Resolved not by Taleworlds] Fallback order is still not working from 2019 until now.

[Terco_Viejo]

I am forced to bring to the attention of the support crew an old feedback of mine that has been dragging on since 2019; tired of seeing it malfunction I expose it here as a bug.

It is not conceivable that in an action to push back the position of the unit, that unit is turning its back on the enemy when carrying it out.
These days its action of fallback (backpedal) and retreat (rout) is exactly the same; and it should not be like that.


As I understand it (maybe other users share other opinions) this order must perform going back in block so that unit never turn it back on a potential enemy, making use of the backpedal all members of the group.


On the other hand, the retreat itself establishes an escape from the action to carry out a real escape or pretend a "tactical" feigned retreat.

We should be able to retrieve the procedure (my opinion) of the classic order "fall back 10 paces" for this occasion.

In Warband the Fallback order is performed infinitely better than in Bannerlord.
​

Pretty much everyone expects the Fallback order to be implemented in this way within any foot combat formation:

This is Fallback. Manor Lords



ofc the same for Multiplayer Captain Mode​

 

[guiskj]

+1

 

[MArdA TaleWorlds]

Forwarded to the QA team for further investigation. We will reach out again if we need more information. Thanks for reporting and sorry for any inconvenience!

 

[MArdA TaleWorlds]

I've been informed that this is an intended design.

 

[guiskj]

Then get better designers. Good lord...

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I've been informed that this is an intended design.

Thank you for bringing this information to us, however I just simply can't imagine how this is "intentional design"... I am really baffled by these terrible decisions you (decision maker/s) keep making.

 

[five bucks]

How can this be intended?

 

[Grisch]

I've been informed that this is an intended design.

Someone tell me they're joking. Lie if you have to.

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

I've been informed that this is an intended design.

Then no one but devs think this should be the design choice.
This was in Warband...
Please comunicate to the devs again and ask for explanations, and I'm sure that there is something they can't do to somewhat get closer to what we expect to be the right behavior.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

@Callum Remember this? pull some strings, please.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

@Lusitani 5th Empire @Grisch @five bucks @guiskj and to whom it may concern:

It didn't take the Realistic Battle Mod guys more than 4 days to fix Taleworlds "intentional design" regarding the fallback order. The fallback in RBM battle AI module works as it should, I have verified it first hand and I put it in the fire for them.

I assume that this will be the trend with the rest of the game's problems...

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

@Lusitani 5th Empire @Grisch @five bucks @guiskj and to whom it may concern:

It didn't take the Realistic Battle Mod guys more than 4 days to fix Taleworlds "intentional design" regarding the fallback order. The fallback in RBM battle AI module works as it should, I have verified it first hand and I put it in the fire for them.

I assume that this will be the trend with the rest of the game's problems...

Amazing that job these guys keep doing, I hope TW can figure out why they are failing to fix issues and make progress, I don't think it's just incompetence but also problems with communication identifying the issues and probably not enough people to work on said issues.

I can remember other occasions where they claim that was the intended design, maybe we will see mods that fix them too proving that there was a better solution.

 

[guiskj]

@Terco_Viejo, wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... wait.

What if (hear me out) Bannerlord has never been a game. What if it is an AWESOME spiritual successor to RPGMaker, that comes with its own demo??

That's it. I am now officially hyped for this project!

 

[five bucks]

Could they just use the code from RBM regarding how troops handle fallback then? I think they're within their rights to do so.

 

[guiskj]

Could they just use the code from RBM regarding how troops handle fallback then? I think they're within their rights to do so.

But it is not the official DESIGN... Remember, the official word is that it is working as designed.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

?Exactly, that's the problem.

By that logic what would have prevented them from implementing code from the big mods like Diplomacy, Freelancer, Party Ai overhaul, etc...? The problem is not the technical knowledge of the devs, I'm not questioning their professionalism at all, but the final nexus embodied by the person or exclusive group of people who decide with intentionality totally out of touch with what the player needs that does nothing but diminish the playable experience of the player imho.