Realistic AI mod is a must-have for everyone who loves sieges

Users who are viewing this thread

I saw there was a new update for the realistic AI mod that mentioned:
AI module: More siege improvements to defender positioning in some of the sieges, more to come later: Verescand castle and Varnovapol Ab Comer castle, Veron castle, Zeonica and Vostrum."
So I went on to try a siege in custom battle as defender in the Varnovapol scene (beautiful scene btw) & it's a massive improvement over vanilla imo, defenders don't just enmasse at one spot to do nothing anymore & actually use the siege scene to it's full potential, amazing work & thank you for making this mod @Marnah93 and @Philozoraptor!

 

Seblivion

Recruit
WBWF&SNWVC
The battles are horrible in vanilla in comparison to this mod. Incorporating more realistic battle formations, both for siege and field, into the original game is a must in my opinion. For immersion.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
The battles are horrible in vanilla in comparison to this mod. Incorporating more realistic battle formations, both for siege and field, into the original game is a must in my opinion. For immersion.
want full immersion? Siege assaults should nearly wipe or completely wipe the attacking army. It'd be boring because real sieges were about forcing the castle / town holders to surrender, not to actually battle them, some sieges lasted more than 20 years.
 

jipped

Regular
want full immersion? Siege assaults should nearly wipe or completely wipe the attacking army. It'd be boring because real sieges were about forcing the castle / town holders to surrender, not to actually battle them, some sieges lasted more than 20 years.
That's obviously not what we are talking about. Poor cop out.
 

Julio-Claudian

Sergeant Knight
want full immersion? Siege assaults should nearly wipe or completely wipe the attacking army. It'd be boring because real sieges were about forcing the castle / town holders to surrender, not to actually battle them, some sieges lasted more than 20 years.
I wish there was a chance for a town/castle to surrender if it runs out of food and the defenders are massively outnumbered.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
I wish there was a chance for a town/castle to surrender if it runs out of food and the defenders are massively outnumbered.
I've practically designed a system for that and posted here years ago, totally ignored.
The core of it would be that AI would take hefty casualties every siege within Auto-Calc, and personalities of leading lords would define if they'd take the risk of assaulting or not. This way giving room for real siege warfare where it's all about starving and demoralizing the defenders, while the defenders are actually trying to hold-out for backup armies.

If such a thing would be deployed alongside a decent diplomatic system extension, ownership of fiefs would determine war results and sometimes be the stake for peace treaties, as a Ransom for Royals (rarely), and if won either by assault or outlasting the enemy + not losing to the enemy's main army when it came to the rescue. Add in a chance of the lord that holds de fief deflecting as to not losing his lands, and expanding the siege mechanic to support realistic sieges, and there you have it. The interesting part is that it can fully take account of the noble's personality to determine how both sides handle it. Surrender+Deflecting, Surrender, Holdout as long as possible at the cost of garrison starvation, Holdout until supplies are over, than the Sally Out, flee to avoid capture or staying. If done right it'd add a lot of depth to the game because we'd start to pay attention to lords personalities for real. Adding a strong "de jure" system would help the AI negotiate peace treaties for extensive costly wars, as in they simply give the fief back to the rightful owner and bam, war's over.

Possible outcomes could be incredible. IE:
The guy's stubborn, holds out until the last straw, but is also calculating and simply deflects at the last minute, surrendering to the king but keeping their fiefs.
The guy's daring, honorable and practical, so he sallies out as soon as starvation comes in a heroic last-stand.
The guy's cruel, greedy and calculating, starts cannibalizing his own men allowing for them to outlast the attackers in food and supplies
The guy's cruel and calculating, he simply surrenders as soon as the siege starts if his relations with their liege are low.

so on so forth. With that and giving mini-missions on scene to take control of the water source and poison it, stop sneaking caravans of supplies from getting inside, sallying out with minor garrison numbers to skirmish and protect incoming supplies, use long distance siege equipment to lower defenders morale (indefensible from within the fort, but doesn't cause any dmg to walls), trying to negotiate and flip garrison soldiers to open the gates, etc. That'd be beyond perfection.

But to pull such a thing they'd need to fix the army food consumption on sieges + add a ton of intricate scenes that involve the fief but isn't an assault. And likely give a existing stance where assaults are diamond jewels, just make it 30% assaullts 70% wait-out sieges for the AI and we'd be golden. Taking into account that everytime an assault's succesful, it'd still ravage the ranks of the attacking army (something like losing 70% of the troops on average)
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I wish there was a chance for a town/castle to surrender if it runs out of food and the defenders are massively outnumbered.
The only problem I see with that is in the end only the player would do it. Besieging armies often don't have enough supplies for a regular siege much less a protracted one. Taleworlds would have to make armies bring way way way more food or incorporate some kind of foraging system to mitigate some of the food loss for armies try to take a town/castle.
 

