(With Dev Replies) Development Now Feels Slower than Ever ... Do I Detect Another Code Refactor?

Users who are viewing this thread

Refactors happen all the time and are a continuous part of most projects.
Refactoring can only be a continous part of a project if it takes like a decade to complete, and by "complete" I mean... :smile:
But otherwise, this statement is outright ridiculous. If you have to refactor something, then someone needs to explain why all the previous effort was wasted. Not saying this never happens, but when it does it is a consequence of poor (or in BL's case, seemingly no) design.
 
Refactoring can only be a continous part of a project if it takes like a decade to complete, and by "complete" I mean... :smile:
But otherwise, this statement is outright ridiculous. If you have to refactor something, then someone needs to explain why all the previous effort was wasted. Not saying this never happens, but when it does it is a consequence of poor (or in BL's case, seemingly no) design.
It's not ridiculous at all. If a project is in development hell for years, it's certain that the design changes over time, and parts of the code need to be rewritten to accommodate this. And then there is also the poorly written code from interns that left.
Why did the design change and who let those interns write production code? It doesn't really matter now and Duh and others are dealing with what they got.
 
It's not ridiculous at all. If a project is in development hell for years, it's certain that the design changes over time, and parts of the code need to be rewritten to accommodate this. And then there is also the poorly written code from interns that left.
Why did the design change and who let those interns write production code? It doesn't really matter now and Duh and others are dealing with what they got.
Thank you for validating everything I said by beginning with "If a project is in development hell for years" for that is exactly what I am talking about. It is a development hell and that is always an indicator of bad design. And it is outight ridiculous to suggest that this is the case with "most projects." Please note that by "design" I am referring to software design and not product design (or game design in this context.) Also note that if your requirements (game design) change and you need to change the code accordingly, that is not code refactoring. It just means that you messed up at the previous stage, which is analysis; and you need to re-design and re-implement.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for validating everything I said by beginning with "If a project is in development hell for years" for that is exactly what I am talking about. It is a development hell and that is always an indicator of bad design. And it is outight ridiculous to suggest that this is the case with "most projects." Please note that by "design" I am referring to software design and not product design (or game design in this context.) Also note that if your requirements (game design) change and you need to change the code accordingly, that is not code refactoring.

What would you attribute the cause(s) of bugs being introduced to working systems or in some cases reintroduced? It feels like they're spinning round and round, going nowhere.
 
What would you attribute the cause(s) of bugs being introduced to working systems or in some cases reintroduced? It feels like they're spinning round and round, going nowhere.
The simple answer is lack of testing. Normally, for a well-tested product (which is most often the case), if you change something that negatively affects the rest of the system your tests start failing and you see what you broke and how you broke them. Therefore, a well-tested system will not have as many bugs introduced when adding functionality or changing things otherwise.

In the particular case of reintroducing old bugs, the root cause is lack of Regression Testing. The way we verify that bugs are "fixed" is writing test cases for each fix which are called "regression tests." They not only verify the fix but pretty much guarantee that certain bugs do not revive as they will be caught by the test cases if they reappear.
 

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
having mounted captains stay behind infantry or archer groups during the advance and charge commands?
Still we can @Dejan to add it to the community suggestion tracker :smile:
Oh, I thought it was already being worked on, if we must @Dejan I should elaborate: Players want to have thier captains mounted (for protection) and have them lead groups who are on foot (to give them perk bonuses) and to stay behind these groups during advance and charge. Currently the mounted captain will charge or advance alone, ahead of the group and be put in great risk of being defeated (or killed). This has been a common complaint for a long time, I though it was already being worked on.
The underlying issue of captains on horses charging or advancing alone ahead of their formation has been brought up internally in a suggestion meeting before. It was noted then that this is not the desired behaviour and that we should resolve it with AI. At the moment, we already have a system in place which makes troops from the same formation charge together.

I recorded this video on e1.5.10 as an example of this behaviour (the mounted companion has a speed limit of the on-foot units in the formation):

But this system is voided if the cohesion of the formation is lost and they're told to charge. For example, if an individual troop is far from the intended spot in the formation at the time of the "Charge" order due to moving with his formation from point A to point B, then this troop will be considered "out of cohesion" and not given the speed limit of the formation and as such charge normally. This is not the final AI behaviour and we intend to make further improvements to this system.

