SP - General [POLL] Unit behaviour by class

[Ulfhedinn_]

In many roleplaying games, your class basically determines what kind of equipment and even what kind of behavior is expected of your character.
That said, along with @Terco_Viejo I bring up the suggestion that units in Bannerlord behave based on their category / class / role-function.

For this, it is also necessary to create new categories and applying to keybinds we have the following proposal:

[ 1 ] INFANTRY
They already have the proper designation in the game.

[ 2 ] RANGED
They already have the proper designation in the game.

[ 3 ] SKIRMISHER
Already inserted in the game, but behave like infantry. They should behave like guerrillas and also seek to flank in melee combat.
(The Ai group behaviour shall not decide to charge until all missiles have been launched).

[ 4 ] RANGED CAVALRY
Changed name from "Horse Archer" to include units with throwing weapons and camel or elephant mounts as well.
(The Ai group behaviour shall not decide to charge until all missiles have been launched).

[ 5 ] CAVALRY
They already have the proper designation in the game, riding around the map and seeking to attack the flanks.

[ 6 ] HEAVY CAVALRY
Already inserted in the game, but not used. I suggest behaving like a Shock Cavalry.

[ 7 ] HEAVY INFANTRY
Already inserted in the game, but not used. They should receive cohesion and discipline benefits, but suffer movement penalty.

[ 8 ] PIKE INFANTRY
Added category, the only type of infantry capable of using the Spear Brace mechanics.

[ 9 ] SHOCK INFANTRY
Added category, units that attack fast and with low morale drop penalty.

[ 0 ] BODYGUARDS
Added category, units that preserve their original category and can be selected into a single group focused on the lord's protection.
(Ideal to place your companions, for example).

[ ' ] SELECT ALL

EDIT / IMPORTANT: This suggestion also brings keybind customization.
Every player who wants to use more types of the same category always sacrifice slots of others.

For example: If you only have mounted archers in your army and you want to control 4 groups of mounted archers, you must transfer the units on the battle map between the slots you defined previously through the keybind customization. Full control of your army's composition.

This allows a range of options for the player. If I want to put a certain unit in other category / class, it will adapt to that new function.
Possible scenarios according to this proposal:

1. If the category is applied, it would force pikeman to behave differently from the other infantry types, creating a truly functional pike unit.
2. If not equipped with missile weapons, ranged cavalry will engage in melee combat normally. The skirmishers too.
3. If I select an archer and put him in the infantry category, he would automatically switch to melee mode and advance with the infantry units.
4. If I select an knight and put him in the pike infantry category, he would dismount and could use the spear in Spear Brace mode.
5. If I select an crossbowman and put him in the skirmisher category, he will not decide to charge until all missiles have been launched.
6. If I select an infantryman and put him in the heavy cavalry category, he will mount in stray horses that are close to him and will accompany the cavalry.

And so on...

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I agree with the behavior modification based on category, but Id much prefer if they weren't bound to key binds and that we could customize what category was in what key bind.

Like what if i want 3 infantry divisions and 3 foot archer divisions, I should be able to set up 1-3 as infantry and 4-6 as archers.

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

I agree with the behavior modification based on category, but Id much prefer if they weren't bound to key binds and that we could customize what category was in what key bind.

Like what if i want 3 infantry divisions and 3 foot archer divisions, I should be able to set up 1-3 as infantry and 4-6 as archers.

Of course, I think this is already customizable. It was just a way to present all the classes in operation.
Every player who wants to use more types of the same category always sacrifice slots of others.

 

[madnessario]

I agree with the idea, give me tactical options and take my life. From a UX point of view, though, the SELECT ALL key is not good I suppose. I think it would be better if you are able to place the key bindings yourself.

Even better if something like this is available:

I agree with the behavior modification based on category, but Id much prefer if they weren't bound to key binds and that we could customize what category was in what key bind.

Like what if i want 3 infantry divisions and 3 foot archer divisions, I should be able to set up 1-3 as infantry and 4-6 as archers.

What would be the difference between infantry and heavy infantry though? With all the others I can instantly envision a difference. Isn't this like creating a group with better/heavier units?

 

[guiskj]

I love and hate the idea at the same time.

I wish battles were big enough and long enough for such micromanagement to pay off.

What I would prefer is that each unit class had a formation AI behaviour set. And when a formation is primarily composed of that class, then that AI behaviour would be chosen. This is somewhat what already happens, but we only have like 5 AI sets (generic infantry, skirmisher, ranged, cavalry and horse archer).

This way formations and their key binding becomes just "buckets". If I put heavy cavalry on formation one, that is now my heavy cavalry formation.

I would have full control of how many formations and which keyboard position these formations would be in. 100% freedom to organize my forces as I see fit. Win-win.

