Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

Users who are viewing this thread

Combat AI level is determined by the skill level the character has for their equipped weapon. At the beginning of EA it was only based on the character level - which meant that a high-level trader would fare just as well as a veteran warrior. Tournaments are currently a variable experience, because they draw participants from the garrison as well as present parties (alongside heroes in the settlement). We are considering to introduce dedicated tournament troops to facilitate a more steady challenge.
While that sounds nice in theory in practice you rarely meet a “high level trader" in combat. Also the difficulty based on skill level just doesn't add up. Shielded units do tend to block a bit more often than unshielded one's but doesn't matter if I I fight a looter with pitchfork or a top tier two handed weapon welder, they won't block ever (maybe one in 10 hits will be blocked), they just keep on trying to attack even though they are locked into stagger from every player made attack which obviously will land quicker.

So the rare trader argument aside, and if the skill level bonus can't be adjusted further (as I said without a shield, troops rarely block regardless if the skill is 20 or 200) the combat was better when it was solely based on char level.
 
So the rare trader argument aside, and if the skill level bonus can't be adjusted further (as I said without a shield, troops rarely block regardless if the skill is 20 or 200) the combat was better when it was solely based on char level.

Yeah, totally agree with this.

Units with high weapon skill do not scale as good as high level units did scale before.

Killing units like Banner Knights in a few seconds is pretty common in tournaments while the AI does not even try to feint, block or anything, just spams attacks,
 
Combat AI level is determined by the skill level the character has for their equipped weapon. At the beginning of EA it was only based on the character level - which meant that a high-level trader would fare just as well as a veteran warrior. Tournaments are currently a variable experience, because they draw participants from the garrison as well as present parties (alongside heroes in the settlement). We are considering to introduce dedicated tournament troops to facilitate a more steady challenge.
I do not agree with this change. A good fighter is a good fighter regardless of weapon. This falls flat with the current system and there is a good point to be made here: There are no high level traders in Bannerlord, but a lot of high level lords and troops who ended up fighting worse after the change. The "mechanical" skill (swing speed, damage) with an individual weapon is governed by it's skill level, but combat ability is innate to the character. Deriving it from a skill is stupid, because the player does not need high skill levels either to fight competently. Hell even if there was the fabled "high level" trader, YES, I do want them to be dangerous combatants even if they don't have high weapon skill levels.
 
The trader is one accentuated example, another more generic one would be archers defeating infantry (or being on par with them) in melee. If you feel that a particular melee troop is underperforming, you may want to check their skills and if those do not align with their equipment or seem inappropriately low for their level head over to our tech support section for a report.

Naturally, you are also welcome to open a suggestion thread to discuss the importance or irrelevance of skills for combat. (We do compile feedback and go over it.)
 
I do not agree with this change. A good fighter is a good fighter regardless of weapon. This falls flat with the current system and there is a good point to be made here: There are no high level traders in Bannerlord, but a lot of high level lords and troops who ended up fighting worse after the change. The "mechanical" skill (swing speed, damage) with an individual weapon is governed by it's skill level, but combat ability is innate to the character. Deriving it from a skill is stupid, because the player does not need high skill levels either to fight competently. Hell even if there was the fabled "high level" trader, YES, I do want them to be dangerous combatants even if they don't have high weapon skill levels.
Speak for yourself i most definitely dont want a high level trader to be a great fighter - sorry but thats just stupid. To be proficient in a weapon youve trained is the only avenue that makes sense
 
Speak for yourself i most definitely dont want a high level trader to be a great fighter - sorry but thats just stupid. To be proficient in a weapon youve trained is the only avenue that makes sense
Read my post again. I did speak for myself, never did I speak for anybody else. There are no high level trader characters in Bannerlord who participate in combat. All characters in Bannerlord who are governed by AI have a certain degree of weapon skill level. Weapon skill level correlates directly with level in most cases. Somebody who is a master in swordsmanship will be able to translate his combat skills to a weapon group he did not train as much, he doesn't become a retard who forgets how to block because you trade his sword with an axe - sorry but thats just stupid.
 
The trader is one accentuated example, another more generic one would be archers defeating infantry (or being on par with them) in melee. If you feel that a particular melee troop is underperforming, you may want to check their skills and if those do not align with their equipment or seem inappropriately low for their level head over to our tech support section for a report.

Naturally, you are also welcome to open a suggestion thread to discuss the importance or irrelevance of skills for combat. (We do compile feedback and go over it.)

I have just defeated an imperial legionary with 3 chained hits the first day of a new campaign. I am going to try to upload a video this weekend and make a threat in tech support section (I did it some time ago).

I am ok with weapon skill instead level being more relevant, but the problem is that the AI is just performing worse now. You can literally kill a Fian using a two handed weapon in tournaments with two hits in 3 seconds every time and the AI rarely will block.
 
