We need alliances

Users who are viewing this thread

I can see these may not all be easy problems to solve.

On the one hand, immediately having wars/peace declared when an alliance breaks up or is formed kind of makes sense. The other factions may be opportunistic in declaring a war on a faction that suddenly lost its ally, or suddenly want to sue for peace because now they’re facing a much bigger combined enemy. Also, renegotiating tribute in these situations also makes sense.

But I can see that this might destabilize the war/peace systems and be bad for gameplay if it all happens too suddenly, especially with multiple alliances to consider.

If it’s too complicated to implement (and balance!) full alliances, what about a version with reduced scope specifically designed with the goal of reducing snowballing? Where the only alliance possible is a defensive pact against a stronger enemy: i.e. a strong faction (Faction Strong) declares war on a weak neighbour (Faction Weak). Faction Weak would then start looking for a third faction to form a defensive pact with (Faction Pact), to help it fight off the attacker. Faction Pact would only agree to enter this pact if:
  • Faction Strong is the aggressor
  • The difference in strength between Faction Strong and Faction Weak is past a certain threshold
  • The difference in strength between Faction Strong and Faction Pact is also past a certain threshold (i.e. this would be a mechanic to get two or more weaker factions to gang up on a faction that is starting to snowball)
  • Faction Pact has an active border with Faction Strong (i.e. they would be worried that they’re next if they don’t do something now)
  • Faction Pact is currently at peace with Faction Weak
  • Faction Pact can be convinced to declare war on Faction Strong per the usual war/peace score voting, but instead considering the combined strength of Faction Weak and Faction Pact instead of the individual faction strength. This would bring all the factors that are normally considered in war/peace declarations into play and so hopefully prevent most of the possible weird unbalanced scenarios.
The only effects of the defensive pact would be:
  • Both factions in the pact declare war against Faction Strong. They would not coordinate against any other faction (allowing the war/peace scores and tribute calculations to behave normally otherwise). If another faction does decide to complicate things by declaring war against a faction in the defensive pact, that faction in the pact would prioritize the war against Faction Strong in war/peace declarations and so likely seek peace with that new faction.
  • Faction Strong can only declare peace if they declare peace with both factions in the defensive pact at the same time (treat them as a single faction in Faction Strong's war/peace calculation), but maybe using the individual factions strengths to calculate tribute scores to avoid problems when the defensive pact ends.
This would essentially simulate an alliance of necessity only, against a larger nearby aggressor, with the two factions in the defensive pact otherwise still distrusting each other.

Consideration could be given to the defensive pact lasting maybe one season or so past the declaration of peace. This would only affect the war/peace calculations of Faction Strong because the defensive pact is only formed against them, and would not take effect if Faction Weak or Faction Pact were the aggressor.

Armies helping each other can be optional, if that creates issues. The main idea is to force a snowballing faction to take on a more powerful combined enemy more often to help balance things out. This is similar to the “top dog” factor in the war/peace declarations, but maybe implementing this as a separate mechanic gives another lever to pull when trying to balance that. I'm thinking the top dog factor might easily be lost in all the other factors that go into the war/peace declarations.

Thoughts?
You put this very well and is essentially how it think it should be. Defensive alliances only (this is what that mod ended up doing), just make it impossible for larger kingdoms to make them.

I think some potential negatives should be:
  • a daily influence cost to all clans in both alliance kingdoms (maybe scaled with clan level and make default bases different for weak and helper faction)
  • if there was a tribute before hand, it is renegotiated based on the current strength so weaker faction pays stronger. Should also be renegotiated at break of alliance (could go up or down based on new strength)
  • Once entering the alliance, the kingdom that wants to make peace against the aggressor faction has to pay for their tribute and a portion of their allied factions tribute (medium faction has to help weak faction to get out of war), they should fight it out against the aggressor until they are "winning" together or the loser/quitter (one who choses to make peace) pays for it.
I finally finished this post, but we'll need someone to dive deeper into the code to understand some of the key features I pointed out.
Honestly this mod did it very well. Just going through the change log takes you along the journey and the issues they ran into and changes made, I'm going to summarize what I've basically taken away from them and provide the key change notes for each update of it.

I'll be editing this post as I go through the versions, join me on this journey everyone. Ok its finished, I've underlined the major points from the key takeaways.

It was first just a mod to activate the Declare War / Propose peace button in the Diplo screen back when it wasn't active and the AI completely controlled W/P. Then they added:
  • configuration on how much it would cost to make war and peace.
  • added configurable cooldowns for declaring war and making peace,
  • a messenger button that lets you pay influence to open a dialog with another kingdom (I want this)
  • a config on how long the messenger would take
  • let player kingdoms control their own W/P decs. No more AI auto W/P decs (this isn't an issue anymore)
  • It also made it to where you could choose to accept peace or not from other kingdoms. (I want this)
Version 1.0.0
  • Allows the player to use the Declare War / Propose Peace buttons in the Diplomacy Screen.
  • Added MBOptionsScreen support.
  • Added configurable costs with both scaling and flat influence cost flavors. These are configurable in the Mod Options screen.
  • Added checks to prevent the player from declaring war or proposing peace when they do not have enough influence.
  • Added checks to prevent the player from making peace when there is an active story quest that requires war between the factions.