In either case, your suggestion adds on top of this behaviour by making the hero stay behind the formation and not in the middle of it. I'll bring it to the suggestion meeting.
 
The underlying issue of captains on horses charging or advancing alone ahead of their formation has been brought up internally in a suggestion meeting before. It was noted then that this is not the desired behaviour and that we should resolve it with AI. At the moment, we already have a system in place which makes troops from the same formation charge together.

I recorded this video on e1.5.10 as an example of this behaviour (the mounted companion has a speed limit of the on-foot units in the formation):

But this system is voided if the cohesion of the formation is lost and they're told to charge. For example, if an individual troop is far from the intended spot in the formation at the time of the "Charge" order due to moving with his formation from point A to point B, then this troop will be considered "out of cohesion" and not given the speed limit of the formation and as such charge normally. This is not the final AI behaviour and we intend to make further improvements to this system.

In either case, your suggestion adds on top of this behaviour by making the hero stay behind the formation and not in the middle of it. I'll bring it to the suggestion meeting.

Yes, behind is optimal. Also, the charge order should not apply to them to the extent that they go gallivanting off on their own.

On the whole, if charge is not meant to be done in formation, then there ought to be an order to do just that because advance sometimes causes them to fall back or at least, keep their distance.

I'm not exactly sure what they do during an "Advance" but they're certainly not moving forwards 100% of the time.
 
@Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds I appreciate you folks weighing in and providing feedback, I don't want to assume anything, but it's nice seeing it despite a lot of hostility and brigading that is done here.

I wanted to ask some questions regarding formations and troop ordering outside of Order of Battle, some are points of clarification.

1. I have read on the forums that when you delegate command, a lot of more specialized battle tactics are locked behind a Tactics skill. Is this true? I tried to see this for myself by delegating command at 275 Tactics versus 1, and I noticed text such as "Horse archers are doing hit and run" and "Archers are shooting behind infantry screen" at the higher levels. If this is True, can we have Tooltips or text added to specific levels or the overall description of the Tactics skill?

2. Related to #1, is there plans to expand the formation & troop orders to allow the player to use these? I am very interested in ordering my cavalry to protect the Flanks or have my Horse Archers / Skirmishers perform Hit-and-Run tactics to bait enemy formations into charging me.

3. Are there plans to include Encyclopedia entries about the AI Profiles/Troop Formations, formation types, order types, etc.? I feel the systems are much more complex and I learn new things all the time about them, having a place to read more about it would be great. E.g., it would be great to know Advance vs Charge, what happens in Fallback vs Retreat, what the target prioritization for Skirmisher vs Light Cav vs Cav is, etc.

4. Are there plans to expand the Troop Formations and their AI behaviors? I made a few suggestions related to the UX of these (Light Cav, Skirmishers) and based on responses from @MRay (tagging you here just in case I am misrepresenting what you meant) and it doesn't seem like there are plans for these right now. I think it would add a lot of flavor, even just getting some Voice Acting and in-battle icons for these would be helpful.

5. Are there any plans to allow us to select the initial deployment composition for Sieges and field Battles when Order of Battle is ready for production? Right now it's a random sampling of what % of Infantry/Archer/HA/Cav gets spawned in which can be detrimental depending on the Army I am facing.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can provide!
 

five bucks

Squire
The underlying issue of captains on horses charging or advancing alone ahead of their formation has been brought up internally in a suggestion meeting before. It was noted then that this is not the desired behaviour and that we should resolve it with AI. At the moment, we already have a system in place which makes troops from the same formation charge together.

I recorded this video on e1.5.10 as an example of this behaviour (the mounted companion has a speed limit of the on-foot units in the formation):

But this system is voided if the cohesion of the formation is lost and they're told to charge. For example, if an individual troop is far from the intended spot in the formation at the time of the "Charge" order due to moving with his formation from point A to point B, then this troop will be considered "out of cohesion" and not given the speed limit of the formation and as such charge normally. This is not the final AI behaviour and we intend to make further improvements to this system.

