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

Users who are viewing this thread

In regards to the OPs point, the exp really needs to balanced between autoresolve and manual. I've played the exact same battle manual and autoresolve and it results in vastly different amounts of experience. That's the inherent problem. (Got pictures here, minimal interference from player in actual battle https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...experience-is-unbalanced.407269/#post-9313383). Twenty troops versus five upgrade. That's a bit crazy. And yes, I've tried the "just send your low tier units in first" method and it really doesn't work as well.

Looters are the first enemies in the game for players and are the safest way for people to get used to commands and combat (ignoring arena for combat). Incentivizing skipping them does nothing but hurt players later on. And if a player does want to fight the battle manual he shouldn't basically be punished for it. We can leave the auto resolve experience as is but ONLY if manual combat experience is brought in line with it.
 
Maybe, but I doubt it. No matter how you tweak this, they will gain more XP than the loser, since the loser just lost nearly everything. You can completely remove XP and you're essentially dealing with an XP mismatch, since destroyed units, that the losing party had, of any tier above recruit are essentially lost XP in a fashion.

When you adjust just the bonus XP it sounds more essentially like a zero-sum game. Winner doesn't get as much, but loser doesn't lose as much because he hasn't been able to previously level his units as efficiently.


In regards to the OPs point, the exp really needs to balanced between autoresolve and manual. I've played the exact same battle manual and autoresolve and it results in vastly different amounts of experience. That's the inherent problem. (Got pictures here, minimal interference from player in actual battle https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...experience-is-unbalanced.407269/#post-9313383). Twenty troops versus five upgrade. That's a bit crazy. And yes, I've tried the "just send your low tier units in first" method and it really doesn't work as well.

Looters are the first enemies in the game for players and are the safest way for people to get used to commands and combat (ignoring arena for combat). Incentivizing skipping them does nothing but hurt players later on. And if a player does want to fight the battle manual he shouldn't basically be punished for it. We can leave the auto resolve experience as is but ONLY if manual combat experience is brought in line with it.

Sure, add more XP with manual combat, really doesn't matter to me. My only issue would be trying to nerf XP gains at the current point of the game in the first place, because none of what's required to upgrade and field a large army at the current moment is any fun whatsoever. It's repetitive to the max and you have no options because any passive ways to level essentially require you to leave the game running until the year 2040.
 
Maybe, but I doubt it. No matter how you tweak this, they will gain more XP than the loser, since the loser just lost nearly everything. You can completely remove XP and you're essentially dealing with an XP mismatch, since destroyed units, that the losing party had, of any tier above recruit are essentially lost XP in a fashion.

The problem is the amount. 8x. 8x the amount. Not the fact that winners win and losers lose, but that winners win so much more.
 
The problem is the amount. 8x. 8x the amount. Not the fact that winners win and losers lose, but that winners win so much more.


Not sure if this really works that way do NPC cause in my late game Derthert is winning all around with his 1200en beggar army (95% are recruits and peasants) and they never lvl up. Strange thing is that he have really few casualties and mostly wounded.
 
The problem is the amount. 8x. 8x the amount. Not the fact that winners win and losers lose, but that winners win so much more.

Maaaaaaate come on...drop it.

This isn't a 1v1 game. It's not 1 army vs 1 army.

If it were, you'd have a point. But the loser loses... sure.

The winner gets xp - but they LOSE a bunch of units, and in virtually EVERY situation, the additional XP they gained is almost completely offset by the high tier units they lose.

Which means that for every...single...army that wasn't involved in that fight, the victor has barely gotten any stronger.

So - no snowball - no advantage - no whining.

You are super fixated on this apparent 'theory' you have - yet it's very apparent that you've done literally no testing to see if the AIs are running around with OP troops.

So again...for the UMPTEENTH time. Auto-resolving battles as an AI or a player DOES NOT give you any advantage in this game when used on any army other than LOOTERS.

If you are silly enough to try and auto-resolve all your battles you will invariably lose the game.
 
In regards to the OPs point, the exp really needs to balanced between autoresolve and manual. I've played the exact same battle manual and autoresolve and it results in vastly different amounts of experience. That's the inherent problem. (Got pictures here, minimal interference from player in actual battle https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...experience-is-unbalanced.407269/#post-9313383). Twenty troops versus five upgrade. That's a bit crazy. And yes, I've tried the "just send your low tier units in first" method and it really doesn't work as well.

Looters are the first enemies in the game for players and are the safest way for people to get used to commands and combat (ignoring arena for combat). Incentivizing skipping them does nothing but hurt players later on. And if a player does want to fight the battle manual he shouldn't basically be punished for it. We can leave the auto resolve experience as is but ONLY if manual combat experience is brought in line with it.

Why though - if you manual you will suffer significantly less deaths...

In my experience - any additional xp you get from auto-resolve is completely outweighed by the units that die...
 
Why though - if you manual you will suffer significantly less deaths...

