Even battles are not ready for release

Users who are viewing this thread

geala

Sergeant at Arms
Is Buck Breaking something which ruins your life if you type it into Google? I did not try. :oops:

even with RBM's ai modifications, the entirety of the combat AI is bonkers dumb... Srsly :lol:
This new face-huging, the whole cavalry car wash, units rushing into architecture holes during sieges and getting stuck, AI almost never using pikes due to insane combat speed resolution (the first to zerg rush wins basically) - and having absolutely no way to manually make them, etc.

We need formations mod in this game, NEED. There we could order bracing manually, pavise deployment, AI would adapt to range and formation type (you could literally mix archers and infantry and they'd work in harmony in a loose formation under advance) - we could select specific formations and tell them to attack said formation... All formations had optimal AI and would work pretty close to RL historical uses of said formations. - there were so many possibilities with Formations Mod, and than we get this abomination which's arguably inferior to vanilla WB AI...

I mean, I came to think of it, the only core gameplay loop they are providing us is an endless stream of combat (can get boring and/or burnout really fast) yet the combat itself is incomplete and broken.... Htf do they have the balls to be releasing the game already!??!?! 🤷‍♂️:lol:

Hmm, what to say against this unfair rant? ... analyzing ... OMG, I don't have a clue. It's true.

I mean, there are partly complicated mods like Diplomacy, Army Formations (from 2020, recently updated to 1.8.0), Banner Kings, Improved Garrisons, RTS Camera and Command system, which help a little bit to make the game better at it's core features. I wonder why TW is not able or willing to do something similar, with the advantageous power of having access to the deep code.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Is Buck Breaking something which ruins your life if you type it into Google? I did not try. :oops:



Hmm, what to say against this unfair rant? ... analyzing ... OMG, I don't have a clue. It's true.

I mean, there are partly complicated mods like Diplomacy, Army Formations (from 2020, recently updated to 1.8.0), Banner Kings, Improved Garrisons, RTS Camera and Command system, which help a little bit to make the game better at it's core features. I wonder why TW is not able or willing to do something similar, with the advantageous power of having access to the deep code.
"with the advantageous power of having access to the deep code."
I wouldn't put like that, the power they actually have with this engine isn't access to the deep code (which arguably any modder sort of has) but rather they have professional PAID programmers and access to the GDD (game design document / game design plan - supposedly because sometimes I suspect they've never even written one in the first place). That means if a feature breaks another or makes another bad or even causes crashes/bugs, they do have the means to fix it so everything works seamlessly translating into FULL compatibility for modders to work around.

When we have multi-modular modding like in Skyrim (and in BL as it was built) we'll have problems with compatibility whenever a "basic feature" is added by a mod because other mods which are solely based on the base-game may cause code interactions that shouldn't take place causing possible crashes or butterfly effect bugs that are impossible to fix or takes a lot of leg work to fix and an additional mod (just for fixing). I abhore having to deal with compatibility in Skyrim, just as much as I abhore the base-game - meaning I can't play without a crap-ton of mods, and to do that I must free-up from 2 to 4 weeks just so I can build the load order while patching and troubleshooting compatibility issues to finally make a somewhat stable game experience.
So, up to a month to fix the game where you have to keep troubleshooting it? Well, I've done it a few times than decided the game wasn't worth the hassle.

and besides all of this technicality, the worse part imho is that this won't allow modders to be very creative in the long-run, if the game keeps needing work-around mods to fix design flaws, balance, and missing features, and that IF they actually iron out all of the glaring bugs, if not than add unofficial bug fix patches to the mod list. I prefer that they slap in all of the base game with the most deep systems with massive over-sight on features if we're to NEED mods for missing features anyway, than half-arsed systems with a bunch of half-arsed features. Depth's much more important in a game like this than being "wide". Finally, for me, the worst part of the game's the progression system as a whole (perks / leveling / attributes / focus pts / ...) if it was up to me I'd bin what they have and start from zero all over again.

