whoever chose i like turtles needs bullying
To be honest, yes, but I think the OP was somewhat misguided in enabling that third option .whoever chose i like turtles needs bullying
Then why do SP spears suck in the exact same way they do in MP? Why do devs give the same role (anti-cav) for both modes?Edit: @Clsy It is not valid to criticise MP players considering that Bannerlord Multiplayer is an independent module (is supposed) and for that reason with its own balance and tailored features, different from SP yes ofc but valid for the game style which is undoubtedly "fast paced" unlike what SP players are demanding for SP module.
No, it shouldn't be linked with SP; in Sp I can get 200+ of one unit and that is a different axis of balance compared to <20 in Captain Mode.The link between the two modules should be (is not) the captain mode (also with its tailor-made balance different from SP and the rest of the MP modes) , that's how I understand it.
That's a question you should ask a dev, which I would also love to know .Then why do SP spears suck in the exact same way they do in MP? Why do devs give the same role (anti-cav) for both modes?
Perhaps I have expressed myself badly. By link I meant that this mode in my opinion should be the one that engages SP players in a fast paced casual multiplayer environment. I have commented this in the MP threads and many of us feel that captain mode should be balanced differently than skirmish (and other modes) but at the same time have similarities to the experience that pure SP offers.No, it shouldn't be linked with SP; in Sp I can get 200+ of one unit and that is a different axis of balance compared to <20 in Captain Mode.
I think your assumption on Agents is pretty spot on. I see it too often that they will break formation or just mindlessly shuffle between targets because that part of the codebase hasn't been optimized (AI profile & target prioritization based on distance & weapon selection) - or maybe it just sucks, I am a Python dev and can hardly understand C# methods and classes.I don't mean to edit everything away, all good points but this one in particular annoys me the most.
I understand the primary reason behind this is because every soldier is its own agent? That's why you'll see 1 soldier break off to chase fleeing troops while the main body goes somewhere else. Or 1 soldier charges another group by itself.
Perhaps this could be a viable solution. First, we need 1 out of every 10 soldiers in a unit to be a standard bearer. The units that belong to that standard bearer would stick like glue to that standard bearer. This ought to improve cohesion.
Then, the standard bearer would have a priority list of orders. At the worst, we'd at least have small unit action.
Agreed on troop tier. The Realistic Battle mod helps out a lot with that, but native needs some love.Combat needs a lot of revision as do damage and armor formulas.
Tiers of troops needs to be more significant: High tier troops need to be more powerful and worthwhile compared to lower tiers. Likewise some low tier units (archers, tribal warriors)needs to be a bit suckier... they just too constantly good for low tier cheap units.
Cavalry needs to hit it's targets. Higher tier cavalry needs more survivability, it's just not okay to lose warhorse units to lower tier units.
Infantry needs "something" to give them value and place on the battle field. It could be enhanced survivability (ko'd instead of killed) or other gamey things like buffs or defenses towards archers or cav. Could also be some other type of value like more cargo+ or more +map speed in some terrains, other stuff to encourage thier use. As it is, packing in more low tier archers is just always better and it's not something that can be fixed by making archers suck more or any other thing but making infantry better in significant and useful ways.
As for other stuff, they've already poo-poo'd more complicated formation functions and I don't think they want hard counters/ R P S style stuff.
If we get pre-battle placement and formations it'll be a big improvement and AFAIK we are getting it still.
I'm not saying break permanently. I want lances to break regularly, but they should respawn in-between battles like javelins or arrows. That would help with the realism without breaking the bank because of the ridiculous prices of equipment.Agree with most points brought up here, except for the breaking of weapons. They could get worse over time, making smithing more important, but having your weapon break... idk, a bit too frustrating IMO. That is better left to modders.
Steam reviews players haven't actually played the game. If you look at steam stats vs reviews, you'll see that spikes in reviews doesn't actually coincide with spikes in playtime.Nobody voted yes.
Seems like we have some people with standards here, unlike on the almighty Steam Reviews™
Sounds legit. So basically the only way to fix the combat system is to attack the cancer killing MB: TW itself. Good movie BTW.OP, I don't want to detract from your feedback, I even agree on most things; however the problem is that this list has been commented (broadly speaking) on over and over and over again, and again.... and again....and again....and again in different threads... all of them legitimate ofc. We seem to have entered a cycle of redundancy where the only one who has the power to move us out is Taleworlds... and yet they turn a deaf ear to requests (is not a priority now) that are based on the fundamentals of the system.
Honestly one of the most infuriating f***ing things in this forum was when a dev was saying that he was open to the idea of spears being more useful "even against infantry".the way taleworlds chop off spear mechanical perfromace just to please their ESPORT GAMER is ridiculously funny
and those shills from multiplayer board will tell you it is good it is balance it is fun it is the reason nobody like this stipid game
And it really chafes my balls when a half-naked peasant with a mace comes up on me with my spear in Arena and he flawlessly parries three alternating thrusts to come in for the headshot while I'm in too close to hit him for more than a couple dam. That's not something that could conceivably happen IRL.
Yes, actually. And I don't remember him ever triple-parrying a spear with a mace, because that would be ridiculous. Conan took cheap shots, tanked hits when it was worth it and used terror to get an advantage. He wasn't magic.Perhaps you encountered Conan the Barbarian? :p
Look, even the basics of how a fallback order works is broken (or doesn't work as you would expect, imho). Taleworlds has been aware of this since I brought it to their attention in August in alfa-beta period 2019 here. Below is an updated video test of how fallback works in Warband vs Bannerlord.
