What is the next major content after Rebellions?

[mexxico]

Does TW Have any Plans to address this Siege Defense Problem?

What do you suggest?

A- Reducing break in penalty so player loses less men while entering to a castle/town?

B- AI to count player as 15% - 25% strength instead of 50% if he is inside a settlement.

Additional info : Currently player is counted as half strength already we added it 1.5.x to allow player to experience siege defence but it seems this was not enough. So if there is 200 men player party inside a settlement AI already count player party as 100 men (50% rule). When player enters a settlement attacker / defender ratio changes and AI usually give up. Sometimes they do not give up. However normally AI do not siege if they have no good ratio than 3x normally, because they cannot start a siege which they cannot win on paper (simulations have 3-4x defender advantage). So lets assume you are inside a castle with 200 garrison and if your party is 200 men also attacker AI should be at least 900 men to attack - actually strength ratio is important, so your troop tiers is important but I am simplifying.

However real problem is you think 200 garrison + 200 player party as defenders vs 600 attackers is good ratio for attackers however simulations are not working like this. In missions there is nearly no defensive advantage currently they are like field battle (biggest negative of Bannerlord imo, should be solved asap but not my part) but when Bannerlord is finished there should be at least 2X defensive advantage at also missions (I do not know how this will be achieved I hope it will be solved). So AI think that they cannot win that siege thats why they are giving up when you enter it or they continue building siege machines outside to reduce this 3-4X defensive advantage (more equipments means worse defensive advantage at similations).

 

[Kut]

What do you suggest?

A- Reducing break in penalty so player loses less men while entering to a castle/town?

B- AI to count player as 15% - 25% strength instead of 50% if he is inside a settlement.

Additional info : Currently player is counted as half strength already we added it 1.5.x to allow player to experience siege defence but it seems this was not enough. So if there is 200 men player party inside a settlement AI already count player party as 100 men (50% rule). When player enters a settlement attacker / defender ratio changes and AI usually give up. Sometimes they do not give up. However normally AI do not siege if they have no good ratio than 3x normally, because they cannot start a siege which they cannot win on paper (simulations have 3-4x defender advantage). So lets assume you are inside a castle with 200 garrison and if your party is 200 men also attacker AI should be at least 900 men to attack - actually strength ratio is important, so your troop tiers is important but I am simplifying.

However real problem is you think 200 garrison + 200 player party as defenders vs 600 attackers is good ratio for attackers however simulations are not working like this. In missions there is nearly no defensive advantage currently they are like field battle (biggest negative of Bannerlord imo, should be solved asap but not my part) but when Bannerlord is finished there should be at least 2X defensive advantage at also missions. So AI think that they cannot win that siege thats why they are giving up when you enter it or they continue building siege machines outside to reduce this defensive advantage (more equipments means worse defensive advantage at similations).

How about "secret passages" ? With daily infliltration rate caps (bcz you can't infiltrate 500 men in a single day without unnoticed)..

Infliltrated soldiers will be not counted until the battle. This mechanic will only be for the player. AI doesn't whine as i am...

It can be related with castle/city projects and some -kinda related player/companion skills...

 

[mexxico]

How about "secret passages" ? With daily infliltration rate caps (bcz you can't infiltrate 500 men in a single day without unnoticed)..

Infliltrated soldiers will be not counted until the battle. This mechanic will only be for the player. AI doesn't whine as i am...

It can be related with castle/city projects and some -kinda related player/companion skills...

We do not have any projects just for player in game. If we add this AI should also use. Then player can enter battle and leave battle when he see there are more men than what he saw at tooltip.

However there can be a new town project maybe reducing men loss ratio while entering a town castle under siege. However still same problem when you enter settlement AI will realize that attacker / defender ratio is changed so much and they will give up siege.

Only way is making AI a bit dumb for player only so they will count player strength as 20% of its real value and they will enter a siege battle even they will lose it. If players are ok we can do this.

 

[Kut]

Too much accurate/real time intel for medieval times.. Maybe, only for sieges, blurred or delayed intel can help ?

If player will be always wins in those situations, then it is a slaughter, not battle. It will be not fun with this way imo.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

In missions there is nearly no defensive advantage currently they are like field battle (biggest negative of Bannerlord imo, should be solved asap but not my part) but when Bannerlord is finished there should be at least 2X defensive advantage at also missions (I do not know how this will be achieved I hope it will be solved).

I believe anything else but working on this is a bit of a waste of time..., in my opinion.

 

[vonbalt]

What do you suggest?

don't know if you have played Viking Conquest Mexxico, in it when you besieged some place there were many immersive options of how to conduct the siege like burning nearby crops, poisoning the well, foraging and the most important encirclement.

