Simulated battles outweigh the need to play them yourself? WHY?

Skatan

Recruit
Best answers
0
isSimulated is true when the battle is auto-resolved. The damage calculations are a bit different in a simulated hit, but ultimately both a kill from simulated damage and a kill from regular damage will deal about the same amount of damage overall.

This means a simulated battle will grant about 8 times normal experience, and this is consistent with my in game experience. You would probably have recruits leveling up multiple times in some single battles, only they stop gaining XP until you manually upgrade them.

I don't know WHY they've decided to grant much more exp for simulated battles, but it's the way it currently is.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
and they should keep it like that
8x the XP rate? WHAT!?!?!? THEY SHOULD KEEP AUTORESOLVE GIVING 8X THE XP RATE!?!?! This is a massive reason the snowballing problem exists -- the winner gets tons and tons more XP and therefore much better troops, massive amounts of items and gold, and the loser loses nearly everything.

Simple solution: Just don't simulate battles :^)
If I could convince the AI that might be feasible.
 

Lorenzzo

Recruit
Best answers
0
8x the XP rate? WHAT!?!?!? THEY SHOULD KEEP AUTORESOLVE GIVING 8X THE XP RATE!?!?! This is a massive reason the snowballing problem exists -- the winner gets tons and tons more XP and therefore much better troops, massive amounts of items and gold, and the loser loses nearly everything.



If I could convince the AI that might be feasible.
Lol nope, the AI leveling up too quick is not a big reason for snowballing.

You also post in the thread complaining about gaining XP in the practice arena. Why have you made it your mission to try and make the game as grindy, repetitive and boring as possible?
 

Karl V.

Veteran
Best answers
0
I still don't really see why auto-resolve should give more XP in the first place? All less grind for Player, why you wanna fight looters, etc. arguments aside.
 

Captain_Octavius

Sergeant Knight
WB
Best answers
1
We solved this in the Bannerlord Tweaks mod, it allows setting different Troop XP multipliers for simulated and non-simulated battles. In vanilla it's a factor of 8x difference.

Make sure to turn off Tournament XP in the mod config since official game update 1.06 enabled that by default.
 

zeidrich

Recruit
Best answers
0
and they should keep it like that
I won't argue with you, but I'm curious as to why you think that. My feeling is that the XP is currently artificially inflated because of a difference in how the simulated battles played out at some time in the past. The logic for determining damage in the simulated battles is very different than in standard combat, so my feeling is that they might have had a situation in the past where simulated XP was much lower than you would get playing the combat out manually. Whatever the case might have or might have not been in the past, the way it currently works does factor in the max HP of the target and deal simulated damage to him, so ultimately the amount of hit points dealt to the enemy are about the same, so simulated battles give far more exp than played out battles.

I personally think this is bad for the game, because it makes it more grindy in a different sense. Rather that it encourages you to autoresolve battles to level up your troops rather than actually playing the part of the game that they've obviously put the most effort into. The actual combat of the game in the battlefield is something that works quite well and is very nuanced. The map and campaign and simulated battles is very rudimentary and still needs a lot of work.

Plus autoresolving battles causes the player character to fail to gain any experience as well.

Now, if this is because you feel it takes too long to level up characters in the normal way, I might agree with you. But this is more to do with the way that XP is handled, especially for troops, even moreso for troops that have a hard time managing to land hits and kills.

Plus leveling troops through autoresolving battles is quite silly. Looters will level your troops up ridiculously fast. Plus because of another bug they can not kill you, but again only in simulations Specifically, the first item in the list of non-civilian equipment sets they use has a blunt weapon, and when the game auto resolves the combat, it only picks from the first equipmentset, and since blunt weapons will never kill a target, autoresolving will never lose any troops. However, if you do actual combat, it will fill it with random looters, so they'll have pickaxes and hatchets and pitchforks and whatnot as well, and those CAN kill your troops.

You can get your guys up to tier 6 after a few combats with looters without risking death from any of them.

My feeling is that playing out a battle should at least give a similar amount of experience to auto-resolving it, so that you're at least not penalized for playing out the battle. I can see an argument against giving out less exp for a simulated battle, because it might make players feel like they need to play out boring battles that they would rather skip. But giving more exp for simulations means that players might feel forced to skip battles they would rather play, and since the actual battle is currently the most cohesive part of the game, I think that's a shame.

I think it would be best for a happy medium, that maybe the XP bonus is increased for both simulated and played combats, or that the XP requirement is reduced for leveling to some extent. Plus, I think looters should be fixed so that they can threaten death through simulated combat, but at the same time simulated combat should be improved so that things like unit type advantage and speed get taken into consideration. So for instance, archers get additional strikes against infantry, but shielded units get a high chance to block arrows, infantry strike more frequently than cavalry, but cavalry get hit less frequently than infantry and archers, cavalry don't get blocked by shields, but take full damage from two handed weapons and polearms. Archers can't fire after being hit by cavalry. So if you want to go against forest bandits, you bring shielded infantry and cavalry. If you want to go against desert bandits you bring some pikemen and maybe knights for horse archers, etc. This is still not perfect, but simulates the battle a bit more realistically.

