Fourth Option for entering battles

Users who are viewing this thread

mazzadude

Recruit
It really bugs me that it lets you attack the enemy with your troops or let your troops do the work but not let only you do it. Couldnt we have a button saying something like. Be a one man army i dont know but its much more useful.
 
Considering the weaknesses of the AI, this would be too powerful, and not realistic in the least bit.
 
Yeah.. being able to tell your army to stay behind would basically be like admitting that the enemy AI is easily exploited. Besides, you can very easily just issue a "Hold this spot" order, and leave your troops waiting at the starting area on the map while you go off to fight the enemy. They'll only attack if an enemy gets close to them.
 
Powerful in the way that you should not stand a chance against enemies that are vastly superior in number, not even at high levels and with the best equipment. Yet you do.
So, I just see this feature as unneccessary as the cheat option. There are plenty of things to be exploited in the game in its current state as well, there isn't really a need for any more, thank you. Basically, adding that option would mean that the recruited soldiers just get in the way. That is power-gaming, isn't it?
Just my 2 cents.
 
Ahh ok, yes i have to agree with you on that... Before I thought you meant that going solo gave you some kind of advantage..

Though recruited troops do get in the way.. all the time... If I had a gold for everytime a perfectly aimed lance charge was botched because one of my own troops got in the way, I'd be the richest man on the continent... :lol:
 
Why couldn't a great leader of an army have his fun with 15 measly river pirates, without having any bloodthirsty peasants charging with him.
 
BobG said:
Yeah.. being able to tell your army to stay behind would basically be like admitting that the enemy AI is easily exploited.
Or perhaps it's because you need to take someone alive (Caravan master, Nobleman, X amount of Y type of soldier) and don't want your knights taking their heads off before you can knock them out.

Yes, you can tell your men to hold position in the start area, but the AI doesn't stay interested in you forever. More than once I've had that nobleman go riding over the hill into the middle of my dismounted Knights even though I'm much closer.
 
LB said:
Or perhaps it's because you need to take someone alive (Caravan master, Nobleman, X amount of Y type of soldier) and don't want your knights taking their heads off before you can knock them out.

Yes, you can tell your men to hold position in the start area, but the AI doesn't stay interested in you forever. More than once I've had that nobleman go riding over the hill into the middle of my dismounted Knights even though I'm much closer.
Sounds like you've been unlucky -- I've never had the same problem. My troops are good about staying where I tell them to. They'll ride off if an enemy gets close and tries to escape, but they'll only chase so far before turning and coming back. All I have to do is watch for the "New enemies arrived" message, and take off to check as soon as it appears. I haven't accidentally killed a nobleman yet.

It would probably be a better solution if there were some way to convey to your troops that you want prisoners instead of corpses. Maybe they could then pull out bashing weapons, or aim for enemy horses only.
 
BobG said:
It would probably be a better solution if there were some way to convey to your troops that you want prisoners instead of corpses. Maybe they could then pull out bashing weapons, or aim for enemy horses only.
That'd be helpful. As it is, whenever I need to capture a nobleman (or caravan master with the Mag7 mod) I turn the battle size down to the smallest, tell my knights to dismount and stay put, and hope for the best ("the best" being the nobleman stays near me and doesn't charge my soldiers).
 
pkt-zer0 said:
Powerful in the way that you should not stand a chance against enemies that are vastly superior in number, not even at high levels and with the best equipment. Yet you do.
So, I just see this feature as unneccessary as the cheat option. There are plenty of things to be exploited in the game in its current state as well, there isn't really a need for any more, thank you. Basically, adding that option would mean that the recruited soldiers just get in the way. That is power-gaming, isn't it?
Just my 2 cents.

"You should not stand a chance... yet you do."Would it be better to pretend that we don't stand a chance fighting alone in M&B by not making it simple to enter a battle solo? How would having the option to fight solo be adding "any more" ways to exploit the game? It can already be done by commanding your troops to hold in place. Would admitting" the recruited troops just get in the way" be wrong? Sometimes they are in the way.

Should we pretend that the AI in M&B can't be exploited and that our hero can't do most of the fighting? Saying it's not realistic is not an answer because we already know it's not realistic. I want M&B to have an AI strong enough to defeat a solo hero who's both outnumbered and outclassed but we won't get that by pretending and thinking well people just shouldn't try it in the first place because that would be" powergaming."

Personally, I have said that I'm not impressed by all those players who boast about how they can defeat vastly superior numbers of knights singlehandedly. A few weeks back, I had even started a thread in the discussions forum about "Defeating 100 Knights" ( http://taleworlds.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2171&highlight=100+knights ) and how, imo, that isn't a good endorsement of the game because it shows how weak the AI can be and that it can be exploited. I regard it as a cheat or amusement but not as an accomplishment.

However, objecting to the mazzadude's suggestion by saying it's not realistic to fight solo and that it would be admitting the AI is exploitable is not a good reason. That's nearly equivalent to saying, "Let's not talk about it. Pretend the AI can't be exploited." That's an attitude I'd expect a developer/designer to have because it would reflect negatively on his product but for a gamer to say something amounting to the same thing is discouraging.

ilex said:
Why couldn't a great leader of an army have his fun with 15 measly river pirates, without having any bloodthirsty peasants charging with him.
I mostly agree - in this particular case. A high-level hero with good armor, weapons, and horse should be able to rout a small party of poorly armed, unarmored, ill-disciplined group of river pirates.

But if this same hero went out against a dozen Dark Knights? Then he should most likely end up dead, prisoner or on the run - regardless of how fine a horse he has, and what type of armor he's wearing.

