Less AI?

Users who are viewing this thread

GreenKnight

Recruit
I've been thinking it over, and maybe that's what we need for some units. Specifically, I'm talking about my ranged units. I just recently started a new character, a crossbowman leading a band of similarly armed units. And if these units did what they were supposed to, they'd be near unstoppable. Even with ten Swadian sharpshooters, that much combined firepower is simply devestating. But alas, these troops don't do what they're supposed to, and I'm not even talking about accuracy. That honestly seems fine.

Here's the problem. If I'm beset by a group of dark knights, which is entirely possible seeing as how a group of infantry is slower than dirt, I'm in trouble out in the open. So, what I do is immediately make for the highest hill I can find, the cliffs at the edge of the screen if possible. In theory, I will tell my men to follow me up, then when I get there, tell them to hold their positions. The enemy will have to slow down to reach me, if they even can on horses, and then my men will rain death from above. Now, here's how it works in practice: My men will, with the exception of (if I'm lucky) 4, totally ignore the follow me command, electing to stay out in the open. Then, when the battle is joined, and those men who stayed out in the open are getting ripped apart, those other 4 will disregard the hold position order, and charge with their melee weapons.

It'd be great if they could be made to understand that sharpshooters are in the party to shoot, and it'd be great if they could understand that they're extremely vulnerable to superior numbers of heavy cavalry on an open field, but it wouldn't be necessary. All it would take is a little LESS thought on their part. I tell them to follow me, so they do it. I tell them to stand still, so they do it. Granted, that second one wouldn't work quite as well with melee infantry, but maybe those programmers could tell me something. Would it be too hard to issue an order that your troops will pursue enemy troops a very short distance, solely for the purpose of supporting other infatry, but then get back in formation once an enemy is out of that range? It seemed to work alright in Age of Empires.
 
I disagree.

What I like about MB right now is the approach to realism, meaning that they will not stand in line and follow every order.
In real combat, as a leader, you have to be present and repeat your orders constantly. This is totally fine with me.

But, as you said, is HAS to make sense.

If you are winning an Infantry battle and your guys charge after the enemy (which, by the way, runs), then it is cool.
But, as you said, if the archers charge 20 dark knights, you just feel stupid. As a group of archers to stay together in a certain position is absolutely right, but don't expect 20 peasants to stand in a perfect formation, waiting for those 25 knights to crush into them.
 
zwaps said:
I disagree.

What I like about MB right now is the approach to realism, meaning that they will not stand in line and follow every order.
In real combat, as a leader, you have to be present and repeat your orders constantly. This is totally fine with me.

But, as you said, is HAS to make sense.

If you are winning an Infantry battle and your guys charge after the enemy (which, by the way, runs), then it is cool.
But, as you said, if the archers charge 20 dark knights, you just feel stupid. As a group of archers to stay together in a certain position is absolutely right, but don't expect 20 peasants to stand in a perfect formation, waiting for those 25 knights to crush into them.

As a former member of the US Navy, I completely disagree with your statement "In real combat, as a leader, you have to be present and repeat your orders constantly."
It doesn't take THAT much training to get a group of individuals to "turn on a dime". My bootcamp division was well coordinated in a number of complex manuevers within 2 months of the start of training. The manuevers were marching orders rather than battle formations, but I guarantee that every man in the division would have done exactly what he was told if a competent senior officer had said...
"Follow"
"Charge"
"Dismount"

Although I will allow for variations in group action due to the effects of morale or improper training, a group of veteran fighters (as I assume Dark Knights to be) would have been trained to follow orders quickly and without question even before they were first allowed to touch a sword.
 
Maybe it's not as simple in real life combat, zwaps, so I see what you're saying, but in real life, well trained troops would be competent at doing those things which would give them a decent chance of survival. And I am talking about well trained troops. These are sharpshooters. Nevertheless, they aren't competent. And if programming them with common sense is too difficult, then why not express all that discipline by making them follow my orders promptly? Yes, maybe lower level troops could not be expected to show such discipline, but I give these orders at the start of the battle, before the enemy even shows up. There's no reason for even peasants not to follow my orders. I'm the veteran soldier in the pretty heraldic armor, and they're depending on me for survival. Maybe when the actual dark knight charge begins, I'd expect them to dissapoint me, but really, come on.
 