1.0.1 they added in configurable cooldowns for declaring war and making peace
Version 1.0.1
  • Added configurable cooldowns for declaring war and making peace.
  • Updated the description of EnableInfluenceCostsForDiplomacyActions setting.
  • Added debug messaging in case the diplomacy action throws an exception.

1.0.2 and 1.0.3 they made some fixes and display improvements
Version 1.0.2
  • Fixing initialization issue with the cooldown manager.
  • Updated messages to display the required duration for war/peace cooldowns.

Version 1.0.3
  • Added influence cost indicator below the diplomacy action button.

1.0.4 they added in a messenger button that lets you pay influence to open a dialog with another kingdom. I like this, honestly should be able to do it for anyone, companion or lord.

Version 1.0.4
  • Updated display for influence cost.
  • Added "Send Messenger" button. This allows you to open a dialogue with a kingdom leader. This has a configurable influence cost.

1.0.5 it was a compatability/crashes fix
Version 1.0.5
  • Removed a Harmony patch for MakePeaceAction in favor of a CampaignBehavior event listener. Should improve compatibility with other mods.
  • Added MBOptionsScreen as a SubModule for the mod. This should prevent some crashes and issues with the mod menu.

1.0.6 it added a config on how long the messenger would take and let player kingdoms control their own P/W decs. It also made it to where you could choose to accept peace from other kingdoms.

Version 1.0.6
  • Added configurable delay on messengers arriving at opposing faction leader.
  • Stop random declaration of war and peace from your kingdom. When another kingdom wants to make peace, you'll get a pop-up box with a decision and some money for war reparations!
  • Reorganized the mod options page.
1.0.7 - 1.0.10 it was just fixes and compatability changes
Version 1.0.10
  • Experimental branch moved to stable.
  • Fixed a broken string on the Mod Options page.
Version 1.0.9
  • String localization fixes (thanks reduce5419!).
  • Updated to MCM 2.0.10. This should resolve some crashes but a duplicate "Mod Options" menu may appear.
Version 1.0.8
  • Added preliminary localization support.
  • Updated MBOptionScreen to MCM 2.0.8
  • Fixed bug that allowed sending messengers without enough influence.
  • Attempt to fix bug that could prevent saving while messengers are en route.

Version 1.0.7
  • Bannerlord e1.3.0 compatibility
  • Minor bug fixes

For their 1.1 updates they:
  • added in a war exhaustion mechanic with configurations
  • forced the AI to follow the cooldowns for war and peace.
  • They added in sending messengers to any character via the encyclopedia page (I want this)
  • the ability for the player to claim settlement without vote.
  • they added a war exhaustion display to the diplo page (good idea if you use this)
  • added the ability to send messengers to NPC's without parties. (I want this)
  • added in applying all costs, conditions, and cooldowns for declaring war or proposing peace to the AI kingdoms.
  • added in Peace proposals due to war exhaustion now include war reparations and influence costs. (Pre-tribute system)
1.1.0 they added in a war exhaustion mechanic with configurations and forced the AI to follow the cooldowns for war and peace
Version 1.1.0
  • Added "war exhaustion" mechanic to the mod. Consider either removing "Configurable War Attrition" or disabling war exhaustion in the mod settings as they are similar mechanics.
  • Now creates save data. Messengers, declare war cooldowns, war exhaustion, and more will now be saved!
  • AI factions now use the same "declare war" cooldowns as the player. No longer make peace with a faction just to have them declare war immediately!
  • Added a cooldown for rejected peace proposals.
  • Various string/localization fixes.

1.1.1 - 1.1.2 they made some fixes and additional war configs

Version 1.1.1
  • Added two mod versions - one for e1.2.1 and one for e1.3.
  • Attempt to fix bug where declare war cooldowns could be circumvented by AI factions.
Version 1.1.2
  • Opposing kingdoms now respect both declare war and minimum war duration (propose peace) cooldowns.
  • Added more war exhaustion configurations.

1.1.3 they added in sending messengers to any character via the encyclopedia page and the ability for the player to claim settlement without vote.
Version 1.1.3
  • Added the ability to send messengers to any character via the Encyclopedia Page.
  • Added the ability for a player to claim player-taken settlements without a vote.
  • Updated messenger strings. Will need localization updates.
  • Fixed some missing localization data.
  • Updated method of enabling/disabling war exhaustion. Now requires a game restart.

1.1.4 -1.1.5 it was just crash fixes
Version 1.1.4
  • Resolved crashes with messengers in lord persuasions and mercenary faction conversations.
  • Changed the position of the Send Messenger button in the encyclopedia.
Version 1.1.5
  • Mitigated some crashes related to messengers to invalid targets and messengers arriving while the player is in a settlement or siege.
  • Mitigated war exhaustion crashes with modded kingdoms that don't have a stringId.
  • Fixed location links in encyclopedia pages.