Without building encirclement the garrison would make your army's life a living hell conducting guerrilla assaults and grind your guys over time, if you didn't had a strong enough force to stand the assaults it could force you to lift the siege.

Now knowing that and allthough i prefeer the full range of features VC had for sieges i'll keep simple and suggest, what if you had a new siege option for building encirclement after the siege preparation, without it any enemy armies or single lords could pass right through the besiegers and join the garrison without any losses, with the encirclement built they would need to force their way through as it is now and take some loses if they want to join the garrison in defending the walls.

It wouldn't be as deep as the immersive siege options of VC but would give the defenders a better chance, specially if the AI would consider this like: A relief force arrives, no encirclement? good i'll join the garrison / encirclement built? i'll wait outside until our numbers are enough to overwhelm the besiegers like they do right now.

The besieging AI would calculate if they could afford the time to build an encirclement or if would be best to conduct the siege faster and try to storm the walls before any relief force could arrive.

With this i think it would help the players to experience more defensive sieges too, with the current loss numbers (and defensive AI being really bad) it's almost never worth it to break into the besieged settlement to help the garrison, you lose too many good troops for that.

 

[madnessario]

don't know if you have played Viking Conquest Mexxico, in it when you besieged some place there were many immersive options of how to conduct the siege like burning nearby crops, poisoning the well, foraging and the most important encirclement.

Without building encirclement the garrison would make your army's life a living hell conducting guerrilla assaults and grind your guys over time, if you didn't had a strong enough force to stand the assaults it could force you to lift the siege.

Now knowing that and allthough i prefeer the full range of features VC had for sieges i'll keep simple and suggest, what if you had a new siege option for building encirclement after the siege preparation, without it any enemy armies or single lords could pass right through the besiegers and join the garrison without any losses, with the encirclement built they would need to force their way through as it is now and take some loses if they want to join the garrison in defending the walls.

It wouldn't be as deep as the immersive siege options of VC but would give the defenders a better chance, specially if the AI would consider this like: A relief force arrives, no encirclement? good i'll join the garrison / encirclement built? i'll wait outside until our numbers are enough to overwhelm the besiegers like they do right now.

The besieging AI would calculate if they could afford the time to build an encirclement or if would be best to conduct the siege faster and try to storm the walls before any relief force could arrive.

With this i think it would help the players to experience more defensive sieges too, with the current loss numbers (and defensive AI being really bad) it's almost never worth it to break into the besieged settlement to help the garrison, you lose too many good troops for that.

I agree with most of these in terms of future additions (also, when the siege camp is not ready yet you should be able to enter - in this case the complete camp is the full encirclement that you propose) but this does not solve the problem. The problem lies with the fact that the AI will abandon the siege if the ratio is less than 3:1 (ignoring the quality here) because as mexxico noted the defender advantage is x3-x4 in the simulations. There is no easy/fair solution to this!

As I have never managed to do a defensive siege so far, does the simulated advantage translate to the same advantage in an actual siege (player involved, even if he does nothing)? If the AI performs worse/better then perhaps there could be a case where the AI can treat these sieges differently (only for the player) in terms of troop strength.

 

[Ragemaster9999]

I want to be able to defend a castle in a fight where its not utterly hopeless. Please make ai more willing to attack if player party is stationed there.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

don't know if you have played Viking Conquest Mexxico, in it when you besieged some place there were many immersive options of how to conduct the siege like burning nearby crops, poisoning the well, foraging and the most important encirclement.

Without building encirclement the garrison would make your army's life a living hell conducting guerrilla assaults and grind your guys over time, if you didn't had a strong enough force to stand the assaults it could force you to lift the siege.

Now knowing that and allthough i prefeer the full range of features VC had for sieges i'll keep simple and suggest, what if you had a new siege option for building encirclement after the siege preparation, without it any enemy armies or single lords could pass right through the besiegers and join the garrison without any losses, with the encirclement built they would need to force their way through as it is now and take some loses if they want to join the garrison in defending the walls.

It wouldn't be as deep as the immersive siege options of VC but would give the defenders a better chance, specially if the AI would consider this like: A relief force arrives, no encirclement? good i'll join the garrison / encirclement built? i'll wait outside until our numbers are enough to overwhelm the besiegers like they do right now.

The besieging AI would calculate if they could afford the time to build an encirclement or if would be best to conduct the siege faster and try to storm the walls before any relief force could arrive.

With this i think it would help the players to experience more defensive sieges too, with the current loss numbers (and defensive AI being really bad) it's almost never worth it to break into the besieged settlement to help the garrison, you lose too many good troops for that.

This.

