Would Total War-esque battles improve performance?

[Svang]

There is no denying most battles in Bannerlord get kind of blobby. There is limited strategy and most armies are composed of only 4 unit groups or so. Instead of dividing the infantry into several units of differing purposes, the AI will simply throw them all into a blob hoping for the best. Besides looking horrible, a large concentration of units tend to be heavy on computer hardware, whereas having them spread out along the battlefield tends to relieve much of this problem.

My question is: If battle AI followed a more Total War inspired strategy, would blobbiness be reduced and therefore performance increased?

 

[R4MPZY]

As someone that played every single TW since Shogun, how is TW any different?

Use archers untill they get too close, send in infantry which becomes a blob, flank with cav.

 

[paladinx333]

Battles in TW are pretty "blobby" too. At some point you need to tell your infantry to charge and a scrum ensues.

 

[Pejot]

Battles in TW seems longer and more epic cause You have more troops and bigger maps. You have more time to use tactics and that's all.
I like the series played everything since first Shogun Total War (except Warhammer ones cause o don't like the setting).
Battles have it's pros and cons same as world map movement etc. Not really best title to compare M&B cause of differences in how You play it.
M&B always lacked soldiers as one unit behaviour and TW always lacked individualism.

 

[Maximum997]

Fighting in BL is cool
But battles are horrible.

Moshpits with some random weird movement.

 

[vota dc]

In total war the single soldier just has personal hp and damage but the squad matters.
In bannerlord Is a single entity with even personal morale that can flee away the formation and has a personal pathway when not moving in formation, choose which enemy to target and in siege when you say to charge can go on the ladder, on siege tower and against the gate. This make matters very difficult if you want a coordinated army.

 

[Saint Jiub]

they are blobby in the sense that their formation loses coherence which is fine. they aren't blobby in the mount & blade sense that they like to pack a few square feet so densely that sometimes units can't even damage each other for being to close.

In total war i believe the combat we see is mostly aesthetic, animations represent already resolved simulated attacks, not a physical simulation, so this problem isn't possible. worst case is some ugly clipping, or animations that don't align. it's really not a good comparison.

units in m&b are unaware of the space needed for their own weapons, no respect for even their allies need for space to operate, no concept of friendly fire. how much of this is possible to do without destroying everyones cpu's? I have no clue, but maybe some of it could be faked well enough.

one thing that might help is that it is okay to have units in the back ranks doing nothing, unlike how now charge results in a disorganized mess, and formations collapse on contact with opponents. deep ranks were noted to boost morale heavily, thinner formations might have maximized your active combatants, but broke very easily. they could relieve exhausted or wounded allies and they also provided protection in case of a flank.

 

[mr_nifty]

they are blobby in the sense that their formation loses coherence which is fine. they aren't blobby in the mount & blade sense that they like to pack a few square feet so densely that sometimes units can't even damage each other for being to close.

In total war i believe the combat we see is mostly aesthetic, animations represent already resolved simulated attacks, not a physical simulation, so this problem isn't possible. worst case is some ugly clipping, or animations that don't align. it's really not a good comparison.

units in m&b are unaware of the space needed for their own weapons, no respect for even their allies need for space to operate, no concept of friendly fire. how much of this is possible to do without destroying everyones cpu's? I have no clue, but maybe some of it could be faked well enough.

one thing that might help is that it is okay to have units in the back ranks doing nothing, unlike how now charge results in a disorganized mess, and formations collapse on contact with opponents. deep ranks were noted to boost morale heavily, thinner formations might have maximized your active combatants, but broke very easily. they could relieve exhausted or wounded allies and they also provided protection in case of a flank.

I've been thinking if they can just make the AI in general better at blocking and using shields, while also making them more cautious once engaged with the enemy in melee, as to not die and not break formation too severely or run in different directions leaving troops behind. Also make the AI keep minimum distances to enemies as well as friends and not to face-hug.

Make units able to instantly know the reach of each allies weapon that is in use within a proximity of say 2 meters, and keep out of that range automatically, to not block friendly attacks. Make them aware of close by enemies weapon range (especially its target) and make the AI stay out of that reach. Make ranged (if they aren't already) able to distinguish friend and foe while aiming and avoid shooting allies. I think they kind of do it but I am not sure.

Improve the shieldwall command to prioritize units with shields. Improve infantry efficiency with spears versus cavalry.

 

[NordicWill]

BL needs more focus on shield wall and a "maintaining the line" style charge. I know you can do it but the AI doesn't and it doesn't feel very default like. Like diplomacy, tactics need to be implemented. I want more rows of fighting with Calvary flanking or used to crush the center. So to fix that have the ability to tell which unit orders on what other unit to attack. That and directional charge command. Not just a all out charge but charge over "here". Again I know we can do some of this but you really can't because the AI doesn't fight with my thought.