Right now, simulated combat ignores everything except troop level and the weapon damage type of the first equipment set to determine whether they can kill or just wound. Armor doesn't matter, speed doesn't matter, shields don't matter, bows don't matter. The only question is what is the level of the attacker and defender, and when they kill someone, are they using a blunt weapon.
 

bearmans

Recruit
Best answers
0
This probably won't ever be avoidable in some form unless distributed exp for troops becomes standard. IMO, however, that should be the case.

What IS weird to me is that looters never kill troops in simulations, but they do in real battles. That needs to be changed so that it's consistent, whether one way or the other.
 

zeidrich

Recruit
Best answers
0
This probably won't ever be avoidable in some form unless distributed exp for troops becomes standard. IMO, however, that should be the case.

What IS weird to me is that looters never kill troops in simulations, but they do in real battles. That needs to be changed so that it's consistent, whether one way or the other.
I tried to make a mod to fix this, but it kind of doesn't work so well because of load order, so I would have to make something a bit more significant, but basically the issue as I mentioned before is that the first equipment set defined for looters uses blunt weapons and the simulations only look at the first equipment set for weapon type. In a real battle it pulls from multiple equipment sets. The looters with clubs won't kill you in a real battle either, but the difference is in the simulation they all have clubs, whereas in the real battle they have a mix of weapons.
 

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Lol nope, the AI leveling up too quick is not a big reason for snowballing.

You also post in the thread complaining about gaining XP in the practice arena. Why have you made it your mission to try and make the game as grindy, repetitive and boring as possible?
How is it not? Currently the winner gets everything and then some and the loser loses everything. If fighting battles and sieges and such actually caused the winner to sometimes have setbacks then it'd slow down or stop the snowballing. Right now the strong get stronger which is the exact reason for snowballing, and it doesn't help that the winner walks away with tons of XP to upgrade troops and tons of loot to use on upgrades and the loser's army is decimated. Right now there's no such thing as a pyrrhic victory, for example, and that's a problem.

(I'm not on a mission to make the game repetitive. I'd just prefer a game that has a semblance of functional game systems and not just a bunch of channels allowing players to g3t da l33t lootz and live some weird superhero fantasies. And how does nerfing practice arena XP make the game more grindy and repetitive? It switches the focus to actual battles, actual wars, actual quests, etc. instead of...well...grinding out XP in a practice arena where there's zero stakes and next to zero change from round to round.)
 

Archonsod

Marquis
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
I don't know WHY they've decided to grant much more exp for simulated battles, but it's the way it currently is.
IIRC the 8 is simply replacing the speed bonus / shot difficulty multiplier (which tops out at 16 I believe, so it's the theoretical median). The problem is the only way to hit the upper ends of that scale for the player requires either long distance shooting which the AI won't do, or couched weapons which tend to be the preserve of high tier units to begin with; for your average melee unit even at the top end I don't think it's normal for it to get much higher than 2 or so.
 

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
IIRC the 8 is simply replacing the speed bonus / shot difficulty multiplier (which tops out at 16 I believe, so it's the theoretical median). The problem is the only way to hit the upper ends of that scale for the player requires either long distance shooting which the AI won't do, or couched weapons which tend to be the preserve of high tier units to begin with; for your average melee unit even at the top end I don't think it's normal for it to get much higher than 2 or so.
Or chamber blocking in the case of melee...which is very rare, especially for the AI.
 

Broxogar

Recruit
Best answers
0
No offence to the OP - but what an absolute storm in a teacup.

People on here complaining like other people in this 'SINGLEPLAYER' game are gaining an unfair advantage because they choose to auto-resolve rather than fight.

Lets not forget that there is literally 1 type of army worth auto-resolving against and that is looter armies. You know the guys that throw rocks, who don't have armour and who just sort of run around randomly.

It's not like you can literally auto-resolve effectively against any other army. Hell if I try to auto-resolve my 400man army against 20 sea raiders, I still lose a few troops.

Come on people - lets focus on real problems with this game - not petty things like whether it's better to auto-resolve or actually fight looters....
 

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
No offence to the OP - but what an absolute storm in a teacup.

People on here complaining like other people in this 'SINGLEPLAYER' game are gaining an unfair advantage because they choose to auto-resolve rather than fight.

Lets not forget that there is literally 1 type of army worth auto-resolving against and that is looter armies. You know the guys that throw rocks, who don't have armour and who just sort of run around randomly.

It's not like you can literally auto-resolve effectively against any other army. Hell if I try to auto-resolve my 400man army against 20 sea raiders, I still lose a few troops.