In my experience - any additional xp you get from auto-resolve is completely outweighed by the units that die...

They die of exp overdose xD
 
In my experience I also see lord armies without many high level troops. So I seriously doubt this is a significant problem from a snowball perspective. Reducing XP gains for AI lords would not be good because players don't want to fight armies of recruits all the time. The AI needs XP cheats just to keep things entertaining.

From a player perspective as others have pointed out autoresolve is only advantageous vs looters. Otherwise it is a timesaver that will lose your XP when you take into account the lost XP of dead high tier units. Is the current looter hunt meta ok? I dislike it. Passive training was overpowered in Warband but there's got to be some middle ground that is better than what we have in Bannerlord which is almost zero passive training.
 
In my experience I also see lord armies without many high level troops. So I seriously doubt this is a significant problem from a snowball perspective. Reducing XP gains for AI lords would not be good because players don't want to fight armies of recruits all the time. The AI needs XP cheats just to keep things entertaining.

From a player perspective as others have pointed out autoresolve is only advantageous vs looters. Otherwise it is a timesaver that will lose your XP when you take into account the lost XP of dead high tier units. Is the current looter hunt meta ok? I dislike it. Passive training was overpowered in Warband but there's got to be some middle ground that is better than what we have in Bannerlord which is almost zero passive training.

I think some paid training available in cities or something might work (of course together with standard exp from battles).

However I always hated the way troop trees worked in M&B series being always connected to region instead of player abilities/culture.
 
Didn't autoresolve against looters result in no death on the attackers? That was the only way for me to finish the train soldiers for village quest. IMO if the looters all use blunt weapon and whatnot and can only wound, I'd have found every battle against looters early game.
However, somehow manual battle always result in at least 3 dead peasant recruits on my end, and that's why I exlusively autoresolve against looters. If it wasn't the case I would have manually fought all battles myself.
 
Didn't autoresolve against looters result in no death on the attackers? That was the only way for me to finish the train soldiers for village quest. IMO if the looters all use blunt weapon and whatnot and can only wound, I'd have found every battle against looters early game.
However, somehow manual battle always result in at least 3 dead peasant recruits on my end, and that's why I exlusively autoresolve against looters. If it wasn't the case I would have manually fought all battles myself.

Not all of them have blunt weapons (some have pitchforks). And also i found that blunt damage in Bannerlord doesn't always wound, it kills too.
 
I am fairly certain that the reason for this issue is that they removed simple XP gain for leveling and instead bound it to the system that weapon proficiencies in Warband had.

When you fight an actual battle (that is simulated) there is no collective XP for the win distributed among all troops after the battle like it was in Warband. Troops have to hit with their weapon in order to gain some XP and it is always the same amount, i.e. never a bigger amount for killing an elite enemy. In many battles not nearly all your troops see any action.

In "simulated battles" however (battles that aren't simulated), there's some function used to calculate XP for leveling that is arbitrarily given to your troops (so more similar to Warband).

I think this is the reason, but of course I don't know the code. They could adjust the XP given to more accurately reflect what you usually get on average when you fight the battles even though it's impossible to predict how much each individual troop would have hit with their weapons (or how much they would have run around or whatever is needed to level Athletics or Riding).

Perhaps I'm completely wrong. Perhaps generic troops do get XP for kills unlike heroes, who knows. I think the whole XP and leveling system is a bit of a mess.
 
I see a lot of low tier units in lord's parties too, but it might not necessarily be because they're not getting enough exp from battles. Since lord's now have to deal with most of the things the player does, it probably means they need to consider their finances when upgrading their troops and it's possibly that their ideal daily party wage is low enough that they reach it even with a party that's half recruits. If lords did automatically upgrade their troops immediately and received the same 8x exp from simulated battles, I would imagine lords that win a lot would have way more high tier units then we're currently seeing, based on the amount of exp I get from simulating much smaller battles. In certain scenarios, this could lead to one faction snowballing, or at least they would gain a larger advantage over an enemy faction than if the exp gained in simulated battles were 8x lower (equal to that of manual battles).

For the player, I think the issues with this setup is that it makes auto-resolving against large bands of looters the most effective way to level their troops. Looters never kill in simulated battles currently so there's no risk of a high-tier unit dying, and your party will still level up in a reasonable amount of time. Another issue currently is that manual battles feel less worthwhile because even in large battles your troops are upgrading too slowly. In Warband I could rationalize a battle where I won but took heavy losses as fine because it would also serve as a large source of exp for my surviving troops, but in Bannerlord I find that the upgraded units I gain is never nearly enough to offset the units I lost in manual battles. This isn't an issue with how high the exp is in simulated battles, but how low it is in manual battles. I think the ideal solution would be too lower the exp multiplier in simulated battles but increase the base exp our troops gain in manual battles.
 
One more thing to consider is that a lot of top tier units have broken stats so they may die in autocalc cause of the low stat they shouldn't have.
 
