Reinforcements Spawn Points Ruin Battles!!

Users who are viewing this thread

okay, my friend, let me teach you a new trick,
always always choose to defense, and let the enemy to come forward and attack you
You place archers loose formation in front, infantry at back, horsemen on left
your archers will shoot down most enemy when they come closer
infantry push up and kill enemy, but don't push too far to their spawn points, wait for them to keep coming toward to you

if your enemy didn't come toward to you, you retreat and reload the battle again, they will come to you at some point

you win battle 100% all the time
check out the result of using this tatic, HUGE win rates , do the math
your archers will do most damage and reduce enemy morale, so they will just run away hahahahahah

Yes, what you have described is called "cheesing". Ultimately this is not a sustainable, not fun to many after a few times, way to play the game. You will always win doing such tactic. No challenge in that. What we are asking for is not another way to cheese the game, but for dev to think and implement an action that will present a moderate level of challenge to the player.
 

Figulus

Regular
okay, my friend, let me teach you a new trick,
always always choose to defense, and let the enemy to come forward and attack you
You place archers loose formation in front, infantry at back, horsemen on left
your archers will shoot down most enemy when they come closer
infantry push up and kill enemy, but don't push too far to their spawn points, wait for them to keep coming toward to you

if your enemy didn't come toward to you, you retreat and reload the battle again, they will come to you at some point

you win battle 100% all the time
check out the result of using this tatic, HUGE win rates , do the math
your archers will do most damage and reduce enemy morale, so they will just run away hahahahahah

Yep , looks good and i've seen evidence of it too!
 

Maximum997

Squire
Yes, what you have described is called "cheesing". Ultimately this is not a sustainable, not fun to many after a few times, way to play the game. You will always win doing such tactic. No challenge in that. What we are asking for is not another way to cheese the game, but for dev to think and implement an action that will present a moderate level of challenge to the player.
It is not cheese. It is just meta.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
Yes, what you have described is called "cheesing". Ultimately this is not a sustainable, not fun to many after a few times, way to play the game. You will always win doing such tactic. No challenge in that. What we are asking for is not another way to cheese the game, but for dev to think and implement an action that will present a moderate level of challenge to the player.

Ultimately, cheesing battles is the only way to respond to some of the poor restrictions applied to battles. Battles don't behave as they would, or should.

E.g:

1. If you're limiting your battle size like many of us have to, your missile armed troops will run out of missiles long before the battle is over - so if you kill enough enemies, they will be reinforced with troops who are fully loaded out and fresh, and you'll have nothing to respond with because you can't retreat and replace your troops with fresh ones, or resupply those in the field - you're penalised for taking the upper hand in a battle.

2. The 'spawn in mid battle' effect that this thread discusses, means you'll have enemies pop up in your line if you choose to go on the attack - which shouldn't happen - ever. You're penalised for being aggressive in battle.

3. We can't issue direct attack orders "cavalry, attack those archers" - your troops decide themselves who they want to attack. Meaning you're penalised for being tactical in battle.

So in a situation where you are penalised for being aggressive, being tactical, and winning battles... what more do we have other than to use cheesy tactics to win where we probably would have won anyway.

If I could choose who my troops attacked and when, could rely on not being outflanked by 35 magically appearing cavalry appearing in the midst of my archers, and could resupply or refit my troops as and when they require it (and so could the AI) then battles would be an actual test. Until then they're just a meat grinder.
 
Last edited:

Rulin

Regular
I wish I could just set a cap for armies, so it matches my max unit cap for battles.
This way I don't have to deal with the reinforcement mechanic.
I don't mind having less units in battles (total), I think... Just let me control the limits myself to find out pls!
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
The experience is more likely to see changes with the battle terrain system. (Providing you with some control where you spawn on the scene in relation to the opponent.)
I have a general understanding of how the battle terrain system is suppose to work when starting a battle. But could you give a more detailed explanation of how reinforcements will work?
 

guiskj

Squire
The experience is more likely to see changes with the battle terrain system. (Providing you with some control where you spawn on the scene in relation to the opponent.)
@Duh_TaleWorlds , the complain has little to do with the initial spawn points. The problem has many parts:
  1. The player is far more likely to be the aggressor. Meaning we are often the ones moving towards the enemy once the scene has started
  2. After the clash has began, my reference points get all mess up and I no longer have any idea (on most current maps) where the hell was my original starting point
  3. So when my reinforcements start trickling in, I won't notice where they are coming from until well after I could have made a tactical decision to regroup with my reinforcements. Being cheated of decisions is not fun.
I can see a few possible solutions/mitigations to this issue:
  • Allow the player/AI to call in reinforcements. Meaning reinforcements aren't just trickling in willy-nilly, but are summoned when we or the AI makes a decision to do so.
    • I would mind a lot less that reinforcement spawn points were not dynamic to current battle state if I could decide when to trigger the reinforcement
  • Default the reinforcement forces to HOLD until the player or the AI directs them to do something.
    • This mitigates the problem that, as the reinforcement trickles in, they just go berserk on whatever is closest regardless of being vastly outnumbered
  • Make reinforcements spawn behind the player's main force.
    • This one is tricky because the player could potentially have their troops all over the place.
If this was my decision, I would go with my First and Second suggestions. But even picking just one of these would help. The second suggestion is probably extremely easy to implement and it would already help with the player's feeling of complete lack of control over reinforcements.
 