Julio-Claudian

Sergeant Knight
I've practically designed a system for that and posted here years ago, totally ignored.
The core of it would be that AI would take hefty casualties every siege within Auto-Calc, and personalities of leading lords would define if they'd take the risk of assaulting or not. This way giving room for real siege warfare where it's all about starving and demoralizing the defenders, while the defenders are actually trying to hold-out for backup armies.

If such a thing would be deployed alongside a decent diplomatic system extension, ownership of fiefs would determine war results and sometimes be the stake for peace treaties, as a Ransom for Royals (rarely), and if won either by assault or outlasting the enemy + not losing to the enemy's main army when it came to the rescue. Add in a chance of the lord that holds de fief deflecting as to not losing his lands, and expanding the siege mechanic to support realistic sieges, and there you have it. The interesting part is that it can fully take account of the noble's personality to determine how both sides handle it. Surrender+Deflecting, Surrender, Holdout as long as possible at the cost of garrison starvation, Holdout until supplies are over, than the Sally Out, flee to avoid capture or staying. If done right it'd add a lot of depth to the game because we'd start to pay attention to lords personalities for real. Adding a strong "de jure" system would help the AI negotiate peace treaties for extensive costly wars, as in they simply give the fief back to the rightful owner and bam, war's over.

Possible outcomes could be incredible. IE:
The guy's stubborn, holds out until the last straw, but is also calculating and simply deflects at the last minute, surrendering to the king but keeping their fiefs.
The guy's daring, honorable and practical, so he sallies out as soon as starvation comes in a heroic last-stand.
The guy's cruel, greedy and calculating, starts cannibalizing his own men allowing for them to outlast the attackers in food and supplies
The guy's cruel and calculating, he simply surrenders as soon as the siege starts if his relations with their liege are low.

so on so forth. With that and giving mini-missions on scene to take control of the water source and poison it, stop sneaking caravans of supplies from getting inside, sallying out with minor garrison numbers to skirmish and protect incoming supplies, use long distance siege equipment to lower defenders morale (indefensible from within the fort, but doesn't cause any dmg to walls), trying to negotiate and flip garrison soldiers to open the gates, etc. That'd be beyond perfection.

But to pull such a thing they'd need to fix the army food consumption on sieges + add a ton of intricate scenes that involve the fief but isn't an assault. And likely give a existing stance where assaults are diamond jewels, just make it 30% assaullts 70% wait-out sieges for the AI and we'd be golden. Taking into account that everytime an assault's succesful, it'd still ravage the ranks of the attacking army (something like losing 70% of the troops on average)
All of this sounds great.
The only problem I see with that is in the end only the player would do it. Besieging armies often don't have enough supplies for a regular siege much less a protracted one. Taleworlds would have to make armies bring way way way more food or incorporate some kind of foraging system to mitigate some of the food loss for armies try to take a town/castle.
Yeah, the AI is bad at buying enough food to do all that much... too bad they removed the foraging system.
 
I've practically designed a system for that and posted here years ago, totally ignored.
The core of it would be that AI would take hefty casualties every siege within Auto-Calc, and personalities of leading lords would define if they'd take the risk of assaulting or not. This way giving room for real siege warfare where it's all about starving and demoralizing the defenders, while the defenders are actually trying to hold-out for backup armies.

If such a thing would be deployed alongside a decent diplomatic system extension, ownership of fiefs would determine war results and sometimes be the stake for peace treaties, as a Ransom for Royals (rarely), and if won either by assault or outlasting the enemy + not losing to the enemy's main army when it came to the rescue. Add in a chance of the lord that holds de fief deflecting as to not losing his lands, and expanding the siege mechanic to support realistic sieges, and there you have it. The interesting part is that it can fully take account of the noble's personality to determine how both sides handle it. Surrender+Deflecting, Surrender, Holdout as long as possible at the cost of garrison starvation, Holdout until supplies are over, than the Sally Out, flee to avoid capture or staying. If done right it'd add a lot of depth to the game because we'd start to pay attention to lords personalities for real. Adding a strong "de jure" system would help the AI negotiate peace treaties for extensive costly wars, as in they simply give the fief back to the rightful owner and bam, war's over.