Even if it was so that you had to repeat a command numerous times IRL, is it a must-to-do in a game where we should have fun playing?
 
I agree, archers don't follow up orders well. They will move very far ahead of the other units (instead of behind them perhaps). You can barely make them move anywhere usefull before men on horses arrive. If i tell them "Hold this position" I want them to hold position like the rest of the troops do and not move far ahead. They are always the first to be attacked.
 
I just want to mention to Illinest that military discipline has come a LONG way from the way it was in the middle ages. The social structure of feudalism didn't encourage rank-and-file soldiers, it rewarded brash, foolhardy-but-sometimes-effective-heroics. A lord would never hear about a man who followed orders to the letter and was part of a winning army. He might hear about the general that led the battle, but not the soldier himself. That's one of the main reasons that knights can't really be called soldiers. There weren't really any soldiers then as we know them today, there were just accomplished warriors, and conscripted militia.

Taht's why I think the current AI setup fits fairly well for most units. Knights wouldn't give a damn if you told them not to charge, if they take on a horde of enemy soldiers and come out on top, they look very good in the eyes of their betters, and as such their status can be elevated. A lot of people in the middle ages would face pretty grim odds for a chance to gain land and title.

Peasants would be more likely to scramble to follow orders, since their chances or getting a better position are next to nil in anycase, so their goal would more likely be to survive. That would also make them pretty likely to just desert, or turn and run at the sight of an enemy. Their AI should probably be tweaked to show that, but it'd really only work well when morale actually has an effect on troops in combat.

The troops the thread is talking about would be somewhere in between these two groups. They'd probably be best compared to semi-proffessional soldiery or peasants who'd been roused more than once. They'd follow orders to a more general extent, but their chances of gettign noticed by the nobility for notable actions in battle wouldn't be as bad as peasant levy's, so they might be tempted to make a charge or a stand on their own, even against orders. I think the AI should stay pretty much the same for them too.
 
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. While it is true that in medieval times more focus was placed on valor instead of teamwork, there were still incredibly advanced formations that would be learned and perfected even in the earliest of the dark ages. An army cannot function effectively without them. Take a look at the shield wall, that's not an easy thing to accomplish even with experienced soldiers. That was accomplished in the early medieval ages.

Most soldiers, besides incompetent rabble like peasants, would follow orders at all times unless they felt that their leader was being a fool. Knights especially, remember that even though they were high up in the order they would be in deep **** if they were caught charging without orders.
 
Obviously, a successful army is going to rest upon a fair degree of training and discipline. And even if mideival armies didn't meet modern standards of military professionalism, let's think of gameplay here. A Swadian sharpshooter is a good unit, and a fair melee fighter, but melee is not its strength. It's only got leather armor, and a group of sharpshooters is therefore ill-equipped to meet a group of heavy cavalry or infantry head on. The way for it to survive is to stay with the group, so they can thin out the enemy numbers as best they can, then resist the assault as a unit. As things stand now, ranged units seem determined to throw away their advantages in a fight, and that is extremely frustrating for someone trying to put together a unit of them.
 
The shield wall was used by the Danish right? There were other formations, involving spears being set against cavalry and other thins like that, but when you compare them to today's militarys, and classical armies, medieval european armies were incredibly disorganized. Knights WOULD charge without orders, that was one of the many reasons for the failure of several crusades. Soldiers who would be part fo the 'shield wall' or other formations would be the lower tiers of soldiery.

Another reason knights would be pretty keen to charge was that they were damned well invincible in their hey-day. And even if they were brought down they were ransomed rather than killed, a knight as a POW was a pretty valuable thing.
 
Well trained troops aren't suicidal, that's how they lived long enough to be well trained. And don't underestimate medieval armies. There were complex tactics all the way back to ancient Egypt.
As to how to fix it in the game so that your troops are fighting according to their abilities but also not needing to be baby-sat? That requires long hours of fine-tuning the AI.
 