In either case, your suggestion adds on top of this behaviour by making the hero stay behind the formation and not in the middle of it. I'll bring it to the suggestion meeting.
Great post and great news! This will be a big factor in helping stop the problem of AI captains dying too often on the battlefield.

The other major factor is armor, even high tier expensive armor, offering terrible protection, which means captains die almost as easily as any other cannon fodder. Armor should not only reduce damage taken more, but also make its wearer more likely to be knocked out rather than die. Is there anything in the works from TW for fixing this long-term problem?
 
Last edited:
The underlying issue of captains on horses charging or advancing alone ahead of their formation has been brought up internally in a suggestion meeting before. It was noted then that this is not the desired behaviour and that we should resolve it with AI. At the moment, we already have a system in place which makes troops from the same formation charge together.

I recorded this video on e1.5.10 as an example of this behaviour (the mounted companion has a speed limit of the on-foot units in the formation):

But this system is voided if the cohesion of the formation is lost and they're told to charge. For example, if an individual troop is far from the intended spot in the formation at the time of the "Charge" order due to moving with his formation from point A to point B, then this troop will be considered "out of cohesion" and not given the speed limit of the formation and as such charge normally. This is not the final AI behaviour and we intend to make further improvements to this system.

In either case, your suggestion adds on top of this behaviour by making the hero stay behind the formation and not in the middle of it. I'll bring it to the suggestion meeting.
Thank you very much for the update on this!

The other major factor is armor, even high tier expensive armor, offering terrible protection, which means captains die almost as easily as any other cannon fodder. Armor should not only reduce damage taken more, but also reduce the chance of being knocked out instead of dying more. Is there anything in the works from TW for fixing this long-term problem?
Second this request! +1
 
Last edited:
@Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds I appreciate you folks weighing in and providing feedback, I don't want to assume anything, but it's nice seeing it despite a lot of hostility and brigading that is done here.

I wanted to ask some questions regarding formations and troop ordering outside of Order of Battle, some are points of clarification.

1. I have read on the forums that when you delegate command, a lot of more specialized battle tactics are locked behind a Tactics skill. Is this true? I tried to see this for myself by delegating command at 275 Tactics versus 1, and I noticed text such as "Horse archers are doing hit and run" and "Archers are shooting behind infantry screen" at the higher levels. If this is True, can we have Tooltips or text added to specific levels or the overall description of the Tactics skill?

2. Related to #1, is there plans to expand the formation & troop orders to allow the player to use these? I am very interested in ordering my cavalry to protect the Flanks or have my Horse Archers / Skirmishers perform Hit-and-Run tactics to bait enemy formations into charging me.

3. Are there plans to include Encyclopedia entries about the AI Profiles/Troop Formations, formation types, order types, etc.? I feel the systems are much more complex and I learn new things all the time about them, having a place to read more about it would be great. E.g., it would be great to know Advance vs Charge, what happens in Fallback vs Retreat, what the target prioritization for Skirmisher vs Light Cav vs Cav is, etc.

4. Are there plans to expand the Troop Formations and their AI behaviors? I made a few suggestions related to the UX of these (Light Cav, Skirmishers) and based on responses from @MRay (tagging you here just in case I am misrepresenting what you meant) and it doesn't seem like there are plans for these right now. I think it would add a lot of flavor, even just getting some Voice Acting and in-battle icons for these would be helpful.

5. Are there any plans to allow us to select the initial deployment composition for Sieges and field Battles when Order of Battle is ready for production? Right now it's a random sampling of what % of Infantry/Archer/HA/Cav gets spawned in which can be detrimental depending on the Army I am facing.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can provide!
+1, would like this information to be visible in the encyclopedia. Still not 100% sure after a year
 

BoBB

@Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds I appreciate you folks weighing in and providing feedback, I don't want to assume anything, but it's nice seeing it despite a lot of hostility and brigading that is done here.

I wanted to ask some questions regarding formations and troop ordering outside of Order of Battle, some are points of clarification.

