Enemy AI implemented?

[CaptainLee]

Started replaying the EA recently after a long hiatus and found all of the enemies (Looters, Bandits of all stripes etc) do nothing except charge at your troops like manically depressed kamikazes still. Is this intended? Do hugely outnumbered and outclassed looters not hang back in a defensive posture, Forest bandits not use trees for cover, Sea Raiders attack in a shield wall formation etc? Is this planned to be implemented or is it staying as it is now?

 

[lunelune2413]

Started replaying the EA recently after a long hiatus and found all of the enemies (Looters, Bandits of all stripes etc) do nothing except charge at your troops like manically depressed kamikazes still. Is this intended? Do hugely outnumbered and outclassed looters not hang back in a defensive posture, Forest bandits not use trees for cover, Sea Raiders attack in a shield wall formation etc? Is this planned to be implemented or is it staying as it is now?

Bandits are meant to be unorganized with no use of tactics.
It gets more tactical against AI lords where the enemy lord will try to counter your tactics. The AI can wonk out at times, but it tries at least to make battles more interesting than just "Charge".

 

[CaptainLee]

Bandits are meant to be unorganized with no use of tactics.
It gets more tactical against AI lords where the enemy lord will try to counter your tactics. The AI can wonk out at times, but it tries at least to make battles more interesting than just "Charge".

There's unorganized and there's brain-dead. Sea Raiders not using shield wall even? Surely that is at least a missed opportunity for some tactical flavour. Even looters appear to be suicidally brave.

Considering how many of the enemies you will face are outlaws I would have thought maybe some basic formations and AI behaviour would help 9 out of 10 battles not be absolute pushovers with zero tension and risk. I know the whole ambush ship has sailed but having a map in which you start surrounded might at least be interesting. Maybe even threat levels for more dangerous outlaw bands that successfully take caravans and other targets? Remove the exact number of enemy party and have a generic descriptive e.g 'Band' (10-15) 'Group' (8-15) to provide some tension... anything.

Outlaws bands are right now just free XP and loot. On realistic setting losing a soldier to them is a rarity.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

There's unorganized and there's brain-dead

+1 Too many "brain-dead issues in Bannerlord"

Dealing with looters, bandits and other "disorganized" gangs in Bannerlord is still the same old experience; the little train of death™ . Take a horse and bow, make ten turns or follow a straight path keeping enemies on your horse's ass and you've already beaten them easy on your own.

 

[Dreed89]

+1 Too many "brain-dead issues in Bannerlord"

Dealing with looters, bandits and other "disorganized" gangs in Bannerlord is still the same old experience; the little train of death™ . Take a horse and bow, make ten turns or follow a straight path keeping enemies on your horse's ass and you've already beaten them easy on your own.

Your videos always deliver accurate and good entertainment.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Your videos always deliver accurate and good entertainment.

It's not homegrown, I borrowed it from the internet ? . However, all of us who have played in previous titles have suffered this type of situation, which surprisingly we still have in Bannerlord.


Borrowed too

I agree very much with the OP's argument; don't these groups have some kind of love for their own lives? I don't know, it seems to me something bordering on the pathetic... they are not zombies ffs.

 

[lunelune2413]

There's unorganized and there's brain-dead. Sea Raiders not using shield wall even? Surely that is at least a missed opportunity for some tactical flavour. Even looters appear to be suicidally brave.

Considering how many of the enemies you will face are outlaws I would have thought maybe some basic formations and AI behaviour would help 9 out of 10 battles not be absolute pushovers with zero tension and risk. I know the whole ambush ship has sailed but having a map in which you start surrounded might at least be interesting. Maybe even threat levels for more dangerous outlaw bands that successfully take caravans and other targets? Remove the exact number of enemy party and have a generic descriptive e.g 'Band' (10-15) 'Group' (8-15) to provide some tension... anything.

Outlaws bands are right now just free XP and loot. On realistic setting losing a soldier to them is a rarity.

Think about Sea Raiders like Viking Raiders (Like they're based on). A viking raid party wouldn't be an organized party that was drilled in tactics like a professional army would. They know how to use their shields and weapons since from their point of view, that's all their need to know to slaughter peasants and raid villages.