So far with what we've got that means more depth for crafting, combat AI & bahaviour, depth for kingdom / vassal, depth for companions, improved management UI and options. If they manage to provide a deep foundation for each and every feature we already have, it makes easier to create mods to fix balancing, add wider variety and explore the features with sub-features. As is, modders have to implement the feature + sub-features, fix balancing and provide 100% of the depth -> makes for less optimal mods with much more room for error (bugs & compatibility issues) with the caveat that they take 10 times longer to be made than they should, because the game's bare-bones really. The features are so shallow that we can't even consider them a "skeleton", they are more leaning towards "place-holder"
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
The really frustrating thing is that some of the biggest problems with combat can be fixed by relatively small numbers tweaks, yet it's been 2 years and it still hasn't happened.

Arrow/bolt damage to armor- easy fix, increase pierce damage reduction number in the armour formula by 1.7x

Spears having terrible stats - easy fix, just increase all their damage by 3x (taking into account pierce damage reduction above).

Glaive gamebreakingly overpowered stats making Khan's Guard the best cavalry, horse archer and infantry unit all in one - easy fix, nerf its damage number or slow down its swing speed, or just take it away from the Khan's Guard line and give it to infantry only, many options all of which are easy to do

Melee lance cavalry being underpowered - easy fix, lower the speed value they need to be travelling to be able to couch (currently seems to be set so they must be travelling down a steep hill to couch, so it rarely functions)

@Dejan are we likely to see any movement on these issues before release? They're so small and yet they could make such a massive improvement on the balance and thus tactical quality of battles instantly
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
access to the GDD (game design document / game design plan - supposedly because sometimes I suspect they've never even written one in the first place).
No reason to suspect: it was confirmed awhile back by mexxxico.
(September 2020)
edit:
I wish we had all game design 8 years ago (when we start this project) and we follow that design document. Probably we could finish game sooner if that kind of development is followed. If this was the case all these problems would be already solved. We are trying to add features one by one and this is not best way to create a detailed game like Bannerlord because all different features are connected each other and we should think all together not one by one. Adding features one by one is dangerous (can broke existing mechanics). However Warband is also developed that way too and be a great game. But even Warband example I think this is hard way to develop a game.
I personally think that's absolutely ****ing nuts but I have no experience in developing computer games, unless you count being a beta tester, so maybe it is just a standard indie-transitioning-the-big-time mistake.

The really frustrating thing is that some of the biggest problems with combat can be fixed by relatively small numbers tweaks, yet it's been 2 years and it still hasn't happened.

Arrow/bolt damage to armor- easy fix, increase pierce damage reduction number in the armour formula by 1.7x

Spears having terrible stats - easy fix, just increase all their damage by 3x (taking into account pierce damage reduction above).

Glaive gamebreakingly overpowered stats making Khan's Guard the best cavalry, horse archer and infantry unit all in one - easy fix, nerf its damage number or slow down its swing speed, or just take it away from the Khan's Guard line and give it to infantry only, many options all of which are easy to do

Melee lance cavalry being underpowered - easy fix, lower the speed value they need to be travelling to be able to couch (currently seems to be set so they must be travelling down a steep hill to couch, so it rarely functions)

@Dejan are we likely to see any movement on these issues before release? They're so small and yet they could make such a massive improvement on the balance and thus tactical quality of battles instantly
Talking about how easy it is to mod probably just makes it easier for TW to ignore, since they expect most players to mod the game.




Do you think Buck Breaking is real too?
OMG please no, ruin 🎅🐰🧚‍♂️ but please let Buck Breaking be real! 💊🤡💊
I was too afraid to ask what buck breaking is and... well.
Is Buck Breaking something which ruins your life if you type it into Google? I did not try. :oops:
I have to say, "buck breaking breaches Black Twitter containment and spills onto the TaleWorlds forum" is one of my top plot twists of 2022.
 

Goyyyio

Veteran
Did Taveren just went through 5 Wikipedia pages and 10 YouTube medieval videos to justify he wants Prima Nocte added into the game, just to have his cucking his serfs kink? ****'s ****ed up man
 
Is Buck Breaking something which ruins your life if you type it into Google? I did not try. :oops:
No need to google, got it right here.

