The army system needs to be overhauled

正在查看此主题的用户

Littlepage

Recruit
Currently in Bannerlord whenever an army engages another it is all or nothing. Either the entire army fights in a pitched battle or they just run away. There are no skirmishes, there is no supply train raiding. There is very little asymmetrical warfare. As a consequence of this, castles are completely useless in this game. They serve no defensive purpose because an army can march past them without any issues ever, and the AI will opt to seize the more lucrative towns even when there are many castles in the way, because castles provide no impediment to the movement of any invading army, and it is not possible to reduce an army via attrition because raiding an army's flanks is impossible.
 
Fair answer. And besides, castles only serve for 2 purposes, starve and to use one of your companions
 
It's not an Army system problem, but rather -as you correctly Identified- a map logic and fortification issue. There needs to be something in place that forces the AI and the Player to only be able to attack Castles and cities on hostile Borders, instead of being able to simply just march to the hostile capital and take it to create some hideous and Nonsensical bordergore.
 
Basically there needs to be defined borders, and passing into enemy territory should result in everything from harrasment by the locals to morale reduction to speed reduction.
I think forces need to be forced to limit the time they can move, basically have a "stamina" for a force, which would force them to stop and camp, especially at night.

First: Each faction has a capital, both hereditary (what they will fight to take back with all their might if it's lost) and/or current (if they lost the old capital, there needs to be a temp) and this capital is used to determine distance of support that both minimizes conflict harm where borders meet (the farther from a capital the less resistance an area has) so as a nation expands, the impact its borders has on the others reduces and the resitance from the enemy regions icnreases.

Castles/Towns can then be set to allow ambushes by militia/garrison forces to automatically happen and force attrition in some form, with the capital and towns providing sources of "motivation/resources". The closer to a castle, the more the attacks/attrition events. And it should be an automatic event that isn't actually simulated because it would be like a group running up, slaughtering the sentries, and running away. The better the troops and leadership/tactics of the invader, the more the attacks could be reduced/interupted, but it should still be something that continues to hamper the force. The better the leadership/tactics skills of the governor would work to counter the leaders skills. This would give a reason to have wartime governors.
Then the farther behind borders the force gets, even yet more and more the events happen forcing the attackers to have to either choose to make very risky raids deep into territory or attempt to attrit the enemy from the outside in.
It would be super simple to set up: Each "town" represents a duchy/head county, each castle a county, each village a barony all with their own borders (there could be an overlay you can turn off or on" and each barony automatically calculates a depth when the kingdom changes from gain/loss. This depth would be what provides the majority of the attrition event calculation in terms of frequency and severity.

In addition, forces should have a "skirmish" zone, so if two forces stay close enough long enough without fighting or as the forces simply reduce their range, their outriders begin interacting. They would have multiple zones representing cavalry, archers, and infantry. This would make it so that different forces of different compositions can have meanings: The larger cavalry zone would allow cav units to have an attrition event that has to be countered by cavalry in order to prevent it from being a major attrit. The archer zone would allow archers to have a play in the attrition events and in order to be countered, infantry with shields would need to be present to reduce the damage.
Finally, close enough for infantry and the skirmishers/throwers become part of the events and FINALLY-finally contact.

this means that an all cavalry force could cause damage on an all infantry force with minimal losses without actually fighting, though the presence of archers and spearmen would reduce their effectiveness somewhat. It would also mean that armies would have a reason to be placed in certain areas on the map.
 
Basically there needs to be defined borders, and passing into enemy territory should result in everything from harrasment by the locals to morale reduction to speed reduction.
I think forces need to be forced to limit the time they can move, basically have a "stamina" for a force, which would force them to stop and camp, especially at night.

First: Each faction has a capital, both hereditary (what they will fight to take back with all their might if it's lost) and/or current (if they lost the old capital, there needs to be a temp) and this capital is used to determine distance of support that both minimizes conflict harm where borders meet (the farther from a capital the less resistance an area has) so as a nation expands, the impact its borders has on the others reduces and the resitance from the enemy regions icnreases.

Castles/Towns can then be set to allow ambushes by militia/garrison forces to automatically happen and force attrition in some form, with the capital and towns providing sources of "motivation/resources". The closer to a castle, the more the attacks/attrition events. And it should be an automatic event that isn't actually simulated because it would be like a group running up, slaughtering the sentries, and running away. The better the troops and leadership/tactics of the invader, the more the attacks could be reduced/interupted, but it should still be something that continues to hamper the force. The better the leadership/tactics skills of the governor would work to counter the leaders skills. This would give a reason to have wartime governors.
Then the farther behind borders the force gets, even yet more and more the events happen forcing the attackers to have to either choose to make very risky raids deep into territory or attempt to attrit the enemy from the outside in.
It would be super simple to set up: Each "town" represents a duchy/head county, each castle a county, each village a barony all with their own borders (there could be an overlay you can turn off or on" and each barony automatically calculates a depth when the kingdom changes from gain/loss. This depth would be what provides the majority of the attrition event calculation in terms of frequency and severity.