Against either group, the player should have the simple option to fight solo. I understand he could always order the troops to stay put while the hero rides ahead, but the player should have the option to order the hero to fight solo in the first place.

A really good AI that would deal appropriately with a foolhardy hero would be something we'd all like to see in M&B eventually (though I admit the game's incredibly fun now, Go M&B!).

We won't get that by saying let's not talk about it, let's pretend we already have it.
 
I would object to that option for the simple reason that as my army's beloved leader. My lieutenants could never allow me to go into danger unsupported. I like to refer to my swadian seargents as an "honor gaurd".


Really they have little reason to fear for me as my ego would crush even the largest horde. :razz:
 
JohnathanStrange said:
However, objecting to the mazzadude's suggestion by saying it's not realistic to fight solo and that it would be admitting the AI is exploitable is not a good reason. That's nearly equivalent to saying, "Let's not talk about it. Pretend the AI can't be exploited." That's an attitude I'd expect a developer/designer to have because it would reflect negatively on his product but for a gamer to say something amounting to the same thing is discouraging.
You do make a good point, and you are correct about my thinking: I believe that basically enabling the player to play their enemy AI exploit game would be a bad PR move. However, that's not my only reason for thinking it this is not a good idea. See, if the enemy AI were improved such that the player can no longer easily solo bands of strong enemies, then the "Face the enemy alone" feature would become pointless. So rather than adding a feature that will become obsolete when the weakness it addresses is fixed, I feel it is better to leave it out in the first place. I am of course assuming that AI improvements are coming down the road, but it seems like a safe assumption.
 
Yeah I didnt read all of this, jus skimmed.

But essentially people are annoyed at the stupid allies? Me too.

Besides getting slaughtered... they habitually kill people I want captured, can't even tell them (cept named fellows) to use clubs, grrr.

However, he is right (one of you) that going solo is exploiting the stupid AI (which I do, hold location, I run ahead...).

However I am for power gaming. I would like to see us portrayed as insane HEROES (smashing the 50 calvary with a warhammer) instead of a commander. Yeah its great to have an army... but which is more fun? strategy or hack and slash? (preference I suppose, and I have played both).

But at this point in the beta, we have sooo little control over the strategy side I would say I would prefer a more "Dynasty Warriors" feel atm.

We could try to implement both though, and then if this ever goes multiplayer, you could have hireable player heroes, and player commanders controlling armies (anyone play Savage? or C&C Renegade?)
 
it wouldnt be realistic sine if the leader said he wanted to fight off 20dread knights alone, theyd say hes either drunk/insane, or that hes on teh side of tha knights, thus they would kill him...
so, id say its a bad idea
 
i don't want just one other button to choose from; i think the player should be able to choose the specific units he wishes to enter combat with...
 
Yah. Let the player choose who he wants to bring. It'll be more tactical by the way. Like if you're going against crossbowmen you'll want cavalry and not melee or another ranged troops.

Yeah. Let the player decide. Its a freeform game anyway.
 
Choosing the "elements" to enter seems a better alternative for this idea. There maybe, say, checkboxes to choose people to put into fight. Im not sure how it currently works but it also may enable (if not already) to make only the combatants gain exp. So for example you have a band of swordie sis' and a group of watchmen. You come across a band of river pirates and you decide its time for the watchmen for a field test without the help of über-strong (for pirates) sisters. So you choose watchmen to go.

Btw, my dear nobleman died three times. Once, my bad; second, one of his archers gave 'im a good old headshot and finally, my men slaughtered him (slaughter is the word since he was outnumbered =p). So it may happen with or without this option; i dont think it is also a good enough reason :smile:
 
For those negative to this idea :

M&B is a single-player game, and as far as I've been able to gather (yes, I've been reading this forum for quite a time before posting), it will remain so for a long time.

How does it detract from your enjoyment if someone is able to solo on groups of enemies?

I for one would enjoy occasionally going "Rambo" on foes, especially weak ones stupid enough to not go out of my way quickly. This does not mean that I'll never use my troops.

Adding the option would not mean that you ever have to use it (I never send my troops alone into combat, since they tend to suffer heavy casualties no matter what I fight against). And if someone chooses to powerplay, how does that affect your game experience? Can they powerlevel in order to kill you? No. There is a 0% probability that any powerplayer can ruin your game experience.
 
I don't think it bothers anyone how someone else plays the game. I think they are just formulating their preference. There are so many ways to look at this, especially considering this is an RPG and that also has some implications.

For example, would it not make sense to say that you can only have options available to you if your tactics skill is high enough? Maybe your character is too stupid (even if you aren't) to know that he shouldn't necessarily attack with all of his troops.

Or maybe it would make sense to say that certain troops are going to disband from your group if you keep leaving them out of the attack. Or maybe they want their share of the loot so badly that they will ignore your orders and attack anyway.

The point is, you can probably come up with good gameplay elements that relate to the environmental situation, but there probably isn't enough time to implement all those ideas. So, they decided that if you build a warband, then you need to fight with them. The solution for now is simply don't take people on if you don't want them fighting with you. If you get a nobleman mission, then get rid of any troops you have that are going to be a problem. And, if you can't raise enough troops in time to be able to successfully beat the mission, then tough luck. The world doesn't always work out, and not every mission has to be beatable. So what if you failed the mission? Why else would there be failure in the first place, if it were not meant to happen. You should stop taking noblemen missions, or else build a new war party to take them on. Sure, there could be a better way, but it doesn't have to mean leaving all your troops behind (defeats the purpose of the game) or even selecting which ones come with you (designer obviously left it out).

=$= Big J Money =$=
 
Back
Top Bottom