ramonb said:
Sorry but this is rather long, let me explain:
As it stands right now, in SP:
In Warband when an enemy AI Marshal fixes a target, he summons his Lords and proceeds to target (a Raid, a Castle or a Town). If, on their way to target they encounter an enemy party or complete army, they won’t attack, they disregard and just continue to target.
Best example I can give you is: I can stand with my 122 troop’s right in front of a 1200+ Khergit army and they won’t attack.
[quote author= Qumil]
I have seen 2 1200+ army groups pass through each other completely ignoring opponent army.
Also seems stupid when waiting at castle or city to siege and just ignore enemy armys who ride in to reinforce the garrison.
Worst is they will ignore a single passing army often, but some marshalls will abandon a siege to go protect a far away village that is being raided.
Many us have seen that many times, and have saved games to prove it.
[quote author= Vornne]
I don't think this is a bug, simply a possibly unintended consequence of an intentional change: that lords following a campaign or waiting for a siege to start do not scatter to the winds every time an enemy caravan, group farmers, or pretty butterfly goes past; particularly when they have no chance of catching up. I have seen it requested on the forums many times, and seem to vaguely remember posts being made about it in the warband singleplayer beta section by the developers.
[/quote]
And I totally agree with him, I don’t want friend or foe Lords following a Marshal to scatter and pursue caravans, farmers, raid villages etc. But I do want Lords or Marshals to attack ENEMIES, as in real life.
On the other hand if Player is Marshal and he is travelling to a target or doing a Siege, he:
1. Can’t instruct 1 or more accompanying Lords to break formation and pursue a nearby enemy party. (Not caravans, looters, villagers or farmers).
2. Can’t instruct accompanying Lords to continue to target or continue siege. Then NPC or player character can decide if it is worth pursuing a nearby enemy party or go and save his village.
3. Can’t assign a new marshal on the field and instruct him to continue to target/siege.
Solutions might be:
1. In game "General Options" give the User the possibility to select old Mount & Blade or new Warband campaign AI behavior (just like the Lance Control option).
2. While doing a Siege, give Player character the possibility to instruct 1 accompanying Lord to procure food/meat or hunt while the army is sieging a castle/town.
As it stands out right now it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to maintain a siege for 30 to 100 days without starving your own army first. Either that or lower the food stocks for garrisoned fiefs.
I seriously doubt anybody, NPC or Players have ever done a 30-100 day siege.
Some answers I have received from BugTracker.
[quote author= Mexxico]
Player gives a decision, for example going and besieging "X Castle". He starts a campaign and some lords join and when player see number of lords are enought he starts travelling "Castle X" Then if your wishes implemented, some lords will break of group and act independently attack some enemy lords then you will have to join battle or continue without that lord and his party. This is not wanted by most of players. If you want to attack that lord and continue travelling then you can attack that enemy lord by yourself and other parties will join. So decision is yours you are the marshal you can start battle or go without interaction. This is not bug.
[/quote]
[quote author= Mexxico]
this report is not a bug too.
But currently I did not changed it to false alarm too to wait others ideas on this topic.
These things have their special reasons. If we allow parties to attack small groups while they are going an important siege/mission, this damages most things.
Qumil said :
Worst is they will ignore a single passing army often, but some marshalls will abandon a siege to go protect a far away village that is being raided.
These leaving marshals are owners of these far away villages and for them it can be more important to protect firstly their owned lands.
Maybe some things can be developed and big armies can start a battle when they see each other but on the other hand this is not advantageous for both factions = joining a large battle and losing thousands of men.
They are doing what is most advantageous for them. Winning a center is more important than attacking your poor party in most cases.
[/quote]
Then also winning a Castle or Town would be more important than protecting his far away village from being looted, so that should be no reason for the marshal to break his campaign.
Thankfully Mexxico did not change this to false alarm, and he left the topic as New or open.
Again I don’t want Lords to scatter, but give AI or Player Marshals options as to how to conduct a Campaign.
So If you have some ideas please post them here.
[/quote]