SP - Battles & Sieges The tactical way: beyond the melee cluster

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
A disciplined formation will always work better than a disorganized shapeless mass under the same conditions.
The problem here in Bannerlord is the navmesh in group formation, check out these videos:





A formation should always maintain its structure until the player decides another or the integrity (number of bots) of the formation makes the geometry impossible. Mount&Blade/Warbad has its faults and we forgive them, for love and because it is an indie game from 2008/2010. Bannerlord is supposed to be a natural evolution that shouldn't make the same mistakes as its predecessors. Bannerlord in terms of formations and group AI should behave similar to the way those systems do in RTS games.
 
Yeah, NPCs just rush immediately when an enemy gets closer to them. I've also seen some players abusing of this bug to their advantage, they stop their troops and go alone behind enemy troops to break their formations so archers have the chance to kill them. It's starting to get annoying, to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Very good thread, can't believe I didn't see it until now. I remember when I first watched the Bannerlord gameplay videos of troops in formation and I took it as a given that the troops would also be fighting in those formations but alas, it just revealed itself to be a good old Warband mosh pit when they actually engaged. :???:
 
ronfino said:
Yeah, NPCs just rush immediately when an enemy gets closer to them. I've also seen some players abusing of this bug to their advantage, they stop their troops and go alone behind enemy troops to break their formations so archers have the chance to kill them. It's starting to get annoying, to be honest.
Click to expand...

This is annoying, yes, but I've rarely seen people try to stop it.

There should be a 'force look direction' for things like archers or shields.
 
Implementing a mechanic found in the Total War games could be a smart idea when talking about formations and separation between AI. Although they are are played on a different scale to Bannerlord, doesn't mean we can't force the AI to behave similarly to the units in Total War. 'Guard Mode' can be used to ensure your unit stays put in a specific location after battling against a rival and 'Formation Attack' is similar to that but is used on the offensive, allowing units to maintain specific formations while being aggresive and charging. Ordering your unit to stay in a guard/defensive mode will ensure that they'll keep their formation, width, length, etc. whether they're fighting, shooting or being idle. This will also make sure they don't go chasing routing enemies, endangering the rest of your men as it leaves a gap in the formation. They'll stand in place, fire in place, and if the enemy comes near them they'll switch to a melee weapon if it's a ranged unit.

X7AFiwr.jpg


Unit spacing whilst charging and engaging should be implemented / expanded between each AI character to keep battles more spaced out. Setting a specific range between each friendly AI once both sides have clashed will allow troops to focus on more 1-on-1 brawls and furthermore, teach the AI to encircle once it's rival unit starts to wither down on either flank.
 
I don't know what would be the best way to go about formation AI in order to give the player a satisfying experience, but I believe both armies holding formation if they have enough numbers to create such formations is a good start.
 
Read through the whole thread and enjoyed it quite a bit. I'm fully agreeing to the fact that the formation AI needs a bit of work. SHield walls too, especially the ones where the backrow got spears as secondary weapons. Those dudes prefer to push into the blob instead of stabbing over the heads of their allies.

Please Bannerlord give me smarter units :sad:
 
I just tried the Custom Battle "mod" and I strongly still feel the same way. To all those who are uploading videos on the internet making two armies clash I encourage you to try several things to go beyond the melee cluster:

Once in the melee, change the formation, pivot the units with face direction, test the difference between charge, position and advance. Discover that the fallback command should not be performed as a retreat turning its back on the enemy. Try once in the melee to position F1 behind the last enemy line...
In static, try to change the shape of the formation.

(*)The positive point I noticed after testing this "mod" is the excellent optimization job they are doing. Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages

The importance of good order was well understood in medieval warfare:

Two great evils .... can follow from a disordered formation: one is that enemies can easily break into it; the other is that the formations may be so compressed that they cannot fight. Thus it is important to keep the formation in ranks and tight and joined together like a wall
— Christine de Pizan
Click to expand...

Formations should be simple and not too big (unless you are swiss). Commands and shapes should be simple too. Formations should walk unless in a mobile formation, and should be static in circle or square. It's difficult to move formations. The "follow me" command is actually impossible for many formations. Mobile formations: loose, column and skein.
It's possible to advance and retreat in line formation but only walking.
Melee attacks in formations other than line are too difficult for the game. Those formations are good to follow the leader ,defend themselves and attack ocasional targets of opportunity near their path.

For cavalry there should be a different charge command: gallop along this line, attack anyone along your path and regroup at a specific position after the charge. (This is new so I won't ellaborate more)

If a formation charges it charges against a given enemy formation. If a formation is ordered to charge against no specific formation (charge command) that formation is lost, out of command for the rest of the battle . Attacking a formation should be ordered with "Advance command" and hovering the mouse over the target. Then troops advance walking in 1 or 2 lines deep to throwing distance, they throw their spears if any, and they charge to their optimal weapon distance and try to exploit any gaps in the enemy ranks. After a minute or two the exhausted troops should fall back to their lines.