1.1.6 they added a war exhaustion display to the diplo page.
Version 1.1.6
  • Added war exhaustion display to the diplomacy page.
  • Fixed crash where there was no last attacking party when a settlement changed hands.
  • Fixed rare crash where a companion had a grievance and a messenger arrived simultaneously.

1.1.7 added the ability to send messengers to NPC's without parties.
Version 1.1.7
  • Added null-safety for kingdom stringIds to all war exhaustion operations. Should prevent some crashes for people with mods that create or modify kingdoms.
  • Allowed the player to send messengers to NPC's without parties. NPC's without parties will wear civilian clothes.

1.1.8 added in applying all costs, conditions, and cooldowns for declaring war or proposing peace to the AI kingdoms
Version 1.1.8
  • Moved from using stringId to MBGUID internal Id for keeping track of war exhaustion values. This should resolve crashes related to other mods' created kingdoms.
  • All costs, conditions, and cooldowns for declaring war or proposing peace now apply to AI kingdoms.
  • Added war reparations costs to making peace for the player. These costs will appear on the Diplomacy screen.
  • Added Bannerlord Beta e1.4 support and discontinued Bannerlord e1.21 updates.
1.1.9 added in Peace proposals due to war exhaustion now include war reparations and influence costs.
Version 1.1.9
  • Peace proposals due to war exhaustion now include war reparations and influence costs.
  • Fixed declare war cooldown issues.
  • Fixed issue in war exhaustion migration where records of nonexistent kingdoms would cause a crash.
  • Lowered default influence cost for messengers to 10.

For their 1.2 updates they just made bug fixes and made sure features like messengers to wanderers worked.

Version 1.2.0
  • Resolved issue where sieges weren't contributing to war exhaustion.
Version 1.2.1
  • Added toggleable debug messages for war exhaustion applied to the player kingdom.
  • Updated sync activities to only execute when loading a save.
  • Added various null-safety measures to prevent crashes.
Version 1.2.2
  • Allow messengers to wanderers again.
  • Fixing issue where peace inquiries would crash when war exhaustion is disabled.
  • Fixing crash in conversation with lords under certain conditions when the banner investigation quest is active.
Version 1.2.3
  • Fixed missing string localization id.

For 1.3 updates they:
  • added in Granting fiefs interface into the encyclopedia and the Kingdom management clan page (I want this)
  • Added maximum war exhaustion threshold for declaring war.
  • Added war exhaustion display on kingdom diplomacy page for kingdoms at peace.
  • Prevented messengers from causing crashes when a player is in an army or siege.
Version 1.3.0
  • Added a Grant Fief user interface accessible via the Encyclopedia and Kingdom Management Clan page.
  • Added support for Bannerlord e1.4.1
Version 1.3.1
  • Fixed broken expel and support events on the kingdom clan page.
  • Added maximum war exhaustion threshold for declaring war.
  • Added war exhaustion display on kingdom diplomacy page for kingdoms at peace.
  • Fixed bug where messenger events would duplicate.
Version 1.3.2
  • Player-captured settlements should work properly again.
  • Clans can no longer call for votes on wars or peaces that are invalid.
Version 1.3.3
  • Prevented messengers from causing crashes when a player is in an army or siege.
  • Fixed bug where influence wasn't deducted from vassal players who proposed peace.

Update 1.4 is where they finally added alliances, safe to say I want all of these:
  • Added alliances to the game. These can be initiated by AI factions and by the player through the Kingdom Diplomacy screen.
  • Hints added to the buttons on the Kingdom Diplomacy Page rather than showing messages on screen.
  • Added allies section to the faction encyclopedia page.
  • Added war and alliance displays to the Kingdom Diplomacy page.
  • Made alliances optional via mod setting. This will gradually remove AI alliances from your game as well.
  • New condition for making peace where a player siege cannot be active between the factions. Resolves a bad state.
  • Add relation gain to clan granted fiefs and relation penalty with other clans.
  • Improved the claim fief behavior so that it appears right away.
Version 1.4.0
  • Added alliances to the game. These can be initiated by AI factions and by the player through the Kingdom Diplomacy screen.
  • Hints added to the buttons on the Kingdom Diplomacy Page rather than showing messages on screen.
Version 1.4.1
  • Upgrade to Mod Configuration Menu v3.
  • Resolve crash that occurred when a kingdom had no fiefs.
Version 1.4.2
  • Added allies section to the faction encyclopedia page.
  • Added war and alliance displays to the Kingdom Diplomacy page.
  • Made alliances optional via mod setting. This will gradually remove AI alliances from your game as well.
  • Fix bug where minimum alliance duration returned to default.
  • New condition for making peace where a player siege cannot be active between the factions. Resolves a bad state.
Version 1.4.3
  • Add relation gain to clan granted fiefs and relation penalty with other clans.
  • Improved the claim fief behavior so that it appears right away.
  • Fixed crash when a player leaves a kingdom from the Diplomacy screen and keeps their fiefs.
Version 1.4.4
  • Fixing broken Break Alliance and Propose buttons on the Kingdom Diplomacy page.
  • Removing check from AI faction leaders because influence costs are no longer assessed against them. This may make war declarations more common.
Version 1.4.5
  • Upgraded to MCM v3.1.9. Should resolve compatibility issues with Modlib and various Mod Options bugs.