In addition, forces should have a "skirmish" zone, so if two forces stay close enough long enough without fighting or as the forces simply reduce their range, their outriders begin interacting. They would have multiple zones representing cavalry, archers, and infantry. This would make it so that different forces of different compositions can have meanings: The larger cavalry zone would allow cav units to have an attrition event that has to be countered by cavalry in order to prevent it from being a major attrit. The archer zone would allow archers to have a play in the attrition events and in order to be countered, infantry with shields would need to be present to reduce the damage.
Finally, close enough for infantry and the skirmishers/throwers become part of the events and FINALLY-finally contact.

this means that an all cavalry force could cause damage on an all infantry force with minimal losses without actually fighting, though the presence of archers and spearmen would reduce their effectiveness somewhat. It would also mean that armies would have a reason to be placed in certain areas on the map.
Very nice read and good suggestions, but I am afraid stuff like this will not be implemented,
 
Basically there needs to be defined borders, and passing into enemy territory should result in everything from harrasment by the locals to morale reduction to speed reduction.
I think forces need to be forced to limit the time they can move, basically have a "stamina" for a force, which would force them to stop and camp, especially at night.

First: Each faction has a capital, both hereditary (what they will fight to take back with all their might if it's lost) and/or current (if they lost the old capital, there needs to be a temp) and this capital is used to determine distance of support that both minimizes conflict harm where borders meet (the farther from a capital the less resistance an area has) so as a nation expands, the impact its borders has on the others reduces and the resitance from the enemy regions icnreases.

Castles/Towns can then be set to allow ambushes by militia/garrison forces to automatically happen and force attrition in some form, with the capital and towns providing sources of "motivation/resources". The closer to a castle, the more the attacks/attrition events. And it should be an automatic event that isn't actually simulated because it would be like a group running up, slaughtering the sentries, and running away. The better the troops and leadership/tactics of the invader, the more the attacks could be reduced/interupted, but it should still be something that continues to hamper the force. The better the leadership/tactics skills of the governor would work to counter the leaders skills. This would give a reason to have wartime governors.
Then the farther behind borders the force gets, even yet more and more the events happen forcing the attackers to have to either choose to make very risky raids deep into territory or attempt to attrit the enemy from the outside in.
It would be super simple to set up: Each "town" represents a duchy/head county, each castle a county, each village a barony all with their own borders (there could be an overlay you can turn off or on" and each barony automatically calculates a depth when the kingdom changes from gain/loss. This depth would be what provides the majority of the attrition event calculation in terms of frequency and severity.

In addition, forces should have a "skirmish" zone, so if two forces stay close enough long enough without fighting or as the forces simply reduce their range, their outriders begin interacting. They would have multiple zones representing cavalry, archers, and infantry. This would make it so that different forces of different compositions can have meanings: The larger cavalry zone would allow cav units to have an attrition event that has to be countered by cavalry in order to prevent it from being a major attrit. The archer zone would allow archers to have a play in the attrition events and in order to be countered, infantry with shields would need to be present to reduce the damage.
Finally, close enough for infantry and the skirmishers/throwers become part of the events and FINALLY-finally contact.

this means that an all cavalry force could cause damage on an all infantry force with minimal losses without actually fighting, though the presence of archers and spearmen would reduce their effectiveness somewhat. It would also mean that armies would have a reason to be placed in certain areas on the map.
Very nice suggestion
 
I don't like armies except to do bad things like force everyone to hang out in my town while the faction burns to the ground, while I farm leadership and eat a sandwich :smile: I also use them to call everyone to me before I leave faction so I can beat them up in the most convenient way outside my fief to dump hundreds of prisoners easily. I suppose I might use one to capture fiefs someday if I'm lazy and don't want to waste my own troops.

Basically they're useless for the intended purposes because they most just get in the way and suicide charge in battle and you have to do all the heavy lifting in the fights anyways.

But those new leadership perks and prisoner recruitment is a beautiful thing.

 
I don't like armies except to do bad things like force everyone to hang out in my town while the faction burns to the ground, while I farm leadership and eat a sandwich :smile: I also use them to call everyone to me before I leave faction so I can beat them up in the most convenient way outside my fief to dump hundreds of prisoners easily. I suppose I might use one to capture fiefs someday if I'm lazy and don't want to waste my own troops.

Basically they're useless for the intended purposes because they most just get in the way and suicide charge in battle and you have to do all the heavy lifting in the fights anyways.

But those new leadership perks and prisoner recruitment is a beautiful thing.



I am amazed at the creative evilness to use the army system this way? never would have thought of it
 
I am amazed at the creative evilness to use the army system this way? never would have thought of it
You also can drag them near enemies and kick them out and let them get caught and then attack the enemy to rescue and claim their troops.
But then your garrison is overflowing because you have no self control and express your repressed hoarding behavior in video games. You need another town but they just wont give you one, so you gotta take em by force.
 
Basically they're useless for the intended purposes because they most just get in the way and suicide charge in battle and you have to do all the heavy lifting in the fights anyways.

If you're in command of the army they follow your orders so...
 
