It's a new formation order, instead of "charge!" you can order your troops to "mingle!".
I think this might work in a samurai mod or similar, since some cultures actually did fight that way at certain times. But it shouldnt be the default thats for sure.
I think viking conquest had a very nice system in that matter, though the individual AI was lacking and the movement were a bit sudden, it got the grasp of it and tried to do it.
Absolutely, imagine that same thing with the Bannerlord engine and full control of AI behaviours with no hardcode road blocks. The ball has always been in Taleworlds' court...
I'm sorry to offtopic again, but I'm just " irked " by this situation.
Here's a quick test. Notice:
- Cohesion and how rows work
- Agent swapping positions in rows
- Control over spacing
- Follow me order with relative positioning
- Aerial view (this in Bannerlord could perhaps be introduced by unblockable perk no higher than that distance height (rts mod is too much imho))
- Correct use of fallback both automatic (follow me) and ordered (fallback 10 paces)
Absolutely, imagine that same thing with the Bannerlord engine and full control of AI behaviours with no hardcode road blocks. The ball has always been in Taleworlds' court...
I'm sorry to offtopic again, but I'm just " irked " by this situation.
Here's a quick test. Notice:
- Cohesion and how rows work
- Agent swapping positions in rows
- Control over spacing
- Follow me order with relative positioning
- Aerial view (this in Bannerlord could perhaps be introduced by unblockable perk no higher than that distance height (rts mod is too much imho))
- Correct use of fallback both automatic (follow me) and ordered (fallback 10 paces)
That's not what I asked though - not directly. I always asked for Procedural Battle terrain. I explained why I think it's the only proper solution for this mess in many other threads before so I won't explain again.Bloc and a few others asked for it here, and a few streamers mentioned it would be cool.
And I thought it could be done as a mod until TW decides to take any action on this. We didn't even suggest that as a suggestion to Dejan if I'm not mistaken.Would that work? Yeah. But could be too much effort.
What I recognized to be the problem in the developer philosophy if TW is that it seems they chose the "easy" way out in designing battles, and that can be evident in both siege battles and field battles. It seems to boil down to one factor - "we cannot force the AI to naturally do this, so we will make it artificially do it". Soldiers dont use the walls and barricades in sieges properly? Just put down predesigned "shooting spots" which they will try to get to even if there are enemies in the way. This leads to bots running past you and ignoring you just to get to the catapult or one spot on the wall, while turning your back to you completely. Problem solved. We cannot make procedurally generated randomised maps to increase replayability and battle variety? Well just make them yourself. Even in those same maps, this problem is evident. Cannot make your AI use hills and other obstacles (such as large rocks) naturally? Well just make an artificial ridge and code the AI to stand there in a shieldwall and circle formation.That's not what I asked though - not directly. I always asked for Procedural Battle terrain. I explained why I think it's the only proper solution for this mess in many other threads before so I won't explain again.
I think you are referring to this discussion where Piconi said he would like to have something like this, and I told him that it's possible but also saying
And I thought it could be done as a mod until TW decides to take any action on this. We didn't even suggest that as a suggestion to Dejan if I'm not mistaken.
I'm pretty sure no one would say anything if they had plans like "We know that battle maps are not sufficient right now but we will bring procedural generation before the release" but instead they choose to continue with this extremely inefficient battle terrain system, and they decided to do that while one of the core functionality of the game is broken ( Sieges )
Now you can say "Sieges are AI issue not scene" but that's not entirely the case, since they claimed that it's also a scene issue. If they had plans to have procedural generation, then the engine team or any other team that is not environment artists, would pick this task and start working on it while environment artists were working on fixing the scene issues of sieges to make them less unplayable. So at the end you would have a proper battle terrain and also semi-fixed and/or finished town scenes.
But with this approach now they piled tons of work to environment artists. They have to fix scene issues on Sieges, they have to create more towns, villages, castles, and they have to create battle maps for 150 regions ( and some of the existing maps are already hilariously simplistic and low-quality ) - so if they will make a sloppy job, it will result in really bad and terrible battle terrain at the end.
But in the end, literally every solution, including this terrain system, would be better than what we currently have. So I'm okay with this as long as they can make it properly ( which I, unfortunately, don't have faith in because it seems like maps are scaled down too much in terms of real/map ratio )
"Lets have maps and pick them randomly based on type" is one of the laziest decision TW took and whoever suggested this should reconsider his knowledge in game design because it's not just lazy but also completely against to Game UX principles.
What ? They'd need a very high detailed Strategic map for that. I've create high detailed strat maps with satellite grey scale height map data but TW don't use this, they have a lower scale map.arent they replacing a map with a Zoomed out one in battle map ? I think its the only way to do it correctly.
It wasn't made by Taleworlds they only produced VC. It was made by Brytenwalda.All these VC videos makes me cry that bannerlord isn't like this ?. But my question is, did they had a different team when developing VC than what we have today? ? Kinda obvious but
Woah I did not know that ?It wasn't made by Taleworlds they only produced VC. It was made by Brytenwalda.
I don't want to sound like I'm taking one iota of credit away from the Brytenwalda guys; my respects, always. However with these comments (I've read them before, - I don't mean to verbally attack you with it black_bulldog ? ? ) it seems like there is a desire to somehow "exculpate" or shift the spotlight away from Taleworlds.It wasn't made by Taleworlds they only produced VC. It was made by Brytenwalda.
No, It is not essentially a system of map randomization. Procedural Generation by default has nothing to do with randomness. It essentially a system of creating something with a known creation procedure.The second problem is that some people do not understand what procedurally generated meant, and so it became apparent that many people here were opposed to it or in favour of it without knowing what it is. It is essentially a system of map randomisation, such as in Warband.
Yes, this is what I was talking about. English is not my first language and I'm sorry that I cannot fully express what I want to say in concise sentences. In no way do I mean complete randomisation in the full sense of the word. Thank you for the explanation tooSwyter knows it better I think but I'm guessing that's what Warband was doing. It was creating a seed based on your position and it was randomizing the features. Seed itself is not random and fixed, though it's just too hard to find exact same seed because it's too sensitive to change. That's why when you fight battles in 0.00001m away from your previous location, you were seeing a different map but still with similar features.
No worries, I explained that not for you but for others actually. Since I have seen a lot of comments like "Warband maps were terrible, procedural generation is bad" etc.Yes, this is what I was talking about. English is not my first language and I'm sorry that I cannot fully express what I want to say in concise sentences. In no way do I mean complete randomisation in the full sense of the word. Thank you for the explanation too
Yes Taleworlds made the engine, but they didn't make this game, tbf you're splitting hairs with this argument. It's like saying any game made with UE4 engine and assets was really just an Epic game.I don't want to sound like I'm taking one iota of credit away from the Brytenwalda guys; my respects, always. However with these comments (I've read them before, - I don't mean to verbally attack you with it black_bulldog ? ? ) it seems like there is a desire to somehow "exculpate" or shift the spotlight away from Taleworlds.
I mean... one example.... Did Call of Duty stopped being Call of Duty because it was once developed by Sledgehammer games, Infinty Ward, Treyarch or the rest of the developers? Absolutely NO. Well the same with VC with Brytenwalda team and NW with flying squirre team, those are as M&B despite being a dlc as the other titles because officially in the eyes of the fan/consumer VC is the last title in the list of games in the M&B franchise.
By this I mean that all the mechanics and other features that belong to the M&B franchise together with the heritage obtained from the mods (quite essential for the players) should have been the primordial base from where to build Bannerlord with steel foundations... yes, it's not the first time I talk about it .