Also maybe during the period before encirclement is built you could let AI lords go into castles to defend since they will receive no loses. You wouldn't be able to cheese them then by disbanding the siege.


@mexxico as far as letting the players defend, lets go with B at least for now while we have bad in mission sieges (with no promise of improvements soon). seems like an easy enough adjustment later if it ever gets fixed. I think the penalty is fine, but I do wish there was that grace period that the player and AI could get in for free if close enough.

 

[vonbalt]

As I have never managed to do a defensive siege so far, does the simulated advantage translate to the same advantage in an actual siege (player involved, even if he does nothing)? If the AI performs worse/better then perhaps there could be a case where the AI can treat these sieges differently (only for the player) in terms of troop strength.

Nope, defenses are terrible right now because of the defender AI, the best strategy is to just select everyone and tell them to charge after opening the gate yourself, they'll kill 10x more doing this than just holding the choke points, if the AI gets more competent at defending i guess the simulated advantage will translate to actual siege advantage but currently it isn't the case.

 

[Apocal]

Only way is making AI a bit dumb for player only so they will count player strength as 20% of its real value and they will enter a siege battle even they will lose it. If players are ok we can do this.

Do it. It was like that in Warband.

 

[Shun]

What do you suggest?

A- Reducing break in penalty so player loses less men while entering to a castle/town?

B- AI to count player as 15% - 25% strength instead of 50% if he is inside a settlement.

Additional info : Currently player is counted as half strength already we added it 1.5.x to allow player to experience siege defence but it seems this was not enough. So if there is 200 men player party inside a settlement AI already count player party as 100 men (50% rule). When player enters a settlement attacker / defender ratio changes and AI usually give up. Sometimes they do not give up. However normally AI do not siege if they have no good ratio than 3x normally, because they cannot start a siege which they cannot win on paper (simulations have 3-4x defender advantage). So lets assume you are inside a castle with 200 garrison and if your party is 200 men also attacker AI should be at least 900 men to attack - actually strength ratio is important, so your troop tiers is important but I am simplifying.

However real problem is you think 200 garrison + 200 player party as defenders vs 600 attackers is good ratio for attackers however simulations are not working like this. In missions there is nearly no defensive advantage currently they are like field battle (biggest negative of Bannerlord imo, should be solved asap but not my part) but when Bannerlord is finished there should be at least 2X defensive advantage at also missions (I do not know how this will be achieved I hope it will be solved). So AI think that they cannot win that siege thats why they are giving up when you enter it or they continue building siege machines outside to reduce this 3-4X defensive advantage (more equipments means worse defensive advantage at similations).

Only way is making AI a bit dumb for player only so they will count player strength as 20% of its real value and they will enter a siege battle even they will lose it. If players are ok we can do this.

I am strongly in favor of A - it carries an interesting trade-off choice for the player, weakening their army for the chance to defend an (maybe important settlement). It's also the logically consistent option - there is a siege going on, it's not easy to get into the castle.

Option B would rely on changing the AI for it to make bad decisions. The army/ strategic part of the AI is already a fickle beast - though much better now than earlier in BL's EA phase. It should definitly not be made to make bad decisions. It's crucially important that the AI knows if they can realistically win a battle. Making them ignore forces clearly present is frustrating for the player and breaks the immersion.

 

[babelfisch]

What do you suggest?

A- Reducing break in penalty so player loses less men while entering to a castle/town?

B- AI to count player as 15% - 25% strength instead of 50% if he is inside a settlement.

Additional info : Currently player is counted as half strength already we added it 1.5.x to allow player to experience siege defence but it seems this was not enough. So if there is 200 men player party inside a settlement AI already count player party as 100 men (50% rule). When player enters a settlement attacker / defender ratio changes and AI usually give up. Sometimes they do not give up. However normally AI do not siege if they have no good ratio than 3x normally, because they cannot start a siege which they cannot win on paper (simulations have 3-4x defender advantage). So lets assume you are inside a castle with 200 garrison and if your party is 200 men also attacker AI should be at least 900 men to attack - actually strength ratio is important, so your troop tiers is important but I am simplifying.

However real problem is you think 200 garrison + 200 player party as defenders vs 600 attackers is good ratio for attackers however simulations are not working like this. In missions there is nearly no defensive advantage currently they are like field battle (biggest negative of Bannerlord imo, should be solved asap but not my part) but when Bannerlord is finished there should be at least 2X defensive advantage at also missions (I do not know how this will be achieved I hope it will be solved). So AI think that they cannot win that siege thats why they are giving up when you enter it or they continue building siege machines outside to reduce this 3-4X defensive advantage (more equipments means worse defensive advantage at similations).

