• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Hmmm, I really really want to target troops at other troop groups, I want to feel in COMMAND, I hate the AI

Users who are viewing this thread

Svang

Sergeant at Arms
I always expected Bannerlord to have a mix M&B and Total War mechanics. I think that would really work nicely. It's a shame we're not there yet.
 
Definitely needed, right now to cheese it is way too much micro of Follow Me, Move and Face Direction and you can only do that if youre outnumbering the enemy and dont aggro their Ranged units.

Edit: and after you get in one good charge the AI goes back to being a raging sperg and has HAs swap to melee and attack the infantry.

+1 for Bracing (and a Spearwall/Pikesquare formation), Switching Weapons, Formation Targeting and the RTS Camera. I am still waiting for encyclopedia entries on formation AI profiles too...
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
I can just imagine...

Julius Caesar to subordinate: "Have my cavalry charge at yonder archers in the open field"
Subordinate to Caesar: "I'm sorry sir, some of the cavalry have decided to charge those braced infantry, and some of the others have decided to go after that single horse archer 3 miles away"

The ability to give specific targets for units is not 'micro'. It is fundamental to the leadership experience. The inability to do so is humiliating for the leader, and the game.

This is really my only major criticism at the moment.

I think perhaps if we were able to do this, it would make defeating the AI too easy. Which might be why there has been so much resistance at TW. Perhaps closed testing revealed that the game became uncompetitive - so they've kept our good hand tied behind our backs.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
I think the problem is that in Total War games, the individual soldiers don't make decisions - they're just animations that represent soldiers. The unit of 180 soldiers or what ever is where the decisions lie, so that's where the commands lie, and also where the target orders are pointed. You'll never see a lone straggler fighting his own battle - the lone soldier will ignore the battle to rejoin the unit.

Whereas it seems to me that individual soldiers in Bannerlord react individually - so it probably makes efficient commands difficult to manage (efficiently - efficiency probably matters less to mods). So targeting an enemy unit is more difficult for the individual AI soldiers to synchronise. They might have a hierarchy of programmed choices - like that they will attack the nearest enemy, but prefer cavalry or archers or what ever, but that calculation doesn't seem to occur at unit level - so the units will always fragment.

Or some such...
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
You are right that individual decision making in formation is more complex than either purely individual or formation AI, but the troop logic while in formation is not too hard either, it just has extra considerations.
For example, for melee troops, just keep moving into the target formation and let individual AI take over on contact. Regroup as a formation if the enemy formation is gone or another formation command is given.
For ranged formations, keep in range with the target formation and let individual formation troops choose targets in the target formation according to their position relative to their formation.
I think perhaps if we were able to do this, it would make defeating the AI too easy. Which might be why there has been so much resistance at TW. Perhaps closed testing revealed that the game became uncompetitive - so they've kept our good hand tied behind our backs.
This is one of the worst arguments that comes up regularly - "we can't give you feature X, because you will be OP against our stupid AI". The reasonable way of thinking is of course to give the player feature X, then improve the AI to react better (or at least buff it with cheats to give more challenge). There are no good excuses against player agency despite what Taleworlds devs sometimes say ("too complex"/"too much work, I have to have my oil-wrestling break").
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
This is one of the worst arguments that comes up regularly - "we can't give you feature X, because you will be OP against our stupid AI". The reasonable way of thinking is of course to give the player feature X, then improve the AI to react better (or at least buff it with cheats to give more challenge). There are no good excuses against player agency despite what Taleworlds devs sometimes say ("too complex"/"too much work, I have to have my oil-wrestling break").

I agree entirely with your perspective, that limiting our choice in game is a bad cover for lack of AI development. But whether this is the case or not stems down to the intent behind the development. We might be misunderstanding the intent, based on our experiences in other games, or misunderstanding how difficult it might be to implement efficiently based on our experiences with other games that operate fundamentally differently (Bannerlord being a character level FPS game at heart and total War being not at all that)

I mean, all rules in all games are arbitrary. You can't just chew Pacman through a wall, or climb him over the wall, or build a wall out of dots to block the ghosts. Pacman follows the pathway as designed. The ghost AI wouldn't be able to respond to those scenarios without a redesign. This is probably the same situation. We've decided that Pacman would be better if he could eat through walls and the devs are saying no.

