Formation system need a rework: infantry just can't fight properly

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

SirStart

Sergeant
WBWF&SVC
Best answers
0
The Romans fought loose order with chopping swings, not shoulder to shoulder, at least until they adopted a more spear centered infantry line in the later empire. They didn't fight like the vikings, or a phalangite.

The Greek style of warfare pre phalangite was also incredibly chaotic and not given to formations. The Spartans may be an exception, in that they at least learned how to march in formation, which was beyond your average greek hoplite, but it's not entirely known how sophisticated their actual battlefield formations would be. Even a basic level of discipline and training would put them head and shoulders above how most greeks fought.
so wha kind o sources ye have to back yer claims, i would love to read em as most historians and sources seem to be wrong in the roman and greek warfare according to yer claims. and wha does the pre phalangite have to do with this? i said think o the spartans, and most medieval warfare where just this, phalanxes fighting each others or shieldwalls pushing each others untill one routed.
 

SerHamlet

Recruit
Best answers
0
i think it was this one or another one on nexus mod section

it should help with the npc collision making em space out a bit more then go into a flailing blob
I just tried the mod and sadly, it didn't address the melee blocking issue.
 

SerHamlet

Recruit
Best answers
0
Creating a problem yourself, then selling a fix for it? You've just invented capitalism.

Back the original topic though, there doesn't seem to be much individual trooper AI to speak of, not yet, anyway. Infantry was way more efficient in Warband, in fact. I guess it has to do with fancy weapon collision physics that make an entire half of soldier trees obsolete at the moment.

Ah, Early Access. I trust TW to fix that, I'm just sad it wasn't something they decided to make functional before going EA.
Well if they can be incentized to address the problem earlier, I don't mind if a little premium is to be paid.

And certainly the weapon collision physics are cause of the problem: just look at the overhead strike: character put his sword parallel to his back and then swing all the way up and down like 270 degree to complete a devastating swing, how can this not collide with second line troops? There are physics that prevent the attack to be done, but no mechanism to avoid NPC to do such absurd move in tight formation.
 

SirStart

Sergeant
WBWF&SVC
Best answers
0
I just tried the mod and sadly, it didn't address the melee blocking issue.
ah sorry to hear tha, i havent tried it meself so couldnt give more feedback then tha i saw someone make a mod with the collision problems, hope TW solves this problem further on then!
 

Koshkasa

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
And certainly the weapon collision physics are cause of the problem
Your point is valid, of course. I've just tried recreating the scenario from the video in the OP, and the result is... comical.

And it's actually a unique blend of realistic (duh) weapon physics and infantry units feeling desperate for a hug every time you suddenly don't want them to scatter anymore. While as of right now the root of the problem seems to be collision overcomplication, we wouldn't feel it nearly as much if AI soldiers were as aware of updated collisions as we are.

My game engine insight is currently on single cell organisms' level, but from my own observations the soldiers just pick a random attack like they did in previous MnB's. It would be perfectly functional if they were aware of their surroundings and used only attacks that can hit the target at least theoretically.

EDIT: Why realistic physics were needed to supplement clearly unrealistic attacks is beyond me. Changing horizontal cuts to diagonal would require less free space, be much more realistic, and wouldn't require that many additional brain cells to learn. There are still four directions this way
 
Last edited:

Reiksmarshal

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I hate how cavalry units can just ride through a formation currently, infantry are pointless with the current balance. I would like to see formations give bonus to your troops and a spear wall formation added that forces spear troops to use their spears!

500 spears in circle formation against 250 melee cavalry.


The spearmen get utterly destroyed without even putting up a fight, I would say formations really isn't implemented yet. 500 spearmen in a circle formation should be pretty invulnerable to melee cavaly just as long as they hold formation. Combination of arms tatctics would need to to be used to defeat them.
 
Last edited:

Stratigo

Sergeant
Best answers
0
so wha kind o sources ye have to back yer claims, i would love to read em as most historians and sources seem to be wrong in the roman and greek warfare according to yer claims. and wha does the pre phalangite have to do with this? i said think o the spartans, and most medieval warfare where just this, phalanxes fighting each others or shieldwalls pushing each others untill one routed.
the funny thing is, I am literally communicating to by the modern scholarly consensus. You’re buying into a consensus some 60 years out of date now. The sources aren’t even that hard to find. Read Thucydides or polybius for contemporary eye witness descriptions of Greek and Roman combat specifically

since you are clearlynot natively an English speaker, I’ll clarify that a phalangite is the system of warfare that displaced the hoplite, best exemplified by Philip of macedon’s armies. Hoplites did not traditionally fight in ordered formation, but from the end of the Peloponnesus war onwards, Greek warfare seems to have developed better organization and the spears got increasingly longer until we arrive at the sarissa. But a man wielding a sarissa is a phalangite and not a hoplite in modern parlance
 