Different, isn't it?
One of the many features that make the combat in Bannerlord far from what a sequel should be.
Where did TW say they wont implement missing features from warband into bannerlord?So the devs have let us all know that they don't plan on implementing any of the missing SP features from Warband.
BL is effectively a battle sim with superficial RPG elements and an economic engine but - let's be honest - it isn't even a good battle sim.
Apparently MP is fun and, generally, the tournament fights are ok... but the mass combat is dumb and boring. Victory or defeat are almost always a foregone conclusion in every fight... and it often has to be, considering the prohibitive cost and grind associated with getting top-tier troops. Without mods, the best way to level your troops is by grinding looters... which the devs force you to play out every time because autobattle kills your top-tier units and only gives 1/10x XP for your trouble.
Case in point: the AI is incapable of using any historical battle formations. At all. Shieldwalls - the bread and butter of frontline infantry for over a thousand years - don't work. Pike squares - the shieldwall's eventual replacement - don't work. Ranged volleys - bow, crossbow or thrown - don't exist. Cavalry line or wedge charges don't work... cavalry just charge one at a time Leroy-Jenkins-style into masses of spearmen which somehow do not manage to do any damage to them. Deploying the commander's reserve isn't a thing... reinforcements just teleport into the middle of the map like it's Star Trek.
Nothing in this medieval battle sim actually simulates anything resembling a medieval battle.
And that's on top of the fact that spears and sieges are flat-out busted. Oh yeah, and the only time that spears "work" is when you horizontally swing a massive two-handed glaive and behead people like you're mowing the grass... which doesn't exactly strike me as realistic, especially from horseback.
Moronic combat AI doesn't charge or fight in formation and - when you force it to - the results are often worse than no formation at all because of collision issues. The only practical impact players can have on extremely-large battles is babysitting the archers so they don't position themselves in a gulch or directly behind the front line - where they can't shoot at the enemy - while they wait to get slaughtered by enemy cavalry.
So here's where the complaining ends and the solutions (hopefully) start:
With the limitations of the engine in mind, what do you all think can be done to make mass combat great again?
Here are a few of my thoughts:
Besides the mass combat, I'd also really like general QOL improvements like the ability to train literally anything for yourself or your troops/companions outside of combat - so you're not learning to use a sword by personally murdering more people than Ghengis Khan over the course of more battles than Alexander the Great. It'd be nice to level Leadership, too, without sitting in an army non-stop for literal in-game years.
- Treat formations as a unified AI with a unified morale mechanic that bleeds into individual AI as losses mount and the formation is breached
- Treat entire armies a unified construct, so you can actually give commands like "guard the flanks" to a formation without splitting the unit and personally F1-ing them at each end of the battle lines... or just trusting the formation AI to do it for you (also "skirmish from behind", "stay in reserve", "flank on the left", "advance", "halt")
- Group units by function, not class: Line Infantry, Skirmishers, Archers, Light Cavalry, Shock Infantry, Pike Infantry, Shock Cavalry, Reserve, Bodyguard
- Order them by default according to their function: #1 to shieldwall, #2-4 skirmishes then flanks then charges routing troops, #5 flanks in loose formation, #6 guards flanks in square formation, #7-9 reserves
- Program line infantry to line up in parallel shield walls and then actually skirmish by throwing spears/axes before charging in formation with shields raised (bonus points if they yell real loud)
- Also, program line infantry to sort itself with the heaviest armor on the frontline
- Program ranged troops to fire at extreme range in volleys against oncoming troops AND target horses at close range - NOT riders (who they should run away from if they can't mob them at least 4-to-1)
- F*** it: turn on friendly fire for AI ranged and program it not to fire into a dense melee so they're not all acting like Legolas at Helm's Deep
- Program shock infantry and heavy cavalry to attack shieldwalls in wedge formation and give troops in that formation a conditional buff
- Hell... ALL formations should give unique conditional buffs to every unit inside them
- Use the shield bash mechanic to simulate the press of bodies as formations meet and have them break defensive blocks with success determined by 1H skill
- Have lighter-armed units who are mobbing a lone heavily-armed unit use bashes to stun-lock them (which was basically how they did it IRL)
- THIS IS GONNA BE CONTROVERSIAL: add in a failure-to-parry mechanic that scales in success with the relevant combat skill
- THIS TOO: Proc stuns when you shield-block or parry from the correct direction (shield health is almost never relevant in mass combat)
- Make parry efficiency at least partially dependent on the force used - so partially-successful parries proportionately reduce damage while opening up the enemy for a counter-attack
- Remove the attack delay for spears and give every single one of them that's over 1.5m in length the ability to brace
- Make spears extremely difficult to parry and generally bad at parrying
- Make spears break like shields - especially lances after a couched charge
- Boost damage to axes and maces over swords, but at the cost of worse parry performance
And I'm not talking about some bulls*** "3xp/day" crap. Recruits cost 2000xp to train and there's no reason why it should take more than 2 weeks to teach a half-naked peasant how to use a shield and spear and put on some damn clothes. And DEFINITELY no reason why they should only be able to train by personally murdering other peasants on the tactical map.
Here:Where did TW say they wont implement missing features from warband into bannerlord?