Come on people - lets focus on real problems with this game - not petty things like whether it's better to auto-resolve or actually fight looters....
Are you kidding? This isn't just a thing about what people do in SP games. It means the AI is vastly overleveled and has vastly better units than they likely should. It's a large contributor to the snowballing problem because of how much the winning AI army levels off of the loser's troops. It also means as a player I either need to autoresolve to keep pace. It means we much more rarely see lower tier units so everything is elites vs elites.

This is not some 'who cares what people do in SP'-level thing. It's a big problem in the game.
 

Broxogar

Recruit
Best answers
0
Are you kidding? This isn't just a thing about what people do in SP games. It means the AI is vastly overleveled and has vastly better units than they likely should. It's a large contributor to the snowballing problem because of how much the winning AI army levels off of the loser's troops. It also means as a player I either need to autoresolve to keep pace. It means we much more rarely see lower tier units so everything is elites vs elites.

This is not some 'who cares what people do in SP'-level thing. It's a big problem in the game.

You really seem to be struggling with the core concept here.

Let me spell it out for you in clear terms.

Auto...resolving...all...your...battles...will...be...detrimental...

You CANNOT level troops efficiently by auto-resolving - NEITHER can the AI, since they take HEAVIER LOSSES.

You will ONLY benefit from auto-resolving against looters.

I'm playing right now and the enemy armies are heavily made up of lower tier units because they lose a good portion of higher tier units 'auto-resolving'.

Unless you want the AI to mimic you when you win (I might lose 10 soldiers max against an army of similar size) - stop complaining...

It also has literally nothing to do with snowballing since every AI army is in the same boat. Snowballing is caused by a lack of drawbacks for larger empires.

But seriously - if you think that auto resolving your battles is the way to go - go for it - good luck losing all your high tier soldiers (literally just auto-resolved against a caravan of 2 with 600 soldiers and lost 5 tier 4 soldiers...so loool).
 

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
It also has literally nothing to do with snowballing since every AI army is in the same boat. Snowballing is caused by a lack of drawbacks for larger empires.
No, not every AI army is in the same boat. Every victorious AI army is in the same boat. Unfortunately there's only one victor, so after a battle you see the victor with a ton of upgraded troops and the loser loses everything.

8x the XP rate. 8x. 8x. 8x. "Everything is fine lol". 8x. It's insane. Autoresolve feels like an exploit at the moment.

You CANNOT level troops efficiently by auto-resolving - NEITHER can the AI, since they take HEAVIER LOSSES.
Weird claim to make considering the entire point of this thread is that autoresolve's huge XP gain incentivizes using it all the time.
 

JohannTheFirst

Regular
Best answers
0
No, not every AI army is in the same boat. Every victorious AI army is in the same boat. Unfortunately there's only one victor, so after a battle you see the victor with a ton of upgraded troops and the loser loses everything.

8x the XP rate. 8x. 8x. 8x. "Everything is fine lol". 8x. It's insane. Autoresolve feels like an exploit at the moment.



Weird claim to make considering the entire point of this thread is that autoresolve's huge XP gain incentivizes using it all the time.
There is no army that you can use autoresolve against other than looters. That point stands. I haven't seen a single AI have an army consisting completely of T5/6 units, which you seem to suggest is the core of the issue.

There's also no reason to think that adjusting the rates of autoresolve will change anything but make this apparent rich-get richer unit-tier snowball for the victor slightly slower.

Quite frankly, without any of the passive methods or other active methods to level up your own troops, doing anything to the XP rates for fights vs. looters during autoresolve battles will just make the game even more of a grind than it is now once you've got a decently sized army.

As far as I've understood, when you play the battles yourself you always will run into the issues of ranged units or particularly strong units gaining far greater than the recruits you're actually trying to level. This should be solved by having shared XP. There's also no reason not to increase XP rates all across the board while the aforementioned other possibilities of levelling up your party are missing, but just repeating "8x" over and over doesn't really convince me that the bonus to autoresolve is the actual problem.
 

Pejot

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Best answers
0
Lol nope, the AI leveling up too quick is not a big reason for snowballing.

You also post in the thread complaining about gaining XP in the practice arena. Why have you made it your mission to try and make the game as grindy, repetitive and boring as possible?
The AI is almost not lvling at all. Bannerlord still has problem with AI going to quantity over wuality. In late game You see a lot of lords running with recruits as core of their force. I recently joined a siege that was lost cause 600 of 700 army were peasants and recruits. Defender killed them all with arrows before they managed to take battering ram to the gate. An with heavy loses many started to run
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
I think this is a wonderful idea for battles with looters/bandits...those battles are a nuisance beyond early game leveling your character/companions and it makes sense it would benefit troops to fight something so weak, on their own. I actually hope they expand it so simulation battles can have a commander companion placed so they gain leadership/tactic xp.