Update 1.5 adds:
  • Added Non-Aggression pact agreements.
  • Messengers can be paid for with gold rather than influence if not in a kingdom
  • Add button to donate gold to a clan via the Clan menu in the Kingdom Management screen.
  • Added influence balancing, including influence decay and corruption.
  • Added the ability to cancel arrived messengers.
  • Added expansionism score, used in diplomatic agreement scoring. Added expansionism diplomacy penalty
  • Updated the faction behavior for forming alliances. Rebalanced alliance costs.
  • Adding the ability to usurp the throne of a kingdom.
  • Alliance war declarations now follow war conditions more strictly.
  • Updated alliances to be defensive only.
  • Prevent the player from granting fiefs that are pending election.
  • War cooldowns are now represented as non-aggression pacts that form when peace is declared.
  • Added variable travel time to messengers based on distance.
  • Changing send messenger functionality from influence to gold cost.
Version 1.5.0
  • Added Non-Aggression pact agreements. Currently only available to players, but will be rolled out to AI factions soon.
  • Messengers can be paid for with gold rather than influence if not in a kingdom.
  • Added tabbed display to the Kingdom Diplomacy screen.
  • Fixed event listeners holding onto ViewModel references causing memory leak and potential crashes.
  • Added missing string localization metadata.
Version 1.5.1
  • Add button to donate gold to a clan via the Clan menu in the Kingdom Management screen.
  • Added influence balancing, including influence decay and corruption.
  • Increased default war exhaustion decay per day from 1 to 2.
Version 1.5.2
  • Added the ability to cancel arrived messengers.
Version 1.5.3
  • Allow AI factions to form non-aggression pacts.
  • Added expansionism score, used in diplomatic agreement scoring.
  • Added tooltips to the Form Alliance and Form Pact buttons for better visibility.
  • Updated the faction behavior for forming alliances.
  • AI clans will manage their corruption by bartering their fiefs to other clans in the kingdom.
  • Rebalanced alliance costs.
Version 1.5.4
  • Adding the ability to usurp the throne of a kingdom. Still needs balancing.
  • Added expansionism diplomacy penalty.
  • Added expansionism mod options.
  • Added Non-Aggression pacts section to the faction encyclopedia page.
  • Fixed bug where AI factions were able to declare war on allied factions. Whoops!
  • Alliance war declarations now follow war conditions more strictly.
  • Added info message for when two factions form a non-aggression pact.
  • Added days remaining tooltip to non-aggression pacts in the diplomacy screen.
  • Diplomatic costs are now bypassed when joining an ally in war.
  • Various string localization fixes.
Version 1.5.5
  • Added clan support visibility near the usurp throne button.
  • Fixed crash on load experienced by users with a bad save state.
  • Added main storyline protection mod option.
  • Added check to determine if the player has the authority to perform certain diplomatic actions.
  • Prevent player from breaking main storyline quests using usurp.
Version 1.5.6
  • Added a UI to the donate gold button.
  • Added relation gain to donating gold.
  • Resolved crashes when using mods that bypass the main storyline.
  • Fixed alignment of buttons on the Kingdom Management clan page.
Version 1.5.7
  • Updated alliances to be defensive only.
  • Prevent the player from granting fiefs that are pending election.
  • Stop counting unassigned fiefs for corruption calculations.
  • Will now clean up support kingdom quests when advancing the story by usurping a throne.
  • Fixed inverse expansionism effect on diplomacy.
  • Updated expansionism score to update without an event to trigger.
  • Updated gold donation rep gains to round more favorably to the player.
  • Fixed string localization problem with the Expel button.
  • Added missing string localizations for gold donation.
Version 1.5.8
  • War cooldowns are now represented as non-aggression pacts that form when peace is declared.
  • Added variable travel time to messengers based on distance.
  • Changing send messenger functionality from influence to gold cost.
  • Automatically refresh the encyclopedia page after granting a fief.
  • Removed relation gain when donating gold to your own clan.
  • Fixed missing diplomacy header string localization.
Version 1.5.9
  • Fixed crashes when sending a messenger to a target doesn't have a location.
  • Removing leader cost conditions for AI kingdom decision proposals. More kingdom proposals for leaders with low influence (including the player). Should make wars more common in passive games.
  • Removed redundant declare war cooldown condition. (no behavior change)
Version 1.5.10
  • Updates for compatibility with e1.4.3.
  • Fixed e1.4.2 crashes on startup due to update.
  • Fixed bug where mercenary players could claim fiefs.
Version 1.5.11
  • Fixed crash in encyclopedia when hero has null clan. (1.4.3)
  • Fixed broken grant fief button in Kingdom Clan page. (1.4.3)
  • Fixed clans automatically selling fiefs to the player clan to reduce their corruption.
  • Clans no longer consider trading fiefs to a clan under mercenary service.
 