The trader is one accentuated example, another more generic one would be archers defeating infantry (or being on par with them) in melee. If you feel that a particular melee troop is underperforming, you may want to check their skills and if those do not align with their equipment or seem inappropriately low for their level head over to our tech support section for a report.

Naturally, you are also welcome to open a suggestion thread to discuss the importance or irrelevance of skills for combat. (We do compile feedback and go over it.)

In the case of bannerlord the archer argument doesn't add up as well. Sorry. First of all, most archers are equipped with lower grade melee equipment than their infantry counterparts with equal level. T3 archers will lose to T2 infantry still. (In melee if that wasn't clear)

Second of all, the top tier archer units in bannerlord should have no problem defeating militias or unseasoned soldiers (in melee), think fian champions or palatine guards, their name even refers to their elite warrior status. Bow just happens to be their primary choice of weaponry. Doesn't mean that they won't be able to cut you in half if you come near. They're just prefer to shoot your face from afar. Just like a knight prefers to skewer your head on horseback, doesn't mean he won't be able to take you on on foot or with a crossbow.

Lastly, I am a bit sad that the STFU customer service card was played to make me go post it on the suggestion board. This is merely feedback. But maybe I'm misinterpreting. Maybe I'll post it there then.

Edit: context
 
Last edited:
Second of all, the top tier archer units in bannerlord should have no problem defeating militias or unseasoned soldiers (in melee), think fian champions or palatine guards, their name even refers to their elite warrior status. Bow just happens to be their primary choice of weaponry. Doesn't mean that they won't be able to cut you in half if you come near. They're just prefer to shoot your face from afar. Just like a knight prefers to skewer your head on horseback, doesn't mean he won't be able to take you on on foot or with a crossbow.
I am not sure what is your point here. Here are the best melee skills for the troops you have mentioned:

- Battanian Fian Champion: 220 two handed
- Imperial Palatine Guard: 130 one handed
- Imperial Legionary: 130 one handed
- Imperial Militia Spearman: 90 one handed
- Imperial Recruit: 20 one handed

So how does these stats makes archers inferior in melee combat against lower tier infantry with this mechanic you were discussing in mind?

I think you are still missing the point here. This mechanic makes it so these militias and unseasoned soldiers you are referring will have a harder time while going against these elite archers in melee combat.
 
Last edited:
Read my post again. I did speak for myself, never did I speak for anybody else

A simple english expression translating to "Hey devs thre are other points of view" -dont be so hyper sensitive.
Somebody who is a master in swordsmanship will be able to translate his combat skills to a weapon group he did not train as much, he doesn't become a retard who forgets how to block because you trade his sword with an axe - sorry but thats just stupid.

Quite untrue. For instance ive got a buddy who is literally a world class knife fighter -teaches special forces guys no joke and has spent thousand upon thousands of hours mastering his Kali Martial art. If youve ever seen the movie The Hunted he did all the fight choreography for it. You throw him in a cage against a world class Katana fighter(assuming they exist) giving him a Katana instead of his preferred Knives, and he's dead meat in a matter of seconds. Your assuming because one has developed most likely lighting reflexes and is basically athletic that these skills carry over - that may be true for two casual guys messing around but at the highest levels its all about proficiency with THAT weapon and its not gonna carry over to another form where THAT guy has 100,000 practice reps in that exact weapon knowing its exact weight, best angle of attack with lightening precision.

So no.
 
Last edited:
(Returning the feature where a rival challenges you to a duel over the affections of a potential love interest) is currently not planned.

Surely the good features people liked from the last game in the series would be included in the developer's plans by default? I understand that a game of this scope isn't easy to make, but considering it's a sequel, shouldn't it be at least aiming to be the equal or better of Warband in every way?
 
I am not sure what is your point here. Here are the best melee skills for the troops you have mentioned:

- Battanian Fian Champion: 220 two handed
- Imperial Palatine Guard: 130 one handed
- Imperial Legionary: 130 one handed
- Imperial Militia Spearman: 90 one handed
- Imperial Recruit: 20 one handed

So how does these stats makes archers inferior in melee combat against lower tier infantry with this mechanic you were discussing in mind?

I think you are still missing the point here. This mechanic makes it so these militias and unseasoned soldiers you are referring will have a harder time while going against these elite archers in melee combat.

The dev stated essentially, at least as far as I interpreted it, that they believe, that if combat performance were based purely on char level instead of skill level, archers or merchants (show me one merchant char besides a caravan master) had an easy time defeating infantry troops in melee.

Their attack speed and damage is still based on their respective melee skill level and the weapon they are using. My argument is that the devs point doesn't make any sense, because mid tier archers will still be slaughtered by a lower tier infantry in melee.


