is the reinforcement idea still in the game ?

voronius

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Reinforcement idea as implemented in warband is the worst idea ever.
Let me explain this.
I was playing warband and facing a 500 army with a 2500 one (alies).
The numbers are just for givin an example.
There were times when the enemy was havin 90 or so on the field while alies were "waiting"
for the reinforcements with 60 troops on field. This makes no sense since both armies were there to begin
with. Is not like the rest of the army was arriving from some distant location. In a real battle, given the numbers, this would never happen.
I know that there's a limit to what computers can handle and there's a battle size concept. But maybe there are
better ways to deal with those limits. Like one dies, send one in right a way. A continuous reinforcement. This would probably even
solve some bottleneck issues. And it makes more sense.
And at all time the initial ratio is mantained (on the field) according to the initial numbers (and tactics and battle advantage).
Or at least make it optional to have it this way, i'm not saying to change it for my sake.
Assuming it's still in the game as it was in warband, ofc.
 
Last edited:

Floyd

Recruit
Best answers
0
Problem is: They cant spam 3000 troops at once in the screen. There will not be machine powerful enough to handle that.
So the only way to implement big armies, is by waves.
The game spams a max of 1024 agents if i remember well, and then it need to wait until garbage collector kill some agents (lets say, 200) to instantiate another 200s and keep the 1024 limit.
You could say "But total war games spawns 20,000 troops" Yes it does, but they act like a block guided by a single AI component, different to Mount and Blade games, where each agent on screen have his own "brain" and "decision threes".
They could probably forcing the engine to max spawn 3000 agents maybe, but again, even a i9 9900k with 2x 2080 ti super and 32gb ram will struggle to get 40 fps. Now, how many people have that rig? Maybe 3 of every 10 clients.
 

voronius

Sergeant
Best answers
0
What's the problem with a low timer continuous reinforcement (very small waves in fact 2-5 troops, say) if needed ? This way the threshold (lost troops until reinforced) is not
big enough to create an irealistical (given the intial numbers) imbalance on the field. It's not about battle size and initial ratio, ok ? I know it's not possible for them to show 10k or 30k whatver at once. Having an initial ratio is fine. But do your best to keep to the ratio at all times if possible (if not all dead).
 

MostBlunted

Regular
Best answers
0
They could probably forcing the engine to max spawn 3000 agents maybe, but again, even a i9 9900k with 2x 2080 ti super and 32gb ram will struggle to get 40 fps. Now, how many people have that rig? Maybe 3 of every 10 clients.
I believe it´s more like 1 out of 100. Non of my gamer friends has a rig like this.
 

Lord Irontoe

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Having reinforcements trickle in a few at a time would create its own problems. Each reinforcement would be a sitting duck until he got to the rest of the army. You could just camp the spawn point and kill each guy as he appears. At least if they come in waves, they appear as a full fighting unit.

I do think it could be done better than having them just pop out of thin air though. I think they should spawn outside the redzone and come in from the map edge so that you don't wind up with 50 guys spawning on your head
 

butterball merc

Recruit
Best answers
0
Having reinforcements trickle in a few at a time would create its own problems. Each reinforcement would be a sitting duck until he got to the rest of the army. You could just camp the spawn point and kill each guy as he appears. At least if they come in waves, they appear as a full fighting unit.

I do think it could be done better than having them just pop out of thin air though. I think they should spawn outside the redzone and come in from the map edge so that you don't wind up with 50 guys spawning on your head
Players could also abuse the AI by defending right next to spawn, making the AI reinforcements run clear across the map before joining the fight.
 

voronius

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Players could also abuse the AI by defending right next to spawn, making the AI reinforcements run clear across the map before joining the fight.
That would make for a very booring fight. As it is AI's abusing the player. You can also abuse the current system probaby, i think you can set battle size realy low.

But being outnumberd on the field when you actualy outnumber the enemy by far, is not ok .
I know about quality and but it happens that they get 3-4 waves while i get none cause i have quality too. And on the 4th wave i lose troops
because being outnumbered on the field while having both number and quality advantage if we take a look at the army. So that's terribly broken.
Ex: i have 1k knights (high tier) and i fight 500 bandits, i will lose knights heavly on their 4th or 5th reinforcement wave cause i got no reinforcement so far but lost enough to be outnumbered at the point. In a "no reinforcement" battle, considering same ratio of troops and quality i would lose 0 units.
How's that ok to think " i need 10 more men to die so that 50 can enter the battle " and to wait while you have hundreds of units and outnumber the enemy by far and you also have superior quality ? Units you paid for and trained them. At that moment i don't find enough words to curse this reinforcement thing.
 