Last edited:
@Olympeus i'm here long enough to know the difference between asking a simple question, and starting a passive agressive one with "huh?", as well ad knowing when threads start being hostile, as most recently there was a plethora of those too.

As i see you didn't understand, that wasn't slander nor a derail, that was me reacting to reports on your post, by verbally warning you before the situation gets out of hand and the thread derails, so that hopefully there would be no reason for me to take further action.

I would be sorry and apologized by now if i was mistaken, but i now see i wasn't.

Please, do continue in a civil manner.
 
About critisisms :

Yes it is late for deciding adding that big features. Sometimes I think how we can add alliances feature and I realize different problems. Thats why I cannot join discussions for now. I need to think all problems all together. For example : what will be side effects or costs of announcing a new alliance, what will happen if one alliance is ended - suddenly war peace calculation scores will change and this will trigger new wars to start, so there will be more war peace declerations (which is not good for stability of game / bad for gameplay). How will be diplomacy screen ui for allied factions? What will happen when alliance is declared if there are existing wars or tribute payments including factions which declared alliance. There are tons of different problems and we need to find answers to them before start coding. Also if we can not solve these problems in a good way we cannot add this feature thats why I cannot give 100% guarentee for adding alliances feature for now.

I wish we had all game design 8 years ago (when we start this project) and we follow that design document. Probably we could finish game sooner if that kind of development is followed. If this was the case all these problems would be already solved. We are trying to add features one by one and this is not best way to create a detailed game like Bannerlord because all different features are connected each other and we should think all together not one by one. Adding features one by one is dangerous (can broke existing mechanics). However Warband is also developed that way too and be a great game. But even Warband example I think this is hard way to develop a game.

Actually I am not diplomacy guy also, my responsible areas are generally campaign ai, army and party ai, economy / trade, recruit systems, food / money management of parties / clans. I did not worked at diplomacy features for Warband also. It was obvious diplomacy side of Bannerlord was very weak and players want developments at diplomacy so I wanted to help development at August started examining these parts. However I am not real owner of these parts. Critisisms are right but they are not helping our current situation.
Thx for all this and your dedication to the game. I have a Few question : is there something plan to improve the use of castle ? Why Some npc party dont refuge in friendly town or castle when they are chased by hostile party? Will militia and garrison be able To Get out and help owner or friendly party when there is a fight near by?
thx a lot for your response and sorry for this poor english.
 
Yes, game needs alliances. This was obvious and most of us come to this conclusion at diplomacy developments thread.

I offered alliances idea to armagan too. It is “partly accepted” but we will talk about details at October. I offered when there is an alliance 2+ allied factions should be able to make a siege to a fortification together or they should join battles on map when allied kingdom party is attacked or they can defend allied settlements or they can get more open slots at settlements of allied kingdom + we should find negative side effect(s).

This feature will probably increase battle variety on game which will result in better gameplay experience and it will be slow down snowballing (if nobody make alliance with most powerful factions) which again results in better and more balanced gameplay experience.

Imo biggest problem of alliances feature will be “what will be its negative effect?” What will stop factions making alliances all the time? There should be a cost or some other negative effect. Otherwise making alliances will be always logical. One possible solution is there can be a cost which both allied factions pay and it can be more expensive when factions are stronger. There can be more side effects.

Sounds like you've got the positive effects nailed down @mexxico (as in whatever will incentivize AI to make alliances), so here's an idea for a negative effect to work with the systems already in game:

Make a daily monetary expense associated with maintaining the alliance which scales with either the combined number of fiefs or the combined manpower of the allied kingdoms.
This way, large factions won't prioritise entering into alliances because they are too expensive. Smaller factions will enter into alliances, until one (or both) of them grows too large for the alliance maintenance cost to be worth it.

This expense can me split out between the clans, so poor clans might more often propose ending the alliance.

Another thing; the turmoil following an alliance breaking up might not be a bad thing. The sudden shift in balance of power might make the game more exciting.
 
If that link you provided is "the closest thing we have to a roadmap" that is very concerning, as that link is to a list of features the team is working on organized by game mechanic, and not at all development roadmap. It is not organized by workstream, there is no accounting for resources, there is no sequential ordering or listing of dependencies, there are no detailed dates or even milestones, there aren't considerations for different phases (e.g. code, implement, test, release). All of this and much more should be on an internally facing roadmap that the TW team look at on a daily basis and much of this should be on an externally facing roadmap that TW can share with their customers.

This.
Let's say there is a year left before release. That is a year to move forward with a unified game plan.

Like what are going to be the aspirations for Bannerlord so that it is better than warband?

We have a new engine with improved graphics befitting of the current era making a solid foundation to work off so what are TW gonna build on it.

The campaign half of the game has yet to be substantially improved, the increased fidelity of the economic simulation is one large improvement but it is yet to be properly balanced integrated. Without too much work this will be a real asset of the game.

The dynasty/generational system is a system that is abstract and aspirational, but depends entirely on other things taking shape. If campaign length can’t be increased by features such as rebellions or alliances then it is a dead end feature.