1. I have read on the forums that when you delegate command, a lot of more specialized battle tactics are locked behind a Tactics skill. Is this true? I tried to see this for myself by delegating command at 275 Tactics versus 1, and I noticed text such as "Horse archers are doing hit and run" and "Archers are shooting behind infantry screen" at the higher levels. If this is True, can we have Tooltips or text added to specific levels or the overall description of the Tactics skill?

2. Related to #1, is there plans to expand the formation & troop orders to allow the player to use these? I am very interested in ordering my cavalry to protect the Flanks or have my Horse Archers / Skirmishers perform Hit-and-Run tactics to bait enemy formations into charging me.

3. Are there plans to include Encyclopedia entries about the AI Profiles/Troop Formations, formation types, order types, etc.? I feel the systems are much more complex and I learn new things all the time about them, having a place to read more about it would be great. E.g., it would be great to know Advance vs Charge, what happens in Fallback vs Retreat, what the target prioritization for Skirmisher vs Light Cav vs Cav is, etc.

4. Are there plans to expand the Troop Formations and their AI behaviors? I made a few suggestions related to the UX of these (Light Cav, Skirmishers) and based on responses from @MRay (tagging you here just in case I am misrepresenting what you meant) and it doesn't seem like there are plans for these right now. I think it would add a lot of flavor, even just getting some Voice Acting and in-battle icons for these would be helpful.

5. Are there any plans to allow us to select the initial deployment composition for Sieges and field Battles when Order of Battle is ready for production? Right now it's a random sampling of what % of Infantry/Archer/HA/Cav gets spawned in which can be detrimental depending on the Army I am facing.

Thanks in advance for any answers you can provide!
Frustration not hostility.
 

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
1. I have read on the forums that when you delegate command, a lot of more specialized battle tactics are locked behind a Tactics skill. Is this true? I tried to see this for myself by delegating command at 275 Tactics versus 1, and I noticed text such as "Horse archers are doing hit and run" and "Archers are shooting behind infantry screen" at the higher levels. If this is True, can we have Tooltips or text added to specific levels or the overall description of the Tactics skill?
That's correct, yes. Similarly, AI lords employ such tactics if the general on their side has a high enough tactics skill. I'll bring up the suggestion to add Tooltips/text which explains this system further during the next suggestion meeting.
2. Related to #1, is there plans to expand the formation & troop orders to allow the player to use these? I am very interested in ordering my cavalry to protect the Flanks or have my Horse Archers / Skirmishers perform Hit-and-Run tactics to bait enemy formations into charging me.
There are currently no plans for this, I'll bring it up in the next suggestion meeting.
3. Are there plans to include Encyclopedia entries about the AI Profiles/Troop Formations, formation types, order types, etc.? I feel the systems are much more complex and I learn new things all the time about them, having a place to read more about it would be great. E.g., it would be great to know Advance vs Charge, what happens in Fallback vs Retreat, what the target prioritization for Skirmisher vs Light Cav vs Cav is, etc.
Same as above ^^ Thank you for your suggestions @LuciusDomitiusAurelianus
In either case, your suggestion adds on top of this behaviour by making the hero stay behind the formation and not in the middle of it. I'll bring it to the suggestion meeting.
Just a note that this was rejected. We didn't feel that this is a good solution since the formation can get flanked from the sides in which case he's left defenseless.
 
Just a note that this was rejected. We didn't feel that this is a good solution since the formation can get flanked from the sides in which case he's left defenseless.

I think it's a given that armies with weaker cavalry will get flanked on both sides because of a few factors:

1. infantry tends to be 1 single formation, range 1 formation, horse archers 1 formation. It's only cavalry that splits into left and right (by the AI via delegated command)

2. Battles are so swift, it's very difficult to control more than 1 of each formation anyway. I've tried putting 2h in a separate group with the intent of using them as shock infantry against the flanks but the battle ends before they even get into position.

3. There's no way to separate soldiers of the same tier into different formations

4. The AI is not smart enough to widen their front by pushing men forward from the 2nd or even 3rd row. In fact, the AI is generally not very good at sticking in formation anyway.

