enemies knowing where you are

[Homie]

i'm sure there has been a thread or 2 about this, but I didn't find any recent ones in the search, so here goes...

The fact that the enemies know exactly where you are when they spawn in battle, and immidiately charge towards you takes a lot of fun out of the game. Likewise, your own units immidiately charge right at the enemy. It eliminates a lot of potential strategies that could be fun to use in this game. Imagine if the npcs (both your army and the enemies) had to really search the map to find each other. And of course you have to search to find enemies too. It would give you time to set up an ambush, or circle around behind them and hide while you wait for your units to find them. Then you come from behind and flank them.

As the game is right now, there's really no possibility for any of this. I guess you could circle around behind the enemies and tell your units to hold their starting position. But more than likely, the enemies will start chasing after you because they magically know you're behind those 2 big hills.

 

[Fluffy The Hamster]

I'd rather they'd know where you are at the start of the battle, but be able to hide from them during it. Otherwise all battles would be Offense vs Defense.

 

[Garth]

I never imagine armies having trouble finding each other when I think of medieval battles. I don't know how having enough troops for a completely realistic battle would work though with the current framerate issues.

 

[Lethandis]

I'd rather they'd know where you are at the start of the battle, but be able to hide from them during it. Otherwise all battles would be Offense vs Defense.

Hmm, well, nearly all battles are offense/defense. Skirmishes, where both sides are on the offense, and freely withdraw, are rare. Normally, one side has out-maneuvered or cornered the other, or one has dug in on a hill-top. I think it'd be cool to make your (forget the name at the moment) perception skill determine "initiative" in combat, or who holds the momentum of the fight at the beginning. The army with higher initiative places themselves on the field first. You get a basic little plot on the map to place your troops (about the size of the area you spawn in anyway). However, the higher your tactics skill, the larger the area you can select for starting position becomes.

This should include an AI that picks favored offensive/defensive terrain for the AI team. For defense, archers would want an elevated position with steep sides to protect from cavalry, infantry would want a ravine or gully to force archers to draw close, and hem in cavalry. Cavalry would always want a wide open plain to maximize their mobility. Offense, any troop would benefit from a long downhill slope in front of them, for added momentum, cavalry again would likely opt for wide open, so they could wheel and flank. Infantry would more than likely prefer to move through close terrain, with hills protecting them from archery and slowing down cavalry. Archers wouldn't advance, content to plink at you with arrows (they should move to optimum range first, and bowmen should arc shots at you at long range) until they're out of arrows, then they're basically infantry. You could set up the AI state-machine similar to the following (keep in mind, very crude pseudo-code, just to explain how they'd think):

1) Do I have a horse equipped? If no, go to 3. If yes, Do I have a non-crossbow ranged weapon equipped? If no, go to 2. If yes, ride at optimal range keeping left side toward opponents.
2) Do I have a Lance equpped? If no, use ride-by-attack behavior(instead of ride-up-and-stop behavior they use now, focus on getting some distance, a good run and a slashing or whatever pass, lather rinse repeat). If yes, modify ride-by-attack behavior to attempt to include couched lance blows.
3)Do I have a ranged weapon equipped? If no, go to 4. If yes, move to nearest optimal range and fire on enemy (bowmen could have two optimal ranges, one direct fire, one arced fire).
4) follow cover and engage behavior.

Of course, very basic, but you get the idea.


You could also make the AI's perception influence it's chance of spotting your forces if they have a LOS to them. If your forces can't see each other, they have to A) sit tight, or B) search for you. I'd guess AI archers would sit tight, infantry would move along closed-in terrain, trying to spot you and move in quickly, cavalry would sweep the map using the lowlands for fast travel to find you.

 

[Homie]

ya, maybe they could know your starting location where your army spawned, but not automatically know where you move. Cause they lock onto you like you a have a red smoke signal coming out of your head. I've tried hiding and sneaking up on enemies when I'm going solo, and they always meet me head-on in the middle, or at whichever corner I went to.

 

[No name]

Yeah, the ability to sneak must be implemented. In mediveal times, there were tactics like flanking and other stuff that gave them the advantage of surprise. It should be reflected in the game as well. I think the enemy knowing your general position at the start of the game is good. And perhaps they will call out your position to the other guys if they see your men you are trying to hide in the forest.

 

[Lethandis]

I also think this would give the spotting and tactics skills more viable uses. As it is, the spotting range is plenty at default to hunt and avoid, and tactics, well, it's kinda useless unless you A) sit the battle out, which is boring, or B) get K.O.'d and your army has to fight without you, which 1) doesn't make sense, if they benefit from your tactical brilliance only when you are unconcious, and 2) happens less and less as you get high-level, which is the only time your tactics skill would be high enough to really reduce casualties.

 

[Destichado]

I never imagine armies having trouble finding each other when I think of medieval battles. I don't know how having enough troops for a completely realistic battle would work though with the current framerate issues.

Very true for the big battles. Sometimes they were arranged -place and time- other times the armys just stopped in a good place. You really can't "hide" an army of 20,000 fighting men, plus baggage train, camp followers, families, priests and tradesment. But 50? You can hide 50.

 

[JohnathanStrange]

The immediate rush into combat without much chance to deploy, seek cover, or maneuver has been one of the main reasons I've become a retired Calradian fighter and content to spend my time in the taverns telling tales of heroes and lost treasures and desperate battles.