Archonsod

Marquis
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
My game engine insight is currently on single cell organisms' level, but from my own observations the soldiers just pick a random attack like they did in previous MnB's. It would be perfectly functional if they were aware of their surroundings and used only attacks that can hit the target at least theoretically.
It's not random, the AI is looking at the target and trying to pick the best attack to hit (it won't try a left swing if you're holding a left block for example). It's not looking at it's surroundings (hence happy to hit the nearest wall) or the weapon it's using (thus trying to literally go toe to toe while waving a polearm). I've also yet to see it couch a weapon on horseback. Funnily enough it did have some understanding of it's surroundings in WB - it wouldn't choose an attack that would be blocked by scenery etc. Of course, it could just be the AI is unaware of it's equipment as the equipment list isn't finalised yet.
 

Diavolo

Knight
M&BWB
Best answers
0
In viking conquest the spear formations were very strong and deadly so it is possible to implement. However for bannerlord everything is remade from the ground up afaik so I don't know if the AI is able to handle that anymore.
 

FightingFirst

Recruit
Best answers
0
so wha kind o sources ye have to back yer claims, i would love to read em as most historians and sources seem to be wrong in the roman and greek warfare according to yer claims. and wha does the pre phalangite have to do with this? i said think o the spartans, and most medieval warfare where just this, phalanxes fighting each others or shieldwalls pushing each others untill one routed.
Polybius XVIII,30,6-8 is one I believe off the top of my head. Conicidently that is how I was taught to fight in a riot. We were told to move away from the old technique of interlocking shields and fight with gaps between each other so you could swing and were much more flexible.
The formation is much more porous but anyone who ran to the side would get hit on the way in and then by the person behind - trust me once you tried that once you wouldnt do it again.

However, the issue is still largely contested over the actual distance. All I can say is 3 foot does work in a riot situation, how that would translate to an ancient battlefield I cannot say
 

Neptune08640

Regular
Best answers
0
The Romans fought loose order with chopping swings, not shoulder to shoulder, at least until they adopted a more spear centered infantry line in the later empire. They didn't fight like the vikings, or a phalangite.

The Greek style of warfare pre phalangite was also incredibly chaotic and not given to formations. The Spartans may be an exception, in that they at least learned how to march in formation, which was beyond your average greek hoplite, but it's not entirely known how sophisticated their actual battlefield formations would be. Even a basic level of discipline and training would put them head and shoulders above how most greeks fought.
The romans didn't fight loose XD, their main weapons was the gladius, a short sword ment to stab and thrust not swing/chop, their pila, javlin meant to make the enemy shield usless by sticking to it, and their big shield. They were one of the most organized army in the history lol with one of the most advanced formation of that time. The archaic Rome had some hoplite and phalanx but then they developed their own combat sistem which was similar to a shiled wall. Their superior tactics and organization allowed them to win against the macedon sarissa phalanx and the greek phalanx.
Romans fought loos lol
 

FightingFirst

Recruit
Best answers
0
The romans didn't fight loose XD, their main weapons was the gladius, a short sword ment to stab and thrust not swing/chop, their pila, javlin meant to make the enemy shield usless by sticking to it, and their big shield. They were one of the most organized army in the history lol with one of the most advanced formation of that time. The archaic Rome had some hoplite and phalanx but then they developed their own combat sistem which was similar to a shiled wall. Their superior tactics and organization allowed them to win against the macedon sarissa phalanx and the greek phalanx.
Romans fought loos lol
There is evidence that suggests they did though, at least that is what contemporary sources such as Polybius state. There are quite a lot of reasons to fight in a loose formation if you are a well disciplined and trained force that relies on flexibility. Dont get me wrong, being the flexible force they are I presume they would alter the formation depending on the situation. Just like how Napoleonic infantry altered the formation depending on if they were facing cavalry or infantry.
 
Last edited:

Mppqlmd

Regular
Best answers
0
Romans fought against the entire world, so assuming they had ONE fighting formation is incredibly simplistic. They fought against greeks, egyptians, carthago, brits, gallic, germans, persians, ... And being the military geniuses they were, they adapted incredibly well to all those enemies.

There are a few basics to the roman army : strong reliance on citizen infantry and throwing weapons, and their uniform was pretty consistent. But from that standpoint it varies greatly from one campaign to another.
 