4464d1e63870a2de6f3da979cc29b257.jpg

Spears having terrible stats - easy fix, just increase all their damage by 3x (taking into account pierce damage reduction above).
That won't really fix it, not as long as infantry stow their spears away.

VC had it right with good damage, reach, pushback and anti cav. Honestly wished spears functioned like that instead.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
No reason to suspect: it was confirmed awhile back by mexxxico.
(September 2020)
edit:

I personally think that's absolutely ****ing nuts but I have no experience in developing computer games, unless you count being a beta tester, so maybe it is just a standard indie-transitioning-the-big-time mistake.
that's really bad! If I presented a project like that as a paper during university I'd have been reproved immediately. It's not even acceptable for students to have that mentality / work-flow. Guess that's the price someone pays for being successful form the get go coming from a total layman start...

The most aggravating factor's that in the past I did mention, multiple times, even before I was totally out of the GD field, that I was good with Game Design roles because of the way my mind works and computes information, and I've even jkingly offered multiple times to write them a proper GDD - of course I'd charge for that, but was never taken seriously :lol: - the only issue is that I never had any desire of living in Turkey so I never applied for a job (if I was to become a collaborator I'd want to do it from distance, didn't matter work hours) but I'd not move to Turkey - there's too much political stress and tension there, besides I don't speak their language at all, none of the official ones and have no desire to learn it. Living somewhere under such conditions (not know language, not willing to learn it) can be nightmarish.

Now it's too late for that, though they could have contacted me in private to talk, even if just pushing ideas, structures and suggestions under a direct channel, never happened neither... Those who accompained some of my posts throughout the years know that I'm neither a layman nor that I'm some nutjob case of "megalomaniac" who flexes narcissistic nonsense. I did, however, provided them with tons of disorganized suggestions and tips over the years, some of which I've even bothered explaining the theory behind them (but I've also lashed out a lot over the baffling evidence that the entire development was being done in what seemed like an amateur kickstarter project without any logistics applied)

Now I can only say: too little too late, even if any of the things I've mentioned were to pass. I'm totally disconnected from the field, can't remember crap about coding and would have to re-learn and practice extensively for up to six months to call myself fully capable of handling anything pertaining to real professional roles. Add to it the fact they are already releasing the game, and we're in for an impossible task because I'd have to revamp not one, but at least a handful of systems entirely from scratch. - The only thing I could do now is work as an advisor and just try to mitigate the damage already done... And I have been giving these suggestions in drops here and there without any feedback, much like the course of this past decade, being totally ignored. Quality isn't democractic, it's objective, and there are a few ways to achieve it, none of which they seem to be following..
The really frustrating thing is that some of the biggest problems with combat can be fixed by relatively small numbers tweaks, yet it's been 2 years and it still hasn't happened.

Arrow/bolt damage to armor- easy fix, increase pierce damage reduction number in the armour formula by 1.7x

Spears having terrible stats - easy fix, just increase all their damage by 3x (taking into account pierce damage reduction above).

Glaive gamebreakingly overpowered stats making Khan's Guard the best cavalry, horse archer and infantry unit all in one - easy fix, nerf its damage number or slow down its swing speed, or just take it away from the Khan's Guard line and give it to infantry only, many options all of which are easy to do

Melee lance cavalry being underpowered - easy fix, lower the speed value they need to be travelling to be able to couch (currently seems to be set so they must be travelling down a steep hill to couch, so it rarely functions)