My feeling has been for months ("way back in the day") that the distinctive difference in Mount & Blade is its robust combat engine and its mounted combat, but that is not enough.

Some of what's not so great is as the original post points out is that the enemy knows exactly where you're at when battle begins. That's partly due, I think, to efficiency: both sides get to the main event right away. And I suppose, it could be justified (in a sense) by saying, "Well, the battle presents a situation in which both sides have already done both their scouting and deployment and battle starts at that point. If one side has successfully hidden from the enemy then there's no battle to see." Of course, that eliminates ambushes and tactical advantages from having the high ground or good cover or deploying in terrain advantageous to your side. That's why I grew bored from the constant rush into battle without any tactical finesses: little chance to deploy archers on high ground, etc. You can do some minor deployments but it's generally not too crucial or fun: dismounting cavalry and standing behind the horses to slow the Dark Knights but it's hardly in character with the being a knight.

So what have I suggested in the past? Some few of them:

* More time to deploy one's troops
* More battlefield effects on movement and spotting
a) For example, marshes or mud slowing mounted troops, high grass
concealing ambushers.
* Different victory conditions for battlefield combats
a) For example, killing enemy hero could break the enemy's morale and cause his troops to run, or the destruction of a certain building could be added as a victory condition.

Most of the suggestions I've seen keep pretending that we're fighting armies of thousands of men and just don't seem practical or relevant. What I think would be better would be to keep suggestions focused on improving our small unit combat by giving us something to do other than running straight at each other and fighting to the last man.

 

[Lethandis]

JohnathanStrange: Yes, I agree. I think that my suggestion above, coupled with a unit system (being able to divide your troops into a few different units for separate command issue) and a bit more verbose command system (a la: "Unit 1, fall back", "Unit 3, hold here", "Unit 2, follow me", "Unit 4, protect unit 1") help greatly.

 

[tlr]

I just bought the game, it's wonderful. But I agree that AI that is not omniscient would be good. It would great to be able to sneak off as an archer on foot and ambush the enemy. Expanding the order capabilities is essential. Phalanxes, whatever. Get some organizational control in there, maybe on a new screen where you see your men and can bind them to groups, quickly move weapons/horses around among troops, that sort of thing.

Right now I don't feel much like advantage/disadvantage really means much. Either way seems to be a fairly straight forward march to the enemy, typically involving me telling all my troops to stay put and heading off the enemy with a bow and a lance as far from my troops as possible (to avoid losing knights against shoddy pirates, etc.).

Another thing, telling my troops to stay put still causes them to wander a bit, they often run down cliffs and whatnot, getting into considerable trouble quickly.

PS- JohnathanStrange, great ideas.

 

[Ceaning agent]

great idea that would give way for a huge tactical section for example as suggested vefore you could have areas that grow as your tactics skill advances or even simply as ort of chess board with on side belonging to your enemy and one unit per square! This would mean more thought involved in battle and also a better chance of winning against black knight when you are level 3

 

[Knight_Galahad]

I think it is good as it is, battles not taking forever and having to search for that one lost/stuck enemy. Not knowing where one is would mean scattered enemies and it would not be a battle then, would it? Since your groups meet on the map, how is it that they wouldnt know where the other group is in the battle? Making the AI ignorant would be a bad change.

 

[Kynes]

Not knowing where one is would mean scattered enemies and it would not be a battle then, would it? Since your groups meet on the map, how is it that they wouldnt know where the other group is in the battle? Making the AI ignorant would be a bad change.

Not necessarily, the AI could still move as a large group and it would open up a lot of possibilities for luring the AI into ambushes. You can sort of do it at the moment by ordering your soldier to hold on the bank of a river and putting the river between you and the enemy.

It'd also make fighting in dense fog a whole lot more intense.

 

[Lethandis]

I think it is good as it is, battles not taking forever and having to search for that one lost/stuck enemy. Not knowing where one is would mean scattered enemies and it would not be a battle then, would it? Since your groups meet on the map, how is it that they wouldnt know where the other group is in the battle? Making the AI ignorant would be a bad change.

Well, I don't have the time or inclination to go into "state machines" with you, but if the AI doesn't know where you are, it would be in a "search" state, with behaviors to tell it how to go about finding you in the level. Likewise, you could easily have a combat command for YOUR troops to "search" an area. So, once you have wiped out the core of their force, and there's likely one or two stragglers somewhere, you can send out your troops to search.

Also, you should keep in mind that you can't really make AI ignorant. . .the game's AI tracks where you are, it has to. So, it knows where you are, it's just playing dumb so you feel good about yourself. Now that we have that out of the way, let's see how this applies. If you are fighting/in the process of engaging/sighted by enemy troops, the AI could alert others to a general region to move their search to, simulating that they "hear the din of battle" or that "their companions call for aid".

For anyone who says "yes, but that's making the AI cheat". . .find me a game where the AI doesn't cheat to make the game more fun. . .and I'll show you a game you haven't read the AI code to (that, or it's not finished).

 

[Sir Prince]

This is one aspect of the community I like, there are always other people with the same idea/opiniong as you more or less that write big responses you don't read.

Good work guys! (and gals if there are any besides Landy).