Plz fix broken simulation! 19 cavalry vs 7 looters one heavy cavalry die!

Currently viewing this thread:

zspiano

Recruit
Devs if you haven’t realized how broken the simulation is that’s the case for mine.

Clean game no mod, 18 cavalry vs 7 looters, 1 elite cataphract, 13 imperial bucellarii, 4 vlandian caravan guards——send the troops, super heavy armored cataphract die!

So hard to upgrade the cataphract and then die so quick in ridiculous simulation.
 
Last edited:

zspiano

Recruit
The 7 looter have super blunt weapon has no chance to kill a heavy cav not to mention 13 horse archers rain arrows.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Yeah it's crappy system, needs re-do with rules that make it useful to the player. If something is in the game it needs to be useful and enjoyable for the player. I don't agree with any functions that are "well you CAN do it this way but it's pure downside"

Of course if you charged the Cav (without HA) 1 of them would probably die in live battle, because CAV is just a failure unless you hold it's hand the whole time. I got a bunch of vlandian Squires/Gallants and went to level them up on looters and BOY are they awful units and it's very very hard to level them without them dying. Have to make the looters rout and drag them into them as they run and hope they kill some other wise the looters can just trash them in a normal fight.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
I got a bunch of vlandian Squires/Gallants and went to level them up on looters and BOY are they awful units and it's very very hard to level them without them dying. Have to make the looters rout and drag them into them as they run and hope they kill some other wise the looters can just trash them in a normal fight.
Dismount them, it is much easier that way.
 

Fulkram

Recruit
WB
I dunno man....have you witnessed how dangerous those pitchforks can be? I literally refuse to couch charge even a tier 0 troop if they have one. I might switch to javs or try a max range thrust attack while fading away left also wimpering. <- kidding

I mostly don't use the autoresolve unless I am trying to work my medicine skill with low tier troops. And that is kinda why, I never really thought to say anything about it, just figured, it's combat, combat is chaotic, and sometimes bad things happen, even to heavily armoured troops.

Seriously tho, be wary of those pitchfork guys.....nothing more embarrasing than getting zeroed out by a T0 scrubahotep when you got all those advantages.
 

Koshkasa

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I had a casualty = game is broken.
You've mistaken this thread for the Straw Man Convention, wonderful display though.

You have an asset (your army) and a choice of what to do with it (auto-resolve or fight it out). Having auto-resolve as the inferior option is probably fine (since you ain't putting the legwork in), but the fact that it's so unpredictable makes it unviable. As long as it does something it shouldn't, it's bad, doesn't matter if it's the player losing units or something else entirely xD
 

Antaeus

Veteran
You've mistaken this thread for the Straw Man Convention, wonderful display though.

You have an asset (your army) and a choice of what to do with it (auto-resolve or fight it out). Having auto-resolve as the inferior option is probably fine (since you ain't putting the legwork in), but the fact that it's so unpredictable makes it unviable. As long as it does something it shouldn't, it's bad, doesn't matter if it's the player losing units or something else entirely xD
It must be unpredictable by nature. It is war. I have lost soldiers fighting looters. I've even been downed myself. It is not unbalanced, because you don't lose the battle to looters ever, and the majority of the time you do it, you wont lose anyone at all. But now and then a looter gets lucky with a sharpened broom and pokes someone in the eye. The unpredictability is the most important part - if there was no risk, it would be boring and unrealistic.

And units dying in combat is not something that shouldn't happen.

And yeah. I haven't mistaken this thread for the straw man convention. I've made a fairly accurate judgement.
 

Bicimeme

Recruit
I guess something like this occured :
Due to the overwhelming difference between his army and its opponents, the army commander felt unecessary to show up on the battlefield.
Let my troops deal whith those petty looters, he thought.
The army advanced towards the looters
An elite cataphract, filled with a legitimate sense of superiority, and in the absence of his commander, broke off the main line and charged bravely at the looters.
Alas, by a sheer struck of luck, one of the stones thrown at him by the looters landed on the right temple his helmet. The speed of the stone being added to the opposite speed of the horse charging, rendered the blow so hard that the cataphract passed out and fell of his horse.
It was not long before the looters cut the throat of the unfortunate horseman laying on the ground. Another Goliath slained by a seemingly feeble Samson David.
Corrected, I have to study my bible stories

Improbable? Of course.
Possible ? Absolutely!