Last edited:

Nakh

Regular
Best answers
0
My problem with reinforcements is what they spawn in absolutely illogical places. Several times I got enemies spawning right on top of my archers. As result I avoid big battles altogether, because I have no real control over my troops and not enough influence on battle results.
 

mfuegemann

Recruit
Best answers
0
With the current system You have to lure the AI towards Your spawning point, just to avoid the long time period until reinforcements reach the actual battle, if You attack a defending position. Another point is, that You cannot use good terrain behind Your starting position, as, when the lines crush, Your reinforcement troops will spawn amidst the enemy infantry.

I would prefer the reinforcements spawning a bit behind me, so I cannot see them emerging from thin air. But this too can be abused.
Maybe the spawning point should be in the geometrical center point of Your infantry troops or between a random infantry and archer..
 

Lord Irontoe

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
No it is not.

They can spawn troops 1 by 1 just to the main blob.

Infantry - in infantry formation
Cav in cav
Arches in archer
That would be horrible and I guarantee that there'd be a million complaints if they implemented that. What you're suggesting would make it so that each guy that's killed is replaced by a new guy spawning in roughly the same spot. It would feel like the guys you're killing are getting back up again. You'd be fighting a blob of 100 guys and no matter how many you kill, there's still 100 guys there.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
Most of the comments about the possible abuses of reinforcement by waves are not hypothetical - they are already in the game. The defender's advantage - if the defender picks a spot near the spawn point - is huge.

I've started to experience this every time I fight 1000 on 1000 battles (with battle limit 500): In the opening 250 on 250 engagement + a little bit after that, I'll trade very effectively with the enemy. But then, when the enemy gets to 500 total men left vs. my 800 or so, they will turtle up on a defensive position near their spawn point and very far away from my spawn point. Then, it's just a crap shoot as to who can win. Even if I make the right moves, they instantly replace their dead, while my replacements spawn really far away and trickle in.

That would be horrible and I guarantee that there'd be a million complaints if they implemented that. What you're suggesting would make it so that each guy that's killed is replaced by a new guy spawning in roughly the same spot. It would feel like the guys you're killing are getting back up again. You'd be fighting a blob of 100 guys and no matter how many you kill, there's still 100 guys there.
Isn't that exactly what should happen though? Or, more precisely, what should happen really is that you should be fighting 1000 guys all at once instead of just a constantly replenishing stack of 100, and fighting 1000 all at once should be even harder (See: Lancaster's Square Law). Having them replenish in place, then, is already a huge advantage for the smaller army. Isn't that exhausting phenomenon of fighting an replenishing stack the next fair-est thing vs. fighting a non replenishing stack at 10x the size, considering that most processors can't handle the 10x size?
 

Maximum997

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Right now becouse of 10 men spawn all over the place battles look like random mess with constant stream of dunning guys
 

Lord Irontoe

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Most of the comments about the possible abuses of reinforcement by waves are not hypothetical - they are already in the game. The defender's advantage - if the defender picks a spot near the spawn point - is huge.

I've started to experience this every time I fight 1000 on 1000 battles (with battle limit 500): In the opening 250 on 250 engagement + a little bit after that, I'll trade very effectively with the enemy. But then, when the enemy gets to 500 total men left vs. my 800 or so, they will turtle up on a defensive position near their spawn point and very far away from my spawn point. Then, it's just a crap shoot as to who can win. Even if I make the right moves, they instantly replace their dead, while my replacements spawn really far away and trickle in.



Isn't that exactly what should happen though? Or, more precisely, what should happen really is that you should be fighting 1000 guys all at once instead of just a constantly replenishing stack of 100, and fighting 1000 all at once should be even harder (See: Lancaster's Square Law). Having them replenish in place, then, is already a huge advantage for the smaller army. Isn't that exhausting phenomenon of fighting an replenishing stack the next fair-est thing vs. fighting a non replenishing stack at 10x the size, considering that most processors can't handle the 10x size?
no, it would be a lot worse because it would really feel like the game's cheating units in out of fresh air. At least with them coming in waves, it can feel like the reserves are joining the fight.

They just need to fix the spawn point placement. Either make it dynamic so that they always spawn away from the middle of the fighting, or better, spawn them in the red zone so they come in from the map edge. And also, they should have horns blow or some kind of effect that you can't miss when the reinforcements do spawn. Then you can try to gather your guys together before the next wave hits.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
no, it would be a lot worse because it would really feel like the game's cheating units in out of fresh air. At least with them coming in waves, it can feel like the reserves are joining the fight.

They just need to fix the spawn point placement. Either make it dynamic so that they always spawn away from the middle of the fighting, or better, spawn them in the red zone so they come in from the map edge. And also, they should have horns blow or some kind of effect that you can't miss when the reinforcements do spawn. Then you can try to gather your guys together before the next wave hits.
Maybe if you could choose and move the spawn point? Otherwise, defending a spawn point away from the opponents spawn point becomes a really cheesy way for a smaller army to beat a larger force. The opponent in that case should be able to move up their spawn point.