Sea raiders are dangerous against low tier less armored troops (Like Tier 1 troops or some tier 2 troops) while looters are dangerous to tier 1 troops if they are in equal/higher numbers.

Bannerlord improved the AI of enemy lords and sieges (Navmeshes are not the same as AI. The navmeshes in sieges are wonky and that's why the AI is wonky). "Improving" the AI of bandits are not what I think they should focus on, at least not at the current moment.

 

[CaptainLee]

Think about Sea Raiders like Viking Raiders (Like they're based on). A viking raid party wouldn't be an organized party that was drilled in tactics like a professional army would. They know how to use their shields and weapons since from their point of view, that's all their need to know to slaughter peasants and raid villages.

If we are going for the historical analogy, there would be no Viking raider that did not know how to fight a mustered Fyrd or local village militia in a shield wall. They could use formations such as the swine array, especially as we even have the Skein formation in the game. Against peasants and monks? Sure. An organized mercenary company? You can be damn sure they are employing tactics.

Bannerlord improved the AI of enemy lords and sieges (Navmeshes are not the same as AI. The navmeshes in sieges are wonky and that's why the AI is wonky). "Improving" the AI of bandits are not what I think they should focus on, at least not at the current moment.

I disagree. They are so ubiquitous as to be a vital part of the early game. There should never be a free source of XP and loot as they are at the moment. This is simply poor design and frankly lazy. Risk/reward might be gamey and a bit artificial, but it is by far the best option for increasing tension and challenge in a game. So far Bannerlord lacks both of those.

On a personal note, I much prefer to play the game as an unaligned mercenary commander than a wannabe Lord or vassal, but that's just me.

--------------------------------

II'll admit I've found the most recent updates quite fun, but this element of the game needs the bolts tightening up. I propose:
-Reduce the number of outlaw parties on the map by as much as 50%. They are swarming most of the time and some come in stupidly small numbers.
-Remove the exact party numbers unless you have a high Scouting skill e.g descriptives of the approx number to increase tension and make it more of a considered decision.
-Let the bandit party leader level up, maybe even so they can develop unique names. Let them use basic formations. Make them more of a threat.
-Have negatives to attacking outlaw parties. Repeated one sided slaughters should reduce moral, not increase it.
-Have more reasons for outlaw parties to come after you rather than 90% of the time running away. Let small parties band together as one group and, if you are carrying lots of goods or have lots of money, actually do some banditry by coming after you. Doesn't that make sense?

This is just for starters. I'm sure there are other ways to improve them.

 

[lunelune2413]

I disagree. They are so ubiquitous as to be a vital part of the early game. There should never be a free source of XP and loot as they are at the moment. This is simply poor design and frankly lazy. Risk/reward might be gamey and a bit artificial, but it is by far the best option for increasing tension and challenge in a game. So far Bannerlord lacks both of those.

Is disagree with you there. If my first experience in Warband/Bannerlord were Sea raiders that used tactics (Whilst in the game they already super strong) I would've just quit and I think a lot of casual gamers also would. Having a "Brainless" (Though I still think that the bandit AI in Bannerlord is better than Warbands) bandit AI to fight at the very start is a good way to introduce new players to fighting, levelling troops and items.

I agree that they need to balance out the loot and gold you gain from post combat looting should be balanced.

II'll admit I've found the most recent updates quite fun, but this element of the game needs the bolts tightening up. I propose:
-Reduce the number of outlaw parties on the map by as much as 50%. They are swarming most of the time and some come in stupidly small numbers.
-Remove the exact party numbers unless you have a high Scouting skill e.g descriptives of the approx number to increase tension and make it more of a considered decision.
-Let the bandit party leader level up, maybe even so they can develop unique names. Let them use basic formations. Make them more of a threat.
-Have negatives to attacking outlaw parties. Repeated one sided slaughters should reduce moral, not increase it.
-Have more reasons for outlaw parties to come after you rather than 90% of the time running away. Let small parties band together as one group and, if you are carrying lots of goods or have lots of money, actually do some banditry by coming after you. Doesn't that make sense?

This is just for starters. I'm sure there are other ways to improve them.

