You do not get an extra party at clan tier 5.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Food Shortage
- Thread starter Rush09
- Start date
-
- Tags
- food shortage food supply
Users who are viewing this thread
You do not get an extra party at clan tier 5.
Great to see this is getting worked on.
As @Badcritter said earlier, the player typically takes fiefs that have been taken before, and those tend to be horrifically poor.
For example, here is what Lageta and its villages looked like when I took it around day 450:
Right now it's possible for the player to "rebuild" these settlements using the broken/overpowered projects in 1.4.1 (Housing and Irrigation).
When those are fixed/nerfed, it will not be possible anymore.
Which means the player will have no choice but to joke about their empire of dirt.
Perhaps a temporary solution could be to give those projects a stronger effect (eg like they are now) while prosperity is low?
As @Badcritter said earlier, the player typically takes fiefs that have been taken before, and those tend to be horrifically poor.
For example, here is what Lageta and its villages looked like when I took it around day 450:
Right now it's possible for the player to "rebuild" these settlements using the broken/overpowered projects in 1.4.1 (Housing and Irrigation).
When those are fixed/nerfed, it will not be possible anymore.
Which means the player will have no choice but to joke about their empire of dirt.
Perhaps a temporary solution could be to give those projects a stronger effect (eg like they are now) while prosperity is low?
William7667
Regular
The problem with small garrisons of course they will eat less food but the town will be taken over as the garrison is too small too defend it
I've always though that garrisons need a large defensive bonus they are overcome too easily in most cases. Even a tier one wall should need 3-1 attacker ratio to win amd produce at least 1-1 casualties even with favourable conditions.
Taking down walls while still possible should take a much longer time giving time for relieving armies more time to intervene.
I've always though that garrisons need a large defensive bonus they are overcome too easily in most cases. Even a tier one wall should need 3-1 attacker ratio to win amd produce at least 1-1 casualties even with favourable conditions.
Taking down walls while still possible should take a much longer time giving time for relieving armies more time to intervene.
TheShermanator
Sergeant
I would humbly posit that that is a good but separate point about combat AI for defenders in sieges. As in, if the AI was better in those situations, it would more effectively manage choke points.
E.g. How often do you see the AI using the murder holes between the inner and outer gate - in any capacity, but especially to throw rocks? Imagine, instead, that the AI always prioritized having 4-5 guys up there just cycle-dropping rocks on the heads of the crowd by the gate. It would do more than kill lots of attackers: It would kill so many so fast that it might tank their morale, causing a bunch of them to run.
E.g. Or, imagine that the AI positioning near the gate was just 10% better - such that it actually blocked off any attackers from flanking to the side of their shield wall block. It wouldn't totally stop attackers, but it would force them to trade 1-for-1 for much longer at that position.
The underlying point, though, is reasonable. A short term solution to garrison starvation might be to simply shrink the size of garrisons, but long term, I think it's fair for the players to expect that there be some way - through fief management, through other food-specific preparations, etc. - to have a large garrison that does not starve quickly and only does starve under understandable exigent circumstances.
Patwick
Veteran
I don't really know exactly what mexxico did
But i think it's more of a process to better relate garrison size to prosperity and not just a simple shrink for low prosperity settlement, even if it's just that for now. Sacrificing garrison size for increase prosperity growth and vice versa is a dilemma that make the game interesting aswell.
At least that's what i would hope for future development, because right now the major focus of fief management is keeping prosperity and food supply in check.
How do you guys find the reduced daily hearth grow now that some time has passed ? I must confess that i didn't play a lot, mostly waiting for 1.4.2 to test the rest of the changes discussed here (and more)
There will be an update soon which include new developments about this starvation issue. Let me explain what is changed.
Firstly let me show you current situation :
As you can see in average about 30% of towns and 40% of castles are starving without player interaction, 15% of villages are looted (as seen in last column data). Also total prosperity of towns do not increase (start with 187K and reduces down to 154K end with 184K), first reduce then after some time it start to rise. I think reason is initial village distribution do not fit with initial prosperity values of towns. So until things get balanced some towns are starving and losing prosperity. Also after 15 years run 11 towns ended with a prosperity lower than 1500. It is about 20% of towns and this ratio is so high.