Saddened by this loss, the commander decided next time he would watch his troops more closely :wink:
 
Last edited:
It must be unpredictable by nature. It is war. I have lost soldiers fighting looters. I've even been downed myself. It is not unbalanced, because you don't lose the battle to looters ever, and the majority of the time you do it, you wont lose anyone at all. But now and then a looter gets lucky with a sharpened broom and pokes someone in the eye. The unpredictability is the most important part - if there was no risk, it would be boring and unrealistic.

And units dying in combat is not something that shouldn't happen.

And yeah. I haven't mistaken this thread for the straw man convention. I've made a fairly accurate judgement.
The problem is that high tier troops killed by looters even being outnumered is something that happens quite often when it should be really rare.
 

CaptainLee

Sergeant Knight
If Looters posed zero threat then the risk/reward is irrelevent and they should be removed from the game. Aside from that it is completely non-sensical that adults with even crude weapon should not be able to bring down a heavy cavalryman.
 
OP is pointing out a legitimate problem:
The weak autoresolve mechanic 'forces' the player to spend a large percentage of his time in bannerlord killing looters.
Is that good game design?

Looters DO provide zero risk. You can solo any number of them on day 1 with a horse and a bow with 0 risk.
If you have any number of archers you can just lead them around in circles while your archer(s) slaughter them
 

Aurex

Recruit
WB
I had a casualty = game is broken.
Autoresolve should approximate the likely results of a field battle. You could replay (with no player intervention) that same battle on the field a thousand times and never lose a single cavalryman.
Therefore yes, game (in this case autoresolve) is *absolutely* broken. Even if TW decides it's somehow acceptable and keeps it as it is, that will not change the fact that is not working as common sense would intend it to.
 

Antaeus

Veteran
It isn't broken, because you click auto-resolve and it does something that was intended. You just don't like what it does.

As I said, I've seen my troops, and have also been knocked down by looters. Sometimes embarrassingly small bands of looters. So any auto-resolve must include this element of risk as per battles I take part in.

Your only gripe is the frequency of deaths. You don't like the way in which the dice are being rolled. That's fine and I appreciate it. But you shouldn't be with the hyperbole when all you really want is an tweak to the % chance of a death.

Allowing for the real element of risk to be maintained, what would your acceptable % chance of death be?
 
This "autoresolve is broken" debate is as old as the series. You can try any number of fancy formulas (I did in a mod) and you'll still get complaints and unrealistic outcomes in some cases. Short of simulating the battle in 3D there's no perfect autoresolve.
I wonder though if autoresolve for the player can be made different and based on outcomes of previous player battles (only slightly worse, so not to stimulate autoresolving exploits). That may be the best solution and most closely aligned with player expectations. Even then user BabyRant420 would complain how autoresolve is broken, so there's no escaping that.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
This "autoresolve is broken" debate is as old as the series. You can try any number of fancy formulas (I did in a mod) and you'll still get complaints and unrealistic outcomes in some cases. Short of simulating the battle in 3D there's no perfect autoresolve.
I wonder though if autoresolve for the player can be made different and based on outcomes of previous player battles (only slightly worse, so not to stimulate autoresolving exploits). That may be the best solution and most closely aligned with player expectations. Even then user BabyRant420 would complain how autoresolve is broken, so there's no escaping that.

I found POP and Kt0's autoresolve enjoyable
 
I found POP and Kt0's autoresolve enjoyable
It was better than Native, but when you look at the formulas, you see many arbitrary values and tweaking them is just "magic".
In retrospect it's better to assign some kind of empirical strength values to troops (ditch the troop strength formulas) and then try to come up with a battle formula that also takes into account numbers and terrain and whatever else.
The empirical strength values could be arrived at by running real, 3D 1-on-1 fights in some kind of a troop league (in development, not in a released game). Something like ELO ratings for troops. :smile:
 
Top Bottom