If interactions between clans doesn't become a meaningful gameplay wrinkle (something that needs to be managed) for the ultimate pursuit of conquest. Then the clan system is a feature that is more aesthetic than it is an actual change in gameplay when compared to warband. The clan system would also have to interact meaningfully with the dynasty system. Playing as my son or daughter needs to represent a change in the set of challenges facing me at that moment, otherwise why not just have one continuous discrete player character? Or start a new playthrough if i am looking for that early progression feel?

The questions inherently posed by the systems already in game represent quite a degree of scope, so how are TW going to plan moving forward to realise this is the single most important question.
 
@mexxico This is an aside from alliances but hits on the same point of containing snowballing and is more up your alley. I've been letting one of my campaigns run in the background while I work and I've noticed that AI lords are very reactive about defense and not proactive about it. This was just a test run but poor decisions by my AI lords armies basically cost my entire player kingdom, I was passively playing (voting, sending back out my parties when they died but not fighting myself) so of course if I actively played it would be different.

mi7hM.jpg

4BXzV.jpg

Right now it seems the AI armies are only defensive when a settlement is attacked or a party/army has walked directly into their path. They seem to only deviate from their prime objective of sieging if they haven't started yet and even then prime opportunities like joining in on nearby field battles are passed up to get to the siege. I witnessed as a 6k kingdom vs the 10k khuzait my armies go into khuzait territory to siege small low garrison castles and essentially just suicide run over and over until my kingdom strength has fallen to 2k and the khuzait came raiding. There were several occasions of two of my armies passing each other by even if one of them was in a battle and the reinforcements could have helped win the fight. Occasions where towns where under siege and one of my armies choose to siege a castle instead of helping defend the nearby town (Argoron and Atrion Castle). Newly taken castles by your enemy can be a huge bait for AI armies to completely ignore common sense defensive scenarios due to low garrison and militias. By the after picture I was down to 1k strength and all but two out of the 8 clans I had recruited had left, although at this point other factions left my kingdom completely alone.

What I think would be beneficial is if weaker factions were put into a defensive state where their priorities are keeping their land safe and hunting down parties and armies of their aggressor before thinking about getting aggressive and sieging. Maybe during this time they prioritize building up their garrisons and patrolling areas to keep them safe. Armies and lords could be notified of nearby enemies by villages and settlements (the watchtower feature in VC that would give you a notification of nearby enemies was great) and then rush to that area to defend before a siege or raid even occurs. I think a defensive side and aggressive side in unbalanced wars is more realistic and would help to preserve weak kingdoms (balanced wars should be both aggressive until there is a clear winner, then one should flip to defensive). Plus if we are talking about defensive only alliances, they need to be able to be defensive :wink:

Sorry for getting off topic, but apparently this one has been derailed already!
 
Sounds like you've got the positive effects nailed down @mexxico (as in whatever will incentivize AI to make alliances), so here's an idea for a negative effect to work with the systems already in game:

Make a daily monetary expense associated with maintaining the alliance which scales with either the combined number of fiefs or the combined manpower of the allied kingdoms.
This way, large factions won't prioritise entering into alliances because they are too expensive. Smaller factions will enter into alliances, until one (or both) of them grows too large for the alliance maintenance cost to be worth it.

This expense can me split out between the clans, so poor clans might more often propose ending the alliance.

Another thing; the turmoil following an alliance breaking up might not be a bad thing. The sudden shift in balance of power might make the game more exciting.

I like these suggestions for possible consequences.
To add to the second one, I do think that IF a civil war mechanic is on the table, rising internal friction leading to possible breaking off of a group of lords which take their fiefs with them when they declare independence could be a possible negative outcome of alliances.
 
I like these suggestions for possible consequences.
To add to the second one, I do think that IF a civil war mechanic is on the table, rising internal friction leading to possible breaking off of a group of lords which take their fiefs with them when they declare independence could be a possible negative outcome of alliances.
I like this a lot, alliances could have high relation penalties for a certain group of lords in a kingdom (whoever wouldn't have voted for it). Maybe they think the king is weak to ask for help.
 
@mexxico This is an aside from alliances but hits on the same point of containing snowballing and is more up your alley. I've been letting one of my campaigns run in the background while I work and I've noticed that AI lords are very reactive about defense and not proactive about it. This was just a test run but poor decisions by my AI lords armies basically cost my entire player kingdom, I was passively playing (voting, sending back out my parties when they died but not fighting myself) so of course if I actively played it would be different.

mi7hM.jpg

4BXzV.jpg

Right now it seems the AI armies are only defensive when a settlement is attacked or a party/army has walked directly into their path. They seem to only deviate from their prime objective of sieging if they haven't started yet and even then prime opportunities like joining in on nearby field battles are passed up to get to the siege. I witnessed as a 6k kingdom vs the 10k khuzait my armies go into khuzait territory to siege small low garrison castles and essentially just suicide run over and over until my kingdom strength has fallen to 2k and the khuzait came raiding. There were several occasions of two of my armies passing each other by even if one of them was in a battle and the reinforcements could have helped win the fight. Occasions where towns where under siege and one of my armies choose to siege a castle instead of helping defend the nearby town (Argoron and Atrion Castle). Newly taken castles by your enemy can be a huge bait for AI armies to completely ignore common sense defensive scenarios due to low garrison and militias. By the after picture I was down to 1k strength and all but two out of the 8 clans I had recruited had left, although at this point other factions left my kingdom completely alone.

