Shield Walls, Squares and Circles being more effective and realistic looking - Guard and Block Suggestions and Instructions for Unit Formations.

Users who are viewing this thread

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
... You mean spam heavy cav and then steamroll through everyone?
There's always a meta. What's your point? My point is that battles need to feel realistic to be satisfying.
Mods had their own troops and different balancing from Native, so most times you couldn't rely on heavy cavalry.
 

Spyware

Regular
There's always a meta. What's your point? My point is that battles need to feel realistic to be satisfying.
Mods had their own troops and different balancing from Native, so most times you couldn't rely on heavy cavalry.
I'm saying that's an oxymoron because Warband needed mods to achieve what you want. My exact statement if you misread was that:

"Warband BY ITSELF wasn't a great game".
 

five bucks

Squire
Actually, now that I think about it. If we were to make battles longer, that would have a severe impact on the game as we'd have to drastically reduce the amount of WHEN battles happen to compensate for this. The amount of fighting in with the armies in the game is astronomical. I mean I'm all for battles having more impact but the rate of which they happen + longer battles would make the game more grindy and would cheapen the experience.
Interesting point I've considered before too.

Yep, making shieldwalls and armor work better will make battles longer, possibly even doubling the length from, say, 3 minutes on average to 6 minutes on average. And obviously that will increase the amount of time the player spends doing battles.

However, that's only a bad thing in the current state of the game because:

* All battles are tactically samey, so they get very repetitive. This can be fixed. And by doing that, battles will be more unpredictable, involve more player agency and be more fun to play.
* The autoresolve system can kill high-tier units in situations it would never happen otherwise, so players don't want to autoresolve easy boring battles. Fixing autoresolve will fix this problem. That way, if you think a battle is boring and easy you can just skip it.
* Make lords take longer to come back to battle after they are defeated, this will reduce the number of grind battles.
 

Spyware

Regular
* The autoresolve system can kill high-tier units in situations it would never happen otherwise, so players don't want to autoresolve easy boring battles. Fixing autoresolve will fix this problem. That way, if you think a battle is boring and easy you can just skip it.
* Make lords take longer to come back to battle after they are defeated, this will reduce the number of grind battles.

Being honest, I think the current autoresolve issues only applies to people with petty OCD. I actually think that I can easily replace the next tier when I get to a certain point in the game so this way I actually have more of a money sink. Yeah, it doesn't make sense sometimes but I autoresolve a lot more when I got over the fact that the top tier units are just as easily replaceable when you get to a certain point in the game.

In fact, it gives me more of a challenge that way that I have to go back to rebuild and retrain my army and only command them in the really important battles.
 

five bucks

Squire
Being honest, I think the current autoresolve issues only applies to people with petty OCD. I actually think that I can easily replace the next tier when I get to a certain point in the game so this way I actually have more of a money sink. Yeah, it doesn't make sense sometimes but I autoresolve a lot more when I got over the fact that the top tier units are just as easily replaceable when you get to a certain point in the game.

In fact, it gives me more of a challenge that way that I have to go back to rebuild and retrain my army and only command them in the really important battles.
A lot of us must have OCD then, because people complain about it all the time. I guess players get attached to their troops. It's worth fixing either way, because then if people complain about too many battles/too long battles, you can just say "just autoresolve it" and they actually will.
 

Spyware

Regular
A lot of us must have OCD then, because people complain about it all the time. I guess players get attached to their troops. It's worth fixing either way, because then if people complain about too many battles/too long battles, you can just say "just autoresolve it" and they actually will.
But that would put the cost-benefit analysis of the player to stop using field battles to autoresolving. The autoresolve cost still must be there in my opinion. Just maybe put it away from the highest tier and sacrifice the lower tiers.
 

five bucks

Squire
But that would put the cost-benefit analysis of the player to stop using field battles to autoresolving. The autoresolve cost still must be there in my opinion. Just maybe put it away from the highest tier and sacrifice the lower tiers.
I think there's been a miscommunication.
The suggestion is that high-tier troops shouldn't die in autoresolve in situations where it would never happen if you actually played the battle. Nothing more.

If a battle is even slightly close, and the quality and quantity of troops on either side is comparable to any degree, then trying to autoresolve it should make you lose worse than if you fought the battle. Because the player can find it fun and interesting.

But if a battle is a total curbstomp, where one side has vastly higher quality or quantity troops, the sort of battle where currently you would just turn up battle speed and walk away from your PC? Then battles like that should have a the same risk of casualties as they do when played. Players should not be punished for autoresolving boring, uninteresting battles like that.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
But if a battle is a total curbstomp, where one side has vastly higher quality or quantity troops, the sort of battle where currently you would just turn up battle speed and walk away from your PC? Then battles like that should have a the same risk of casualties as they do when played. Players should not be punished for autoresolving boring, uninteresting battles like that.
While I never use auto-resolve, I agree it should be fixed. It's used in every ai vs ai battle. These should accurately simulate the casualties of a custom battle. IMO the current calculation is too simplistic.
 
Interesting point I've considered before too.

Yep, making shieldwalls and armor work better will make battles longer, possibly even doubling the length from, say, 3 minutes on average to 6 minutes on average. And obviously that will increase the amount of time the player spends doing battles.

However, that's only a bad thing in the current state of the game because:

* All battles are tactically samey, so they get very repetitive. This can be fixed. And by doing that, battles will be more unpredictable, involve more player agency and be more fun to play.
* The autoresolve system can kill high-tier units in situations it would never happen otherwise, so players don't want to autoresolve easy boring battles. Fixing autoresolve will fix this problem. That way, if you think a battle is boring and easy you can just skip it.
* Make lords take longer to come back to battle after they are defeated, this will reduce the number of grind battles.
I agree with the both you and @Spyware, I want to play longer battles with time for formations and tactics. But I don't want to spend a bigger percentage of the game on battles.
After a big battle it should take the enemy longer to come back with a strong army.
I still remember the first big battle as a subcommand back in march 2020, I was in awe! 10 battles later it lost its glamour.
I would prefer the standard party vs party battles, about 100 - 200 man per side for the majority of the time, with the big battles as icing on the cake.

This topic is very tricky to balance, everyone has a different preferences for game time for different aspects of the game:
- questing
- minor battles
- major battles
- sieging
- map traveling
- trading
- bandits
- tournaments
- equipment , skills /perk management
- clan management
- kingdom management
- fief management
- ...what ever I forgot.

What I would like to see is difference in play style in different stages of the game.

early game: more focus on bandits, trading, questing and tournaments for example
mid game: more focus on minor battles, clan management, fief management, occasional major battle/siege
late game: more focus on kingdom management and major battles, sieges, and setting up your children as future rulers.

It is there for the most part, but early game grinds should be delegated to subordinates in later stages and late game kingdoms management needs a lot of improvements.
One suggestion I read somewhere is to lower the amount of days per year so you children come of age faster and are needed to take over.
I never finished a campaign with the child of the MC, I was either already bored or too powerful.
A dip in character level and some new grudges and lowered relationships, would spice the late game up.

afterthought:
I t would be nice to be able to give quests to NPC's in the late game:
- collect x amount of warhorses
- clear this area of bandits
- deliver food to a city or army
- raid x villages
- incite a war against a kingdom
- train X amount of type Y troop for me
- find this person and breng them to me (or deliver a message)
 

Spyware

Regular
I mean if this game is all about bashing people's skulls in, then yeah. The modders can do the rest. It really does depend on TaleWorlds' end vision of the game.
 
Top Bottom