[POLL] Unit behaviour by class

Are you in favor of this suggestion?

  • Yes.

  • No.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Users who are viewing this thread

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
I like the idea, and others as well, it also helps with organising troops in categories, which is preferable for some instances, perhaps also allowing us to customise groups - renaming them and adding more groups instead of just having the defaults one.
 

LDominating

Regular
Good changes.
They'll bring great satisfaction to player.

I do wonder if the A.I will get to use the same thing as us.
Maybe some troops will be automatically set in a specific class.
I.E woodrunner and woodsman will be in skirmish.

Other troops can fit two designation thus allowing the A.I to decide between the two depending on their needs.
I.E Imp.Trained Infantryman beign an infantryman or skirmisher.
 

Ulfhedinn

Sergeant
I like this idea a lot and it makes this seem more like a strategy game than just a simple action game. However, the system would definitely have to be heavily customizable. Obviously, with a smaller company, this wouldn't work particularly well and rather would be for larger battles, but you still might want to use it to an extent with a smaller company. Even if this doesn't get implemented, which is probably the case, I wonder if it could be modded in.

We got a good reaction from @Callum and I think it might be possible.
Anyway, I will be waiting for further feedback and we can argue against a possible rejection.
I'm sure we can polish the idea until it pleases Greeks and Trojans.

That's not a problem with the philosophy, it's a problem with the game's formation combat. Formations like you're describing were in VC and other mods and it worked quite well. Formations should be the go-to in Bannerlord than simply selecting "charge". If this whole suggestion was implemented, either by TW or a mod, the formation combat would also have to be fixed at the same time.

+1

some nice ideas in this thread. Personally I'm in favor of anything that improves the battle UI.

The more customization the better especially if it will affect unit behaviors.

And this will improve a lot!
It is a very reasonable and immersive idea of improving the behavior and organization of units.

Lots of great suggestions here and I'm glad to see it's been brought forth by @Callum , looking forward to news about it.

There's already been shadow of behavior based on group/formation/order but it would be much better to be more fleshed out in a transparent way that is understandable and usable by the player. I also support the idea of having certain buffs applied to some units or groups as I want all units to be valuable and have a useful role to play, but there is a limit to what can be done just with behavior/gear alone.

Yes, in my conception it was well balanced. The shock infantry class doesn't have a penalty, but this was a trade-off for the fact that these units necessarily consist of a large majority or only warriors with two-handed weapons and suffer heavy casualties from ranged attacks. That shouldn't stop the frenzy in battle those still in charge!

Slightly misunderstood, but I got it now. Categories having set behaviors to them, on top of more appropriate categories.

Honestly, loving the ideas, especially the latter half of your post where you said what would happen if one type was put into another category. We need this stuff.

Yes we need! Thank you for your support!

This does seem like a genuinely good idea, and I really do hope that it gets added into the game. Specifically, I do like the aspect of adding a bodyguard group. That would give the feeling of being, well, special a little bit more, something that I think is needed.

Like I said, the suggestion is flexible about removing the Bodyguard class to assign [ 0 ] to SELECT ALL.
However, with army customization, you will be able to create unit slots for this role.
The amount of possible battle scenarios that this idea provides will only improve the game!

Bodyguard roles for lords/player sound great for a variety of reasons, and redefining "horse archer" as "ranged cavalry" to take into account jav cav and camelry, are particularly good ideas. Well done.

I'd be in favour of this idea, but simplified a little: heavy cavalry and cavalry share similar behaviour so they could be condensed into the single role of "melee cavalry", and skirmishers (which basically means javelin users) share similar behaviour to other ranged foot units, so they could be condensed into the role of "ranged infantry". As much as we may hate it, TW wants this game to work for console, so I think simplification of good ideas where possible is important.

