Thought and issues about automatic battle resolution

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
Hi !

I would give a feedback about automatic resolution. Every Warband player knows it : it did not really works. Because in Warband, when you have like 60 soldiers and you fight (not automatic) against bandits, you never loose soldiers. Like really never. It's almost the same if you fight against another lord with like 20 men when you have 75.

So nobody wants to use automatic resolution because you loose so many troops without any reason. In Bannerlord, I tried to fight automatically against a 25 men's Lord (i have like 130 men). I lost like 17 men. 17 men. I reloaded the save, then i fought aginst him : 0 dead, 0 hurt. Same against bandits or looters. I can destroy 100 bandits without loosing men (maybe 1 or 2 if i have bad luck).

My point is that i'm disappointed you didn't fix this major issue. Yes, we can fight automatically against looters because they only hurt us, but we can't even fight automatically against a group of 2 bandits (TWO bandits against 130 soldiers) without loosing 3 or 5 soldiers. It's ridiculous.

You could fix it easily. There is many way to do it. The hard one is to make IA learn our average lost. If i always have 0 dead against bandits, IA knows it and never make me loose men against bandits.

The easy one is to establish better rules. Like : if this guy have 130 men against only 20 bandits, no way his men die in this fight.

Anyway, can you do something ? I bet many players are tired to have to fight against small groups. We need a realistic automatic battles who reflects the reality of players.

Thanks

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gilqu

Recruit
Best answers
0
second thing in auto - i never seen skill point for companion from autocombat.
 

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
second thing in auto - i never seen skill point for companion from autocombat.
Now you talk about that, there is a massive issue with companions. They almost never take levels. Same for us. I preferred the Warband system honestly. It's not satisfying at all.

But let's keep talking about auto resolution. One thing I forgot is that our troops seems to take (massively) more XP in auto battles than in normal battles. There is an XP problem with normal battles.
 

blackfalcon

Recruit
Best answers
0
To be honest, I completely support games that punish the living hell out of auto resolves, as it is either that or auto resolve is easily exploited. In my opinion, auto resolve is for when a battle is so pointless that you are willing to take absurd losses to not have to fight it.

With that said, the fact that you get so much more XP for auto resolving is something I want them to fix.
 

EvZone

On probation
WB
Best answers
1
I agree auto-resolve should be punitive, in that the text does say 'Send your troops into battle' implying you, the commander, are not going. This is further evidenced by the fact that you can do this (and only this, in fact) when you're wounded.

As such, your troops will go into battle with no leadership, and it should be expected that they do so poorly.

As for looters, I'm grateful that auto-resolve brings no deadly casualties. When leading such a battle with even a few archers, you can completely demolish their morale and finish them off with cavs, having 0 wounded or dead on your side. Since they're so present and are so practical for training troops, I'm glad we don't have to battle them manualy once we don't expect our character to gain much personally from such a fight.
 

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
I totally disagree. I don't talk about "normal fight between two lords". I just say that every fight against bandits should be without any dead for you if you have more than 35 professionnal soldiers. Currently no auto battles give just nothing as XP. It's not satisfaying at all.

I agree auto-resolve should be punitive, in that the text does say 'Send your troops into battle' implying you, the commander, are not going. This is further evidenced by the fact that you can do this (and only this, in fact) when you're wounded.

As such, your troops will go into battle with no leadership, and it should be expected that they do so poorly.

As for looters, I'm grateful that auto-resolve brings no deadly casualties. When leading such a battle with even a few archers, you can completely demolish their morale and finish them off with cavs, having 0 wounded or dead on your side. Since they're so present and are so practical for training troops, I'm glad we don't have to battle them manualy once we don't expect our character to gain much personally from such a fight.
What you say should be with all bandits i think.
 

Roger_Dabbit

Recruit
Best answers
0
To be honest, I completely support games that punish the living hell out of auto resolves, as it is either that or auto resolve is easily exploited. In my opinion, auto resolve is for when a battle is so pointless that you are willing to take absurd losses to not have to fight it.

