POLL: Are you happy with the current state of mass combat in BL?

Are you happy with the current state of mass combat in BL?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 9.8%
  • No

    Votes: 147 76.2%
  • I like turtles

    Votes: 27 14.0%

  • Total voters
    193

Currently viewing this thread:

bonerstorm

Veteran
I didn't read your post when you got to the suggestions (i am sure they are good, but I dont want to feel bad that - 100% guaranteed - TW wont implement them, let alone look at them).
Fair enough. I also do not doubt for a second that TW will totally ignore this like they've ignored similar posts for over a year.

I was just aiming for a more concise and readable breakdown of the general feeling of malaise around the forum about the actual combat that I have yet to see explained clearly and in detail.

"The combat sucks!" vs. "It's a game! Just have fun! None of you whiners have actual constructive criticism!"

So yeah... this is my attempt at outlining empirically why the combat sucks gallons of dog jizz and also the things that will never happen that would fix the situation.

I prefer this never-gonna-happen approach to pretending like just one or two tweaks could fix the whole shebang. BL is just metric tons of ass and nothing but a complete overhaul could hope to fix it.

This thread right here is why this game will fail long term, the ideas presented are not subjective. WB mods are a much better option folks. This game is really bad.
I don't quite understand what you're getting at. The suggestions in this thread have been fairly objective and well-evidenced and reasonable.

Also don't kid yourself: there's a limit to how much mods can un-f*** this game. BL doesn't nearly have the same moddability as WB and there's only so much a modder can do to manage creating entire features like working shieldwalls out of whole cloth... the best they can do is reasonably simulate.
 

mangalore

Regular
This game engine lacks one major feature which absence makes ANY realistic combat situation realistic and that is Line of Sight. Just about every battle ever throughout history used hidden or out of line of sight troops to ambush, lay low, move under cover, create subterfuge whatever -the point is these AI in this engine ALWAYS know where the enemy is. Until this is fully realized any talk of realism in regards to historical battles is utter nonsense
Erm... no those few battles are just famous precisely because they did. Most battles were pretty straight forward affairs that had been decided on the march via logistics and politics. Given the difficulty of command and control most battles were also fought very conventional with no fancy flourishes of ambushes and subterfuge because it was hard enough to get a couple of thousand guys to follow even simple plans and maneuvers.

Some more methodical approaches would be nice, probably even less control in unit placement in favor of general instructions what a unit should do (e.g. follow me, advance, withdraw, flank)
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Erm... no those few battles are just famous precisely because they did. Most battles were pretty straight forward affairs that had been decided on the march via logistics and politics

Ridiculous. Im not just talking about major ambush -every battle (or 99%) has aspects of terrains and/or units who at one point are unknown or use terrain concealment or subterfuge to temporary get the enemy to lose awareness of their whereabouts so that the other general doesnt know where ALL UNITS ARE AT ALL TIMES -thats utterly naive to think. Think about WW2 Sherman tanks -absolutely no match head to to head with the superior Tiger tank yet and its shot could not penetrate the front armor at all and barely the side armor -yet they won many battles -by sneak flank and circling attacks in which the Tigers just didnt see them till too late. Lets go thru the Jungles of vietnam -you think all generals/Lts/Sgts know where all opponents are at all times. And yes even Medieval in which troops amass on an open field -even without terrain concealment - There are acts of subterfuge the same as boxer is using right in front of another man -its the shot you dont see coming that knocks you out.

There is simply no defense for not having a Line of Sight system in a military game and giving the AI all knowing powers - there is zero chance of a realistic outcome
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Think about WW2 Sherman tanks -absolutely no match head to to head with the superior Tiger tank yet and its shot could not penetrate the front armor at all and barely the side armor -yet they won many battles -by sneak flank and circling attacks in which the Tigers just didnt see them till too late. Lets go thru the Jungles of vietnam -you think all generals/Lts/Sgts know where all opponents are at all times.
Why do your examples post-date the empty battlefield?
There is simply no defense for not having a Line of Sight system in a military game and giving the AI all knowing powers - there is zero chance of a realistic outcome
Well, even with a line-of-sight system there is zero chance of a realistic outcome because morale doesn't reflect anything like real-life. You can make a realistic medieval wargame without line-of-sight rules -- for example Invasion 1066 gets fairly close to historical outcomes (player skill and decisions depending, of course) without them -- but any product which tries to recreate warfare of that era needs to have morale modeling done correctly, in a way that it constantly decreases while in action but also allows for sudden drops and recoveries. Bannerlord doesn't have that -- and it isn't going to get that -- so we're going to be stuck with kill-a-thon battles that are more about Lancasterian mashing of forces than anything historical medieval forces did.
 