These datas taken without player interaction but even there is player interaction these numbers will not change much. When I read your reports and examine the situation I see that food prices were not rising as much as it need to be if prosperity is low and food stocks are empty. Reason was item demands were directly calculated from prosperity. Each item's demand is something like this : prosperity x constant. This means if a town has less/no prosperity there is less/no demand for each item. However food consumption is not only from people of town. Food is also bought by lords visits town. So I added additional fixed demand for food items. So even prosperity is low food demand is between low-medium now. After this fix I see higher food prices in towns with less food and less prosperity. So high food prices get caravans attraction more. So these towns get needed food better compared to previous version. Also as a minor change added beer as a consumption giving food bonus to food stores. After these fixes situation changed like this :
After food demand adjustment :
As you can see improvements in food demands reduced ratio of starving towns. However because of there is no marketplace in castles these changes did not effected castles and still castle starvation ratios were high (about 50%). To balance this I added a new code block for ai lords to garrison less troops to settlements with less food sources. For example if a castle has two villages with less than 200 hearths it's daily food income from villages are less (4 + 4 = 8 ). This castle cannot feed big garrisons. If AI garrison there high number of troops castle will have food problems. Now AI also consider this. Also increased daily food income from healthy (not looted) villages to 5 / 10 / 15 from 4 / 8 / 12. Also daily default project effects were huge and these effects are reduced about 3x. Also increased hearth values of some specific villages. And give initial 20 militias when a looted village return to normal state to save it a bit from repeatedly loots, also retired militia number is a bit decreased to make villages a bit stronger. After all these fixes result become like this :
After new garrison ai & increase of food income & increase of village militias :
So as you can see in final situation after developments are implemented only about 10% of towns are starving and 25% of castles are starving in long run. Total prosperity of towns is increased to 238K from 187K seems reasonable. Total castle prosperity increases 60K from 50K. Total village hearths are increased to 140K from 90K in 15 years. Also you can see in any moment about 15 villages are looted this is about 5% of villages seems reasonable. As you can see in first table 11 towns were ending 15 years of test with a prosperity lower than 1500 now this number reduced to 3. And this is reasonable too.
Still we have starving settlements and this is a part of gameplay. Probably most of these starving settlements (at least half) had some hostile actions in last days and this is what need to be in game. These values are better compared to previous values and you will feel development when you play.
Everything will be better if new war-peace-truce systems start to work reasonable too. Because high number of wars make our stats worse and increase ratio of starving settlements.
Firstly let me show you current situation :
As you can see in average about 30% of towns and 40% of castles are starving without player interaction, 15% of villages are looted (as seen in last column data). Also total prosperity of towns do not increase (start with 187K and reduces down to 154K end with 184K), first reduce then after some time it start to rise. I think reason is initial village distribution do not fit with initial prosperity values of towns. So until things get balanced some towns are starving and losing prosperity. Also after 15 years run 11 towns ended with a prosperity lower than 1500. It is about 20% of towns and this ratio is so high.
These datas taken without player interaction but even there is player interaction these numbers will not change much. When I read your reports and examine the situation I see that food prices were not rising as much as it need to be if prosperity is low and food stocks are empty. Reason was item demands were directly calculated from prosperity. Each item's demand is something like this : prosperity x constant. This means if a town has less/no prosperity there is less/no demand for each item. However food consumption is not only from people of town. Food is also bought by lords visits town. So I added additional fixed demand for food items. So even prosperity is low food demand is between low-medium now. After this fix I see higher food prices in towns with less food and less prosperity. So high food prices get caravans attraction more. So these towns get needed food better compared to previous version. Also as a minor change added beer as a consumption giving food bonus to food stores. After these fixes situation changed like this :
After food demand adjustment :
As you can see improvements in food demands reduced ratio of starving towns. However because of there is no marketplace in castles these changes did not effected castles and still castle starvation ratios were high (about 50%). To balance this I added a new code block for ai lords to garrison less troops to settlements with less food sources. For example if a castle has two villages with less than 200 hearths it's daily food income from villages are less (4 + 4 = 8 ). This castle cannot feed big garrisons. If AI garrison there high number of troops castle will have food problems. Now AI also consider this. Also increased daily food income from healthy (not looted) villages to 5 / 10 / 15 from 4 / 8 / 12. Also daily default project effects were huge and these effects are reduced about 3x. Also increased hearth values of some specific villages. And give initial 20 militias when a looted village return to normal state to save it a bit from repeatedly loots, also retired militia number is a bit decreased to make villages a bit stronger. After all these fixes result become like this :
After new garrison ai & increase of food income & increase of village militias :
So as you can see in final situation after developments are implemented only about 10% of towns are starving and 25% of castles are starving in long run. Total prosperity of towns is increased to 238K from 187K seems reasonable. Total castle prosperity increases 60K from 50K. Total village hearths are increased to 140K from 90K in 15 years. Also you can see in any moment about 15 villages are looted this is about 5% of villages seems reasonable. As you can see in first table 11 towns were ending 15 years of test with a prosperity lower than 1500 now this number reduced to 3. And this is reasonable too.
Still we have starving settlements and this is a part of gameplay. Probably most of these starving settlements (at least half) had some hostile actions in last days and this is what need to be in game. These values are better compared to previous values and you will feel development when you play.
Everything will be better if new war-peace-truce systems start to work reasonable too. Because high number of wars make our stats worse and increase ratio of starving settlements.
Last edited:
Not more profitable but they will not be a minor/side reason for starvation anymore. Their demand and consumption are same. When beer is consumed it will give +1 bonus to food stores like grain, fish, cheese, butter, olives, grape does.
Patwick
Veteran
Those are nice solutions, for both AI and early game trading, and this give additional opportunities for player wanting to do a merchant playthrough !
This is really really nice aswell !