What you're suggesting are Bandit armies. Don't quote me on this, but I think a dev even said that this is something that they won't do.
I think that's why the minor bandit factions were created in the first place. An enemy to face once you've joined a kingdom that's inbetween a bandit group and a kingdom.

 

[CaptainLee]

What you're suggesting are Bandit armies. Don't quote me on this, but I think a dev even said that this is something that they won't do.
I think that's why the minor bandit factions were created in the first place. An enemy to face once you've joined a kingdom that's inbetween a bandit group and a kingdom.

Bandit armies? Not especially. Just groups that come together if you have stuff worth taking. A big score, if you will. To use the historical precendent, think the Folvilles and Coterels in 14th century England. Also what if I don't want to join a kingdom? Isn't that a valid way of playing? I usually prefer the life of a mercenary commander rather than the often tiresome kingdom shenanigans. After all you start independent so presumably it's an intended path, otherwise you may as well pick a kingdom to be a subject of in the character screen rather than as a background.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Check this: Bandit Militias

 

[Worldsprayer]

If we are going for the historical analogy, there would be no Viking raider that did not know how to fight a mustered Fyrd or local village militia in a shield wall. They could use formations such as the swine array, especially as we even have the Skein formation in the game. Against peasants and monks? Sure. An organized mercenary company? You can be damn sure they are employing tactics.




I disagree. They are so ubiquitous as to be a vital part of the early game. There should never be a free source of XP and loot as they are at the moment. This is simply poor design and frankly lazy. Risk/reward might be gamey and a bit artificial, but it is by far the best option for increasing tension and challenge in a game. So far Bannerlord lacks both of those.

On a personal note, I much prefer to play the game as an unaligned mercenary commander than a wannabe Lord or vassal, but that's just me.

--------------------------------

II'll admit I've found the most recent updates quite fun, but this element of the game needs the bolts tightening up. I propose:
-Reduce the number of outlaw parties on the map by as much as 50%. They are swarming most of the time and some come in stupidly small numbers.
-Remove the exact party numbers unless you have a high Scouting skill e.g descriptives of the approx number to increase tension and make it more of a considered decision.
-Let the bandit party leader level up, maybe even so they can develop unique names. Let them use basic formations. Make them more of a threat.
-Have negatives to attacking outlaw parties. Repeated one sided slaughters should reduce moral, not increase it.
-Have more reasons for outlaw parties to come after you rather than 90% of the time running away. Let small parties band together as one group and, if you are carrying lots of goods or have lots of money, actually do some banditry by coming after you. Doesn't that make sense?

This is just for starters. I'm sure there are other ways to improve them.

A couple things:
1) While yes vikings knew the basics of group combat like a shield wall, those things were not often used by raiding parties because shield walls require LOTS of people to use. I read a report once that analyzed shield walls and it found that one reason the romans excelled early on was they learned that a shield wall didn't need to be 10+ men deep but reached peak momentum efficiency at 6 rows...but still..that means for every spot in a shield wall you need 5 behind him (otherwise the wall gets knocked around and broken) Even a raiding for of 60 men (that's 2 medium or 1 large longboat) would wind up with a shield wall only 10-15 wide which tactically is pointless because a force that small can easily be maneuvered around. Shield walls were used by armies and fyrds due to the number of men they could muster and strategically place to protect the flanks (the weak part of a wall). So not seeing raiders in a shieldwall makes perfect sense to me.

The game needs to include the leader system from Prophecy of Pendor: Criminals would keep spawning small units that over time would migrate into a main force, which would eventually spawn a leader and it would become a criminal army, which made it important for lords to keep the criminals down to prevent the armies from forming. That would solve the bandit issues I think by reducing the number of parties, but making it so that over time you have an ever growing threat that eventually requires focus to remove.

Attacking outlaws shouldnt reduce morale. Constantly wiping out criminals would boost morale in unit and the land because everyone knows they'er protecting their families. Slaughtering a village however...

bandits run because they have relatively low levels and its super easy to level your force well beyond theirs. Criminals rarely ever attacked military forces unless they were utterly desperate because the military's equipment and training would see them slaughter the bandits even if outnumbered. bandits were usually bandits because they wearn't good at anything...so they wearn't the brightest of the bunch. Now the growing force idea would work because the bandit 'army" could eventually get to the point where they start trying to raid villages, which would force you to engage them, rather than trying to find a way to force them to engage you.

