Tactics is a weird skill

[Very serious person]

Given that its main benefits affect simulation outcomes, one could say that it is a skill that helps you avoid gameplay. I have no issue against skipping certain gameplay, like autoresolving looter and bandit fights when you have a massive party already. Still I would prefer this simulations ran well without the need of tactics, and the skill having a much more active role in real battles.

Just commenting, not complaining as I don't really have any specific idea on how could this happen. There have been stuff like ambushes in some warband Dlcs and mods so there is a start. Now that there's a deployment system maybe this makes more sense.

[an entire Roman legion]

I'm pretty sure "simulation" also means the played-out battle.

edit:

because all the captain-skills also talk about "... in simulations, soldiers deal X more damage"

[Aven]

Originally posted by Albob:

I'm pretty sure "simulation" also means the played-out battle.

edit:

because all the captain-skills also talk about "... in simulations, soldiers deal X more damage"

Perks that reference "simulation" are Party Leader perks, not captain perks, and the perks only apply when auto-resolving.

[AfLIcTeD]

They should definitely overhaul the tactics skill to affect player battles. Could be something simple like unlocking the more advanced tactics in battles and delegate/AI controlled would perform better as tactics increased.

[titanopteryx]

Tactics is a skill you want your party leaders and caravan leaders to have. All their fights are simulated unless you join in yourself.

[GIJoe597]

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Tactics is a skill you want your party leaders and caravan leaders to have. All their fights are simulated unless you join in yourself.

This is my understanding also. Any battle where you are not present is simulated under game mechanics.

[Very serious person]

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Tactics is a skill you want your party leaders and caravan leaders to have. All their fights are simulated unless you join in yourself.

Originally posted by GIJoe597:

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Tactics is a skill you want your party leaders and caravan leaders to have. All their fights are simulated unless you join in yourself.

This is my understanding also. Any battle where you are not present is simulated under game mechanics.

I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose, but the player is given this skill and whatever personal benefit you get out of it doesn't seem to be a fun mechanic, in my opinion at least.

To be fair, some other non combat related skills suffer from the same issue. In the end, you can see that leveling up charm, steward and leadership are kind of the way to go late game and the ones that will give you the most benefit. Those skills do something tangible to the point you feel they are affecting the way you play.

I feel this game would be a much better game if making different characters throughout different playthroughs with different skills leveled up gave you a different experience and way to play every time. Combat is much more straight forward in this sense, I want my character to be an archer, I wanted to be a mounted knight or skirmisher, etc...and you get variety.

[titanopteryx]

Originally posted by Very serious person:

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Tactics is a skill you want your party leaders and caravan leaders to have. All their fights are simulated unless you join in yourself.

Originally posted by GIJoe597:

This is my understanding also. Any battle where you are not present is simulated under game mechanics.

I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose, but the player is given this skill and whatever personal benefit you get out of it doesn't seem to be a fun mechanic, in my opinion at least.

To be fair, some other non combat related skills suffer from the same issue. In the end, you can see that leveling up charm, steward and leadership are kind of the way to go late game and the ones that will give you the most benefit. Those skills do something tangible to the point you feel they are affecting the way you play.

I feel this game would be a much better game if making different characters throughout different playthroughs with different skills leveled up gave you a different experience and way to play every time. Combat is much more straight forward in this sense, I want my character to be an archer, I wanted to be a mounted knight or skirmisher, etc...and you get variety.

Tactics is useful for the player as a means of getting a fight over with faster if you need to do it fast for some reason. it's not optimal because you can lose higher tier units to fights against 5 looters, but the fight ends now instead of 5 minutes from now.

[AfLIcTeD]

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Originally posted by Very serious person:

I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose, but the player is given this skill and whatever personal benefit you get out of it doesn't seem to be a fun mechanic, in my opinion at least.

To be fair, some other non combat related skills suffer from the same issue. In the end, you can see that leveling up charm, steward and leadership are kind of the way to go late game and the ones that will give you the most benefit. Those skills do something tangible to the point you feel they are affecting the way you play.