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

I agree with the idea, give me tactical options and take my life. From a UX point of view, though, the SELECT ALL key is not good I suppose. I think it would be better if you are able to place the key bindings yourself.

Yeah, keybind customization is the key! Thanks for helping to improve the suggestion.

What would be the difference between infantry and heavy infantry though? With all the others I can instantly envision a difference. Isn't this like creating a group with better/heavier units?

In addition to the separation between light and heavy units, better discipline and better formation effectiveness can be the difference.
The player can use this to "cheat" and place weak units as heavy, but that is each one's conduct...

Perhaps this can be resolved with a requirement. Units that do not have at least X tier armor cannot apply to heavy class.
(But I think this requirement is unnecessary, I play honestly and look for immersion.)

I love and hate the idea at the same time.

I wish battles were big enough and long enough for such micromanagement to pay off.

What I would prefer is that each unit class had a formation AI behaviour set. And when a formation is primarily composed of that class, then that AI behaviour would be chosen. This is somewhat what already happens, but we only have like 5 AI sets (generic infantry, skirmisher, ranged, cavalry and horse archer).

This way formations and their key binding becomes just "buckets". If I put heavy cavalry on formation one, that is now my heavy cavalry formation.

I would have full control of how many formations and which keyboard position these formations would be in. 100% freedom to organize my forces as I see fit. Win-win.

Edited suggestion. Full control of keybinds and therefore the composition of the army.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Edited suggestion. Full control of keybinds and therefore the composition of the army.

Now im fully on board

 

[vonbalt]

I really like this idea, units need to behave differently based on class/equipment they are carrying and we are lacking many roles right now as you pointed.

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

Now im fully on board

I really like this idea, units need to behave differently based on class/equipment they are carrying and we are lacking many roles right now as you pointed.

Thanks for the support! Do you know which developers are capable of doing this?

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Thanks for the support! Do you know which developers are capable of doing this?

@MRay would likely work on the UI side of letting us customize category key bindings, but im not sure who on the mission (combat) side to ping for discussion about behavior. @Dejan is our best bet for getting this suggestion brought forward to those who could develop it.

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

@MRay would likely work on the UI side of letting us customize category key bindings, but im not sure who on the mission (combat) side to ping for discussion about behavior. @Dejan is our best bet for getting this suggestion brought forward to those who could develop it.

@Duh_TaleWorlds and @Gaerlim should also be able to give us feedback!

So, illustrating the idea the standard of unit category slots would look like this:

Now let's apply to a practical scenario:

I am a Khuzait general with only 50 Ranged Cavalry and with my customization of keybinds / slots I created my own army composition. In this composition I created 4 groups of Ranged Cavalry. When the battle starts, all units (I only have Ranged Cavalry) are designated in slot 4 (standard) and if I want to divide my troops into Ranged Cavalry groups I will transfer units normally during battle, keeping the same behavior of the category. My suggestion also has the following possibility: I want to keep 2 groups of Ranged Cavalry and select 20 units to dismount and fight melee as sacrifice / distraction units. That way all I need to do is transfer 20 units to the Infantry category (because they're infantry they'll automatically behave like infantry, regardless of having their bows).

@Terco_Viejo I don't see how it could get any better!

 

[Gricken]

Inb4 too complicated

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

What would be the difference between infantry and heavy infantry though? With all the others I can instantly envision a difference. Isn't this like creating a group with better/heavier units?

I just thought of another feature that can differentiate the units while solving the "cheating" problem!

Have you ever stopped to think about how heavier (more armored) units are faster than light units due to their higher stats?
Units in the Heavy Infantry category may receive the benefit of better discipline and better cohesion, but may receive a movement penalty!
This will make heavy units less fast on the battlefield and discourages the player from assigning light troops in the heavy category.
(Because that would make Tier 1 and Tier 2 units very slow and remove the speed advantage from the strongest light troops).

/Suggestion edited with the above change.

Inb4 too complicated

I have hope...

 

[Medivhtratos]

Sounds good

 

[niekdegrijze]

I actually thought something like this was already in the game, I just couldn't find any information about class AI behavior besides infantry, archers, cavalry and horse archers. I am definitely in favor of the suggestions over the current system

as an alternative I would like to propose that assigning a number 1-9 does not automatically give a fixed ai behavior. But that you can assign different behaviors to different numbers. This would give the player a lot of flexibility. A pre battle formation page or a in battle pause or slow-mo function might come in handy.

This way if the player want 3 formations of infantry he can assign the infantry behavior to numbers 1 to 3,
Splitting formations would also work better.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

As I said, I like it but of course... we are back to the point where we found "the big wall". We don't know if this would be within Taleworlds design guidelines or if there would otherwise be any possibility of implementation.