So being flanked is par for the course.

I believe the more appropriate scenario that you ought to consider instead, is when the formation gets overrun on both sides. In which case, I'd posit that the natural response ought to be that the formation falls back and coalesce on the leader, forming a circle or square with the leader in the centre or flee.

The leader being part of the formation would not improve survivability as he or she would inevitably be part of the battle. I believe the general intent is that the leader avoids battle as much as possible, hence behind is preferable.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
That's correct, yes. Similarly, AI lords employ such tactics if the general on their side has a high enough tactics skill. I'll bring up the suggestion to add Tooltips/text which explains this system further during the next suggestion meeting.
Thanks for the info Dejan (y)
Two things.
1. The encyclopedia needs to be taken advantage of as a place to describe things like this to the player. Right now its empty and there are so many complicated features going on in the background and almost impossible for the player to know. I'm sure this has been deemed low priority, but it would go really far in clearing up lots of the confusion for players. The tooltips are helpful but more in-depth explanations in the encyclopedia would go much further.

2. Can you get us the actual tactic number breakdown for new battle tactics unlocked? I'd like to do some research into how many AI lords have access to what type of tactics tier and if over time the lower tier AI lords eventually gain enough skill to unlock the higher tactics orders.
 
Last edited:

Scottx125

Recruit
Just a note that this was rejected. We didn't feel that this is a good solution since the formation can get flanked from the sides in which case he's left defenseless.
True but in the event they don't get flanked, the leader/officer would be by default in a far more protected position. And the out flanking issue could be partially solved by the officer having his own personal guard. Kinda like how in the 18th century flag carriers would be protected by sergeants wielding spontoons.

Or actually make leaders/officers reactive to battlefield situations. If an AI leader see's his formation is being outflanked by infantry, they can command some of the rear reserves to reinforce the flanks. Or if they are being harassed by cavalry, form into a square or have some of the troops at the back of the formation not fighting protect against cavalry whilst the officer moves into the centre.
 

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
2. Can you get us the actual tactic number breakdown for new battle tactics unlocked? I'd like to do some research into how many AI lords have access to what type of tactics tier and if over time the lower tier AI lords eventually gain enough skill to unlock the higher tactics orders.
Sure, I've discussed it with our mission wizard Burak and he was more than happy to oblige. Here's the list but keep in mind that it can change during EA.

no skill/no general hero:

Tactic Charge => everybody charges

general tactic skill 20 unlocks:

Attacking or defending:
Tactic Full Scale Attack => approach enemy in organized fashion and engage in melee, cavalry flanks etc.

Only when attacking:
Tactic Ranged Harrassment => approach to the effective range of our ranged formation and pepper enemy with ranged weapons; utilized in case of missile superiority

Only when defending:
Tactic Defensive Engagement => Choose terrain with advantageous slope to enemy approach and hold defensive position
Tactic Defensive Line => Choose a suitable tactical line(among those marked in scene) such as edge of a forest, side of a hill etc. depending on enemy approach direction and hold defensive line

general tactic skill 50 unlocks:

Attacking or defending:
Tactic Frontal Cavalry Charge => Approach in organized fashion with cavalry in center front, charge with cavalry and engage disorganized enemy with infantry and ranged; utilized in case of cavalry superiority/cavalry based army

Only when attacking:
Tactic Coordinated Retreat => Try to retreat to mission border in organized fashion before running away instead of being routed in case of a battle went wrong

Only when defending:
Tactic Defensive Ring => Choose a suitable position(among regions marked in scene) that can impede enemy cavalry movement such as in woods or swamp or difficult terrain and form infantry ring around ranged and hold; utilized in case of suitable numbers of infantry, ranged and enemy cavalry superiority
Tactic Hold Choke Point => Choose a suitable choke point(among positions marked in scene) and try to keep enemy confined to one side of it, depending on terrain, allowing ranged to take higher positions such as cliffs and riverbanks(among such marked in scene) not directly behind infantry cover, expecting the infantry to bar enemy reaching them; utilized in case of numerical disadvantage.
 
Top Bottom