-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Patch Notes e1.2.1 & Beta Hotfix
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
The answer is because 1.3 fixed up sieges to a degree they were playable. I found my 1.2 campaign problematic because of bugged sieges. Also some mods were 1.3 only.
Only really asking for the branches to be split like all the previous ones are in the steam beta selector. Otherwise it's a forced update - makes me wanna put steam in offline mode.
Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
Looks like broken encyclopedia pages as well as wanderers that cannot be hired is still an issue and it hasn't been fixed with the hotfix...
Razgriz20
Regular
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
I have been checking the situation after the patch and it is indeed considerably better than before and it looks like only a few lords are going to bankrupt. Aldric from Vlandia has been the worse lord in terms of money issues that I have seen for the moment. Godun from Sturgia has been doing decently (5-10K) until he lost a castle against Khuzaits. and now he is having money issues after losing that castle.
On the other hand, I do not understand why Ergeon from Battania always has tons of money. He currently has +300K at day 160, despite just having one Town (Dunglanys). Really curious about why Ergeon is doing pretty good with only one town, even when Battania is getting wrecked in this campaign.
https://wetransfer.com/downloads/53...98a6b32f24b81763c75c8ab520200506235217/b06c18
The problem I am seeing is that AI lords are still not able to react effectively to financial issues. They should be able to stop recruiting, upgrading troops if they are under 5K or so and disband units if they are under 1K. Otherwise, even if they are able to do it decently with their initial fiefs, once they lose one of them, they turn useless because they have all their party wounded. Anyway, it is nice that the current situation looks better, thanks.
Last edited:
How have you been checking the lords' money supplies? Just going to the barter screen with each one?
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Yeah, and also checking when they were run on the map with all units wounded.
Yep, it's partially fixed perhaps....
Cool, thanks!
"
- Above fixes
- Influence gain per troop donated to an allied garrison (same kingdom, different clan) was decreased by 60%.
- The bug that caused besieged settlements to sally out even though they were weaker than attackers was fixed.
- Some item consumption (fur, horse, sumpter horse) boosts town prosperity. This effect was decreased by a factor of 10. (+1 is now +0.1)
- Prosperity bonus of the aqueduct was halved.
- Starving effect of missing foods for the garrisons was decreased.
- Fixed a bug that caused problems with recruiting prisoners from defeated parties.
- Fixed stationary villager parties and caravans for new games. We will continue to work on existing savegames.
- Fixed an issue with AI retreating that caused performance problems in combat missions.
- Fixed a minor bug with the Food Variety Morale Bonus. Having maximum variety should no longer default to a low bonus.
- Fixed a crash that happens in scenes with water.
- Fixed a rare crash that occurs during scene loading.
- Some minor adjustments in character creation.
- Player kingdoms should no longer declare war without player action.
- Fixed a crash related to settlement production.
- Fixed a rare crash in asset loading system.
- At least 25 days of truce time after peace.
- Making peace cost is increased by 50% (if there is a payment).
- Breaking into a besieged fortification costs (lost men) are reduced by 25%.
- Kingdoms which have lots of recent enemies want to make peace more to reduce their number of enemies. Similarly, they do not easily declare new wars when they already have 1-2 wars.
- Sometimes peace was declared right after a war declaration. This should be much more rare now.
- If one faction lost its strength in a big battle, several kingdoms were declaring war to that faction within a short period of time. This was improved a bit. War/peace declarations do not only use current strength but also potential strength.
- The militia number formulas were changed and they were increased by 50%.
- Fixed an issue where newly created characters and other objects could get mixed up with each other. This created instability & possibly crashes. It was also responsible for broken companions and encyclopedia problems. The fix does not recover broken beta save games, but it should resolve the issue for new games. You can test this by checking if newly created characters or other objects have their own appropriate encyclopedia pages instead of another character’s or object's page.
- Fixed a rare crash that occurred when initialising the final phase of the main storyline for Imperial supporters.
- Fixed a crash that occurred when choosing the "Try to get away" option in an encounter.
- Fixed a Save & Load related crash that occurred when entering the training field with a companion.
- Some lords were losing all their money and then starving. This was due to fortification taxes being too low, they have been increased by 25%. Also, NPC clan leaders now react faster to losing money and reduce their garrison sizes before going bankrupt.
- Council of Commons policy effect was 1 influence per notable in the settlement, it is now 0.1 influence per notable. Also, +1 militia effect per notable is removed.
- There was no waiting time after captured lords were released; they were spawning at the next daily tick, now they spawn at least 2 days later.
- Lords spawn with 10% of their party size filled instead of 25%
- Owners now calculate their settlements' values more conservatively. If there was any hostile action to their fiefs their defence score grew significantly and they and they would go directly there to help. This negatively affected all AI score calculation systems. Additionally, there were other mechanics using this value that were also affected negatively.