A discipline stat on various troop types might be a good way of doing it - troops with low discipline would be less likely to follow orders. What they'd do instead would idealy depend on the troop type, with knights charging and peasants fleeing without orders.
 
I might go for that, provided there were ways to shock the peasants into obedience. For instance, say a peasant tries running from the battle, so you shoot him in the back. A few of those, and they might stand still. Some may run, but Calradia is a dangerous place. Many might find that they're safer with the party, doing the job they've been paid for.
 
@ Alesch - I have no intention of roleplaying an incompetent leader. If you wish to allow your troops to disobey orders, feel free.
I run a tight ship. :smile:

Please don't read my tone as angry, I just don't think that the players should be expected to suffer poorly disciplined troops, even if there are historical examples.
When my troops meet the army of Lord Humptydumpty in the field of battle, the superior training of my battle masters will win the day.

If you feel strongly enough about the disorganization of your army, perhaps a better answer would be to make this aspect of leadership into a trainable skill. I will put skill points into leadership and will have a resultant army which listens to my every order. You can neglect the leadership skill and have an army that doesn't listen to you.
Then, we are both happy.
 
You may be on to something here. What if we take the maximum number of troops you can have depending on your leadership skill, and just make that the maximum easily controllable level? If your leadership skill is 3, you can actually recruit as many soldiers as you want, but if you surpass the current maximum number for that skill level (29, I believe), then the discilpine of your men will suffer more and more, depending on how much you surpass the number by. So...32 men would still fight pretty well, but if you have 60, then they'll pretty much only follow your orders in a general sense, so the only time you'd be willing to do this is if you wanted to grab a bunch of peasants from a tavern, to use as meat shields against a dark hunter assault?
 
I agree that there should be a discipline level for your troops and you can choose to do with it what you will. In my current game I started as the priest and pumped all my leadership/training etc skills. I don't actually fight my battles but sit back and command them. Anything to enrich this style (and other styles) of play just adds another thrilling facet to the game.
 
I agree, this probably means a lot of work. Sorry about that, armagan. But at present, I tend to think this is one of the more serious flaws with the gameplay. My troops don't even seem to need a reason to ignore my orders. I tell them to hold a position, and for a second most of them do, but a moment later, with the enemy nowhere to be seen, they all desert their post to stand on open ground. That just won't do.
 
Most soldiers during medieval times where not very professional at all. That's exactly why heavy cavalry where so effective: the knights where the only real pros out there. This was especially true for ranged units: Longbowmen for example where all peasants (yeomen actually) who where required by law to train archery a certain ammount of time each week. The point of te crossbow was that it was easy to use and required little training. This changed during the late middle ages when currency became more used and soldiers actually could make money and other people then nobles actually could become wealthy from fighting.

One has to realise just how extremely superior a knight was to a common footman: They where trained warriors from the age of 6 and their equippment cost as much as a jet fighter costs today. There are manuals detailing how a single knight where compared to as many as 20 normal soldiers in combat effectiveness.
 
What if you could actually give the commands for spesific squads? I imagine this as adding a new functionality to the Order command (O). If you face a unitand press O, you will give orders only only to his squad. This would give you the option of ordering your units to 1 - Stay!, then choosing your knights and leading them to the fray of battle. After choosing a squad, it should stay selected, making you unable to command other squads until you press O facing nothing (cancel) or member of another squad (you choose his squad, instead).

Also, it would be nice if you could mark certain keypoints. As an example, you could press Ctrl-9 to mark a high hill, Ctrl-8 to mark far side of the field and use some new order (9, 8 respectively) to order your forces to go there. This would give me the option of making my Knights charge the enemy, then come back while the archers lay waste on them, and possibly charge once more before the enemy reaches the hill, without me staying on the hill (Charge! Come here! Charge!) or going with them.

I think the game also needs a command for archers to try to find targets. It seems 1 locks them to place, 2 only works if I want everyone to go to same direction, and 3 makes them change to melee weapons.

Comments?
 
Back
Top Bottom