With that said, the fact that you get so much more XP for auto resolving is something I want them to fix.
Not sure I can completely agree, having played Total War for hundreds of hours. Sometimes, easy battles just become wastes of time to manually go through. I'm not sure punishing the player for avoiding a pointless load screen is a good strategy for player retention and, let's be honest, 30 bandits would immediately surrender without a fight when cornered by 100 trained troops. Since bandits never surrender until after a battle has at least commenced, I disagree with punishing players for avoiding such pointless battles (bandits will rout almost immediately after they start taking casualties anyways, further rendering those battles largely pointless).
 

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
Not sure I can completely agree, having played Total War for hundreds of hours. Sometimes, easy battles just become wastes of time to manually go through. I'm not sure punishing the player for avoiding a pointless load screen is a good strategy for player retention and, let's be honest, 30 bandits would immediately surrender without a fight when cornered by 100 trained troops. Since bandits never surrender until after a battle has at least commenced, I disagree with punishing players for avoiding such pointless battles (bandits will rout almost immediately after they start taking casualties anyways, further rendering those battles largely pointless).
Thanks, you said it better than me but that's the whole point. Either they make bandits immediatly surrender, either they change auto battle calculation. Right now it's the same mess than Warband. Just unrealistic. I just feel i waste my time in the current system. At least put groups of 100 bandits because fights against 7 bandits are ridiculous and boring.
 
Best answers
0
I agree that the system should put less high level casualties in your ranks when fighting easy battles. i recently lost like 3 fully upgraded troups and no one else in a battle of 110 well trained soldiers vs 20 just recruited ones from an enemy lord.
Right now i just see my best chances at going to battle by tell my infantry to charge and make myself do something more useful irl for 2 minutes until i win with no casualties
 

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
I agree that the system should put less high level casualties in your ranks when fighting easy battles. i recently lost like 3 fully upgraded troups and no one else in a battle of 110 well trained soldiers vs 20 just recruited ones from an enemy lord.
Right now i just see my best chances at going to battle by tell my infantry to charge and make myself do something more useful irl for 2 minutes until i win with no casualties
Yes you got the problem I was talking about. I'm a bit disappointed that things like that didn't change since Warband...in 8 years. It should be already done IMAO. It doesn't seems hard to implet. They just have to add some rules. Like "if an army is way bigger and well trained, there is no dead" or "soldiers higher than tier 3 can't die against bandits" or "if 20 bandits are catched b 120 professional soldiers, they surrender". A good set of rules can change dramatically this bad feature into something wonderful and satisfying for all players. The best would be to implement some IA which "learn" but this one is to complicated I think.
 

Lovec1990

Regular
Best answers
0
Auto resolution is funny 5man vs 20man armys guess witch side won it was 5man party that win
 

Sweet Lemon God

Recruit
Best answers
0
My point is that i'm disappointed you didn't fix this major issue. Yes, we can fight automatically against looters because they only hurt us, but we can't even fight automatically against a group of 2 bandits (TWO bandits against 130 soldiers) without loosing 3 or 5 soldiers. It's ridiculous.
I don't understand why you're even engaging bandit groups when you have that many men, just run past them? Have I missed something?
 

black_bulldog

Sergeant
WBWF&SVC
Best answers
0
I don't understand why you're even engaging bandit groups when you have that many men, just run past them? Have I missed something?
The only benefit I can see is to either train recruits or level up tactics and frankly at mid to late stages of the game it's pretty much pointless to do so.
 

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
I don't understand why you're even engaging bandit groups when you have that many men, just run past them? Have I missed something?
To clean your lands ? To upgrade safely your men ? To loot ? Anyway, it's not the question.