In this scenario, the thing that prevents us from being able to issue specific unit level detailed attack commands hasn't been revealed to us, but that doesn't mean it is illogical, as your suggestion "There are no good excuses against player agency despite what Taleworlds devs sometimes say" implies. It just means you don't know why that decision occurred.

Nobody develops without logic. I don't agree with Taleworld's solution here, and I'd place it high up on my wants list. But I can appreciate that their reasoning hasn't been explained to me, so the most I can say is that "I don't understand why they've made this poor choice" rather than there are "no excuses".
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
This is one of the worst arguments that comes up regularly - "we can't give you feature X, because you will be OP against our stupid AI". The reasonable way of thinking is of course to give the player feature X, then improve the AI to react better (or at least buff it with cheats to give more challenge). There are no good excuses against player agency despite what Taleworlds devs sometimes say ("too complex"/"too much work, I have to have my oil-wrestling break").
Not only that but the AI will just use the focus fire and targeted attacks too. I don't know if the RTS command mod maker deliberately tried to make the AI know how to use it, but it certainly does. With that mod it's very noticeable that the enemy Cav takes a much better path to attack and avoids other units while going after only HA or archers and such. It's a big improvement even if Cav itself is still bad killing stuff.

The ability to give specific targets for units is not 'micro'. It is fundamental to the leadership experience. The inability to do so is humiliating for the leader, and the game.
Well said.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
The funny thing (insert masked meme) is that over and over again this kind of suggestion/request is repeated, it's the hamster in the wheel. We've been asking for its implementation practically since September-November 2019 (for CM and applicable to SP). The sad thing in my eyes is how Taleworlds doesn't grasp (or doesn't want to realise) the tremendous utility as a tactical tool for the user that this kind of additions would be.

As I have said and say again, focus fire/attack specific enemy (both in field battle and as a targeting tool for projectile siege machines) and a weapon use change button (player forces AI) is BASIC.
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
As I have said and say again, focus fire/attack specific enemy (both in field battle and as a targeting tool for projectile siege machines) and a weapon use change button (player forces AI) is BASIC.
Oh come now; whenever in history has a military force tried to destroy part of another one?!

Even if it's not "versus formation", it should be "versus position"; ie "Kill anything here. Yes, you can move a little bit in service of that!"
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
marcus antonius charges blindly at the braced pikes, ****ing dies, civil war never happened, augustus couldn't fight against pompeians by himself. republic saved, long live the TW
What accursed timeline is this? should have known TW was working for the optimates the whole time.
 

Delinard

Sergeant at Arms
WBNW
marcus antonius charges blindly at the braced pikes, ****ing dies, civil war never happened, augustus couldn't fight against pompeians by himself. republic saved, long live the TW
I don't think so, some random commander in Gaul for some reason has the authority to propose a war against the Persians and everyone is voting yes for lolz and the leaders don't have enough influence to overrule it.
 

NikitaOnline17

Sergeant
After the last time I ordered infantry to advance to the enemy line, only for them to turn their backs to a few scattered cav and get shredded by archers... yeah, it would be nice if there was a better option than walking them into enemy troops with move commands.
 
"Mein Führer, Steiner's attack failed because the men scattered off in all directions, Steiner told them to 'attack', but he didn't say where to attack. He didn't think that was an important detail. Mein Gott, I need some bratwurst."
Kjb936.gif
 

Svang

Sergeant at Arms
I just reinstalled the RTS mod after not having played with it for a while and the difference it makes is significant. It actually feels like a battle for once. Even the AI seems improved. I hope it keeps being improved and updated because it's the only reason I can enjoy SP right now. Native "battles" just suck in comparison.
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
"Mein Führer, Steiner's attack failed because the men scattered off in all directions, Steiner told them to 'attack', but he didn't say where to attack. He didn't think that was an important detail. Mein Gott, I need some bratwurst."
Kjb936.gif
".....Everyone with fewer than 2000 hours in Warband, leave the room."
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
It really should be a basic command for the AI formation layer to target and attack other formations..
 
Imagine if there was button that can be used to activate automated AI (we could call it something like delegate command to segeant or something like that and maybe we could activate it with F1+F6 combo) and then there would be other commands for manual control.
 

mortache

Recruit
I'll simply be happy with my skirmishers throwing their javelins at the main bulk of the enemy instead of a single horse archer zigzagging.
 
Top Bottom