Last edited:

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Why do your examples post-date the empty battlefield?
Your jumping in a discussion you haven’t accurately comprehended - again I stated “all battles throughout history”. And this is absolutely true.

the rest of your post is like all of your rebuttals - builds a straw man and then knocks it down. “ It won’t be entirely realistic anyway cuz blah blah blah it’s a computer game so why add it”. I could argue at length about why that defeatist attitude is nonsense and counterproductive to forming necessary assets to better a game .Heck why have damage models - they’re not realistic let’s just have powder puffs when you land a hit. Piper off mate your too silly to respond to.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Your jumping in a discussion you haven’t accurately comprehended - again I stated “all battles throughout history”. And this is absolutely true.
I absolutely comprehend the discussion. I just wondered why you wouldn't pick medieval battles and instead chose examples from after the empty battlefield was a thing. It isn't even a strawman or anything -- you literally wrote, "There is simply no defense for not having a Line of Sight system in a military game and giving the AI all knowing powers - there is zero chance of a realistic outcome." But plenty of wargames do fine with realistic outcomes and no LoS system, especially for the medieval era.

But if you want to go off in a huff because you don't want to answer, that's fine too.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I absolutely comprehend the discussion. I just wondered why you wouldn't pick medieval battles and instead chose examples from after the empty battlefield was a thing. It isn't even a strawman or anything -- you literally wrote, "There is simply no defense for not having a Line of Sight system in a military game and giving the AI all knowing powers - there is zero chance of a realistic outcome." But plenty of wargames do fine with realistic outcomes and no LoS system, especially for the medieval era.

But if you want to go off in a huff because you don't want to answer, that's fine too.

If you understood the discussion you would see he wrote "except for well known battles" implying famous medieval battles in which subterfuge and ambush was used. So sure if I use famous Roman cavalry hidden flanks which were legendary -he would brush them off as the exception. hense kiddo, why i used and qualified my statement AGAIN with "all military battles thoughout history" -Capiche? Comprende?

The rest of your argument again is useless and ive already explained before why you absolutely cant make a judgement whether Line of Sight would make battles more realistic or not based off of nothing until its implemented. A line of Sight mechanic, a true ballistic mechanic, realistic fighting stances and animation mechanics, realistic reaction to weather and terrain mechanics -are simply that. Mechanics to be achieved and they can either worsen or make better a game but despite that fact they are essential to Wargaming especially in the first person. Sure you can simplify strategy games down to the binary level of an elegant solution of 1's and 0's - but is that fun? Is it tactically or strategically satisfying? Try thinking about these things of which you obviously have little knowledge rather than your usual biting down on lemon and coming in here starving for an argument like a vulture circling for rotting prey. try discussion one day rather than the need to constantly be contraire.

luck.

Edit: After looking at your example game - LOl -sure top down gaming lacks all kinds of essentials for first person battle games. There is simply no comparison. Line of sight is simply a standard for first person action/shooter or Total War-esque RTS's whatever. Forget Arma and the military trainer VBS - even Counterstrike bots use them. Without them the bots would simply always know where each other are at all times and that would seem utterly foolish and ridiculous. Its only because Mount and Blade fans are simply just used to not having a standard feature that they accept it. My argument is that it is sorely lacking.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Master Knight
If you understood the discussion you would see he wrote "except for well known battles" implying famous medieval battles in which subterfuge and ambush was used. So sure if I use famous Roman cavalry hidden flanks which were legendary -he would brush them off as the exception. hense kiddo, why i used and qualified my statement AGAIN with "all military battles thoughout history" -Capiche? Comprende?
It doesn't make sense to take examples from the modern empty battlefield (where LoS is extremely important) to the medieval era where it was less important.
Sure you can simplify strategy games down to the binary level of an elegant solution of 1's and 0's - but is that fun? Is it tactically or strategically satisfying? Try thinking about these things of which you obviously have little knowledge rather than your usual biting down on lemon and coming in here starving for an argument like a vulture circling for rotting prey. try discussion one day rather than the need to constantly be contraire.
:roll:
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
It doesn't make sense to take examples from the modern empty battlefield (where LoS is extremely important) to the medieval era where it was less important.
Line of site is important in ALL military doctrine. All of it from time eternal. Time to grasp that. Even in todays remote control drone wars -Line of Sight is what determines a successful kill or an accidental civilian massacre. Seriously dude stop trolling and deal with it.