That would give you 8 categories, and leave the 9 key free for "everyone", and the 0 key free for a spare player-assigned category:

1: Auxiliary Infantry (good for looters, farmers, T1 recruits who don't have any special equipment, and other units that don't fall into any of the other categories).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

2: Pike Infantry (troops with braceable polearms).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

3: Damage Infantry (troops with high damage two-handers).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

4: Shield Infantry (troops with large shields).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

5: Ranged Infantry (troops using a crossbow, bow or javelins as a primary).
Default behaviour: Attempt to keep out of range and constantly fire projectiles, when all ammo is used up charge into melee.

6: Ranged Cavalry (troops using a bow or javelins as a primary on horseback).
Default behaviour: Attempt to keep out of range and constantly fire projectiles, when all ammo is used up charge into melee.

7: Melee Cavalry (troops using melee weapons as a primary on horseback).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range to attack once, attempt to leave, repeat.

8: Bodyguards (by default, the highest tier troops in the army).
Default behaviour: Follow commander.

9: Everyone.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. If accepted in this way I will be happy! However, I still find the original separation more effective:
  • In this post I explain how it is better to have the option of separating elite troops from regular troops than separating shielded and unshielded troops. Without considering the benefits and penalties of the Heavy Infantry class which increases balance.

  • Now I need to talk about the Skirmisher class:
    In fact, I must say that the Skirmisher class is the wild card of this suggestion! It is suitable for both ranged infantry and melee infantry, enabling greater control and division of units. If we remove this option, we miss a much needed behavior in the game, the guerrilla tactics in Bannerlord are missing. In addition, you make the division of archers and crossbowmen in the army impossible. For the melee infantry we were also able to perform good tactics by deploying a group to seek to attack from the flanks.

  • As for cavalry, yes we can group, so we guarantee the Bodyguard class. However, we lost this possibility:
    Also I would keep light and heavy Cavalry cause they have different purposes. Light Cavalry is more for distracting, flanking and attacking from the rear while heavy is for frontal charge to break enemy formation.
And I think it's advantageous for us to use this separation, so I can drop Cataphracts in a big frontal charge while a lighter cavalry worries about attacking from the flanks, for example.

I like the idea, and others as well, it also helps with organising troops in categories, which is preferable for some instances, perhaps also allowing us to customise groups - renaming them and adding more groups instead of just having the defaults one.

We would have both possibilities, changing the class of the unit in our party (as is already possible) and pre-determining the composition in the settings, from 0 to 9. Now let's go to a practical scenario:

  • Suppose I am a general of Sturgia and I have customized my army as follows:
    [1]
    Infantry I
    [2] Infantry II
    [3] Shock Infantry
    [4] Heavy Infantry I
    [5] Heavy Infantry II
    [6] Ranged Infantry
    [7] Skirmisher
    [8] Cavalry
    [9] Heavy Cavalry

  • My units will be distributed normally according to their default class. All infantry units will be placed in [1] Infantry I.
    So, when I want, if I want, I'll have the [2] Infantry II slot to split my infantry warriors, already on the battlefield.

  • If I recruit units with classes other than the one I pre-set in the settings, it will automatically replace a duplicate class.
    So if I have pikemen in my army, the Pike Infantry class will override slot [2] Infantry II automatically on the battlefield.
And this will happen with all the duplicated classes, until you have all the classes from 0 to 9, if you had all kinds of troops in your army.

Good changes.
They'll bring great satisfaction to player.

I do wonder if the A.I will get to use the same thing as us.
Maybe some troops will be automatically set in a specific class.
I.E woodrunner and woodsman will be in skirmish.

Other troops can fit two designation thus allowing the A.I to decide between the two depending on their needs.
I.E Imp.Trained Infantryman beign an infantryman or skirmisher.

Will definitely use, see my comment above! Or see this link:
 
Last edited:

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
I don't know why they turned off Shift-Group# (or Alt-Group#, can't remember), unless it was for consoles.

I'd like to be able to hit a functionkeypair and split Infantry into "1" and "Alt-1" automatically, for example.
 