If a formation is defending they try to hold their ground. They too, should be exhausted after a minute or two and they should fall back to their lines.

Keeping the optimal weapon distance should be a goal for individual troops.The optimal weapon distance for a spearman is spear length for defense, and short sword length for attack, and troops should change their weapons accordingly. Troops defending the front rank may change to short sword if unable to keep spear distance.

"Face enemy" should be checked every 10 seconds or more but only when not in combat and not every tick or every second. It should be a sergeant AI function. When an enemy formation moves within a certain distance, wheel formation to face them. If enemy formations are beyond that distance, there should be a general facing for the whole army.

The same for unit spacing. It should be checked less frequently and only when not in combat. Keeping position, spacing and facing should be a secondary goal after self preservation and weapon attacks. Shields should be always up unless attacking. Troops should look for opportunities to strike the 3 positions in front of them, or the 3 positions in their flank or rear if they aren't in the front rank.

If engaged in combat and another enemy formation attacks, a formation should break or form a circle or square to fight.

There should be a HeadQuarters or camp position to retreat to. Commands "Fall back" and "Retreat" should move towards that position walking backwards in line or running in column, skein or loose.
 
For me the AI is the biggest worry.
The combat, which should be the primary focus, is not finished yet, but including the experienced Beta players, the are many people working on this.
I don't worry that the combat will be good or satisfactory at some point.
However, I worry about the AI. Specifically the tactical or group Ai.
The induvidual combat AI has already been improved significantly and to be honest the AI in the singleplayer overworld was already okay in Warband. Sure, there is room for improvement there, but I don't see it as that big of a deal - though I don't know how newer gameplay features such as the extended sieges play out in the end.

But the strategical, battle Ai has hardly improved since October/November, which was when I started the beta.
When I saw this, I was impressed. Not because of the cluster issue of course, but because the AI was able to have some sense of strategy.

I thought hell yeah! A small step for humanity but a big step for Mount and Blade!


But now, after about four month of hardly any major improvements to Captain Mode, I became a little bit sad.

The formations don't work or a useless, cav Ai is still as intelligent as a piece of dry toast, and the melee cluster is an unwanted heirloom of your grandparents, like baldness or their old three-legged cat.

Basically the battles in Mount and Blade are like a teenager's first kiss.
At first it's an amazing new experience but after a while they want something a little bit more hands-on or in depth.

You know, I am going to play the hell out of singleplayer when it comes out. But I already had my first kiss a long, long time ago.
 
The game is much more ambitious than you might think. I have the feeling that they are holding some tricks for the end show. We'll see.

Sorry to divert the thread a bit, but to cheer you up see the beginning of this video. Reminds to multiplayer?

 
SturgiaStrong said:
Maybe if the game will be 10 more years in development, then they can do it. But personally i think even then, they couldn't make AI so smart
Click to expand...

Yes they can make the AI smarter than most people but you may need Elon Musk's help with his OpenAI. I'm not joking. OpenAI is responsible for creating the AI that beat pro Dota 2 players. Also DeepMind by google taught itself to become pro in starcarft. Maybe the answer is in machine learning?
 
The idea of a formation leash or rubber band is interesting. There could also be a "break formation/hold formation" command in the formations menu which would revert to the current charge behavior.
 
You could have it that if you look at an enemy regiment, as you command a charge, your troops will target them. If you look at none in particular, they would move towards the nearest mass of enemies.

Holding down the charge button could be what triggers the "Break Ranks" charge method, potentially. Similar to Shin's ideas.
 
More than a month with the game released I am about to update the thread with a bunch of personal feedback.

As we have all noticed I can already testify that there is something strange going on with AI in combat. In Dev Blog 25/10/18, everything that was mentioned was incredible on paper; however in the game it is not running satisfactorily.

In Bannerlord we have the option to divide troops in battle; a feature that I personally use often and I am very grateful for its implementation.


Infantry:

I've tried everything to carry out different tactics on the battlefield to test the limits of the AI; and I have to say that these are currently low.

I wonder, should a bot leave a formation and thereby ignore a player's order? My answer is a resounding no; the AI must stay within its movement capsule, not make any "tactical" decisions beyond self-protection. Well, this happens absolutely every time in game.

Why do the bots of a line formation which are waiting for an enemy unit to attack suddenly charge within a few meters to it without any charge order being given? This should not be so, or I understand that this should not be so.

For example, I've tried splitting an infantry unit in two by arranging each one in line manually forming a V (inverted wedge tactic) to try to encircle the enemy. As I say, before receiving enemy contact, my bots charge against them without my permission. The most worrying thing is that not all of them are charging, the ones that are farthest from the V-axis do it by intersecting and the ones that are farthest from the V-axis remain motionless without knowing what to do.

When all this escalates badly, is when I decide to split an infantry unit into 3. Three groups in order to "advance" in line formation. When making contact with the enemy, the central unit acts correctly by holding the enemy's attack, however the side units tend to cluster towards the center of the enemy unit. When the two side units are manually signaled their flank position (U arms) they without charging or advancing order ordered charge against the enemy bot units positioned at the sides.

