There NEEDS to be way to keep companions out of combat and SIEGES especially

Agree with this suggestion?


  • Total voters
    39

Currently viewing this thread:

sir_frost

Recruit
Yes and historically it happened that campfollowers got killed in lost battles. Not by the lord(executed) but by the chasing soldiers.

Lettng them spawn retreating would be a good solution
where on the battlefield would they spawn exactly,either they spawn at the default spawn point, thus making that a target to defend, or keep away from. for it to make sense it would spawn outside the map (and then extend the map to chase camp followers) or just let it be a random event generated outside the players control.

with the strategy you're suggesting it would be better to spawn them in at start of battle and have them withdraw.

i see no reason to waste computing resources generating extra fleeing characters from an arbitrary point on the map.
i see you make no arguments for your good solution, why would it be better to have them on the map, and how would that benefit realism or gameplay
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
why would it be better to have them on the map, and how would that benefit realism or gameplay
Simply for two reasons:
  • To keep them "die-able" in battle
  • To not waste too much dev-time on them
Charachters roaming the hostile map of Calradia risks to be involved in the brutal battles. Everyone - from peasants, caravans, lords, bandits - risks this, but OP will exclude one type of charachters - Non-Battle companions...!? Why does not peasants and caravanies put everyone in this group? "We are not here to battle so we withdraw in peace." Makes sence?

Though it DOES make sence that parties protects non-battle units. My suggestion is ONLY for loosing battles. When you are unable to protect your camp-followers, they simply stops beeing campfollowers.

i see no reason to waste computing resources generating extra fleeing characters from an arbitrary point on the map.
How many can you have? A scout, a Steward, a Field Surgeon, a Engeneer...? The group is "companion-only" you know. AI has none.
 
Last edited:
The peasants have not invested many hours in developing NPCs, they are all expendable.
If you want this explained away, let's say that the player's non-combatant group started running when they saw the battle was likely to be lost. They were not waiting patiently for all of your troops to be knocked out before figuring out what to do.
I concur with the idea that the non-combatant group is named "Camp Followers" just for the racy ambiguity.
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
The peasants have not invested many hours in developing NPCs, they are all expendable.
If you want this explained away, let's say that the player's non-combatant group started running when they saw the battle was likely to be lost. They were not waiting patiently for all of your troops to be knocked out before figuring out what to do.
I concur with the idea that the non-combatant group is named "Camp Followers" just for the racy ambiguity.
Have you seen troops spawning fleeing in the last few paths? Why would they spawn at all, with your arguments?
Or is your only argument that they are expandables? :razz: Tell tem that and they would likly shatter in all directions.
 
Have you seen troops spawning fleeing in the last few paths? Why would they spawn at all, with your arguments?
Or is your only argument that they are expandables? :razz: Tell tem that and they would likly shatter in all directions.
Troops spawning just to flee because of party low morale is just bad design that needs to be fixed.
 

Arkyll

Recruit
Personally, I think that companions should always be controllable.

The game treats them as a lord for some reason, so why are they merged into formations like a regular unit?
 

sir_frost

Recruit
if the companions are spawned in at the end of combat you have a risk of loosing them.
if you circumvent this and have them spawn at the start of combat, fleeing or retreating they would escape every time. (you could do this now by placing them in a separate group)

the only thing that this would do is mark the spawn point as a extra important thing to keep a watchful eye on. (the general rule being do not fight anywhere near your spawn point)

give the companions a chance of death/capture/escape if you loose the battle. a simple algoritm that would not waste a lot of dev time.

not everything have to clutter the battlefield, its ok that things happen of camera

I'm also not against giving the AI companions in the same way as players have. (but this will take a lot of dev time, so we save it for another time)
 
yes, a totally arbitrary roll of a dice is so much better :grin:

I leave this discussion here. Lets´s a agree to disagree as friends.
ead.png
 
The OP made his plea for Sieges especially, which is being ignored. In sieges, of course, you cannot band your companions together and tell them to run away. This makes pretty much every one of them vulnerable, like it or not (and I don't).

Even in a field battle, as far as I can tell, if one of your companions is leading a party or is a captain, they don't respond to their special formation commands - they have higher duties now. Draw a bullseye on their jerkins.

The whole crux of argument comes down to the freedom of the player to tailor his game as he wants it. It should be just as possible for a player to shield his companions from permanent battle harm yet allow them to age and die as to allow them to take their heroic chances on every battlefield.

If in this sandbox game the devs decide to allow only the choice of full vulnerability or full protection, they will be needlessly alienating portions of their potential buying public.

This whole thread is just a plea for a workaround to this binary choice suddenly imposed on us (and not even respecting current campaigns which started before the change). My army currently has 12 family and companions in the "run for the hills" group. I have Leadership of 275 and am Quartermaster, so my party limit of 344 is about as high as it's going to ever be. A party of 12 I won't use is already a waste of 3.5% of my manpower, and why would I have invested in the development of all these people - friends - for many game-years just to keep them out of combat?

My previous stumping for "non-combatant" status is just a workaround. I should be able to play with my companions (TW calls them "heroes") as if they were indeed heroes - sometimes down, but never out.
 
it makes me so damn angry when the AI takes control of my surgeon/scout or whatever, who often dont even have gear cause they arent supposed to fight ever, and just runs them right at the enemy and gets them killed...
 

