is the reinforcement idea still in the game ?

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
Generally, it seems like we are talking about two separate but interacting dynamics: Realism/visual elements in reinforcement mechanics vs. tactical gameplay cheesiness in reinforcement mechanics. Because we are failing to see that these are different things, some of us are talking past each other a little bit.

Most of the ideas above about having out-of-map reinforcements vs. in-map spawning address the realism/visual part, but would make the cheesiness factor (spawn camping, endless distance for reinforcement to trickle into the fight, gaming of Lancaster's Square law, etc), even worse than it already is. Some of the other ideas - e.g. instant in-formation replenishment - would fix some of that tactical cheesiness (Lancaster's Square law still dictates that insta-replenishment would give a disadvantage to the larger force, but a diminished disadvantage), but would, to be fair, be really annoying to look at visually and for purposes of realism.

I hate spawn wawes anyway in any form.
I have an idea. It could be a mod or in the native game. It goes like this,

At the very beginning of the battle, spawning all soldiers proportionally with respect to their party size for battles exceeding battle size. So you have a 500 army against 1000 army, you would get 333 soldiers and enemy will get 666 soldiers and you will win or lose that battle with that soldiers, no wawes will be spawn. Anyone like this or disagree that this system can also its own issues?
I would totally be fine with this. In an ideal world, processors would just be powerful enough to deal with 1000 vs. 500, but because they're not, this seems like the next best thing. Whatever the solution, it has to not punish players who manage to amass large armies, and it has to account for Lancaster's Square law. Caveat: You should be able to have some limited ability to pick the men that appear in the battle vs. the auto-assignment.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
The more I think about it actually, I like the proportionally scaled down battle sizes for a lot of reasons. I get that having large, 500 - 2000 man armies does add a lot to the game at the strategic campaign map level. But honestly, my favorite battles to actually fight have always been those 200 on 200 (give or take) battles anyway. Scaling down the numbers to the low 3 figures for in-person battles would be, IMO, a welcome change anyway, even if reinforcements did not pose a problem.
 

paladinx333

Sergeant
Best answers
0
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.
Your party must have had very low tactics and thier army must have had very high tactics. If the tactics skill had been the same your army would have had many more men on the field versus the enemy.

The reinforcement system does make battles even messier than they otherwise would be, with two large armies injecting troops into the battle almost at random.

I wonder how the total war games managed to have so many NPCSs fighting at the same time?
 

voronius

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Your party must have had very low tactics and thier army must have had very high tactics. If the tactics skill had been the same your army would have had many more men on the field versus the enemy.

The reinforcement system does make battles even messier than they otherwise would be, with two large armies injecting troops into the battle almost at random.

I wonder how the total war games managed to have so many NPCSs fighting at the same time?
Maxed tactics. It happens often before i have to get reinforcements and after they just got. In fact they get serveral waves and i never got one until this point.
Example: initialy i have 140 on the field and i get reinforced at 70. They have initially 100 and get reinforced at 50.
I kill their multiple waves and my number goes below 100 but not below 70. I get no reinforcements and they get several waves.
During this time they outnumber me several times for a while. And that's where the "can't believe it !" part is. I have more men, i kill them fast yet
they get to outnumber me for a while and i have to wait for my men to die to outnumber them.
 
Last edited:

ParagonWelken

Recruit
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.
I agree with this. Having this take place COULD be exploited, but no normal system in any game goes without someone trying to find a way to exploit it. I find it would make more sense strategically to fall back to a rallying point when your reinforcements are coming so you can control the flow of the next wave, rather than charging in and hoping they magic your troops over to you or that the enemy doesn't suddenly appear inside your ranks and destabilize the entire situation.


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.
This is exactly why I agree with Lord Irontoe's idea of having them spawn in the redzone or someplace close, instead of game trying to portal reinforcements near the battle. Strategically (which usually is not going to happen when your units are under AI control), it makes more sense for the reinforcements to approach from a spot outside of the battle and meet up with the main army. Stragetically, it also makes sense for a good commander to recognize this and prepare an ambush before their reinforcements CAN arrive.
 

Hugo_Stiglitz

Regular
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
The trickle in reinforcement system Creative Assembly implemented for Empire Total War was an absolute disaster. It's better to let reinforcements entire in a large mass IMO.