I feel this game would be a much better game if making different characters throughout different playthroughs with different skills leveled up gave you a different experience and way to play every time. Combat is much more straight forward in this sense, I want my character to be an archer, I wanted to be a mounted knight or skirmisher, etc...and you get variety.

Tactics is useful for the player as a means of getting a fight over with faster if you need to do it fast for some reason. it's not optimal because you can lose higher tier units to fights against 5 looters, but the fight ends now instead of 5 minutes from now.

Still not worth it really since most players will only be simulating less than 5% of their battles. Hardly worth investing in the skill for that.

[Thule]

In M&B 1 tactics increases the number of units you bring from your stack to the battle at one time thus serving a use for the player

[Onimaho]

Would be nice if tactics skill actually gave more tactical options to the battlefield. Stuff like...

combined arms grouping with front ranks crouched with shields and second rank with xbows.

Or perhaps partial delegation, where you can delegate everything else and just have one retinue of troops to micro (currently not possible, once you take over one unit, all units have delegate command turned off)

How about charge targeting that everyone keeps asking for?

One additional formation type unique to the character's culture?

[flyingscot1066]

Effects:
Simulation advantage: +0.1% per level
Decrease the sacrificed troop number when trying to get away 0.1% per level

Tactics is a highly underrated skill, especially for companions and vassals. It also can be very useful when you've been jumped by a superior force or are trying to break into a town/castle that's under siege to help defend. 200 Tactics is 20% fewer sacrificed troops, which can tip the scales in a keep defense. Not every skill needs to directly influence the fights you're in.

[RJboxer]

Tactics is for two reasons In my mind.

1- Your governors and companions eventually get high tactics and THEIR PARTIES they lead (whether it is garrison, or normal party) benefit from the Tactic.. since THOSE fights are always auto resolved...

2- As u have more than a few hours in a game lol... it becomes worth it. Why??? some people think best part of game is the fights (I agree.... half the time)... but then again after your 50th fight... or 500th.. or 5000th... How many more do u want to do? I tend to love them early game, when it is hard.. then again mid game when some of the BIG cool fights have real consequences.. But after say.... 50??? in a campaign.. I'm kinda "done". and wanna just autoresolve as much as possible and work on Expanding and MANAGING more than "cool... 92 kills.. NICE).

so I like the skill, but it is usually one of the very very last I focus on trying to raise a bit.

[Very serious person]

Originally posted by flyingscot1066:

Effects:
Simulation advantage: +0.1% per level
Decrease the sacrificed troop number when trying to get away 0.1% per level

Tactics is a highly underrated skill, especially for companions and vassals. It also can be very useful when you've been jumped by a superior force or are trying to break into a town/castle that's under siege to help defend. 200 Tactics is 20% fewer sacrificed troops, which can tip the scales in a keep defense. Not every skill needs to directly influence the fights you're in.

Tactics is useful. I'm not deniying that. Both the decrease in sacrificed troops and simulation advantage have its uses. However, simulation I mostly use when the fights is going to be a boring one. So there is a skill in the game with half of its purpose being the player getting to avoid boring fights?

What I'm suggesting is adding mechanics that would make this skill make yout character feel like someone who is good at leading troops in battle. Maybe being able to make your skirmishers fire in volleys at a desired tactics, order your cav to flank, performing ambushes.

[titanopteryx]

Right now I'm doing a playthrough where I simulate all fights after reading this thread. Playing a mercenary of course. I'm winning fights against larger forces with few losses. I've captured Garious several times. Tactics is really powerful.

[Aven]

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Right now I'm doing a playthrough where I simulate all fights after reading this thread. Playing a mercenary of course. I'm winning fights against larger forces with few losses. I've captured Garious several times. Tactics is really powerful.

There are two issues regarding the majority of players' perceptions of tactics: they generally fail to consider their opponent's tactics skill and troop makeup and focus entirely on superior numbers when deciding to auto-resolve, and, as powerful as tactics can be, players expect that if they can win a given fight with zero losses or losses only to fodder, then auto-resolve should be able to do that as well and in less time. It just can't work that well, though. A player can solo 50 looters or 20 desert bandits, but there is absolutely no way for that victory to be simulated correctly without distorting every other simulation.