Dismount them.
Nooooooooooooooooooooo! No more buttons to press too many buttons already! Although I am considering getting a nice battanian man to marry sister and be the archer captain!
I admit I was also thinking of multi party gang ups too where they go on ahead of you.
 
Basically there needs to be defined borders, and passing into enemy territory should result in everything from harrasment by the locals to morale reduction to speed reduction.
I think forces need to be forced to limit the time they can move, basically have a "stamina" for a force, which would force them to stop and camp, especially at night.

First: Each faction has a capital, both hereditary (what they will fight to take back with all their might if it's lost) and/or current (if they lost the old capital, there needs to be a temp) and this capital is used to determine distance of support that both minimizes conflict harm where borders meet (the farther from a capital the less resistance an area has) so as a nation expands, the impact its borders has on the others reduces and the resitance from the enemy regions icnreases.

Castles/Towns can then be set to allow ambushes by militia/garrison forces to automatically happen and force attrition in some form, with the capital and towns providing sources of "motivation/resources". The closer to a castle, the more the attacks/attrition events. And it should be an automatic event that isn't actually simulated because it would be like a group running up, slaughtering the sentries, and running away. The better the troops and leadership/tactics of the invader, the more the attacks could be reduced/interupted, but it should still be something that continues to hamper the force. The better the leadership/tactics skills of the governor would work to counter the leaders skills. This would give a reason to have wartime governors.
Then the farther behind borders the force gets, even yet more and more the events happen forcing the attackers to have to either choose to make very risky raids deep into territory or attempt to attrit the enemy from the outside in.
It would be super simple to set up: Each "town" represents a duchy/head county, each castle a county, each village a barony all with their own borders (there could be an overlay you can turn off or on" and each barony automatically calculates a depth when the kingdom changes from gain/loss. This depth would be what provides the majority of the attrition event calculation in terms of frequency and severity.

In addition, forces should have a "skirmish" zone, so if two forces stay close enough long enough without fighting or as the forces simply reduce their range, their outriders begin interacting. They would have multiple zones representing cavalry, archers, and infantry. This would make it so that different forces of different compositions can have meanings: The larger cavalry zone would allow cav units to have an attrition event that has to be countered by cavalry in order to prevent it from being a major attrit. The archer zone would allow archers to have a play in the attrition events and in order to be countered, infantry with shields would need to be present to reduce the damage.
Finally, close enough for infantry and the skirmishers/throwers become part of the events and FINALLY-finally contact.

this means that an all cavalry force could cause damage on an all infantry force with minimal losses without actually fighting, though the presence of archers and spearmen would reduce their effectiveness somewhat. It would also mean that armies would have a reason to be placed in certain areas on the map.

+++++

I've made a related feature suggestion for detachments which can be used for some of this. E.g. my army sits and I make a detachment of horsemen to skirmish about a besieging army, or follow them and pick up slower units and/or steal their supplies. Armies could make detachments to gather supplies so other parties and armies could try and intercept these detachments which would mean your supply lines are harassed.
 
+++++

I've made a related feature suggestion for detachments which can be used for some of this. E.g. my army sits and I make a detachment of horsemen to skirmish about a besieging army, or follow them and pick up slower units and/or steal their supplies. Armies could make detachments to gather supplies so other parties and armies could try and intercept these detachments which would mean your supply lines are harassed.
What HAS to happen i think is the heros need to be able to know how deep in friendly or enemy territory they are. As it stands, having kingdoms take cities or castles in the middle/far side of kingdoms doesnt make a whole lot of sense.
 
AI will opt to seize the more lucrative towns even when there are many castles in the way

Currently the AI is very robotic and can be exploited quite easily, They go after the easiest castle/city and based on the size of the garrison and current amount of militia troops. You could do the very boring starving them out method of big armies if you let them chase you long enough but it can take a while. In terms of shutting them down with attrition, you can do this to a extent if you want to be brutal raid all the villages bound to the castle/town you are focusing on kill all the caravans trying to go into the town and kill all the villagers this will cut their numbers in half very quickly
 
It's not an Army system problem, but rather -as you correctly Identified- a map logic and fortification issue. There needs to be something in place that forces the AI and the Player to only be able to attack Castles and cities on hostile Borders, instead of being able to simply just march to the hostile capital and take it to create some hideous and Nonsensical bordergore.
Um no.

This is not how things worked “realistically” and never have. The issues came post fighting with logistical support causing issues if you took lands a ways off from your allies/nation, but very few castles were built as stop gaps to bar you from passing through the countryside. The 2nd Punic War and many of the crusades are famous examples of running amok in enemy territory, not just attacking the border.

Refining how this affects the income and upkeep would be a better approach, but still ensures an unpredictable enemy attack, and gives natural incentive to “connect the dots” eventually.

But mystical force fields that prevent you from driving deep into opposing territory to lead an assault should not be added. The game’s current system causes most of these armies to break-up before they can do anything of merit if marching to far. A change does not need to be made to comply with players OCD of how they would like the map to look
 
最后编辑:
后退
顶部 底部