I played Rome Total War with massive battles on a potato lap top in the early 2000's by just turning down all my graphics settings. Two full armies at the start of the battle on the field with 1 or more full army and smaller reinforcing armies entering the field a moment after the battle starts. This was an amazing experience. In Empire TW having a reinforcing army trickle in 1 unit or 1 man at a time was one of the worst moves I've seen in game design. This often lead my reinforcements literally being spawn camped by AI and killed as they enter the battle from the edge of the map one man or one unit at a time. I've seen it first hand over a decade ago. It does not work.

In Bannerlord I'd rather see the entire reinforcing army enter as one large group. So basically the player and AI commander fights the best they can, then moves to controlling the reinforcing army as that reinforcing army enters the field as an entire army. The time at which the reinforcements would be allowed to enter the battle would depend on losses for their allied army that's already on the field and the size of the reinforcing army. Perhaps even let the player track their losses and decide when and which reinforcements arrive?

So theoretically on the battle map the player or AI that's losing could whittle down enemy parties piecemeal, while they keep falling back back with their survivors to the location where their reinforcements enter the field off the edge of the battle map. At this point reinforcements for the losing side arrive and the player or AI consolidates their forces(survivors plus new arrivals) then picks up the fight again.

Of course AI(that's winning and has more troops) would have to be able to recognize the player's reinforcements arriving as an event. By this I mean AI would need to be able to recall all their troops, those troops that are pursuing the player that's losing, and then reform their AI army as a group in one location as the AI sometimes do early in a normal battle between two parties.

In this scenario AI was beating the player and AI had superior numbers on the field so if AI has reinforcements on stand by, the AI's reinforcements could enter at this time as well. The winning faction's reinforcements would enter the field to the point where both sides are at max capacity. The trickle in reinforcement only works in this circumstance because we'd assume the "loser" of the first skirmish doesn't have the troops or time to go spawn camp a few units entering for the "winner" on the other side of the map. This lull in the battle allows those small numbers entering the battle to trickle in and join the winner's troops where they're forming up. At the same time the "loser" of the first skirmish is having their reinforcements arrive from off the edge of the map and they're forming up their forces as well.

From this point the battle sequence would basically restart.
 
Last edited:

Maximuuus

Regular
Best answers
0
I'm not dissapointed about the way reinforcement comes in battle... I'm dissapointed because of their stupid un- noticed random spawn.
 

voronius

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Reinforcements in warband are not armies arriving from a distant location. They should be factored in right away for the outcome of the battle.
They're not realy reinforcements, they're troops that are there at the start of the battle but the engine discards temporarly because of understandable
limitations. The idea is to find a way to make them count at all time. I personaly like the idea of fighting a single battle as large as the battle size setting allows to decide the outcome without "reinforcements" and with the ratio on field dictated by the initial numbers and skill (tactics). Cause in that ratio everything is factored and the ratio is not skewed by "reinforcements" at time.
 

Lord Irontoe

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Reinforcements in warband are not armies arriving from a distant location. They should be factored in right away for the outcome of the battle.
They're not realy reinforcements, they're troops that are there at the start of the battle but the engine discards temporarly because of understandable
limitations. The idea is to find a way to make them count at all time. I personaly like the idea of fighting a single battle as large as the battle size setting allows to decide the outcome without "reinforcements" and with the ratio on field dictated by the initial numbers and skill (tactics). Cause in that ratio everything is factored and the ratio is not skewed by "reinforcements" at time.
I dunno. I think it would be very frustrating to lose a battle (and your entire army) knowing that half your guys never even got a chance to fight.
 

voronius

Sergeant
Best answers
0
But if that happens you would have lost anyway.
I mean if your army is properly represented in by the ones on the battlefield.
Everything is just scaled down to battlesize number. If it's done properly ofc.
It's just an idea anyway. Maybe a better one will show up. Some problems are
hard to solve but we'll eventualy get there :smile: .
 

Hugo_Stiglitz

Regular
Best answers
0
They're not realy reinforcements, they're troops that are there at the start of the battle but the engine discards temporarly because of understandable
limitations. The idea is to find a way to make them count at all time.
Agree 100%. The problem is most player's gaming rigs can't get 1000, 1400, 1800+ troops on the field at once without crashing the game or turning the experience into a literal slide show.