Kapr Kral

Sergeant
WBNWVC
I really like the idea and it really seems like this is how new players would even expect the units to behave like. Why would skirmishers NOT skirmish, but instead just be light infantry who happen to toss a couple throwing weapons if they have time. Hopefully something like this gets implemented once some more pressing issues are resolved (sieges, diplomacy, etc.)
 

Ulfhedinn

Sergeant
I don't know why they turned off Shift-Group# (or Alt-Group#, can't remember), unless it was for consoles.

I'd like to be able to hit a functionkeypair and split Infantry into "1" and "Alt-1" automatically, for example.

Key combinations like Alt+ some number is an interesting idea and would allow for new classes, however this really must have been dropped due to consoles. But removing the options we have from 0 to 9 would be too much! And why not work better with these options?

There's no way, PC will always be better than consoles for guaranteeing more possibilities for commands and modifications.
Take Skyrim for example, a game that remains highly active to this day and allows for MUCH superior experiences due to mods!

I really like the idea and it really seems like this is how new players would even expect the units to behave like. Why would skirmishers NOT skirmish, but instead just be light infantry who happen to toss a couple throwing weapons if they have time. Hopefully something like this gets implemented once some more pressing issues are resolved (sieges, diplomacy, etc.)

In fact! Just as I expected pikemen to be really functional in formation with their pikes...
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Did some of you play Dragon Age Origins? The first DG in the series not the later abominations. It had simple but effective AI customization based on if/then system in a simple tab like interface. You could pick conditions and effects from a rolldown menu in a tab. AI would then go down the lines in the tab until it found true condition and execute it, then start from the top again. You could basically create your own AI behavior for every character. Higher skill/level characters had more lines in the tab available allowing more complex AI behavior, basically making higher level characters able to perform more complex combat.

There were couple of presets for basic behavior (ranged, melee, support and so on) that you could choose if you did not want to thinker with it or if you just wanted to make slight modifications.

Well, I would like to see that -or something like that, in MB.
 

Aurex

Veteran
WB
The idea of having new AI behavior is really great, what we have at the moment being is unrealistic (having skirmishers, an historically clearly defined role in any era in a shield wall with the heavy infantry makes no sense and takes away diversity and engagement from the battle.) I would also absolutely love some kind of higher-functioning AI related to specific battle situations (I call them battle phases) changing from class to class. If I could add anything to this idea, it'd be just that: morale and situation-related behavior dictated by unit class and unit tier.

Let's say the skirmishers are assigned to act under their own "sergeant" since the captain (Bannerlord) is too busy running around smashing heads or just coordinating from a place where he won't be peppered by arrows and bolts. They precede infantry, throw their javelins and then support the heavier infantry, filling the gaps or flanking according to their role and situation in that specific battle. They could also decide, under more unfavorable circumstances or different army composition to harass the enemy and split into smaller groups acting pretty much independently. That would make the battle more lively imho, since it'd feel much more alive and interactive. "Do I go help those skirmishers? Do I divert some cavalry there" instead of "Oh, the battle is over, I should run over as many elite troops as possible since my troops are just cheering."

Morale would be important there, though, and influenced by troop quality. Maybe the skirmishers are basically just frightened peasants. They might throw their javelins at the enemy, only for the enemy to kill 1/3 of their numbers with arrows. They would probably just flee straight away, unless there's a much stronger and heavier force closeby. Skirmishers with high morale and high tier would also be formidable when it comes to chasing down and murdering heavier troops that are retreating. A captain could also use some of them with that explicit purpose in mind... unless the stupid "no troop control after battle is won" remains in place, that is.

The anti-infantry, pikemen or halberdiers (perhaps?) Would definitely be a welcome addition as a candidate for new AI behavior and control group. Bracing for a cavalry charge? Yes please. There's nothing more cinematic and exciting than that, imho. Seeing if they hold... or not. They should also have new, different (not just them, every class I believe) commands like: "Protect archers" or "Defend the rearguard/flanks from cavalry charges."