That said, leaving out keybinding... in my eyes a minor thing that can be tweaked in a relatively easy way; the interesting thing here is the concept of behaviour subordinate to role/function... very very interesting in my eyes.

I don't know if on a technical level this is feasible, but it would certainly be a nice fine tuning as an refinement to what we were told on Dev Blog 25/10/18 and is supposedly what the current AI is all about.

Formation
Formation AI sits at a level just above individual AI. Formation AI is used to issue commands to each agent within a formation and decide what behaviour that the formation should perform (i.e. attack, defend, flank, retreat, etc.). However, it is important to note that the orders issued by the formation AI only determine what is expected of each individual agent, but it doesn’t directly make them do anything: this is left to the individual AI to interpret and carry out.

As for the UI, in my eyes it would be interesting to have a sorting by group button that acts as a container that drops down in accordion mode and from there to be able to assign the role function by means of I, II, II...etc in Party panel. Plus, a tailored build PBOB would definitely be necessary for Bannerlord (Some time ago I advocated for its implementation here... among other threads and comments). Given that we don't yet know how the Taleworlds order of battle really works ... we're just blind beating around the bush here.

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

Sounds good

Thanks.

I actually thought something like this was already in the game, I just couldn't find any information about class AI behavior besides infantry, archers, cavalry and horse archers. I am definitely in favor of the suggestions over the current system

as an alternative I would like to propose that assigning a number 1-9 does not automatically give a fixed ai behavior. But that you can assign different behaviors to different numbers. This would give the player a lot of flexibility. A pre battle formation page or a in battle pause or slow-mo function might come in handy.

This way if the player want 3 formations of infantry he can assign the infantry behavior to numbers 1 to 3,
Splitting formations would also work better.

Yes, the suggestion had this improvement:

EDIT / IMPORTANT: This suggestion also brings keybind customization.
Every player who wants to use more types of the same category always sacrifice slots of others.

For example: If you only have mounted archers in your army and you want to control 4 groups of mounted archers, you must transfer the units on the battle map between the slots you defined previously through the keybind customization. Full control of your army's composition.

So, illustrating the idea the standard of unit category slots would look like this:

Now let's apply to a practical scenario:

I am a Khuzait general with only 50 Ranged Cavalry and with my customization of keybinds / slots I created my own army composition. In this composition I created 4 groups of Ranged Cavalry. When the battle starts, all units (I only have Ranged Cavalry) are designated in slot 4 (standard) and if I want to divide my troops into Ranged Cavalry groups I will transfer units normally during battle, keeping the same behavior of the category. My suggestion also has the following possibility: I want to keep 2 groups of Ranged Cavalry and select 20 units to dismount and fight melee as sacrifice / distraction units. That way all I need to do is transfer 20 units to the Infantry category (because they're infantry they'll automatically behave like infantry, regardless of having their bows).

This kind of freedom to organize troops into multiple groups is really useful and immersive!

As I said, I like it but of course... we are back to the point where we found "the big wall". We don't know if this would be within Taleworlds design guidelines or if there would otherwise be any possibility of implementation.

That said, leaving out keybinding... in my eyes a minor thing that can be tweaked in a relatively easy way; the interesting thing here is the concept of behaviour subordinate to role/function... very very interesting in my eyes.

I don't know if on a technical level this is feasible, but it would certainly be a nice fine tuning as an refinement to what we were told on Dev Blog 25/10/18 and is supposedly what the current AI is all about.

Spoiler: Formation

"Formation AI sits at a level just above individual AI. Formation AI is used to issue commands to each agent within a formation and decide what behaviour that the formation should perform (i.e. attack, defend, flank, retreat, etc.). However, it is important to note that the orders issued by the formation AI only determine what is expected of each individual agent, but it doesn’t directly make them do anything: this is left to the individual AI to interpret and carry out."

As for the UI, in my eyes it would be interesting to have a sorting by group button that acts as a container that drops down in accordion mode and from there to be able to assign the role function by means of I, II, II...etc in Party panel. Plus, a tailored build PBOB would definitely be necessary for Bannerlord (Some time ago I advocated for its implementation here... among other threads and comments). Given that we don't yet know how the Taleworlds order of battle really works ... we're just blind beating around the bush here.

Let's wait for a response from one of these developers... @Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds @Gaerlim @MRay
This suggestion may can be laborious, but as a result it greatly facilitates and improves troop organization for both pc and consoles.

 

[Danny5]

Still waiting ?

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Still waiting ?

Deep in your heart, you already know the answer. ?

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

Still waiting ?

Yeah, @Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds @Gaerlim @MRay any feedback?

Deep in your heart, you already know the answer. ?

Hope™