Can you add some randomness to AI decisions?
For example: Multiply troop strength by random number between 0.5 - 1.5 for decision making. With this addition the AI would sometimes attack even though they are outnumbered.
Humans don't always act predictable and as long as the randomness only has a small effect it doesn't become chaotic / illogical. If people would only fight the wars they will win there wouldn't be any wars because everyone else surrenders....

 

[a_ver_est]

For me it is fine that the AI attack just when it guess that will win, the problem is that the final result of the battle is almost all the times the expected one and those is something that in real world never happens. You know the famous phrase "no plan survives contact with enemy", but it doesn't seems the case in BL.

So the siege should have some events that makes things harder unexpectedly, like the ram being broken, the siege tower getting stuck in mod, etc Also I think that castles gates should be harder to break, right now it just a matter of time to break the doors and rush the troops against the shield wall that will be overwhelm all times. The AI should use oil, rock, etc effectively to make the entrance really deadly.

So predict the final result should be really harder like it is in real live.

 

[babelfisch]

For me it is fine that the AI attack just when it guess that will win, the problem is that the final result of the battle is almost all the times the expected one and those is something that in real world never happens. You know the famous phrase "no plan survives contact with enemy", but it doesn't seems the case in BL.

So the siege should have some events that makes things harder unexpectedly, like the ram being broken, the siege tower getting stuck in mod, etc Also I think that castles gates should be harder to break, right now it just a matter of time to break the doors and rush the troops against the shield wall that will be overwhelm all times. The AI should use oil, rock, etc effectively to make the entrance really deadly.

So predict the final result should be really harder like it is in real live.

Has anyone tested how auto calculation works? If you save the game, simulate a battle, reload and simulate again, do you always get the same results?
If yes, they clearly need to add a bit of randomness like up to +-20%.

 

[a_ver_est]

Has anyone tested how auto calculation works? If you save the game, simulate a battle, reload and simulate again, do you always get the same results?
If yes, they clearly need to add a bit of randomness like up to +-20%.

Sometimes the AI miss the calculation and lose the siege in autoresolve, but I was refering specificaly those battles where the player is involve, sorry if I haven't been clear enough.

 

[mexxico]

For me it is fine that the AI attack just when it guess that will win, the problem is that the final result of the battle is almost all the times the expected one and those is something that in real world never happens. You know the famous phrase "no plan survives contact with enemy", but it doesn't seems the case in BL.

So the siege should have some events that makes things harder unexpectedly, like the ram being broken, the siege tower getting stuck in mod, etc Also I think that castles gates should be harder to break, right now it just a matter of time to break the doors and rush the troops against the shield wall that will be overwhelm all times. The AI should use oil, rock, etc effectively to make the entrance really deadly.

So predict the final result should be really harder like it is in real live.

You are right. I did not code these parts but I really want a hidden random factor inside all simulations. So probability of having unexpected results should be higher especially at sieges.

Ok I added below addition and will try to send it with a hotfix (will not be at today's one) It will add a additional 0.7x constant to all parties strengths which is currently at player's settlement. So player party strength will be counted as 0.35x instead of 0.5x and others will be counted as 0.7x instead of x.

Spoiler: PlayerIsInside 0.7 constant addition

I read other detailed ideas too will answer them later today.

 

[babelfisch]

Sometimes the AI miss the calculation and lose the siege in autoresolve, but I was refering specificaly those battles where the player is involve, sorry if I haven't been clear enough.

So you are not talking about simulation but about the mission side of things, correct?
In that case randomness should only exist by chaos of battle. So for example, your siege weapons target the walls with enemy archers, the wall collapses and lots of enemy troops die, giving you a big advantage. That kind of thing?

 

[a_ver_est]

So you are not talking about simulation but about the mission side of things, correct?
In that case randomness should only exist by chaos of battle. So for example, your siege weapons target the walls with enemy archers, the wall collapses and lots of enemy troops die, giving you a big advantage. That kind of thing?

Yes, such kind of things... which turns the battle into something unexpected suddenly, but of course as you and mexxico said it would make sense have those events represented in simulations also in some way.

 

[VonCarstein]

You are right. I did not code these parts but I really want a hidden random factor inside all simulations. So probability of having unexpected results should be higher especially at sieges.

Ok I added below addition and will try to send it with a hotfix (will not be at today's one) It will add a additional 0.7x constant to all parties strengths which is currently at player's settlement. So player party strength will be counted as 0.35x instead of 0.5x and others will be counted as 0.7x instead of x.

Spoiler: PlayerIsInside 0.7 constant addition

I read other detailed ideas too will answer them later today.

These kind of things make us feel that we are involved in bannerlord's development. Thank you mexxico for all of your efforts and good vibes