UNLESS its an elite warrior like Fian Champion or others like you just mentioned. With the dev's logic - Palatine guard should be less skilled in melee than legionary (not taking equipment in mind) , but as you yourself just pointed out - they have identical melee skill

Ergo, the combat proficiency based solely on the char level, did work much better, back in April or whenever it was, because back then it was exciting that you actually had to fight in tournaments or in battles, whereas now you just get assaulted by zombies strapped in armor, either peasants clothing or a jewelled lord helmet...

Its just sad that the potential and programming of the AI is wasted just to make the game more casual and accessible.
 
Last edited:
A simple english expression translating to "Hey devs thre are other points of view" -dont be so hyper sensitive.
No honey, you only use this when somebody actually tried to misrepresent his opinion as that of a group you belong to. It carries the implication of manipulative arguing which you seem to like to do. Let's not forget calling my opinion stupid in the end without presenting any arguments.

Quite untrue. For instance ive got a buddy who is literally a world class knife fighter -teaches special forces guys no joke and has spent thousand upon thousands of hours mastering his Kali Martial art. If youve ever seen the movie The Hunted he did all the fight choreography for it. You throw him in a cage against a world class Katana fighter(assuming they exist) giving him a Katana instead of his preferred Knives, and he's dead meat in a matter of seconds. Your assuming because one has developed most likely lighting reflexes and is basically athletic that these skills carry over - that may be true for two casual guys messing around but at the highest levels its all about proficiency with THAT weapon and its not gonna carry over to another form where THAT guy has 100,000 practice reps in that exact weapon knowing its exact weight, best angle of attack with lightening precision.
That's a lot of words for presenting an anecdotal piece of (partly fictional) evidence for your point of view, but did you consider that what is regarded as weapon mastery today does not translate to the usage of the same weapons to a time when they were actually used to kill people on the battlefield? Again this isn't about weapon skill levels, it's about general combat proficiency or as you call it "lighting reflexes and basically athletic". As a quick reminder the majority of people in Bannerlord are "casual guys" messing around. If a tier 5 unit was a weapon master the game would be full of masters, but that's not how mastery works therefore in comparison to his peers he is a casual. You are saying it exactly as it should be in game "THAT guy has 100,000 practice reps" profits from high skill level in combat which increase damage and attack speed per weapon, yet a guy who has fought in a hundred battles will most likely pose a bigger threat with an untrained weapon than someone who is decent with his weapon, but never fought properly or at all. That said it just comes to mind that your argument should also mean we have too few weapon skills in Bannerlord, because you would agree that fighting with a sword or a mace is quite the difference. Both the katana and knife are one handed weapon skills, you friend will perform as just well as the other guy in Bannerlord. :xf-wink:
 
That's a lot of words for presenting an anecdotal piece of (partly fictional) evidence for your point of view

Entirely 100% truth -what aspect are you doubting as fictional.

Also a lot of words that are quite convoluted to what I was initially disagreeing with which is your statement here

Hell even if there was the fabled "high level" trader, YES, I do want them to be dangerous combatants even if they don't have high weapon skill levels.

Why on earth would you want a "High Level Trader with low Weapon Skills" to be a dangerous combatant merely because of his prowess as a trader?

No honey, you only use this when somebody actually tried to misrepresent his opinion as that of a group you belong to. It carries the implication of manipulative arguing which you seem to like to do. Let's not forget calling my opinion stupid in the end without presenting any arguments.

Heh "honey"... knew you were a sensitive bloke. And yes your opinion that 'being a high level trader equates high level fighter' makes no sense
 
Just...make guys know atleast how to block. Feints and so might be better for more experienced guys put a peasant with long pole in hand might atleast by mistake use it to redirect a sword blow to the head.
 
Why on earth would you want a "High Level Trader with low Weapon Skills" to be a dangerous combatant merely because of his prowess as a trader?

I've yet to see the fabled trader in a combat mission in bannerlord.

Also guys - please keep it civil. Getting offended from a strangers statement on the internet is one of the silliest things you can do.
 
@froggyluv So you decided to stop using arguments altogether. ? If you seriously don't realize what part of your previous argument was clearly fictional, I feel sorry for you. At least the cage match was real in your mind, right? The only "high level trader" in Bannerlord is the already mentioned Caravan Master who would have plenty of combat experience under his belt given the regular situation in Calradia. Level is arbitrarily assigned to npc who aren't lords in the first place, but trade isn't even a skill which can be utilized by non-lords. A high level trader can therefore not exist in Bannerlord at all. Like holy **** imagine trying to argue against this. ?
 