- There was a relation penalty if a settlement was lost between the owner of that settlement and their king. It was settlement value / 20K, now it is square root value of settlement value / 100K, (nearly 10x reduced). For example, for losing a castle with an estimated value of 600K, the lost relation was 30 previously, now it is 3. This was causing big relation drops when a settlement was lost and which in turn caused clans to defect because of this loss in relation.
- An influence penalty has been added for if a settlement is lost (25 for a castle, 50 for a town).
- Fixed a bug that prevented the player from receiving a relation benefit after helping a lord they had met previously.
- Cavalry advantage in simulations is reduced to 20% from 30%
- Mercenary groups in taverns have increased in size (2x) and their average level has increased.
- When a smelted item had a modifier, the wrong item could be removed from the inventory. It could also create instability in the inventory. This was fixed.
Does this answer your question on why some people might want mods with this version?
drallim33
Sergeant
Probably because castles are an expense, not an asset. They don't bring in enough money to pay for their own garrisons. So the less castles you have, the better. Towns can actually turn a profit. This is before thinking about cost of food, troop upgrades, horses for upgrades etc.
So a clan with four castles, four parties, and no towns has to fund wages and expenses for four whole parties and four garrisons from only castle income.
The player has other income to compensate, workshops, caravans, manual trading etc.
Even the most prosperous castles in the whole world, after long periods untouched by war in very safe spots only bring in about 1500 denars. That's enough for one garrison of about 150 tier 4-5 troops. So you can imagine for a more typical castle to turn a profit needs a very small garrison or one made of mostly recruits, maybe both. A town can bring in as much as four or five castles, but only needs one garrison. So the profit margin is much higher.
To make things worse because of the stupid food system a garrison in a castle makes the castle lose prosperity and bring in even less money. So not only do you pay for the wages but the taxes get lower as well, it's a double effect.
Are you guys still getting this problem on new games? The patch notes state that old saves will continue to have this problem even with the hotfix. I doubt those saves will ever be fully repaired.
Those three clans in question all start with 1 town and 1 castle on game start though.
It's true that they are funding a different number of parties though. Aldric funds 3 (including himself), Godun funds 4, and Ergeon funds 2. And maybe depending on their clans' starting stewardship levels they are funding significantly different party cap numbers.
Edit: So on game start, Aldric's clan has a total collective party cap of 402 on with a town of prosperity 3200 + 3 bound villages. Godun has a collective cap of 532 with a town of prosperity 1700 + 2 bound villages. Ergeon has a collective cap of 290 with a town of prosperity 4000 + 3 bound villages. That might explain somewhat why Ergeon is so wealthy; smallish party cap with a fairly high prosperity town to start off. Also, it beats me why Tyal starts off with such a low prosperity. It's supplied by 6 villages and has a decent food supply. It can afford to start higher. Switch Varnovapol and Tyal's starting prosperity if anything.
Oh, and FYI @Dabos37, Uriksala Castle is really important for keeping Tyal fed because it supplys both grain and fish, but is easily taken as the closest fief to Khuzait. Without it Tyal has starvation problems.That could explain why Godun was doing well until it was taken.
Last edited:
Bugger, this is the fix I was looking for.
this is like the 5th time I say it. If they spawn with 0, they can be spawn in a city, wher ethey will recruit (if there are no recruits they wait like everybody else!)
+1 and agree. the treatment should be the same with stop gaps in place so they AI doesn't completely break down, not purely to give them the same treatment just for the sake of it.
not only that, 10% snowballs them, they can run around recruiting like crazy - once there is a critical mass of troops, they don't deal with bandits, only other NPC enemies / player. Starting from 0 delays that process. I don't think its hard to put a rule in that says NPC defeated = stay in own fief until recruit X then resume normal behavior.
Do that, or 10% and they stay in their fief for 7 days or whatever (I think that is worse tho).
Maybe a better solution is after a defeat, they 'disappear' for 7 days and then spawn with their 10% - I feel like that's what used to happen in warband, although I cant remember.
AI lords do deal with bandits though, because they are programmed to. They will even clear out hideouts (edit: they don't actually enter hideouts to do this, so I'm unsure if they can lose troops during the process). And because they suffer from the same autocalc problems as the player, they can end up losing plenty of high tiered troops in the process too.
Last edited:
You mean you want the unstable test features and want to add further instability with mods and then complain when it has issues? Yes your sassy response is recognized. People are in here complaining about crashes on the beta with mods. Wait a few days for this stuff to move to the main branch or dont complain when mods **** up crashes or saves.
That's one way for factions to get snowballed. Wait 7 days to respawn. Wait another 3-4 days to recruit enough troops to dare venture out to recruit more or they are gonna get eaten by bandits. By the time they have recruited enough troops it has been 3 ingame weeks and the enemy has taken half their fiefs. 10% is nothing, it is about 10-15 troops on average.