@Dejan are we likely to see any movement on these issues before release? They're so small and yet they could make such a massive improvement on the balance and thus tactical quality of battles instantly
some of the fixes aren't as simple, and also not often mentioned not even noticed as flaws by most (reason why i've never read any posts even mentioning it, even though I've known it for a while) - character size should matter stats-wise.
Weapons should keep values but character scaling should influence range, to balance-out the mini-hitboxes from small characters, toning up HP for the taller you are should also be added. - such changes need to be calculated (it's pure math) to make a perfect balance between it and insert character size as a meta choice (a game that does that, even though I find their formula crap, is Mortal Online 2). It's important because otherwise you're forcing a situation where the optimal is always to make a gnome PC to lower the % chance of being hit by missiles, while it also provides a lot of advantage in small spaces (sieges and prison breaks) - this means even having PC size choice's useless from a game design perspective, because it fails to provide a meaningful choice, it simply offers you "either take advantage or be handicapped by picking the opposite". (hence one of the my most recurring complaints: a lot of the game's disjointed and lacks a meaning towards the Game Design itself, which translates into wasted time and resources for something that's ultimately useless, again, they'd be reproved on multiple subjects in the University I've gotten a degree in Game Development for doing things like that)

A basic rule for filmmaking, game design and creative writing is: "can you answer why 'X' thing is here? Does it make sense? - if not it shouldn't be here." basic lesson 101 for any form of production (games, films, books, short stories, comics..) - and the explanation doesn't even need to be something "WOW", a simple: "X is here because it gives a better atmosphere" is often enough. For games and films, though, everything must communicate with either message being conveyed (for films mostly), or it must be rounded up so it works symbiotically with all other elements involved (much more significant on game design, but films that lack this are often considered crap, even though most ppl can't really tell why - it's a mix of perception and "uncanny valley" effect) - the level of brain needed to make the really "incredible" stuff that ppl often praise is actually very high. The best literary example I like to mention is Tolkien - if you make anything putting as much thought as he did, you'll create a ground-breaking classic instantly, not everyone is capable of that hence why I believe there are so many crap directors and game designers out there. Creative work can be "no-work" with crap results, or it can be "50 times more work than any other" and result in stuff like LOTR books... I only do the latter, while aholes like JJ Abrams or Todd "minimal effort" Howard only do the former...
 
Last edited:

geala

Sergeant at Arms
"with the advantageous power of having access to the deep code."
I wouldn't put like that, the power they actually have with this engine isn't access to the deep code (which arguably any modder sort of has) but rather they have professional PAID programmers and access to the GDD (game design document / game design plan - supposedly because sometimes I suspect they've never even written one in the first place).
...

This I don't understand. So modders have access to all the code, even the basic code? I mean that what often is described as "hardcoded" in discussions. So modding the "foundations" is not hindered by access but by ability to work with the code/language? I thought otherwise but I'm not a programmer/modder.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
This I don't understand. So modders have access to all the code, even the basic code? I mean that what often is described as "hardcoded" in discussions. So modding the "foundations" is not hindered by access but by ability to work with the code/language? I thought otherwise but I'm not a programmer/modder.
no, the way this engine is built, it allows for total modification. I wasn't aware of it until videos of this guy here started popping:

being able to do what he did already shows how profound the modding power of the game is, you can literally alter everything and build entire mechanics from scratch... The trick is: you gotta be a monster at coding, and that's why having a strong base-game's important, otherwise only a handful of ppl will have the knowledge and time to actually push out good and great mods
What I perceive is quintessential and the reasoning behind it? Already present game mechanics must have depth and a symbiosis between themselves (game's currently disjointed), that way TW guarantees that modders can actually work on creative stuff instead of everyone needing to fix the game to only than be able to start doing the mod. IE: Diplomacy system's currently crap, that means for every modder that they must fix it before going forward with their setting (say a guy wants to make a GoT mod for BL, he'll first need to fix countless issues and flush out countless features to even make it on par with Warband GoT mods). This is very concerning because it translates into much less ppl giving effort of even trying. The list of things that need fine-tuning, flushing and fixing's currently massive, to a point where I feel overwhelmed just from thinking of it...

