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: