes, we will.
Roccoflipside said:
Failing to reinforce faction allies against factional enemies should result in the player/ai concerned gaining no factional influence points. Supporting factional causes is one of the main ways to earn influence points to spend on your interests.
I wonder how strong the player can get.
In warband you can let companions focus on most of the Party skills, if you chose to do so than you can go all paladin/berserker on your account and go for max strength and Agility. In my late game I had wiped out a party of 120 taiga bandits on my own, and even other large parties with cavalry and archers are not that difficult to do.
Will they scale up the base difficulty to a point where you will always need to have a warband/army to defeat your opponents?
In warband you can let companions focus on most of the Party skills, if you chose to do so than you can go all paladin/berserker on your account and go for max strength and Agility. In my late game I had wiped out a party of 120 taiga bandits on my own, and even other large parties with cavalry and archers are not that difficult to do.
Will they scale up the base difficulty to a point where you will always need to have a warband/army to defeat your opponents?
liznaviecki
Recruit
AI thinks like human... Now we know why creating this game takes so long 
NPC99 said:
Absolutely, there should be consequences for not responding when called upon so that this doesn't happen every time, say once or twice in a game only ideally, unless you play a character with super low renown and everything, then maybe you're doing it to yourself lol.
Sr_Um2 said:
I'm not aware of Brethren of the Woods in Warband, however there is a minor faction in Bannerlord called the Brotherhood of the Woods who are at war with Vlandia (presumably original inhabitants holding out robin hood fashion vs their Vlandian/Norman overlords who invaded and conquered their homeland):
kalarhan said:
Shame on me for forgetting Deshavi.
Back when I lived in the ravines, we would sometimes fight with a rival band called the Brethen of the Woods. Captain -- I would not trust any man who hides his origins, and particularly would not trust a common bandit who calls himself a lord.
Her spelling must have confused me.
NPC99 said:kalarhan said:
Shame on me for forgetting Deshavi.
Back when I lived in the ravines, we would sometimes fight with a rival band called the Brethen of the Woods. Captain -- I would not trust any man who hides his origins, and particularly would not trust a common bandit who calls himself a lord.
Her spelling must have confused me.
Wow, thank you, actually it is the same, I read about them somewhere, just do not remember anymore, it seems that the brotherhood was founded because of the kingdom of Swadia / Rhodok which prohibited peasants from hunting in the king's forest, a certain peasants inflicted this law and ended up being killed, the children of the commoner murdered, took the forest and crowded some who sympathized with the cause and etc ... Finally, I participate in the group Mount & Blade Brasil, I am developing a game that would happen after Deshavi and Klethi, left of the player's army, and would leave the world in search of the revenge of the Deshavi.
Thanks for the comment, if anyone wants to help me with information, I will leave my facebook page, not to flood the forum here: Arte do Sr.Um2... our send me a msg.
Duh said:
I don't have a problem with the idea of a mini-map so long as it only shows what my army is already seeing. I would not like a mini-map that shows me a 'God's eye view'of everything. My own personal style is to get involved in the thick of the combat and it is a bit difficult to get an overall picture of what is happening while I am surrounded by enemies and the mini map does allow me to do that. I'm not overly fussed either way.
Terco_Viejo said:
So much so that we have spoken of battle formations with pikes; I wonder: are there units of pikemen confirmed in Bannerlord? I think I've only seen spears... and the longest are cavalry ones.
Let's see if in the end we are going to be unable to make our Macedonian Phalanx, Scots Schiltron and Pike Squadron of the Tercios....
Edit: Yes, we will.
KhergitLancer99 said:
Certainly the messengers could be killed, but I do not think that stops one general to send another until the message arrives XD.
In the end, I believe that good generals also had good officers who knew how to follow the battle plan and when it was necessary to take the initiative, that's hard to simulate if A.I. it is not good
JuanNieve said:
Yes, sir,
The Anglo-Saxons, believing that victory was within reach of the hand, launched cries of triumph and launched themselves in pursuit of the Normans, especially those on the right flank, which had a gentler slope, when they got far enough away the riders of Eustachius turned around and attacked them, while William in front of his cavalry group cut off their rearguard, surrounded them and massacred them, it is said that during this action thousands of Anglo-Saxons died.
I love the tactic of pretending to retreat, the "tornafuye" that is said in Spanish. From Celtiberians, Arabs, Normans to Molgols. A tactic very used and that personally I will try to reproduce in Bannerlord...
Terco_Viejo said:A tactic very used and that personally I will try to reproduce in Bannerlord...
the first thingy we need to remember is scale. Bannerlord wont have armies with tens of thousands of soldiers. Battlefields reaching kilometers. It will have small skirmishes and small battles. So it is not like a third of your army, outside your line of view, will need to think by itself and surprise you by wining or running away.
then there is the case of players giving up control of the army and going into the melee (combat mode). In that case there is no way you can give orders to 400 soldiers or keep a eye on the battle.
So I agree that the AI and player army should have sub commanders, as long each of them only see what is in front of them. Then like the commanders then will have personalities to influence their decisions, the overall orders (battle plan) and they will make combat decisions based on what they can see (should I follow the plan, should I wait for orders, or should I go geronimoooooo).
"Sir, Lord Wolf has charged the left flank of the enemy and lost half his troops. He is now on full retreat. What are your orders?"
ArgonianGayming
Recruit
I'd pre-order this game now i don't even care if it's unfinished that's 99% of games now a days