I do, however, have a suspicion that the flawed state of the game may, or may not, push me back into coding and creating mods (something no game has ever managed to do), because the errors are so "blatant" to me (that's my perception, call it opinion) that I can't help myself... It's like watching those Facebook ads with the puzzle solution mini-games :lol: - I'm on the verge of starting pulling my hair off just from seeing it happening - and the problem is that it'll take humongous amounts of time to be able to fix every notch that "needs fixing" (in my opinion), even if I were to strike out and DEW IT, it'd take ages, impossible to predict how long it would take me, specially considering that I need to re-learn coding and study the entire game coding as the first step 😮‍💨
The good news is that it may happen, and ppl could like it a lot, the bad news is I hate coding and am not sure if I'll commit into such dedication to an ultimately unpaid massive time-sink effort - since I have no clue how they've built most of the stuff, i'd have to spend eons reviewing code and doing trial and error to see what works and what doesn't.

What is much more guaranteed to happen is that when I'm fully active post release, I'll probably start taking notes and making a list of what "needs fixing" along with "how to fix", when that's done I could post it in here and just wait until some coding ace steps up and simply makes it happen, I'm not fully confident in my coding capabilities at all, so I wouldn't complain nor be offended, I'd actually be thankful :lol: (important noted: I'm talking about game mechanics, not bugs & crashes)
 
Last edited:

Zerosaiko

Squire
The main things I can think of being hardcoded are stuff like the individual AI where they like to hug? If I remember right stuff like that, deciding whether they should brace, or choosing which of their weapons they should use aren't in the power of the modders to choose, though I do remember seeing posts somewhere about workarounds that some people tried.

Most of the game is extremely moddable, but some of the things that aren't (the behavior that leads to hugging) are huge. Iirc the Improved Combat AI mod (haven't tried it myself though) even makes archers lead their shots better.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
The main things I can think of being hardcoded are stuff like the individual AI where they like to hug? If I remember right stuff like that, deciding whether they should brace, or choosing which of their weapons they should use aren't in the power of the modders to choose, though I do remember seeing posts somewhere about workarounds that some people tried.

Most of the game is extremely moddable, but some of the things that aren't (the behavior that leads to hugging) are huge. Iirc the Improved Combat AI mod (haven't tried it myself though) even makes archers lead their shots better.
that would be rather strange considering we do have Formations mod of Warband which basically revamped the entire AI behavior... Not sure though because I'm not familiar with modding BL nor have I studied it's code yet... I'd guess we do have access to it, it's just hard to pull off and none of the aces who can do it will even try before release because it's pointless (TW keeps changing AI behavior too often, kept for the entire EA stage), even a bit insane if I say so myself because that would mean you'd have to be constantly changing and updating the mod unless you made it so it overwrites the entire API system with your own AI 100% of the time, which would depend on having global unchanging call sections for the AI behavior - it's like basic math of having the code contained into a section that of which you have global control to enable or disable it, if that is the case than it's easier because the mod wouldn't need to update with any game updates, but I doubt that's the case otherwise I think there would be mods touching it already.

Besides that, "AI" programming is very extensive work, requires lots of trial and error + it's not as easy as it sounds because you need to basically transform a real behavior into math equations, like turning fear into a factor and tuning it into the most realistic you can. The coding's basically a massive stream of "if *something* than *something*". - Just a quick comment: we calling it AI is wrong, because the behavior for NPC in any game so far doesn't have any level of actual AI coding, it's just patterned conditional action vs reaction. Real AI actually learns, and that's a gazillion times harder code while it also makes the software extremely more demanding on processing power :lol: - the correct term for games' "AI" is VI (virtual intelligence) - I also fear the day that AI actually becomes a thing in gaming because if that happens we'll have exceptionally unfun games, just imagine an AI who sampled over millions of battles in BL under a spam of a few months, I don't think any of us, ace as we may be, would be able to beat it, specially considering that the game gives AI full instant control while the player has to deal with a bunch of key-strokes, point and click and has absolutely zero access to any of the special commands like skirmishing. Even without that, RBM already has to resort to a "tripping over" mechanic so the individual AI won't block 100% of your attacks, that because Raptor made sure that the game AI actually tries to protect itself, with that system turned off (which you can), than connecting hits on high skill score NPCs' next to impossible, even with it is already hardcore - with RBM I have to use kicks, bashes & pommel strikes like a maniac because fainting window for the best units' but a small fraction of time - any input delay, lag or even me being a bit tired wtih slower reflexes translates into having my ass handed over to me.
 