If there's one thing I'm not entirely agreeing on (well, I do in the confines of the game as it is now, I'm just hoping it changes...) is the fact we even have to assign keys and use that silly, archaic, obsolete, silly (sorry, that's two sillies) and absurd "1,2,3,4 f1, f2, f3" system. It's... *vestigial* at best and barely working at all. Some people just tell their troops to "do it themselves" so they can enjoy the battle. It's a design decision from 1999, not 2021. What I would suggest is really simple (yes, I'm aware that modders are doing that and they will do more of it in the future, but I still firmly believe it should be in the vanilla game) and present in many other games. I don't want to have to fiddle with my keyboard while there are 300 enemy troops at fifty meters from my own. I want to press a *single* key which pauses the game (or slows it down considerably) and let me have a eagle eye's view, a la Total War. From there I can create sub-squads and direct the flow of battle much, much better. It could even have a vintage, paper map-like appearance, it just needs to be functional, not cinematic. The real time of the battle will be enough for the cinematic needs of the players, I believe. When I'm done and I commit the orders (with waypoints included) I can just act along my own troops and issue new orders as needed without fretting over having lost 1/3 of my men because I was too busy dodging arrows.

Those are my two cents! Great idea all around though, I strongly support this kind of change - it's also great seeing some dev attention!
 
Voted yes however:

By this point we are beating a dead horse. They had a chance to do something, anything with the field battles, they did not. Its like half a year to supposed full release and they are working on strategic map based field battles, there is pretty much no chance they are going to add anything significant to the combat AI, best case scenario they are gonna fix ladders and siege towers.

With that said what you suggest is for the most part doable even by modding. Its more of a case of quantity of work, and testing. You need to add behaviour for each of the formations in each of the tactics. Also what are those formations gonna do, and I dont mean generic terms, I mean in actual specific behaviour, there needs to be some sort of basic behaviour pattern that will be available and reasonable in each situation for each of the formations otherwise they appear dumb and well they break the game by just standing still or doing something "brainless". Only other options is having lots of tactics to cover every possible situation which is borderline impossible (at least for modders with self respect for their free time).

For example it makes sense for javelin foot skirmishers to go to flank and throw javelins from this flank to the unprotected side of enemy infantry formation while it is pre ocuppied with your formation. However what are skirmishers supposed to do when cav is on the map, how much cav is supposed to switch of this tactic, what should they do when they get shot by archers (because they will get massacred by them in both vanilla and RBM), what are they supposed to do when HA are nearby etc. You see, very simple tactic that makes lot of sense on paper, but the moment you want it to be at least bit reactive in order to emulate organic behaviour its super complicated. Not to mention that any kind of complex tactic is absolutelly pointless in vanilla because big battles are literally won in 2 minutes of actual combat. So TW would have to first acknowledge that they ****ed up with their fast paced gameplay and fix the armor or damage or both, only then would new tactics and maybe morale based gameplay make sense.

I dont want to sound too negative, but attempts at "fixing" pathfinding on castles and AI in field battles by TW were frankly laghably bad up to this point, we are talking intern level map editing attempts to fix AI. So this gives me very little hope for significant AI improvements in the future (by TW at least).

But its technically doable, if someone wants to invest hundreds to thousands of hours into coding it (which is what TW should do but they are not doing it so far).
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
☝️ The harsh reality written in 5 paragraphs.

giphy.gif
 
Bodyguard roles for lords/player sound great for a variety of reasons, and redefining "horse archer" as "ranged cavalry" to take into account jav cav and camelry, are particularly good ideas. Well done.

I'd be in favour of this idea, but simplified a little: heavy cavalry and cavalry share similar behaviour so they could be condensed into the single role of "melee cavalry", and skirmishers (which basically means javelin users) share similar behaviour to other ranged foot units, so they could be condensed into the role of "ranged infantry". As much as we may hate it, TW wants this game to work for console, so I think simplification of good ideas where possible is important.