Last edited:
In the case of bannerlord the archer argument doesn't add up as well. Sorry. First of all, most archers are equipped with lower grade melee equipment than their infantry counterparts with equal level. Their attack speed and damage is still based on their respective melee skill level and the weapon they are using. My argument is that the devs point doesn't make any sense, because mid tier archers will still be slaughtered by a lower tier infantry in melee.

The underlying point is that unskilled fighters are not desired to have a better or equivalent combat AI level than skilled fighters. It affects both the outcome of battles as well as the individual combat experience a player has against a particular type of troop. Equipment and skill effect tie into this as well and can offset the impact of combat AI level, but they do so in different ways and cannot replace it. The current approach provides us (and others) with a higher level of control to more strongly distinguish units like archers from infantry (and other unit types - f.e. skirmishers).

I referred you (and others concerned with the combat performance of NPCs) to technical support because it may very well be that some units have inappropriate skills for the equipment they are using or the level/tier they are at. After all, the broader concern seems to be the performance of AI in combat, which isn't inherently at odds with the skill based approach, but depends on effective skill distribution and balancing.

I referred you to suggestions, because this topic isn't dedicated to discussing the combat AI level calculation but general development priorities.
 
The underlying point is that unskilled fighters are not desired to have a better or equivalent combat AI level than skilled fighters. It affects both the outcome of battles as well as the individual combat experience a player has against a particular type of troop. Equipment and skill effect tie into this as well and can offset the impact of combat AI level, but they do so in different ways and cannot replace it. The current approach provides us (and others) with a higher level of control to more strongly distinguish units like archers from infantry (and other unit types - f.e. skirmishers).

I referred you (and others concerned with the combat performance of NPCs) to technical support because it may very well be that some units have inappropriate skills for the equipment they are using or the level/tier they are at. After all, the broader concern seems to be the performance of AI in combat, which isn't inherently at odds with the skill based approach, but depends on effective skill distribution and balancing.

I referred you to suggestions, because this topic isn't dedicated to discussing the combat AI level calculation but general development priorities.

I agree, I suppose I did not really mention that. That would be the one flaw in that system. But then again, on the typical battle or tournament mission, there wouldn't be a character of high level that isn't a soldier. It would be a rare anecdotal case.

But once more I think the equipment does play a role. With this system, eventually the higher level well equipped/skilled troops will lose to poorly equipped/skilled troops. Does it seem odd that you might notice once in a while that some supposedly inept dude blocks too often? Sure. But it sure as hell is better that way than to fight zombies.

Another positive side effect is that battles actually might last longer and formations and flanking etc. might play a bigger role instead of who lands the first hit because neither party bothered to block.


Unless of course - the actual combat proficiency, can be ramped up more so that say a soldier of skill level of 275 would be pretty unstoppable etc respectively (because now, a soldier of 250 proficiency is acting like it had only 30). Then the system we have now would be actually working as intended, as now once again it doesn't matter if its skill level is 50 or 250.


Of course, I apologize, I guess I let my emotions get the better of me. I don't think I'd suggest this system in particular though, as it does not solve everything, and has its own flaws. Its just in my opinion better than what we have now.
 
While that sounds nice in theory in practice you rarely meet a “high level trader" in combat. Also the difficulty based on skill level just doesn't add up. Shielded units do tend to block a bit more often than unshielded one's but doesn't matter if I I fight a looter with pitchfork or a top tier two handed weapon welder, they won't block ever (maybe one in 10 hits will be blocked), they just keep on trying to attack even though they are locked into stagger from every player made attack which obviously will land quicker.

So the rare trader argument aside, and if the skill level bonus can't be adjusted further (as I said without a shield, troops rarely block regardless if the skill is 20 or 200) the combat was better when it was solely based on char level.
Completely disagree with using character level. If you have a "one handed weapon" skill, then it's painfully obvious that combat ability while using a one handed weapon should be by USING THE SKILL WITH WHICH THE WEAPON IS USED and not the arbitrary number that can be raised through dealing with logistical problems, scouting a road or patching wounds.

There might be a problem with AI not being good enough at a particular skill level, but that's just a problem of TUNING, not of CONCEPT. Increasing the amount of blocking per skill point doesn't require scrapping using skill level and replacing it by character level.
I've yet to see the fabled trader in a combat mission in bannerlord.
That's completely beside the point.
If down the road we can encounter routinely high-level traders with huge trade skill and very low weapon ones, I don't want them to be godly fighters. We have a system making sense but inadequately tuned ? Let's tune it better rather than destroy the sense it has. Seriously...

@froggyluv So you decided to stop using arguments altogether. ?
The argument that "high skill in weapon" should translate in "character skilled in weapon usage" seems to be pretty solid, to the point of being tautological. YOUR point, on the other hand, that "I know very well how to sell goods, so I should be very dangerous in combat" IS completely stupid.

Don't throw rocks in a house of glass ?
 
Back
Top Bottom