What I think would be beneficial is if weaker factions were put into a defensive state where their priorities are keeping their land safe and hunting down parties and armies of their aggressor before thinking about getting aggressive and sieging. Maybe during this time they prioritize building up their garrisons and patrolling areas to keep them safe. Armies and lords could be notified of nearby enemies by villages and settlements (the watchtower feature in VC that would give you a notification of nearby enemies was great) and then rush to that area to defend before a siege or raid even occurs. I think a defensive side and aggressive side in unbalanced wars is more realistic and would help to preserve weak kingdoms (balanced wars should be both aggressive until there is a clear winner, then one should flip to defensive). Plus if we are talking about defensive only alliances, they need to be able to be defensive :wink:

Sorry for getting off topic, but apparently this one has been derailed already!
This is huge the AI needs the capacity be proactively defensive not just reactively. If that set of behaviours can be successfully defined and implemented with some testing, it could also integrate really well with the trait system. Having cautious lords prioritise defense, and valourous lords conquest with other campaign factors perhaps over rulling or tempering these tendencies.
 
If it’s too complicated to implement (and balance!) full alliances, what about a version with reduced scope specifically designed with the goal of reducing snowballing?

Armies helping each other can be optional, if that creates issues. The main idea is to force a snowballing faction to take on a more powerful combined enemy more often to help balance things out. This is similar to the “top dog” factor in the war/peace declarations, but maybe implementing this as a separate mechanic gives another lever to pull when trying to balance that. I'm thinking the top dog factor might easily be lost in all the other factors that go into the war/peace declarations.

Thoughts?
I think this is closer to the mark...
@mexxico This is an aside from alliances but hits on the same point of containing snowballing and is more up your alley. I've been letting one of my campaigns run in the background while I work and I've noticed that AI lords are very reactive about defense and not proactive about it. This was just a test run but poor decisions by my AI lords armies basically cost my entire player kingdom, I was passively playing (voting, sending back out my parties when they died but not fighting myself) so of course if I actively played it would be different.

Right now it seems the AI armies are only defensive when a settlement is attacked or a party/army has walked directly into their path. They seem to only deviate from their prime objective of sieging if they haven't started yet and even then prime opportunities like joining in on nearby field battles are passed up to get to the siege. I witnessed as a 6k kingdom vs the 10k khuzait my armies go into khuzait territory to siege small low garrison castles and essentially just suicide run over and over until my kingdom strength has fallen to 2k and the khuzait came raiding. There were several occasions of two of my armies passing each other by even if one of them was in a battle and the reinforcements could have helped win the fight. Occasions where towns where under siege and one of my armies choose to siege a castle instead of helping defend the nearby town (Argoron and Atrion Castle). Newly taken castles by your enemy can be a huge bait for AI armies to completely ignore common sense defensive scenarios due to low garrison and militias. By the after picture I was down to 1k strength and all but two out of the 8 clans I had recruited had left, although at this point other factions left my kingdom completely alone.

What I think would be beneficial is if weaker factions were put into a defensive state where their priorities are keeping their land safe and hunting down parties and armies of their aggressor before thinking about getting aggressive and sieging. Maybe during this time they prioritize building up their garrisons and patrolling areas to keep them safe. Armies and lords could be notified of nearby enemies by villages and settlements (the watchtower feature in VC that would give you a notification of nearby enemies was great) and then rush to that area to defend before a siege or raid even occurs. I think a defensive side and aggressive side in unbalanced wars is more realistic and would help to preserve weak kingdoms (balanced wars should be both aggressive until there is a clear winner, then one should flip to defensive). Plus if we are talking about defensive only alliances, they need to be able to be defensive :wink:

Sorry for getting off topic, but apparently this one has been derailed already!
It seems 'the community' has settled on alliances being the answer to snowballing (and is reacting at the idea that alliances may not be delivered by TW), which I think may be mistaken; or at least, it address the result of snowballing rather than the cause(s).

As Blood Gryphon outlines, small factions need to fight differently - as the player does when getting started. Large factions need to face challenges to rapid expansion - consequences of low loyalty/security through revolts and more serious rebellions from disloyal vassals, difficulty in recruiting troops outside their homelands (or having to return to their homelands for reinforcements), corruption and significantly lowered incomes in newly taken settlements, etc. Something needs to be done to address the unbalanced bonuses which help the Khuzaits disproportionately.

Alliances may (or may not) be a good thing to have in the game on their own merits, but I don't think they're necessarily the solution for snowballing.
 