That would give you 8 categories, and leave the 9 key free for "everyone", and the 0 key free for a spare player-assigned category:

1: Auxiliary Infantry (good for looters, farmers, T1 recruits who don't have any special equipment, and other units that don't fall into any of the other categories).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

2: Pike Infantry (troops with braceable polearms).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

3: Damage Infantry (troops with high damage two-handers).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

4: Shield Infantry (troops with large shields).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range.

5: Ranged Infantry (troops using a crossbow, bow or javelins as a primary).
Default behaviour: Attempt to keep out of range and constantly fire projectiles, when all ammo is used up charge into melee.

6: Ranged Cavalry (troops using a bow or javelins as a primary on horseback).
Default behaviour: Attempt to keep out of range and constantly fire projectiles, when all ammo is used up charge into melee.

7: Melee Cavalry (troops using melee weapons as a primary on horseback).
Default behaviour: Charge into melee range to attack once, attempt to leave, repeat.

8: Bodyguards (by default, the highest tier troops in the army).
Default behaviour: Follow commander.

9: Everyone.
While I would prefer this over the current system, I would rather have a system where the formations 1-9 are free to assign and where the player is free to select an AI behavior for these formations.
It seems to me that this would make your suggestion possible as well as forming a shieldless formations as suggested in this thread. It would also make it possible to make 2 separate damage infantry formations with identical behavior.
 

LDominating

Regular
Voted yes however:

By this point we are beating a dead horse. They had a chance to do something, anything with the field battles, they did not. Its like half a year to supposed full release and they are working on strategic map based field battles, there is pretty much no chance they are going to add anything significant to the combat AI, best case scenario they are gonna fix ladders and siege towers.

With that said what you suggest is for the most part doable even by modding. Its more of a case of quantity of work, and testing. You need to add behaviour for each of the formations in each of the tactics. Also what are those formations gonna do, and I dont mean generic terms, I mean in actual specific behaviour, there needs to be some sort of basic behaviour pattern that will be available and reasonable in each situation for each of the formations otherwise they appear dumb and well they break the game by just standing still or doing something "brainless". Only other options is having lots of tactics to cover every possible situation which is borderline impossible (at least for modders with self respect for their free time).

For example it makes sense for javelin foot skirmishers to go to flank and throw javelins from this flank to the unprotected side of enemy infantry formation while it is pre ocuppied with your formation. However what are skirmishers supposed to do when cav is on the map, how much cav is supposed to switch of this tactic, what should they do when they get shot by archers (because they will get massacred by them in both vanilla and RBM), what are they supposed to do when HA are nearby etc. You see, very simple tactic that makes lot of sense on paper, but the moment you want it to be at least bit reactive in order to emulate organic behaviour its super complicated. Not to mention that any kind of complex tactic is absolutelly pointless in vanilla because big battles are literally won in 2 minutes of actual combat. So TW would have to first acknowledge that they ****ed up with their fast paced gameplay and fix the armor or damage or both, only then would new tactics and maybe morale based gameplay make sense.

I dont want to sound too negative, but attempts at "fixing" pathfinding on castles and AI in field battles by TW were frankly laghably bad up to this point, we are talking intern level map editing attempts to fix AI. So this gives me very little hope for significant AI improvements in the future (by TW at least).

But its technically doable, if someone wants to invest hundreds to thousands of hours into coding it (which is what TW should do but they are not doing it so far).
You're too pesimistic.
They will do this,I know it.

These implementations will most likely be adressed alongside siege A.I.

Just be patient!
 
You're too pesimistic.
They will do this,I know it.

These implementations will most likely be adressed alongside siege A.I.

Just be patient!
I remember multiple patch notes that mentioned improvement of AI or fix of skirmishing, however I never saw any improvement in battle, skirmishing (advance with archers) got literally broken and there was no change in accessible code. So given what TW considers to be "improvement" or "fix" (just look at their BL after year video, they were bragging about changing 2 words in xmls on light crossbows and calling it a feature, 2 minutes of work at max and they call it a feature!) I am afraid that I am just realist.
 
Top Bottom