Marbles20

Recruit
it makes me so damn angry when the AI takes control of my surgeon/scout or whatever, who often dont even have gear cause they arent supposed to fight ever, and just runs them right at the enemy and gets them killed...
Im pretty sure the death algorithm doesn't take into account what they were wearing considering someone could fall to a 10 damage hit and die and another person could fall to a 300+ damage hit and just get injured. Still I understand your frustration with the way the AI handles troops/companions. I make my surgeon an archer and gear him like he's infantry/cavalry + bow/crossbow. It doesn't guarantee survival, especially in sieges, but gives them better odds of not falling.
 
Im pretty sure the death algorithm doesn't take into account what they were wearing considering someone could fall to a 10 damage hit and die and another person could fall to a 300+ damage hit and just get injured. Still I understand your frustration with the way the AI handles troops/companions. I make my surgeon an archer and gear him like he's infantry/cavalry + bow/crossbow. It doesn't guarantee survival, especially in sieges, but gives them better odds of not falling.
oh yea with the gear part i just meant to highlight that i never intend for them to be in combat ever. I have also started just putting them in the archer group which does help, but still having an option for them to just never join the fight in the first place is a must.
 

Bluko88

Recruit
Implementing companion death without a way to keep them out of combat is just silly. For regular combat, a workaround is possible by assigning them to an unused group and ordering them to follow or retreat. But in sieges this does not work.

There needs to be a way to keep companions out of combat. My suggestion is to add a "companion only" command group that only companions can be assigned to. During sieges, no other troop except companions (and possibly other heroes/nobles, since they can also die) will be assigned to this group. Then you can order the group to hold back or retreat as you like.

Alternatively, on the party menu, add a button for each companion to make them a non combatant. Clicking the button flags the companion such that they will not enter combat. You can turn it on and off. Useful if you have only *some* companions that you want to keep out of combat (e.g. surgeon companions)
Yes, there really should be a "Bodyguard" formation that is always under the direct control of the player.

This would be helpful for a number things:

1. When you join A.I. armies, this would allow you to preserve certain units from the A.I.'s lemming suicide tactics. It also makes sense that a Lord would want to keep their Companions and best Troops around them for protection.

While you could cheese the system by assigning everyone in your party to "Bodyguard" you wouldn't have much tactical flexibility especially if the types are mixed. Plus if you sit and do nothing you earn no loot/influence anyways and the Army you're part of can still be defeated. It's just up to the player how much of their troops they want subject to the A.I.'s Leeroy Jenkins brigade.

2. Helps keeps Companions alive.

While death is supposedly being toned down, there's going to be Companions you really don't want to enter the main fray. They obviously aren't 100% safe (as no one in a War Party really should be) but this can at least save some frustration by keeping your Physician/Engineer out of the main infantry line.


Seems like a win-win to me. You get more immersion and the player doesn't have to reload so many battles due to some bad RNG with their Party. I also don't think this would that technically difficult (but I stand to be corrected).

This may seem one-sided for the player, but let us remember the player is devoting dozens of hours for a campaign. While the A.I. does everything in mere milliseconds.
 
Yes, there really should be a "Bodyguard" formation that is always under the direct control of the player.
Taleworlds thanks you for your suggestion and sends a message they are working on it!
(months pass)
1.5.23 patch notes:
- Added a special Bodyguard formation that follows the player, but won't take formation orders
 
Yes, there really should be a "Bodyguard" formation that is always under the direct control of the player.

This would be helpful for a number things:

1. When you join A.I. armies, this would allow you to preserve certain units from the A.I.'s lemming suicide tactics. It also makes sense that a Lord would want to keep their Companions and best Troops around them for protection.

While you could cheese the system by assigning everyone in your party to "Bodyguard" you wouldn't have much tactical flexibility especially if the types are mixed. Plus if you sit and do nothing you earn no loot/influence anyways and the Army you're part of can still be defeated. It's just up to the player how much of their troops they want subject to the A.I.'s Leeroy Jenkins brigade.

2. Helps keeps Companions alive.

While death is supposedly being toned down, there's going to be Companions you really don't want to enter the main fray. They obviously aren't 100% safe (as no one in a War Party really should be) but this can at least save some frustration by keeping your Physician/Engineer out of the main infantry line.


Seems like a win-win to me. You get more immersion and the player doesn't have to reload so many battles due to some bad RNG with their Party. I also don't think this would that technically difficult (but I stand to be corrected).

This may seem one-sided for the player, but let us remember the player is devoting dozens of hours for a campaign. While the A.I. does everything in mere milliseconds.
that would be good
 

Bluko88

Recruit
Taleworlds thanks you for your suggestion and sends a message they are working on it!
(months pass)
1.5.23 patch notes:
- Added a special Bodyguard formation that follows the player, but won't take formation orders
I tried talking to the Barber about getting the Bodyguard Formation. But I only had a quick question for him, to which I could only reply "Nevermind."

I'm going to be honest... that's a bit too realistic for me. Please nerf this TW.
 
Top Bottom