SP - General [Suggestion] Unit behavior based on their proficiency or "Tactics" skill

[TrierarchGorky]

By the game's logic it makes sense for the character to know all formations from the very beginning though, since no matter what start you take, there is a 10 years gap between the last two options during which they were an adventurer. As such, they already picked up everything they'd ever need to know about basic formations. Whether or not their soldiers are adapt at using them is another story though.

It only says 'before set out for a life of adventure'. In my opinion "life of adventure" means an actual game after character creation. A couple of years before returning to family doesn't really sound like "life of adventure", and the character certainly at some point returns back to family, which is clear in flavor text at last choice.

Yes the character at some point goes through some obligatory military training which i overlooked, but it is just "some" training, does not 100% guarantee that character now knows ALL the formations and how to employ them in battle. A single troop rarely thinks or understands tactics in battle, nor he is supposed to.
By the way it is nice little idea that starting formations are based on which option was picked in military training. This will allow for some diversity in early game, for example "rode with scouts" option will unlock cavalry formations so it would be more viable to use cavalry.

This just means that you'd force people into taking backgrounds they may not want to take

By the same degree they are FORCED to pick backgrounds so they have skills in trading, charm, weapon skills, etc.
"Oh no i can't win 1v1 against this ELITE VLANDIAN SERGEANT in 1st day of the game tournament with 0 one handed, REEEE IM FORCED TO PICK A BACKGROUND"
Though they might not unlock certain abilities, they still make character much stronger.

just so they can have something they should by all means have from the very beginning of the game.

Just your opinion.

Seeing lords deploy formations for over ten years however should contribute to becoming a tactical genius in some way.

No but it might give some insight.

You'd have to fight those battles without most of the formations according to your proposal, and that just isn't very fun to me. And it's not really that I have autoresolving battles, but rather that I hate not having a real choice there.

Vague term 'fun' is not really helpful in discussion. Why do you even need formations in the early game? 99% of the battles are 0->F1->F3. This is also the way how a big percentage of players play all the battles in the game, judging by streams, forums and reddit. So there is no forcing in picking backgrounds for them.
Tactics already levels up quite decently just in regular battles, so when you start needing at least basic formations you would probably have them unlocked.

Training this skill would be impossible in your proposal, well at least if it was consistent. Since it isn't, training them actually seems to be possible.

It doesn't have to be consistent with itself or consistent with real world. It only has to be consistent with other skills in the game and how they are trained.

It would however be just another factor of pointless grind that neither makes a lot of sense in game, nor is really needed at this point. We already have enough grind to go through as it is.

We don't know if current system with its values is designed to be that grindy and if it will receive an overhaul and how it will look after supposed overhaul. So let's keep the discussion of its faults from this thread altogether. It's about different things. We cannot be 100% or 50% or any % sure how it is gonna be on release. This is just useless speculation warped to suit your arguments.

So, your objective is to take away control over their character and their army from the player ? Hard pass.

Nice try to twist my words but i still gonna answer.
To the same degree that levelling one handed takes away the ability of player to quickly react in battle. No matter how good at the game you are, if your character has 0 levels in any skill whatsoever, be it tactics or one handed, he shouldn't be able to beat a MUCH BETTER trained opponent in corresponding skill. It kinda works with combat skills, like how after successful block your opponent just follows so fast that you cant make an answer blow. It should be the same with tactics.

 

[TrierarchGorky]

Bump - updated OP, refined a lot of ideas and text in general.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Like the idea but would see more advance formations like spear wals, testudo and stuff perhaps in the leadership tree line instead. But tactics sounds sensible to Having to early unlocks sounds like programming something for nothing kind of so first should be around 25 or 50 perhaps

 

[TrierarchGorky]

Like the idea but would see more advance formations like spear wals, testudo and stuff perhaps in the leadership tree line instead.

Some variety wouldn't hurt, except for controls maybe which could get funny.

Having to early unlocks sounds like programming something for nothing kind of so first should be around 25 or 50 perhaps

Yeah perk system already kinda suits this suggestion, but i heard it is getting reworked. Anyway, the abilities that are available from the start don't require anything to be programmed, i mean - they're already available from the start lol. And 25 and 50 marks look quite sensible. Orders and formations are probably the first things you learn as a tactician.

 

[Gummiel]

Likeing this idea, tactics always felt like a very weird skill, that never made a whole lot of sense, this would certainly give it some great value

 

[TrierarchGorky]

Yeah i think the skill is kinda lacking in terms of what benefits it provides. I'd also like to see it being levelled up more easily. Like you can force level train trading, by ....trading for 200 levels in 5-8 hours, or smithing is pretty easy to force level with companions. Did anyone try to force level tactics by sacrificing rectuits all the time? Wonder if that is going to work.

 

[AverageSturgian]

It is a very interesting suggestion but i can not see how it can provide more depth to combat or tactics. Maybe if it was combined with the use of companions or other vassals, like being able to set pre determined movements or commands before battle to your companions, assign them some men and then these companions will follow that plan (separated from the main force) until you decide it to cancel it via a button. However it seems overall very interesting!!

 

[TrierarchGorky]

It is a very interesting suggestion but i can not see how it can provide more depth to combat or tactics.

Well it's not really the point but i can imagine how someone really obsessed might do stuff like split infantry into two groups to emulate a square with two shield wall or something.
Basically it probably won't if we just take what we have already and put everything behind walls. One more point towards more complex orders i guess.

 

[CalenLoki]

I don't like 0/1 systems, and locking gameplay behind grind walls.

However, I like the idea of trained troops cooperating better.

I'd make it more gradual: you can always order them to stay in certain formation, and they'll always try to fulfil those orders.
But they'll have random deviation from the position you gave them, delay in applying your orders, breaking off from the line to attack enemies or to retreat from the more intimidating, ect. The lower your and their tactic skill, the more noticeable the effect.

 

[AverageSturgian]

.
But they'll have random deviation from the position you gave them, delay in applying your orders, breaking off from the line to attack enemies or to retreat from the more intimidating, ect. The lower your and their tactic skill, the more noticeable the effect.

Yes indeed this kind of behaviour may create a feeling of "quality of strategy and discipline". So someone with very very high tactics may have troops that never break or always keep strict formations. Now i understand it better. However, how can be this effect noticable different for each tactic level?Any ideas? For example a a low tactics shield wall with F4 will only advance but when engaged all soldiers break formation and a high tactics shied wall will break only if you press F3 to charge?

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Yes indeed this kind of behaviour may create a feeling of "quality of strategy and discipline". So someone with very very high tactics may have troops that never break or always keep strict formations. Now i understand it better. However, how can be this effect noticable different for each tactic level?Any ideas? For example a a low tactics shield wall with F4 will only advance but when engaged all soldiers break formation and a high tactics shied wall will break only if you press F3 to charge?

Thought this was effected by your leadership skill along with moral standing. Well not as complex as this. But theres also polearm perk and tactic that influences moral loss and fleeing on the battlefield as well