And yes - you have little knowledge of AI systems especially in open world first person gaming -sorry. Ive been in the dreggs of AI code since early 2000's. You simply dont get it so theres no point having a discussion with you about. Come with something proper (hint! not table top gaming) next time or dont come at all
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Line of site is important in ALL military doctrine. All of it from time eternal. Time to grasp that. Even in todays remote control drone wars -Line of Sight is what determines a successful kill or an accidental civilian massacre. Seriously dude stop trolling and deal with it.
:roll:
And yes - you have little knowledge of AI systems especially in open world first person gaming -sorry. Ive been in the dreggs of AI code since early 2000's. You simply dont get it so theres no point having a discussion with you about. Come with something proper next time or dont come at all
I didn't say anything about designing an AI, only producing realistic outcomes in a game. For a game about medieval battles it is a solved problem.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
:roll:

I didn't say anything about designing an AI, only producing realistic outcomes in a game. For a game about medieval battles it is a solved problem.

Like i said -come when you have something heavy rather than emoji fluff. And lay off the lemon.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Oh and here ya go -go learn up on the Two millions old year tactics of The Ambush. Which are only a factor in a line of sight mechanics -temporarily out of view only to re-emerge on a flank is another. Its just silly not to see its value. Again -saying it works great without it is - is first of all false -we do not get good battle results as it is. And simplifying important wartime features to better get a realistic outcome like a tabletop game is just stupid -sorry mate but if you dont get i just dont have the time to explain to you.

 
I like turtles.
But no, its a bad joke, as well as most other aspects and the development circle.
Somehow i liked the years of "when will Bannerlord be released" memes more we had before the EA.
 
Every time I get into a battle I can't help but be annoyed that the reinforcements spawn in seemingly the middle of the battlefield. The maps are simply too small, attackers will always have the issue of reinforcements coming right behind them from thin air. Not just in field battles - sieges have this issue too. An entire wave of defenders can spawn literally right at the gates, on top of you, while your men have just defeated the initial defenders. How is this acceptable gameplay? Reinforcements should spawn in with large waves, in formation, outside the borders, and come into the map. In sieges, defenders must come from the keep/barracks.
 
Every time I get into a battle I can't help but be annoyed that the reinforcements spawn in seemingly the middle of the battlefield. The maps are simply too small, attackers will always have the issue of reinforcements coming right behind them from thin air. Not just in field battles - sieges have this issue too. An entire wave of defenders can spawn literally right at the gates, on top of you, while your men have just defeated the initial defenders. How is this acceptable gameplay? Reinforcements should spawn in with large waves, in formation, outside the borders, and come into the map. In sieges, defenders must come from the keep/barracks.
It's really bad. WB is much better in this regard, another regressive aspect.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Total war does reinforcements pretty well. Overall I’m really enjoying the Attila Medieval mod - best total war experience I’ve had since Shogun 2
 

mujadaddy

Recruit
WB
I keep trying to think of different commands that I wish I had during combats, but there aren't that many.
* "Regroup": return to starting positions, as opposed to a full Retreat-off-the-map. (Could be avoided if we could click a flag on a strategic minimap like in Warband/RTSmod)
* "{x} to Enemy Formation": what I mean is "Advance to", "Charge to", "Face to"; that kind of thing, which captures the essence of the community "Focus Fire" suggestion; RTSmod does it with middle-mouse-click
* "Split/Combine": formation will autoTransfer 50% to 'shift-{group}' (like in Warband, shift-3 for Cav), or recombine if already Split. I don't wanna HAVE TO futz with F3F5, let me hit "Split F6" and watch the pincers
*
SPREAD OUT - SPREAAAAD OUUUUTTTTTTTTT FOR REAL, MOVE APART FROM EACH OTHER YOU ARE CLOSE ENOUGH TO GET COVID AND I CANT SWING MY HARDENED WARRAZOR STUPID

As a general gameplay suggestion, Cavalry should be at least two horse-lengths away from their neighbor Cavalry.
 

DLW khan

Regular
combat is so broken in this game. looters are still killing me easier than desert bandits. all it comes down to is numbers, tactics dont matter. only option is to charge for inf & cav

aparently TW wants this clusterf**k combat style and fast battle rounds :sad:

i'm really disappointed with the direction TW have decided to take with bannerlord, and the lack of taking any feedback onboard....
 

Ulfhedinn

Sergeant
combat is so broken in this game. looters are still killing me easier than desert bandits. all it comes down to is numbers, tactics dont matter. only option is to charge for inf & cav

aparently TW wants this clusterf**k combat style and fast battle rounds :sad:

i'm really disappointed with the direction TW have decided to take with bannerlord, and the lack of taking any feedback onboard....

+1
 
Top Bottom