Yes, what you have described is called "cheesing". Ultimately this is not a sustainable, not fun to many after a few times, way to play the game. You will always win doing such tactic. No challenge in that. What we are asking for is not another way to cheese the game, but for dev to think and implement an action that will present a moderate level of challenge to the player.
well okay there's only a few ways to fix it,
1. increase max battle size number to 3000+, so every one will be load at once at beginning of battle, no reinforcement at all, but this will decrease the game loading speed and cause freezing if you have a ****ty laptop

2. another way is to make the spawn point outside of the battle map, outside of the "red line" where when player go outside and have 10 seconds to come back, reinforcement generate out side of map, then charge into map, that should fix the problem
 
I wish I could just set a cap for armies, so it matches my max unit cap for battles.
This way I don't have to deal with the reinforcement mechanic.
I don't mind having less units in battles (total), I think... Just let me control the limits myself to find out pls!
problem is the video graphic loading for 1000+ VS 1000+ army battle
many players have old crappy laptop and simply can't load that huge size army battle
 
The experience is more likely to see changes with the battle terrain system. (Providing you with some control where you spawn on the scene in relation to the opponent.)
Hi developer
one suggestion, can you set the reinforcement respawn point outside of battle map? outside of the "red line" where player go outside 10 seconds get alerted??
and make reinforcement generate outside of map and charge into map, then we can fix this issue.
Thanks
 

Nogand

Recruit
The experience is more likely to see changes with the battle terrain system. (Providing you with some control where you spawn on the scene in relation to the opponent.)
Will there be any reason not to spawn on a hill right next to the enemy? This could kill the whole maneuver aspect of field battles if implemented poorly.
 
Will there be any reason not to spawn on a hill right next to the enemy? This could kill the whole maneuver aspect of field battles if implemented poorly.
I think the issue is, the program doesn't know the respawn point is on hell or on rough terrain,
so it just set at a fixed point at the map,

I have seen it happen, Calvary show up on the cliffs, stuck on rocks, and fall and die, lol
in this case, I would said just reload the game so you can get a different battle map
 

Nogand

Recruit
This. It's a simple yet good solution that won't make your troops ended up surrounded and cut from the others not because you've made a tactical mistake, but because a local wizard teleported a party right behind your backs.

Also, for sieges only, it would've been nice to have a dynamic spawn points: defenders spawn near the wall and have to climb it at the beginning of the siege, then, in case the attackers have broken the gates and taken over the walls, the spawn points for defenders move further and further into town (you can even place some archers at the rooftops to make things harder for the attackers). Then, when there's nowhere else to move the spawn points, the defenders should stand their grounds until they flee to the keep.

Such system may prevent nowadays situations, when the attackers have taken over the walls, yet the defenders just mindlessly climb up the walls again and again just to be slaughtered on the stairs, because there are thousands of the attackers on the wall already.
This could allow for a Theodosian Walls battle map for high wall levels (maybe there should be a specific town that starts with the highest level walls as a Constantinople analogue). With multiple sets of walls, each higher than the last, with the spawn point moving back as each gate is captured.
 
Will there be any reason not to spawn on a hill right next to the enemy? This could kill the whole maneuver aspect of field battles if implemented poorly.
I am pretty sure it will work similarly to how total war does it. You will have one side of the map, enemy will have other side of the map.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
That would be an improvement! It would also allow for ambush battles to be implemented.

How? Total War uses a Line of Sight mechanic -meaning the AI do not automatically know where other, hidden AI are until they are spotted. In Bannerlord -all AI know where all other AI are at ALL TIMES! Thats why i always state this game can have no historical frame of reference for any battle as just that one trait is paramount to military endeavors
 

Nogand

Recruit
How? Total War uses a Line of Sight mechanic -meaning the AI do not automatically know where other, hidden AI are until they are spotted. In Bannerlord -all AI know where all other AI are at ALL TIMES! Thats why i always state this game can have no historical frame of reference for any battle as just that one trait is paramount to military endeavors
Some campaign map check could be used which allows the attacker to deploy troops on either side of the enemy while the defender is in some kind of linear marching order, as in Total War ambush battles. This would also require some way for parties to hide on the campaign map though.
 
Top Bottom