Ciderglove

Recruit
Best answers
0
the funny thing is, I am literally communicating to by the modern scholarly consensus. You’re buying into a consensus some 60 years out of date now. The sources aren’t even that hard to find. Read Thucydides or polybius for contemporary eye witness descriptions of Greek and Roman combat specifically

since you are clearlynot natively an English speaker, I’ll clarify that a phalangite is the system of warfare that displaced the hoplite, best exemplified by Philip of macedon’s armies. Hoplites did not traditionally fight in ordered formation, but from the end of the Peloponnesus war onwards, Greek warfare seems to have developed better organization and the spears got increasingly longer until we arrive at the sarissa. But a man wielding a sarissa is a phalangite and not a hoplite in modern parlance
People have been reading Polybius and Thucidydes for centuries. What changed in the last few decades so that people (allegedly) now think that Greek hoplites didn't fight in formation?

And if they didn't fight in formation, then what did citizens do during hoplite drills?
 

Neptune08640

Regular
Best answers
0
There is evidence that suggests they did though, at least that is what contemporary sources such as Polybius state. There are quite a lot of reasons to fight in a loose formation if you are a well disciplined and trained force that relies on flexibility. Dont get me wrong, being the flexible force they are I presume they would alter the formation depending on the situation. Just like how Napoleonic infantry altered the formation depending on if they were facing cavalry or infantry.
Maybe I have misunderstood, when you said fought loose i was thinking a single soldier going holliwood hero style in the middle of the enemies not the whole "army", yes their strenght was the ability to adapt and being flexible I agree, this and the learing from theri enemies .

In this game the shield wall doens't work for me, my soldiers are massacred in formations,theyperforme better if i charge them at the right moment
 

FightingFirst

Recruit
Best answers
0
Maybe I have misunderstood, when you said fought loose i was thinking a single soldier going holliwood hero style in the middle of the enemies not the whole "army", yes their strenght was the ability to adapt and being flexible I agree, this and the learing from theri enemies .

In this game the shield wall doens't work for me, my soldiers are massacred in formations,theyperforme better if i charge them at the right moment
I dont think you were replying to me in your original post. There are contemporary sources that state there was a 3 foot space between legionnaires. Now I am sure this would change depending upon a number of factors. When I say loose I mean you fight in formation but you are not shoulder to shoulder with the next guy. You would be a given distance apart. This gives each soldier space to operate but still has the support of the muckers around him.
 

Koshkasa

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
It's not random, the AI is looking at the target and trying to pick the best attack to hit.
I'll trust your judgement, although I personally don't see that being the case in my game. Scenarios where I've blocked without a shield in a direction prior to the enemy telegraphing their attack direction (leading me to believe the attack was initiated after the block was already on place), and saw them make an obviously futile swing from that direction were rare, but they are still present as of 1.1.0 beta hotfix.

Funnily enough it did have some understanding of it's surroundings in WB - it wouldn't choose an attack that would be blocked by scenery etc.
Dunno about the scenery, but singeplayer bots had a tendency to use the overhead swing in friendly troop clusters quite a bit, in situations where it clearly couldn't hit anything due to allies in front. I guess they deemed it as having the highest probability of hitting the enemy, then.
 

Stratigo

Sergeant
Best answers
0
People have been reading Polybius and Thucidydes for centuries. What changed in the last few decades so that people (allegedly) now think that Greek hoplites didn't fight in formation?

And if they didn't fight in formation, then what did citizens do during hoplite drills?
People stopped taking Vegetius seriously. Also the practice of history became more interdisciplinary and textual historians started integrating archaeological findings, while distinct divisions between different groups of historians began to fuzz. Which is, incidentally, why Vegetius stopped getting taken seriously.

Also, what hoplite drills? No really, point to a single instance of greek citizen soldiers undergoing drills in any primary source peloponisian wars or earlier. I can't think of any off the top of my head, except brief mentions of Spartan moving in formation to music. Notable because other greek forces did NOT do this (the Romans, notably, did do this).

Maybe I have misunderstood, when you said fought loose i was thinking a single soldier going holliwood hero style in the middle of the enemies not the whole "army", yes their strenght was the ability to adapt and being flexible I agree, this and the learing from theri enemies .

In this game the shield wall doens't work for me, my soldiers are massacred in formations,theyperforme better if i charge them at the right moment
Here's a secret, the Scutum is an extremely poor shield for inter locking, and the gladius is not a good blade for thrusting. The Romans fought in a way to allow their individual soldiers to showcase their valor and bravery, martial excellence the defining virtue of a Roman
 

kekkuli5

Regular
Best answers
0
Gladius is not great for thrusting? It's a thrusting sword with ability to cut as well. Yes it's not as narrow headed as later longswords for example but that's because at that time the enemies of the romans were less armored than your average soldier in 1300's. One stab from gladius can deal grievous wounds because of how broad the blade is. That's exactly the point of it.