Separate infantry formations

[iamthecircle]

So, I've got a bit of an issue with my infantry. I'd like to have (at least) 2 divisions of infantry, one with shock troops, aserai palace guards for the most part, and another with shields, imperial legionaries or sturgian whatevers. However, even if I put one formation with shields recommended and another with heavy armor/throwing weapons (palace guards have throwing spears), I get a mix of shields and non-shield troops in both. Am I doing something wrong? Is there a method to more strongly tell the ai what troops should be in what formation? Is there a mod to fix this?

It'd be nice to see some method outside of combat, in the party menu or something, where you can add specific troops to a specific formation.

 

[JunKeteer]

It may have to do with there being both the slider ratio but also the sort by shock or heavy troops only; as they have to fulfill both parameters. So to have it 'work', I'm guessing you would have to know well enough that you have 13 palace guards and 18 legionaires, then pick 13/31 and 18/31 respectively, then make sure those groups have the shock and shield filter appropriately (assuming TW had those troops categorized as shock/shield type). Add in any other random mix of troops in your party and that's probably why the OOB is so unwieldy.

 

[iamthecircle]

Yeah, that's exactly what I know. I have 40 legionaires, 40 palace guards, 60 sharpshooters, and the rest are cav. But even if my two formations are at 50%, 40 in each, it's a mix of both.

 

[JunKeteer]

Then those troops are probably not 'assigned' appropriately and they still consider PGs as heavy vs shock category. The latest beta version also adjusts/corrects how companion/captains relate to those groupings too as that always messed things up (even if you lock a grouping), or rejumbled the troops, or struggled on a 50/50 split with a troop count of 33.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

At this point, things would be cleaner if they just gave all skirmishers, shock infantry and pikemen their own category.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

At this point, things would be cleaner if they just gave all skirmishers, shock infantry and pikemen their own category.

And crossbowmen! I really dislike how they're mixed in with archers when their lack of ammo makes them a liability in mixed company, but their shields make them excellent secondary infantry. If crossbowmen aren't going to have, I dunno, twice as much ammo as they do currently, then I'd like to at least separate them from the bowmen since they end up just standing around with an empty quiver fairly quickly if mixed with archers who can afford to let out far more arrows without the same ammo concerns.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Try only putting a preference on 1 group, say shields, I think it weight each option equally so if you mark armor on both it throws them into both even if you marked other things too. Whole system need to be replace IMO, it's always annoying and has just gotten worse over time.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Try only putting a preference on 1 group, say shields, I think it weight each option equally so if you mark armor on both it throws them into both even if you marked other things too. Whole system need to be replace IMO, it's always annoying and has just gotten worse over time.

That works? Thank you! I'll definitely try it out next time I play Bannerlord. I love the crossbowmen in this game (loved them in Warband too) but it sucks they can't play nice with normal archers, so what you've said could let me have my crossbowmen AND my OP Fian Champions too lol.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

That works? Thank you! I'll definitely try it out next time I play Bannerlord. I love the crossbowmen in this game (loved them in Warband too) but it sucks they can't play nice with normal archers, so what you've said could let me have my crossbowmen AND my OP Fian Champions too lol.

I don't know how well it works, I have a lot of trouble with it, but if you mart 1 group with shields and another as default, it should take troops with shields first however you have tot watch as see when it start to take shield troops in and sometimes you can't get them all with pulling other stuff too, it's needs to be re-worked.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

I don't know how well it works, I have a lot of trouble with it, but if you mart 1 group with shields and another as default, it should take troops with shields first however you have tot watch as see when it start to take shield troops in and sometimes you can't get them all with pulling other stuff too, it's needs to be re-worked.

I understand. Even if it only takes 80% of the crossbowmen it's "good enough" for the time being to justify recruiting them. I hope TaleWorlds notices our complaints about this and updates the Order of Battle System to, well, basically make it simple and easy to distinguish different unit types, but, well... who knows when and if that'll be, and I much appreciate your suggestion for the present.

 

[iamthecircle]

Try only putting a preference on 1 group, say shields, I think it weight each option equally so if you mark armor on both it throws them into both even if you marked other things too. Whole system need to be replace IMO, it's always annoying and has just gotten worse over time.

Yeah, I dont think that's the problem. From my two formations, the first has shields preferred, the second has heavy armor and throwing weapons (hoping that'll get the palace guards placed there and not the legionaries, as they don't have throwing spears...) so the preferences don't overlap. I agree, the system needs an overhaul. Either specific spots beyond infantry/archers/cav or a way to put the units in a formation outside of combat. Like, rather than having two drop-down menus in the party menu, let us be able to make tabs for each formation and place the units manually that way.

 

[iamthecircle]

Update: By telling one formation to be neutral (that is, no preferences) and the other to prefer shields, I've gotten a pure shield formation and a pure shock trooper formation. I'm not sure why I can't have preferences in one of them, but so be it. Problem solved I guess.... Lets hope there's an easier way to specify formations in the future.