Player kingdom and AI kingdoms doesn't work the same way though. There are different rules for some parts to make player feel more in control I think.
Is that not just in regards to voting though? Does it really imply a less defensive priority set? I’m definitely not complaining about voting as I understand that to be skewed which I like. More about the on the map decision making of AI parties and armies
 
@mexxico This is an aside from alliances but hits on the same point of containing snowballing and is more up your alley. I've been letting one of my campaigns run in the background while I work and I've noticed that AI lords are very reactive about defense and not proactive about it. This was just a test run but poor decisions by my AI lords armies basically cost my entire player kingdom, I was passively playing (voting, sending back out my parties when they died but not fighting myself) so of course if I actively played it would be different.

mi7hM.jpg

4BXzV.jpg

Right now it seems the AI armies are only defensive when a settlement is attacked or a party/army has walked directly into their path. They seem to only deviate from their prime objective of sieging if they haven't started yet and even then prime opportunities like joining in on nearby field battles are passed up to get to the siege. I witnessed as a 6k kingdom vs the 10k khuzait my armies go into khuzait territory to siege small low garrison castles and essentially just suicide run over and over until my kingdom strength has fallen to 2k and the khuzait came raiding. There were several occasions of two of my armies passing each other by even if one of them was in a battle and the reinforcements could have helped win the fight. Occasions where towns where under siege and one of my armies choose to siege a castle instead of helping defend the nearby town (Argoron and Atrion Castle). Newly taken castles by your enemy can be a huge bait for AI armies to completely ignore common sense defensive scenarios due to low garrison and militias. By the after picture I was down to 1k strength and all but two out of the 8 clans I had recruited had left, although at this point other factions left my kingdom completely alone.

What I think would be beneficial is if weaker factions were put into a defensive state where their priorities are keeping their land safe and hunting down parties and armies of their aggressor before thinking about getting aggressive and sieging. Maybe during this time they prioritize building up their garrisons and patrolling areas to keep them safe. Armies and lords could be notified of nearby enemies by villages and settlements (the watchtower feature in VC that would give you a notification of nearby enemies was great) and then rush to that area to defend before a siege or raid even occurs. I think a defensive side and aggressive side in unbalanced wars is more realistic and would help to preserve weak kingdoms (balanced wars should be both aggressive until there is a clear winner, then one should flip to defensive). Plus if we are talking about defensive only alliances, they need to be able to be defensive :wink:

Sorry for getting off topic, but apparently this one has been derailed already!

This is why we don't need Alliances maybe open/close option can be better ,to make happy everyvone and the game
 
Player kingdom and AI kingdoms doesn't work the same way though. There are different rules for some parts to make player feel more in control I think.
As a vassal I rarely see obvious defensive choices being selected either. But maybe this is in the similar category to what you describe.
Alliances may (or may not) be a good thing to have in the game on their own merits, but I don't think they're necessarily the solution for snowballing.
The other solutions for snowballing such as rebellions or indivual settlemnt unrest arent implemented either. Are they simpler I dont know? As the player will also need interesting means to contend with those systems in your own kingdom. Will you just default take all the loyalty / security related perks or will there be interesting trade offs to contend with? Will there be quests to manage these problems?

Alliances also impede player kingdom snowballing. Having the AI rally together against you can pose a late game challenge.

Just some points im not entirely disagreeing with you.
 
@Olympeus i'm here long enough to know the difference between asking a simple question, and starting a passive agressive one with "huh?", as well ad knowing when threads start being hostile, as most recently there was a plethora of those too.

As i see you didn't understand, that wasn't slander nor a derail, that was me reacting to reports on your post, by verbally warning you before the situation gets out of hand and the thread derails, so that hopefully there would be no reason for me to take further action.

I would be sorry and apologized by now if i was mistaken, but i now see i wasn't.

Please, do continue in a civil manner.
Instead of reacting to reports try exercising better independent judgment.
 
@mexxico Have alliances not been brought up by the team in the past (that you are aware of)? There are blocks of code that deal with alliances that have been in the code since release, so I had assumed they were at least considered previously. Or were they just put in as more of a preemptive "just in case" type situation?

Here are some of the bits I'm referring to:
]
TiYoh.png

4Chhg.png

hZSjG.png

9jMCw.png

MaznS.png
Wow almost missed this with all the derailing, thats a good find !
You truly live up to your custom rank :party:
There are many things left in the code that wasn`t really used, or was and got scrapped. Some got removed, some are still there.
Hopefully this gets back on track and we keep getting updated from mexxico about the subject.
 
Is that not just in regards to voting though? Does it really imply a less defensive priority set? I’m definitely not complaining about voting as I understand that to be skewed which I like. More about the on the map decision making of AI parties and armies
I don't really know the exact effects of it but with a quick search I found this post which mentions a small effect:
Here is a graph that I made to show how the influence budget works. If any of the faction's settlements are under siege they will spend 12.5% more influence (represented by S1), and additionally, if the army leader's settlement is under siege, he will spend an extra 25% influence on top of that (represented by S1). If the number of current armies is < 2, they will spend more (represented by n). There's also a random factor that has a moderate effect that I ignored, as well as a slight decrease if the npc is part of the player's faction.
 
Back
Top Bottom