 

[veronicaaltoids]

+1 Too many "brain-dead issues in Bannerlord"

Dealing with looters, bandits and other "disorganized" gangs in Bannerlord is still the same old experience; the little train of death™ . Take a horse and bow, make ten turns or follow a straight path keeping enemies on your horse's ass and you've already beaten them easy on your own.

only if you have good skill on foot and well shield and well equiped

in Bannerlord, if you are not careful, even 10 + peasant with pitch forks can throw rocks and kill you

 

[Worldsprayer]

only if you have good skill on foot and well shield and well equiped

in Bannerlord, if you are not careful, even 10 + peasant with pitch forks can throw rocks and kill you

I was about to say...my character in full armor is still too slow, especially backing up, to maintain distance from the npcs and I always get swamped unless I can find a way to cover my sides.

 

[CaptainLee]

A couple things:
1) While yes vikings knew the basics of group combat like a shield wall, those things were not often used by raiding parties because shield walls require LOTS of people to use. I read a report once that analyzed shield walls and it found that one reason the romans excelled early on was they learned that a shield wall didn't need to be 10+ men deep but reached peak momentum efficiency at 6 rows...but still..that means for every spot in a shield wall you need 5 behind him (otherwise the wall gets knocked around and broken) Even a raiding for of 60 men (that's 2 medium or 1 large longboat) would wind up with a shield wall only 10-15 wide which tactically is pointless because a force that small can easily be maneuvered around. Shield walls were used by armies and fyrds due to the number of men they could muster and strategically place to protect the flanks (the weak part of a wall). So not seeing raiders in a shieldwall makes perfect sense to me.

Then the shieldwall needs to be removed completely if we are being completely faithful to history. I don't think I've ever seen true shieldwall in Bannerlord then. Lets assume though, that this shieldwall is a mobile method of advancing to provide maximum protection from missiles. Let's have Sea Raiders at least use that. Even the Skein formation. Something.

Attacking outlaws shouldnt reduce morale. Constantly wiping out criminals would boost morale in unit and the land because everyone knows they'er protecting their families. Slaughtering a village however...

Slaughtering tens or a hundred people a day (as outlaw parties are so ubiquitous) would most certainly would have a delitarious effect on morale. The Psychological Effects of Combat is of course extensively studied, as is the effects of killing someone. It simply isn't feasible to do so and maintain any kind of discipline. The fact they are criminals rarely seems to factor in. Killing is killing.

bandits run because they have relatively low levels and its super easy to level your force well beyond theirs. Criminals rarely ever attacked military forces unless they were utterly desperate because the military's equipment and training would see them slaughter the bandits even if outnumbered. bandits were usually bandits because they wearn't good at anything...so they wearn't the brightest of the bunch. Now the growing force idea would work because the bandit 'army" could eventually get to the point where they start trying to raid villages, which would force you to engage them, rather than trying to find a way to force them to engage you.

If I am laden with trade goods or have a great deal of money with me (let's say 10,000 gold) I really think a target should be painted on your back. I have no issues with seperate groups of bandits banding together for this and at least provide some threat to my mobile bank. They'd be poor bandits to at least not try. They try it with caravans, after all. They also capture lords surprisingly often, even with professional troops in the party.

 

[Worldsprayer]

Then the shieldwall needs to be removed completely if we are being completely faithful to history. I don't think I've ever seen true shieldwall in Bannerlord then. Lets assume though, that this shieldwall is a mobile method of advancing to provide maximum protection from missiles. Let's have Sea Raiders at least use that. Even the Skein formation. Something.



Slaughtering tens or a hundred people a day (as outlaw parties are so ubiquitous) would most certainly would have a delitarious effect on morale. The Psychological Effects of Combat is of course extensively studied, as is the effects of killing someone. It simply isn't feasible to do so and maintain any kind of discipline. The fact they are criminals rarely seems to factor in. Killing is killing.