Last edited:
This I don't understand. So modders have access to all the code, even the basic code? I mean that what often is described as "hardcoded" in discussions. So modding the "foundations" is not hindered by access but by ability to work with the code/language? I thought otherwise but I'm not a programmer/modder.

A lot of the game is in C# or .xml files and is moddable, but things like pathfinding and combat are still hardcoded in C++. They mentioned this in one of the blogs. I haven't looked extensively at what's hardcoded, but from what I've seen it's about the same as warband.

The main difference is that C# is about the same speed as C++ (about 1.5x slower for most things), while the warband scripting language was more like 100 times slower, being a primitive bytecode implementation.

no, the way this engine is built, it allows for total modification. i wasn't aware of it until videos of this guy here started popping:

being able to do what he did already shows how profound the modding power of the game is, you can literally alter everything and build entire mechanics from scratch...

You could do this in warband, theoretically, and I think someone actually did. but it would be much more of a pain in the arse since with WBScript you don't have arrays, structs, floats, OOP or anything else really besides ints and functions. This has less to do with the engine itself and more the language they've used as their scripting language.
 
Last edited:

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
A lot of the game is in C# or .xml files and is moddable, but things like pathfinding and combat are still hardcoded in C++. They mentioned this in one of the blogs. I haven't looked extensively at what's hardcoded, but from what I've seen it's about the same as warband.

The main difference is that C# is about the same speed as C++ (about 1.5x slower for most things), while the warband scripting language was more like 100 times slower, being a primitive bytecode implementation.



You could do this in warband, theoretically, and I think someone actually did. but it would be much more of a pain in the arse since with WBScript you don't have arrays, structs, floats, OOP or anything else really besides ints and functions. This has less to do with the engine itself and more the language they've used as their scripting language.
so that means we can't actually have a Formations mod for BL? If that's the case the game's a lost case already
 

Zerosaiko

Squire
so that means we can't actually have a Formations mod for BL? If that's the case the game's a lost case already
Formations themselves can be modded, it's more the low level stuff that isn't. I'd have to hunt down the blog post, but basically from highest layer to lowest, the combat AI goes: Tactical, Formation, Individual. The Tactical and Formation layers are possible to mod, some parts of the Individual layer are, but other parts aren't.

Edit: Tracked down the blog post. https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/83
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Formations themselves can be modded, it's more the low level stuff that isn't. I'd have to hunt down the blog post, but basically from highest layer to lowest, the combat AI goes: Tactical, Formation, Individual. The Tactical and Formation layers are possible to mod, some parts of the Individual layer are, but other parts aren't.

Edit: Tracked down the blog post. https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/83
nah, we're doomed:
Formation
Formation AI sits at a level just above individual AI. Formation AI is used to issue commands to each agent within a formation and decide what behaviour that the formation should perform (i.e. attack, defend, flank, retreat, etc.). However, it is important to note that the orders issued by the formation AI only determine what is expected of each individual agent, but it doesn’t directly make them do anything: this is left to the individual AI to interpret and carry out.

The formation AI has access to the same interface and set of commands as the player. In other words, our combat AI doesn’t cheat! It uses every piece of information that a player would have access to (although, perhaps slightly more detailed and accurate than a player’s guesstimates) to make its decisions.
this means that we can't alter actor behavior to fit the formation - only what the formation does as a whole can be altered.
The level of modification formations mod did in WB was extensive to the individual actor level where it would override any basic AI making them work towards the formation performatic objective.

Say, square formation would place shields outside while pike and long spear troops would overhead poke from the back at anyone coming close - meanwhile the shield barring ones would attack with less frequency with opportunity strikes (in BL any shielding troops does Feck All until you tell them to charge), but if the majority of the formation composition had pikes, it would make a pike square - if you issued commands like advance or placed the formation on top of another, it would act as an offensive formation - it would also adapt to formation depth, where if you made multiple lines, the AI carrying the longest weapons would move towards the back and attack from there with overheads only - if you placed a shield wall and issued the command for bracing, pikes would move to the front and brace them waiting for cavalry charges.