Possible outcomes could be incredible. IE:
The guy's stubborn, holds out until the last straw, but is also calculating and simply deflects at the last minute, surrendering to the king but keeping their fiefs.
The guy's daring, honorable and practical, so he sallies out as soon as starvation comes in a heroic last-stand.
The guy's cruel, greedy and calculating, starts cannibalizing his own men allowing for them to outlast the attackers in food and supplies
The guy's cruel and calculating, he simply surrenders as soon as the siege starts if his relations with their liege are low.

so on so forth. With that and giving mini-missions on scene to take control of the water source and poison it, stop sneaking caravans of supplies from getting inside, sallying out with minor garrison numbers to skirmish and protect incoming supplies, use long distance siege equipment to lower defenders morale (indefensible from within the fort, but doesn't cause any dmg to walls), trying to negotiate and flip garrison soldiers to open the gates, etc. That'd be beyond perfection.

But to pull such a thing they'd need to fix the army food consumption on sieges + add a ton of intricate scenes that involve the fief but isn't an assault. And likely give a existing stance where assaults are diamond jewels, just make it 30% assaullts 70% wait-out sieges for the AI and we'd be golden. Taking into account that everytime an assault's succesful, it'd still ravage the ranks of the attacking army (something like losing 70% of the troops on average)
Good suggestions! I would like to add a new siege duration for the keep holdout. This way there is a benefit to retreating to the keep, it would improved the chance for a friendly force to come to the rescue
 
I've practically designed a system for that and posted here years ago, totally ignored.
The core of it would be that AI would take hefty casualties every siege within Auto-Calc, and personalities of leading lords would define if they'd take the risk of assaulting or not. This way giving room for real siege warfare where it's all about starving and demoralizing the defenders, while the defenders are actually trying to hold-out for backup armies.

If such a thing would be deployed alongside a decent diplomatic system extension, ownership of fiefs would determine war results and sometimes be the stake for peace treaties, as a Ransom for Royals (rarely), and if won either by assault or outlasting the enemy + not losing to the enemy's main army when it came to the rescue. Add in a chance of the lord that holds de fief deflecting as to not losing his lands, and expanding the siege mechanic to support realistic sieges, and there you have it. The interesting part is that it can fully take account of the noble's personality to determine how both sides handle it. Surrender+Deflecting, Surrender, Holdout as long as possible at the cost of garrison starvation, Holdout until supplies are over, than the Sally Out, flee to avoid capture or staying. If done right it'd add a lot of depth to the game because we'd start to pay attention to lords personalities for real. Adding a strong "de jure" system would help the AI negotiate peace treaties for extensive costly wars, as in they simply give the fief back to the rightful owner and bam, war's over.

Possible outcomes could be incredible. IE:
The guy's stubborn, holds out until the last straw, but is also calculating and simply deflects at the last minute, surrendering to the king but keeping their fiefs.
The guy's daring, honorable and practical, so he sallies out as soon as starvation comes in a heroic last-stand.
The guy's cruel, greedy and calculating, starts cannibalizing his own men allowing for them to outlast the attackers in food and supplies
The guy's cruel and calculating, he simply surrenders as soon as the siege starts if his relations with their liege are low.

so on so forth. With that and giving mini-missions on scene to take control of the water source and poison it, stop sneaking caravans of supplies from getting inside, sallying out with minor garrison numbers to skirmish and protect incoming supplies, use long distance siege equipment to lower defenders morale (indefensible from within the fort, but doesn't cause any dmg to walls), trying to negotiate and flip garrison soldiers to open the gates, etc. That'd be beyond perfection.

But to pull such a thing they'd need to fix the army food consumption on sieges + add a ton of intricate scenes that involve the fief but isn't an assault. And likely give a existing stance where assaults are diamond jewels, just make it 30% assaullts 70% wait-out sieges for the AI and we'd be golden. Taking into account that everytime an assault's succesful, it'd still ravage the ranks of the attacking army (something like losing 70% of the troops on average)
That sounds amazing, do you have a link to the post so it can be revived?
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
RBM AI module is really a big improvement over vanilla (combat module I don't like that much) and I use it all the time.

If modders can achieve this, TW could do it too, and could make it even better. Because in many aspects combat also with RBM AI module is lacking, and I'm sure that's because they hit a wall of hardcoded stuff. For example it's annoying that the cavalry rally on the flanks really far away from the infantry in smaller scale fights, and even more that they are quite passive when attacked. TW could surely make them a bit less dumb if they wanted.
 
Top Bottom