My experience is the opposite. I always play my battles, as auto resolve seems to kill off my best troops more often than not, even against bandits.
 
My experience is the opposite. I always play my battles, as auto resolve seems to kill off my best troops more often than not, even against bandits.

Yes but autocalc doesn't simulate the situation, terrain, formations, order of battle. It just compares sheer numbers. Number of troops on both sides, stats lvl etc. So if top tier unit have broken stats (lower than mid lvl or same) it can easily loose number comparison and die.
 
Yes but autocalc doesn't simulate the situation, terrain, formations, order of battle. It just compares sheer numbers. Number of troops on both sides, stats lvl etc. So if top tier unit have broken stats (lower than mid lvl or same) it can easily loose number comparison and die.

Which makes it useless in my opinion.
 
I agree I use auto-resolve in sieges cuz it doesn't seem to take into account that its a siege and the battle is won fairly easily
 
I am fairly certain that the reason for this issue is that they removed simple XP gain for leveling and instead bound it to the system that weapon proficiencies in Warband had.

When you fight an actual battle (that is simulated) there is no collective XP for the win distributed among all troops after the battle like it was in Warband. Troops have to hit with their weapon in order to gain some XP and it is always the same amount, i.e. never a bigger amount for killing an elite enemy. In many battles not nearly all your troops see any action.

In "simulated battles" however (battles that aren't simulated), there's some function used to calculate XP for leveling that is arbitrarily given to your troops (so more similar to Warband).

I think this is the reason, but of course I don't know the code. They could adjust the XP given to more accurately reflect what you usually get on average when you fight the battles even though it's impossible to predict how much each individual troop would have hit with their weapons (or how much they would have run around or whatever is needed to level Athletics or Riding).

Perhaps I'm completely wrong. Perhaps generic troops do get XP for kills unlike heroes, who knows. I think the whole XP and leveling system is a bit of a mess.

You're completely wrong.

Simulated battles don't give XP arbitrarily to your troops. Simulated battles simulate hits from one side against targets on the other side. You gain EXP per hit similarly to normal combat. The difference is that it doesn't actually know anything about your weapon or armor, it uses your level instead for the damage calculation, it doesn't give a shot difficulty bonus or a speed bonus, and it gives 8 times as much experience as if you had hit for that much damage against a player in regular combat.

Troops get XP for hits, and bonus XP if it's a killing blow, in the same fashion that heroes get weapon xp.

Well, maybe you're not completely wrong, the whole XP and leveling system is a bit of a mess.

There are some things that people can know about autoresolved battles. One thing is that it tends to start from the top of your roster and work its way down. If you want characters to get experience, put them at the top, if you want characters to have a first strike, put them at the top. This mostly matters when sides have a similar number of troops, or if you as an attacker outnumber the enemy. If you have all of your top tier troops at the top of the army and your recruits at the bottom, you will probably suffer few losses against a smaller bandit force, but your recruits will get less XP. This order also matters for the defender.

I tend to like to keep my party ordered in descending power, but when I'm doing map battles I move my recruits nearer the top, and when I'm doing hideouts I move them to the bottom. When a battle isn't decided on the first strikes everyone tends to get a reasonable amount of experience.

I basically autoresolve 90% of my battles, I play them out only if I'm liable to lose by autoresolving. You tend to lose more troops with autoresolving. In a real battle a low level horse archer will kill a high level spearman just because the horse archer can stay at range and shoot the spearman when he can't catch up or reach him. In an autoresolved battle, the high level spearman will kill the horse archer because they will just essentially swing at eachother and the high level troop will deal high damage to the low level horse archer, and the low level horse archer will deal low damage to the spearman. It won't care about relative speed, range, shields, whatever. Just level.

I actually don't mind it so much. It would be better if the model was closer to gameplay results. In reality you kind of play 2 games, one is the simpler map mode autoresolve, the other is the more complex battlefield game. If I'm playing caravan games I'm more interested in trade prices than manually fighting bandits, especially when my hero has no combat skills.

The model can be improved, EXP has a lot more problems than just the autoresolve experience. Like lots of things in the game, the fundamentals are OK, but the numbers and formulas need to be tweaked. The fact that you need 10 million experience to reach the last perk level when you get it hundreds at a time for instance is an issue. Or that you need 1.7 million experience to reach the same skill level as your troops. Similarly, how your player can't get experience from autoresolution but your troops level super fast.

Like in my current game I'm playing a trader and the only time I'm playing out battles is in hideouts, which means that I'm basically leveling up only shielded infantry because so many hideouts have javelins and bows. This doesn't matter in the open world though because archers and cavalry have no particular advantage when you're autoresolving. Similarly, I never advance units to cavalry because this consumes a horse that I don't get back when a unit dies. However, if I have infantry with a horse in my inventory for movement on the map, if my infantry dies I don't lose the horse. Again, it doesn't matter in the actual battle whether I have cavalry or infantry, if their level is the same, they'll be equally effective.
 
Back
Top Bottom