In the meantime I'd suggest looking to how Total War has evolved to handle these situations. Actually, and unfortunately, Creative Assembly kind of dumbed things down and devolved Total War titles TBH. It's the thing where the new kids on the block try to change things to make a name for themselves to the point where the blockbuster franchise that everyone knows and loves isn't the same game anymore. STOP DOING THAT game devs please!

In the original Rome TW the player could choose which reinforcements would join the battle and which wouldn't join, to include letting 2 to 3 full stacks of allies to join with a monstrous, huge battle that followed. I ran mods that created 1000+ man armies and would have 2 to 4 of those armies on the battlemap at once with the old Rome TW reinforcement system. FYI all reinforcements entered from the edge of the map as soon as the battle started. Even turning down all video/graphics to zero or minimal on my potato laptop it was still quite often a stuttering mess with stuttering and episodic slideshow frames coming and going throughout the battle. Quite often the game would just freeze and required alt F4 or restarting my laptop. That's the problem we'd have in BL2 if all reinforcements enter at once. Stuttering, slide show, or crashes.

In later editions of Total War the devs made some stunningly horrible design choices. The worst and most puzzling was their move to not allow the player to choose which reinforcements joined the battle and which sat out the battle. This is one of those "If it's not broken, don't fix it", dumb as hell moves that many game developers like to do to break a franchise. I think the "new" crew working on the new title tries to make a name for themselves but what they do is throw out some of the really great core aspects that made a franchise great just to make a name for themselves and instead they wreck the game.

Back on topic. Total War devolving with each new title. After Rome TW Creative Assembly implemented a terrible, trickle in reinforcement system to deal with the problem of stuttering and crashing. This trickle in system had the player's and AI's troops would enter the battle one soldier at a time until they filled up their 10, 20, 30, or 40 man unit near the edge of the map. Unfortunately the AI would would often be waiting at the reinforcement rally point killing off the entire unit one at a time. On the flip side the player could do the same to reinforcing AI. It was absolutely craptastic.

So until technology and programming allows us to play out 2000+ troop battles in the type of setting we are playing in, we need other solutions. My vote goes to reinforcements entering in large chunks as their allies already on the field get killed off. Basically a 1 for 1 trade but in large chunks or "waves" of reinforcements coming in from the edge of the map. With a large force entering the map it's less likely that AI or the player will be there waiting with a small group camping and killing reinforcements the second they step into play. Once reinforcements become available( via AI or the player losing troops), the player, being in overall command, should be able to decided when and which types of troops they want to join. If reinforcements are avail and the player doesn't want them at that moment, they can just wait and click reinforcement icons when the player is ready. Or the player could be given the option to flee which would set up a follow up battle which might be on better terrain.
 
Last edited:

Badcritter

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Once reinforcements become available( via AI or the player losing troops), the player, being in overall command, should be able to decided when and which types of troops they want to join. If reinforcements are avail and the player doesn't want them at that moment, they can just wait and click reinforcement icons when the player is ready. Or the player could be given the option to flee which would set up a follow up battle which might be on better terrain.
Yes, something like this.

As casualties occur, a dynamic tally of possible re-enforcements is presented to the commander. The player experience (and the AI which would have the same mechanism) would generally see the number climb as soldiers fall, just at slightly varying rates as the ratio may change due to higher casualty rates on one side.

The commander decides when they want to bring a new detachment of troops in, and when they do that number marches in from the red zone nearest where their force started. Getting spawn camped beyond the point your allowed re-enforcements would be able to cope with? Don't bring them in, flee the field and start a new encounter.

The grey area in such a plan is the composition of the force that comes in and how groups are organised. Allowing the player to hand pick every detail would disrupt the flow of play, and wouldn't be particularly realistic. Arbitrary allocations would sometimes be annoying. Do they go into the same groups they would have been in if they started the battle with the original force? Probably the most sensible choice, but then you have each command group potentially separated into two clumps on opposite sides of the map.

It's not perfect, but it seems like the best path.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
Agree 100%. The problem is most player's gaming rigs can't get 1000, 1400, 1800+ troops on the field at once without crashing the game or turning the experience into a literal slide show.