If I am laden with trade goods or have a great deal of money with me (let's say 10,000 gold) I really think a target should be painted on your back. I have no issues with seperate groups of bandits banding together for this and at least provide some threat to my mobile bank. They'd be poor bandits to at least not try. They try it with caravans, after all. They also capture lords surprisingly often, even with professional troops in the party.

Again, not sure why the shieldwall should be removed. You're running armed forces of hundreds and thousands around. That's plenty for shield walls. It's just that smaller units shouldn't use it and expect results. Even in game archers can very quickly rotate around a shield wall because it can't turn fast enough to stop them.

I agree skeins and other formations should be used because all the skein was was a method of forcing a body (usually dead by the time it got there) through a defensive line, and a skein of men running through an enemy formation should happen. And you CAN use the shield wall properly, I do it all the time: I'll have my archers in the middle and infantry on both sides in relatively blocky/square shield wall ranks so that cavalry won't be able to break through when they try their expected flanking attack. Using the saved formations mods make this super easy. You don't HAVE to have a 2-man thick shield wall. What I don't KNOW is if there is mass in the game, because the entire point of stacking up troops in a shieldwall is to let them PUSH, so the idea was that they would try to push a shieldwall at a weak point and cause it to bend and effectively break which would cause the broken wall to lose men super rapidly.

and yes bandits should attack caravans, and in fact they might actually even TRY to already. The problem is that most caravans are usually racing around at like 6.0 speed and even with a full cav force I often can't catch them...which makes no sense. The caravan speed DEFINITELY needs to be nerfed. The only way they get in fights at the moment is if they get trapped beween 3 or more groups.

 

[CaptainLee]

Again, not sure why the shieldwall should be removed. You're running armed forces of hundreds and thousands around. That's plenty for shield walls. It's just that smaller units shouldn't use it and expect results. Even in game archers can very quickly rotate around a shield wall because it can't turn fast enough to stop them.

Well I assumed your argument was the lack of historical authenticity for Bannerlord shield walls was a reason not to bother having Sea Raiders use it, hence why you brought up the depth of men required irl. If it's purely that it isn't effective as is, I would argue even for the sake of flavour and the minor benefits of closer support and protection it would be. Someone on the bandit side needs to use formations.

and yes bandits should attack caravans, and in fact they might actually even TRY to already. The problem is that most caravans are usually racing around at like 6.0 speed and even with a full cav force I often can't catch them...which makes no sense. The caravan speed DEFINITELY needs to be nerfed. The only way they get in fights at the moment is if they get trapped beween 3 or more groups.

Agreed. The speed is the issue, as they tend to be guarded quite well. Seems all those trade goods don't stress mule backs too much. I've seen bandits attack caravans a fair few times, with mixed success. Actually, I think they do better versus weakened Lord parties.

 

[Worldsprayer]

Well I assumed your argument was the lack of historical authenticity for Bannerlord shield walls was a reason not to bother having Sea Raiders use it, hence why you brought up the depth of men required irl. If it's purely that it isn't effective as is, I would argue even for the sake of flavour and the minor benefits of closer support and protection it would be. Someone on the bandit side needs to use formations.



Agreed. The speed is the issue, as they tend to be guarded quite well. Seems all those trade goods don't stress mule backs too much. I've seen bandits attack caravans a fair few times, with mixed success. Actually, I think they do better versus weakened Lord parties.

Definitely. The caravans often have top-tier escorts and I've gone carefuly into 3 vs 1 fights (me with the 3) and come out as a victor with my nose seriously bloodied. The way I see it, if the caravan is empty, let it zoom along. If it's loaded with trade goods, it needs to slow down.

Shield walls definitely CAN be effective, the issue is they are not an end-all-be-all. for example, I rarely keep my infantry in a shield wall until the last minute, and then I only KEEP them there long enough for archers/horse archers/cav to get behind the force that has become locked on them. Even a small shield-walled force can lock down a much larger body for at least a little bit.

I think bandits should have the occasional "robin hood"-esque leader pop up that unifies the bandit team he is with to offer more challanging opportunities. The leader could lead an army, and send out lieutenants that actually use formations to give the ocasional time of having to deal with organized bandits...but then they all die and it goes back to usual for a while.