It is absolutely necessary to implement the order (recover from warband) to use weapons. Another case in which the AI decides "too much"; it is the player who should assign how, when and where.

I still think that the passive behavior programmed for the AI in shieldwall formation is not appropriate. If you want to continue with this kind of behavior for Ai, implement width commands (bring back the F8 - Tighter formation/ F9 - Looser formation command) and then be able to articulate high density ranks as an analog shieldwall where the bots do remain aggressive.

Ranged:

In general, they do their job well, but there's a problem that still exists Issues with archery's ai in close formation. It is not always possible to deploy to a loose formation (where all the bots fire normally); therefore there are still formations where the bots in the secondary rows do not fire, thus losing tactical effectiveness. For example, I have an infantry unit in a circle formation and a ranged unit within it.

If I have them in line they shoot the enemy and rotate, unless it is a unit composed of a large number of bots, which leave the circle of protection provided by the infantry. I lose tactical effectiveness.

If I place them in the loose-column, they automatically go outside the limits of infantry protection. I lose tactical effectiveness.

If I set them in shieldwall-wedge, because of the problem mentioned above; the bots in the secondary rows do not fire. I lose tactical effectiveness.

If I arrange them in a circle-square, the only ones that fire are the bots that have an enemy in their focal field. I lose tactical effectiveness.

Cavalry:

Without a weapons use command, this unit in SP does not unleash its full potential. Charges to enemies from behind (anvil and hammer) or to those who retreat are not executed with the forcefulness that this procedure requires.

An example of the shortcomings of the AI. A cavalry unit split in two prepares to face an enemy infantry unit. The cavalry units are placed in a wedge formation at a considerable distance from the enemy (A1---------E------------A2). A1 is then ordered to charge and after a lapse of 5 seconds A2 is ordered the same. Therefore A1 will charge E first and keep it focussed on them while A2 charges from behind. This maneuver should be devastating and surprisingly it is not. Replace A1 with an infantry unit and the result remains the same. Enemy infantry hardly suffers any heavy casualties.

Mounted Ranged:

I like the way the main behavior of this type of unit is programmed. I like that they form a rotating circle by keeping the enemy inside while firing at it. What I don't like is that once the projectiles run out, the AI decides to charge on their own. I think they should be programmed to keep circling with their comrades until they all run out of ammunition. Once this happens, it would be more logical for the formation to look for the player as a "follow me". Assuming that the player has been killed, then yes, carry out the charge

We are back to the point of the imperative need to implement the use of weapons order. For this type of unit it is essential to.

I think it would be interesting to implement a harassment/skirmish order or function to any mounted projectile unit. Just as infantry units equipped with javelins throw them before close combat, so should cavalry. For cavalry equipped with a bow I like the currently programmed behavior of circling around the enemy. However, it should also be possible to have an order to execute circles without keeping the enemy inside. I'm talking about cantabrian circles or manoeuvres in a encircling way like the caracole.

Hot spots:

A statement to be set in stone: The user always decides what, when, where and how in battle command. To make this impossible, impoverishes the player's playable experience.

In short, the bot as an individual must always be subordinated to the structure of the formation. The bot will only leave the formation when it is annihilated, flees or is ordered to retreat.

A fighting bot will always remain aggressive. It is the player who will always have to modify its behavior by positioning with respect to an enemy unit.

A bot on foot should not run unless ordered to charge. The user is the one who decides the pace. Engage Enemy Order (Alternative replacing Advance order)

The follow command keeps too much space between the player and the following bots. I think that this space should be greatly reduced.

The fallback command still doesn't work. The bots still turn their backs to the enemy when this command is executed. This should not be the case under any circumstances. The bots should always fall back facing the enemy. Fallback order does not work properly

Implementing an order to use weapons is vital. Battle Command: Switch Weapon

Implementing a system to " focus fire/ focus attack " should have been considered as a natural evolution for the franchise. Focus fire on enemy unit

The colliders of each bot should be reviewed. The living space of each bot should be increased as we can see today that the bodies of the bot suffer a totally disproportionate overlap. Agent overlap issue in flock movement

Hitboxes and hurtboxes should be checked. A lot of inconsistences with shields Body parts hitboxes leave a lot to be desired / Shield hitboxes are extremely imprecise / Inconsistency damage & hitboxes with overhead guard.

At the moment the game does not offer anything beyond the melee cluster.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SP - Player, NPCs & Troops Combat pacing: Slowing down the infantry zerg rush; so that more advanced combat tactics and formations are more meaningful.
Replies
4
Views
136
k86
Lornloth00
SP - Battles & Sieges Defend Formation Command
Replies
0
Views
51
Lornloth00
Lornloth00
Selphie Nutter
SP - Battles & Sieges Charge command
Replies
0
Views
50
Selphie Nutter
Selphie Nutter
Back
Top Bottom