If you placed archers into the infantry formation, they'd automatically move towards the back line and shoot from gaps (which's what many theories about how medieval archery works point towards - and I can confirm by playing WB that it is indeed a very efficient tactic for armored archer troops with shielded shock troops as a combo).

In BL the first few hours back in 2020 I've tried re-applying tactics that of which I had learned by playing with Formations mod, but the AI would not behave properly, there were no advanced commands (like manually selecting formations through placing yours over theirs in the move option, no bracing command, no deploy pavise command which aren't even deployable what-so-ever, no way of manually mixing troops in the party screen, and even when mixing inf/arch the AI behaves almost entirely at random individual level). Whereas in formations we had all of these options + the advance which made Skein formation extremely deadly (that's the purpose of that V shape for infantry, it has historically been used to break enemy formations and separating them into 2 smaller ones) - whereas in BL the skein is just line formation but in a "trap" version because the tip of the spear will die fast and first because the formation stops at the tip isntead of moving through the enemy. Also, the only way to make your troops attack is to keep them into hold under line, skein or loose, while shield wall and square makes them stop attacking, they just sit there like idiots until you issue a charge: Charge being another level of idiotic because the formation is than completely ignored and they simply rush in like manic suicidal LARP ppl which culminates into a stats check of who has most armor, most HP and more weapon dmg with some RNG thrown in towards the "hit&miss"... That's why I have been saying that base BL is a matter of who zerg rushes first, because if you take the initiative with enough stats, you will win, if you don't, you'll probably lose. - In vanilla there's one tactic due to how limited our controls are that almost always bashes in the AI's face, which's placing the full party under loose formation and follow, hold fire, than rushing through your enemy on horse back to finally release the fire at will once they are between 60 and 40 range - this will almost always annihilate the AI and it's akin to the old "f1+f3" from Swadian knights.

The individual overwrite over formation's so ridiculous that captains on horse back leading inf or archers will always rush in and get their faces carved to death, and if these details can't be controlled by the formations, that means we might as well have a hard-lock on it and the quality of AI behavior cannot be improved by mods, which means they will probably never get improved at all
 
Last edited:

Zerosaiko

Squire
Oh, that's what you meant. Yeah, there's not enough access to the individual AI to fix that kind of stuff as far as I know. I think RBM AI does mess with it somewhat by giving troops more cowardice, dunno if Individual Combat AI does anything about it, but unfortunately Bannerlord's combat AI may actually be less moddable overall than Warband's was.

Edit: Maybe if they get enemies to stop trying to hug, getting spearmen stabbing over the heads of allies could work better, since I think modders do get enough control of formations to give different troops different instructions and positions based on equipment and the such. Assuming they don't switch to their sidearms as soon as they get close to footmen since the part of individual AI that controls melee weapon usage isn't moddable iirc.
 
Last edited:
this means that we can't alter actor behavior to fit the formation - only what the formation does as a whole can be altered.
The level of modification formations mod did in WB was extensive to the individual actor level where it would override any basic AI making them work towards the formation performatic objective.

Warband individual AI was hardcoded as well, the only thing modders could do was hacky stuff like temporarily reducing their speed to 0. Even getting them to crouch reliably was basically impossible. There was a duelling mod that overwrote the entire system from scratch, but I don't know how performant that was at large scale since everything was done in the scripting language.

Basically the level of moddability is about the same as warband.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Warband individual AI was hardcoded as well, the only thing modders could do was hacky stuff like temporarily reducing their speed to 0. Even getting them to crouch reliably was basically impossible. There was a duelling mod that overwrote the entire system from scratch, but I don't know how performant that was at large scale since everything was done in the scripting language.

Basically the level of moddability is about the same as warband.
well, someone call Motomataru to save the day than
 
Top Bottom