Perhaps he is training his recruits?
Yes
I initially thought that but was then thrown off by him stating that bandits should just surrender
For realistic purpose. Ennemy surrender could give us charm or leadership for exemple
The only benefit I can see is to either train recruits or level up tactics and frankly at mid to late stages of the game it's pretty much pointless to do so.
You too totally miss the point : it's not about if this player use this option or not. It's about implement better version of a broken feature :smile:
 

Archonsod

Marquis
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
I agree that the system should put less high level casualties in your ranks when fighting easy battles. i recently lost like 3 fully upgraded troups and no one else in a battle of 110 well trained soldiers vs 20 just recruited ones from an enemy lord.
Right now i just see my best chances at going to battle by tell my infantry to charge and make myself do something more useful irl for 2 minutes until i win with no casualties
The AR literally just lines up both sides and has them swing at each other until one side falls over. As a result, the only thing you really want to care about in AR is the armour and hitpoints of a given troop. Taking in archers, cavalry or similar high-tier troops who's effectiveness isn't based around them basically being a tank is quite likely to result in problems.
 

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
The AR literally just lines up both sides and has them swing at each other until one side falls over. As a result, the only thing you really want to care about in AR is the armour and hitpoints of a given troop. Taking in archers, cavalry or similar high-tier troops who's effectiveness isn't based around them basically being a tank is quite likely to result in problems.
Yes...and to be honest it's a really bad system. TW is lazy for a lot of things on this "new" game...They had 8 years to add real new stuff and improve all the flawes of Warband. I feel like it's Warband but with some (not much) new stuff. The biggest improvement is graphics and interface, and still, it's more 2015 game graphics. Now they have millions, i'm not sure they will change anything. Bannerlord will be a disappointment, even if players are now too hyped to realise that. I'm absolutly not salty, i like the game, but huge disappointment. I wonder what they did these 8 years.
 

Archonsod

Marquis
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
Yes...and to be honest it's a really bad system.
It's on a par with just about every other game I can think of that has an autoresolve system. In fact it's pretty much identical to every game that has an autoresolve, the only thing that tends to change is where the emphasis is placed and whether they chuck in arbitrary modifiers to abstract away things like having a horse. Problem you're always going to get is the entire game is built around you fighting those battles, and all the underlying systems are focused on that. It's never going to be possible to replicate the capabilities of the player by abstraction.
I wonder what they did these 8 years.
Rebuilt the engine two or three times.
 

jaceneliot

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
It's on a par with just about every other game I can think of that has an autoresolve system. In fact it's pretty much identical to every game that has an autoresolve, the only thing that tends to change is where the emphasis is placed and whether they chuck in arbitrary modifiers to abstract away things like having a horse. Problem you're always going to get is the entire game is built around you fighting those battles, and all the underlying systems are focused on that. It's never going to be possible to replicate the capabilities of the player by abstraction.

Rebuilt the engine two or three times.

I gave some ways to improve it. Just writing some rules to make the system more realistic and less frustrating for players. Simple stuff like not casualities (kinda like with looters) against bandits if outnumbered.

Yeah...but rebuild the engine is not sufficient. I'm really not a hater, i was the 1st one to get hyped. I read all the dev blogs and followed the developpement. That's why i know that what they teased is not what we get now. The "alive world", the "better IA who use tactics" and "varied game and quests" are lies to me. There is nothing like that. It's still empty AF and dead AF. There is still nothing to do apart capture castles and towns. It's still the same game with better interface and graphics. The smithy is a joke. The only good improvement is clans. There is even stuff missing from Warband and worst features.

I have 60 hours on the game and i already saw everything. I fear that i'm not gonna play as much as i played on Warband on Bannerlord. That's it. Cool Warband mod. I waited 8 years for that and yes i can tell it's definitly a disappointment. When all players will have 100 hours, i know i'm not gonna be alone to think like that. I already see many reviews expressing huge disappointment. Many (like me) put a positive grade or a recommandation on Steam, because, as i said, i'm not hater. I don't want to give them bad review. I recommended the game because overall, it's Warband but better. But it doesn't worth the time we waited. Not even close.