In the meantime I'd suggest looking to how Total War has evolved to handle these situations. Actually, and unfortunately, Creative Assembly kind of dumbed things down and devolved Total War titles TBH. It's the thing where the new kids on the block try to change things to make a name for themselves to the point where the blockbuster franchise that everyone knows and loves isn't the same game anymore. STOP DOING THAT game devs please!

In the original Rome TW the player could choose which reinforcements would join the battle and which wouldn't join, to include letting 2 to 3 full stacks of allies to join with a monstrous, huge battle that followed. I ran mods that created 1000+ man armies and would have 2 to 4 of those armies on the battlemap at once with the old Rome TW reinforcement system. FYI all reinforcements entered from the edge of the map as soon as the battle started. Even turning down all video/graphics to zero or minimal on my potato laptop it was still quite often a stuttering mess with stuttering and episodic slideshow frames coming and going throughout the battle. Quite often the game would just freeze and required alt F4 or restarting my laptop. That's the problem we'd have in BL2 if all reinforcements enter at once. Stuttering, slide show, or crashes.

In later editions of Total War the devs made some stunningly horrible design choices. The worst and most puzzling was their move to not allow the player to choose which reinforcements joined the battle and which sat out the battle. This is one of those "If it's not broken, don't fix it", dumb as hell moves that many game developers like to do to break a franchise. I think the "new" crew working on the new title tries to make a name for themselves but what they do is throw out some of the really great core aspects that made a franchise great just to make a name for themselves and instead they wreck the game.

Back on topic. Total War devolving with each new title. After Rome TW Creative Assembly implemented a terrible, trickle in reinforcement system to deal with the problem of stuttering and crashing. This trickle in system had the player's and AI's troops would enter the battle one soldier at a time until they filled up their 10, 20, 30, or 40 man unit near the edge of the map. Unfortunately the AI would would often be waiting at the reinforcement rally point killing off the entire unit one at a time. On the flip side the player could do the same to reinforcing AI. It was absolutely craptastic.

So until technology and programming allows us to play out 2000+ troop battles in the type of setting we are playing in, we need other solutions. My vote goes to reinforcements entering in large chunks as their allies already on the field get killed off. Basically a 1 for 1 trade but in large chunks or "waves" of reinforcements coming in from the edge of the map. With a large force entering the map it's less likely that AI or the player will be there waiting with a small group camping and killing reinforcements the second they step into play. Once reinforcements become available( via AI or the player losing troops), the player, being in overall command, should be able to decided when and which types of troops they want to join. If reinforcements are avail and the player doesn't want them at that moment, they can just wait and click reinforcement icons when the player is ready. Or the player could be given the option to flee which would set up a follow up battle which might be on better terrain.
I think this system would be way better than what we currently have. And loving the total war references!

I still think that Bjorn’s idea of scaling battles is the best way of accounting for Lancasters square law. If an army can bring 2x the # of men vs an opponent, the opponent shouldn’t even have the opportunity to defeat 1x men twice, which is much easier than defeating 2x men once.
 

Maximum997

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
I think the "new" crew working on the new title tries to make a name for themselves but what they do is throw out some of the really great core aspects that made a franchise great just to make a name for themselves and instead they wreck the game.
Funny. After 1000+ hours in TWW1-2 i cant play historical total war anymore.
 

Hugo_Stiglitz

Regular
Best answers
0
Funny. After 1000+ hours in TWW1-2 i cant play historical total war anymore.
Well you've got to play with the mods. The mods are what gave Rome Total War it's popularity, longevity and replay'ability. Mods made Rome TW the legend that it is/was. SPQR was my favorite RTW total overhaul mod.

Very sad to see the Creative Assembly(CA) devs turn their backs on the modding community starting with Empire TW. Those promised modding tools from the Devs that never were delivered as promised with Empire. Commenting on this fact got me banned from CA forums. Then with Empire still being a total mess and naval invasions in that game still being totally broken, CA release Napoleon TW as a stand alone separate game. GG @CA.
 
Last edited:

Maximum997

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Well you've got to play with the mods. The mods are what gave Rome Total War it's popularity, longevity and replay'ability. Mods made Rome TW the legend that it is/was. SPQR was my favorite RTW total overhaul mod
200+ hours in RS2 and EB. and still cant play.

I guess i was just spoiled with variety of TWW.