However i'm a bit skeptical about this one, wasn't that already the case with the previous change you made about garrison size and prosperity ? Wont the 2 different code block interfere with each other ? Why keeping the one with prosperity, even if i'm not really fan of the garrizon size cap/limit, i think it's better to relate size to food income than to prosperity
Ty very much for keeping us informed !
Last note: Is the +20 militia the way you found to deal with too many raid, or is there still an issue about AI behavior in this case ?
If a town has less prosperity it has less food consumption and less caravans are visiting there and selling less food, these will be a bit better with additional fixed demand developments but still it will be an issue. So placing there 300-400 garrisons will be a problem. We can combine two effects (prosperity effect & food income from villages effect) however a town with less prosperity is less important compared to one which has high prosperity because its tax income also changes much. AI should protect settlements with high prosperity better. So this secondary new constant calculated from potential food income of villages can be different from other one previously implemented. In the future we can combine these two constants and make only one combined effect. However both should be effective on garrison size not only one. In any case settlements will not be left with less number of garrisons. These are constants changing generally between 0.7 and 1.0
When a village has more militias probability of ai lords to raid them reduces. They care power inside. I know still 20-30-40 militias are not so important power. However they effect AI behaviors even with low probabilities. Also it is not good a new recovered village having 5-10 militias only. They were so weak aganist hostile actions. I know still they are weak but a bit better compared to past. In future there will be better defensive ai in next updates this will reduce sucessfull raids too.
I read his (wonderful!) post as it will, slightly, decrease repeated raids. As in, already raided villages will not be a prime target for yet another raid the second it becomes viable.
Very well done! Many good changes here. Looking forward to checking it out
By the way, how are you defining starvation in these tables? Is it defined as having a negative food modifier, 0 food stocks, actual garrison troops starving off, or something else?
When towns get near their peak prosperity levels, their food stocks tend to hover around 0 because their positive and negative food modifiers mostly cancel each other out, and food stocks will no longer grow, leaving towns without a buffer for sieges and lords buying food. Here are some examples of it happening to towns at various prosperity levels after roughly 8 game years (this is not from today's hotfix though, to be clear):
Technically, some of these towns might not be considered starving, depending on the definition used. Do you still see any cases of this happening in your test runs?
Last edited:
To help villages to improve, would it be possible on the future to give them troops as militia, or to give them recruits/peasants to increase the village population?
And for the town, would it be possible to manually give food properly ( without having to go through the market ) and to set a threshold to the garrison so peasant don't overrun the garrison and create starvation?
And for the town, would it be possible to manually give food properly ( without having to go through the market ) and to set a threshold to the garrison so peasant don't overrun the garrison and create starvation?
Last edited:
Giving troops to village militia used to be possible, but the ability was removed.
It was a bit of an exploit, especially since the size limits were not enforced so you could basically garrison your village with a "militia" that was bigger and better trained than a king's army and there was no cost to maintain it.
It would be nice to see a middle of the road option in the future where the player can do active things like adding limited units to help their villages. Currently all we can do to help a village we own is wait for quests to pop and hope we don't die of old age first.
William7667
Regular
The local castle should send a patrol from the garrison to see off the raiders before the village is in ruins unless its a large army then the garrison should retreat to the castle and let the village burn. A simple toggle with a number send patrol of x number should be in each castle, the raiders can still run with some goods but not completely decimate the village as the patrol will respond to raids. The mod improved garrisons has a patrol you can set up which patrols the region and scares away raiders though it charges you for their wages you're already paying a garrison make them work for their money.
PS dont give the villages better troops than militia you'll end up with rebellions.
If lords are reducing the size of their garrisons because of low foodstocks, isn't that just the same end result as the excess garrison starving? Whats the difference? You still wind up with smaller garrisons. I'm not sure why you would want smaller garrisons when they're already way too small to defend themselves on their own.
A lot of thought and effort is going into fine tuning the food & starvation mechanics, but really, what does starvation add to the game? Is it supposed to be a fun or interesting mechanic? All it does for me is force me to babysit my villages, because just one getting looted is enough to cause food reserves to plummet. I can't take part in kingdom campaigns because I have to constantly stay close to my fiefs in case they starve and I lose my garrisons. And for what? So I can use starvation to cheese an easier siege by starving out the enemy garrison? It just doesn't seem worth it to me.
Patwick
Veteran
Excess garrison starving equal loss of unit, so not really the same end result.
Plus directly limiting the garrison size allow the settlement to increase it's foodstock, thus permitting bigger garrison later, it's way healthier process.
I think change to AI behavior encouraging them to be more enclined to defend ongoing siege will compensate that (I know that's what they are working on right now). I don't know if we have the same vision but for me garrison are more designed to buy time and hold off opponents for reinforcement to come, so garrison that aren't able to fend off a big army is less a concern to me than Allied Armies that do not come to help those garrisons.
This could be a reason to have a governor at a castle. Ungoverned castles could be purely passive, while those governed send out a force to fend off raiders.
Bronk the Raven
Recruit
+1 good idea