 

[Sithrain]

Make units able to instantly know the reach of each allies weapon that is in use within a proximity of say 2 meters, and keep out of that range automatically, to not block friendly attacks. Make them aware of close by enemies weapon range (especially its target) and make the AI stay out of that reach. Make ranged (if they aren't already) able to distinguish friend and foe while aiming and avoid shooting allies. I think they kind of do it but I am not sure.

I'm no expert on programming but that sounds very cpu intensive. Remember it has to be done for each of 500 or 1000 men, and done repeatedly to keep up with all of them moving around. Total war has units move in relation to each other by picking a central point for each unit and then having units interact based on where that is. This becomes pretty transparent when units get split up routing and you're trying to chase them down. It works for Total War because there's a maximum of 80 units in play at any given time, they are just represented by many more figures. M&B requires each unit on the field to be capable of fighting individually, so it's a much different beast.

 

[archaicwarrior]

IN THE REAL WORLD, organised troops would try to keep formation until disorganisation takes control. Thus a Pikeman would position himself in regards to the people around him, especially to his front. Cpu wouldn't need alot of processing power for such soldiers, I would guess ??

Also, have you noticed how formations FACE the closest enemy .. ie Your archer line and Infantry line turn to face a single horse archer ,who is charging your cav. .. .annoying

 

[Gambles]

As someone that played every single TW since Shogun, how is TW any different?

Use archers untill they get too close, send in infantry which becomes a blob, flank with cav.

TW series is way different. Especially when you get to the Very Hard / Legendary difficulties or go online. Flanking with fast units is a must, keeping your units spread out is imperative to avoid archer and artillery fire. Deployment alone can be like.... 50% of winning a match sometimes especially in the Warhammer universe where factions vary greatly and you have things like flying units and such. The point is that the game allows you those fine tuned commands to target certain units with certain other units, divide troops easily while in game, and generally is just much more strategic on a competitive level. (not even mentioning things like Moral, which make surrounding enemies and hard flanks imperative)

I would hardly even put bannerlord and total war in the same genre, ones a clear cut strategy game and the other is... well somewhat of a battle simulation thing, f1-f3 simulation.

 

[R4MPZY]

TW series is way different. Especially when you get to the Very Hard / Legendary difficulties or go online. Flanking with fast units is a must, keeping your units spread out is imperative to avoid archer and artillery fire. Deployment alone can be like.... 50% of winning a match sometimes especially in the Warhammer universe where factions vary greatly and you have things like flying units and such. The point is that the game allows you those fine tuned commands to target certain units with certain other units, divide troops easily while in game, and generally is just much more strategic on a competitive level. (not even mentioning things like Moral, which make surrounding enemies and hard flanks imperative)

I would hardly even put bannerlord and total war in the same genre, ones a clear cut strategy game and the other is... well somewhat of a battle simulation thing, f1-f3 simulation.

In bannerlord you have shield walls that actually work ( the irony ) as opposed to TW:Warhammer where archers always do damage, shields or no shields. So no reason to spread out, in fact it is imperative to stick close and raise shields.

Monsters are hardly a factor in bannerlord to consider. But yes commands are more tuned but well, TW is a strategy game first and foremost, bannerlord is an action game with strategic elements for sure, but its no where near comparable though.

 

[stevehoos]

In bannerlord you have shield walls that actually work ( the irony ) as opposed to TW:Warhammer where archers always do damage, shields or no shields. So no reason to spread out, in fact it is imperative to stick close and raise shields.

Monsters are hardly a factor in bannerlord to consider. But yes commands are more tuned but well, TW is a strategy game first and foremost, bannerlord is an action game with strategic elements for sure, but its no where near comparable though.

Shield walls work in Bannerlord? Hum......

 

[wtid]

i would like to see something like total war for example 5 men represent 1 squad like totalwar with this we can have less problem on colliosn , strategy , fps etc. and also it means bigger battles since 5 men represent 1 man-squad. i hope you guys understand . in totalwar squads have static animations while engaging. not like 1man vs 1man its actual squad vs squad but animations feels like 1man vs 1 man.

 

[NordicWill]

In bannerlord you have shield walls that actually work ( the irony ) a

What?! infantry without shields would line up in the front row. Unless meat shield was the wall you wanted lol. The AI never uses SW. SW walls break off the minute the opposing army is in swinging distance.

 

[kweassa]

As someone that played every single TW since Shogun, how is TW any different?

Use archers untill they get too close, send in infantry which becomes a blob, flank with cav.

The difference is mostly with how in Total War the basic unit of the army is.. we.. .the "unit." All of the individual soldiers have their own actions and HP, but still they will always perform as a unit in formation, until they are broken and routed.

In comparison, the base unit in Mount and Blade is the individual, and their actions aren't properly governed by formations. So in combat, the AI of the individual soldier has no concept of mutual assistance and cohesion within the formation, so the fights happen like a big gang-brawl of amateurs who break formation and just madly pile up on each other... and this usually ends up in fights ending very quickly despite it being large-scale.

 

[110951667]

I think there are some changes that can be done to make the battle actually enjoyable:
1) The AI's battle groups(Infantry, Archer, Cavalry, Horse Archer) are binded with the player's. So if player reassign the battle group of a type of unit, for example the Imperial Recruit, then AI's battle group setting got changed as well. This should be changed in order to make them two isolated system, so that whatever player do, the AI's FG setting stick with the vanilla.
2) In current game you need to press F7 to split a FG which is not very user friendly. I think it would be better to turn the default FG flags(I, II, III...) into a funtion that no longer links to a specific type as Infantry, Ranged, Cavalry... but only links to the hotkey, then add a new tab to the UI right under the vanilla FG flags where you can decide a unit's type(Infantry, Ranged, Cavalry...). By doing this, also make it possible to add more troop types to the game to support more tactic options;
3) I know the devs are going to rework the perk trees of skills, but I have something in mind and would like share it. I think some battle command should not be available by default unless they were unlocked from the Tactic Perk tree. The concept is below:
Shield Wall --> Skirmish --> Skein
Square Circle
As you can see, it let players to choose between Shield Wall/Square and Skein/Circle, and I think it would be nice if let these perks to boost the simulation strength for Infantry as well. Btw, Square and Circle should not automaticly turn itself;
And it adds a Skirmish command for the player to allow the Skirmish performed as if Sergent in Charge but without having them to closing in towards the enemy. The command hotkey for this unlockable perk, can be F4+F2, while making the toggle of Fire At Will to be F4+F1. This perk shall also add simulation strength for Ranged;
4) Add a perk in Tactic perk tree that increase how many FGs a party leader can command, and always force the AI party leader to split as evenly as possible the Infantry, Cavalry and Horse Archers as long as they exceeded a certain amount(if Infantry >=60, split into 3; if Intrantry >=30 & < 60, split into 2; if Cavalry>20, split into 2; Horse Archer do same as the Cavalry).
5) Middle Click the mouse to change the facing direction of the selected battle formation;
6) If ordering troops to form a Circle formation when 2 different FG were selected, put one FG in outter ring and the other in inner ring, issue this command again to switch these 2 FGs' position. A similar logic shall be added for Square and Line Formation as well;
7) When a FG was selected, scoll the middle button to increase or decrease the width of this FG. Same goes when multiple FGs were selected;
8 ) Add a new troop type called Polearm, a footmen formation that AI can have unshielded polearm soldier assigned to. And another new troop type called Shooking Troop, that AI can put greataxe warrior or Falxmen into. This change will allow both AI and Player to make 6) into a good use, providing more protection to these living targets.
9) Add a Shield Up command for FGs that is not in Shield Wall formation. So that units with a shield could better protect themselves even with out forming this formation.
10) Remove some unnessacery command from the game like the "Column".

Edit: These changes will mainly enhance the footmen's performance in the battle, while the cavalry/horse archer in M&B is already better than Total War, so no need to worry about them.

 

[R4MPZY]

Shield walls work in Bannerlord? Hum......

Yes, shields actually block arrows, in TW every unit simply has a HP pool that gets damaged regardless of wielding shields or not.

What?! infantry without shields would line up in the front row. Unless meat shield was the wall you wanted lol. The AI never uses SW. SW walls break off the minute the opposing army is in swinging distance.

You should really read the line behind that quote and it would make more sense, hence why i said "the irony".

The difference is mostly with how in Total War the basic unit of the army is.. we.. .the "unit." All of the individual soldiers have their own actions and HP, but still they will always perform as a unit in formation, until they are broken and routed.

In comparison, the base unit in Mount and Blade is the individual, and their actions aren't properly governed by formations. So in combat, the AI of the individual soldier has no concept of mutual assistance and cohesion within the formation, so the fights happen like a big gang-brawl of amateurs who break formation and just madly pile up on each other... and this usually ends up in fights ending very quickly despite it being large-scale.

Depends which TW you are using as a reference though. Medieval 2 total war was one of the biggest blob battles ever, no tactics needed and fights would last 30 min if not longer in some ( mostly siege ) cases.

 

[mserhatbalik]

I think the day TW integrates a bird eye view and control to the troops, this game will be taken to another level.