Information about developments at snowballing problem

Users who are viewing this thread

Information about problem found yesterday :
Today I made several changes at code and today they are catching 733 men army with these changes. Yesterday this 733 men army was escaping from this bad situation because of fast and small parties were not engaging it, they were coming closer and running away back. However I need to test if there is any side effects. These codes are a bit dangerous to change because they effect many things. Also we have to understand what to do in miliseconds for each party in world because these calculations are done in all map (1000s of parties) so these calculations should be done so effectively means we cannot check all parties in a large area for each party, also it become like AI cheating. This development also will have positive effects on snowball imo, maybe minor, also walking in enemy lands will be more dangerous now (good for gameplay). However more important than snowball this was probably so annoying for player to experience these cases.

y1NcJ.png

You're the man, man!
 
Information about problem found yesterday :
Today I made several changes at code and today they are catching 733 men army with these changes. Yesterday this 733 men army was escaping from this bad situation because of fast and small parties were not engaging it, they were coming closer and running away back. However I need to test if there is any side effects. These codes are a bit dangerous to change because they effect many things. Also we have to understand what to do in miliseconds for each party in world because these calculations are done in all map (1000s of parties) so these calculations should be done so effectively means we cannot check all parties in a large area for each party, also it become like AI cheating. This development also will have positive effects on snowball imo, maybe minor, also walking in enemy lands will be more dangerous now (good for gameplay). However more important than snowball this was probably so annoying for player to experience these cases.

y1NcJ.png
Nice job man! 1.5.8 is going to be very interesting.

Also when are we jumping to 1.6? Been in 1.5 for longest out of any 1.X version (I have no idea what constitutes a jump in number) . Not that it matters what we call it
 
Information about problem found yesterday :
Today I made several changes at code and today they are catching 733 men army with these changes. Yesterday this 733 men army was escaping from this bad situation because of fast and small parties were not engaging it, they were coming closer and running away back. However I need to test if there is any side effects. These codes are a bit dangerous to change because they effect many things. Also we have to understand what to do in miliseconds for each party in world because these calculations are done in all map (1000s of parties) so these calculations should be done so effectively means we cannot check all parties in a large area for each party, also it become like AI cheating. This development also will have positive effects on snowball imo, maybe minor, also walking in enemy lands will be more dangerous now (good for gameplay). However more important than snowball this was probably so annoying for player to experience these cases.

y1NcJ.png

Thanks!
 
Information about problem found yesterday :
Today I made several changes at code and today they are catching 733 men army with these changes. Yesterday this 733 men army was escaping from this bad situation because of fast and small parties were not engaging it, they were coming closer and running away back. However I need to test if there is any side effects. These codes are a bit dangerous to change because they effect many things. Also we have to understand what to do in miliseconds for each party in world because these calculations are done in all map (1000s of parties) so these calculations should be done so effectively means we cannot check all parties in a large area for each party, also it become like AI cheating. This development also will have positive effects on snowball imo, maybe minor, also walking in enemy lands will be more dangerous now (good for gameplay). However more important than snowball this was probably so annoying for player to experience these cases.

y1NcJ.png

Nice job, it definitely will be a strong step forward in gameplay. Will kingdoms, or do they now, purposely keep some parties out of armies in order to catch opposing armies like this?
 
Information about problem found yesterday :
Today I made several changes at code and today they are catching 733 men army with these changes. Yesterday this 733 men army was escaping from this bad situation because of fast and small parties were not engaging it, they were coming closer and running away back. However I need to test if there is any side effects. These codes are a bit dangerous to change because they effect many things. Also we have to understand what to do in miliseconds for each party in world because these calculations are done in all map (1000s of parties) so these calculations should be done so effectively means we cannot check all parties in a large area for each party, also it become like AI cheating. This development also will have positive effects on snowball imo, maybe minor, also walking in enemy lands will be more dangerous now (good for gameplay). However more important than snowball this was probably so annoying for player to experience these cases.

y1NcJ.png
Amazing work!
Hope the caravan AI also tries to find diffrent route in future patches.
 
I dont think the game does a good job of reflecting the cost of raising, supplying, and keeping a large army in the field. An army shouldn't just cost influence. It should cost denars.

In real life you have to keep an open supply line for an army. The army can't just re-supply itself.

This game doesn't account for the time and money it takes to supply the army with equipment, food, horse feed, lodging, and the economic impact of a country losing the majority of its work force.....

If you put a monetary cost on raising and keeping an army in the field, it would allow small defensive kingdoms to bank money while they aren't at war.

If you made that cost smaller for countries defending than countries deep in enemy territory, since its easier for them to re-supply and find lodging, it would naturally reflect the expense and difficulty of rapid expansion.

To me, armies are making too much money from war. Historically, armies at war bankrupted countries. In Bannerlord, its the easiest way to get rich aside from exploiting the broken smithing mechanic.

Raising armies should cost denars and influence. The larger the army, the more it should cost. The deeper you are in enemy territory, the more it should cost.

Right now the game tries to make up for the expense of raising armies by artificially inflating fief income and nerfing loot income. It isn't the loot or the fiefs that's the problem. The problem is armies aren't an expense, they're a limitless supply of money.

I don't think that such a radical change of the mechanics would be a good idea. Supply lines were mostly problems of later warfare. Ancient and medieval armies did not need a lot of special supply, unlike modern armies which are toast without fuel and ammunition. So ancient and medieval armies usually lived from the country (and quite often early modern armies too, up to the 19th century; an interesting read to start for example here is "Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton" by Martin van Crefeld). Warfare was in fact often cheaper and easier to sustain when they were in enemy country and could plunder and forage there. This system of supporting the armies also explains a lot the way armies in the old times moved and why and where battles were fought.

The problems of this kind of "living of the land" was that sooner or later regions were empty of supply and the armies had to move. However with the small scale warfare we have and the relatively small armies, it would not have been such a huge aspect. Finally, I just imagine that the constant foraging is done by all parties and included in the movement speed.

From the gameplay aspect, making war too complicated may hurt more than help, I see this similar as Apocal. In the end it might promote snowballing more than hindering it.
 
I don't think that such a radical change of the mechanics would be a good idea. Supply lines were mostly problems of later warfare. Ancient and medieval armies did not need a lot of special supply, unlike modern armies which are toast without fuel and ammunition. So ancient and medieval armies usually lived from the country (and quite often early modern armies too, up to the 19th century; an interesting read to start for example here is "Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton" by Martin van Crefeld). Warfare was in fact often cheaper and easier to sustain when they were in enemy country and could plunder and forage there. This system of supporting the armies also explains a lot the way armies in the old times moved and why and where battles were fought.

The problems of this kind of "living of the land" was that sooner or later regions were empty of supply and the armies had to move. However with the small scale warfare we have and the relatively small armies, it would not have been such a huge aspect. Finally, I just imagine that the constant foraging is done by all parties and included in the movement speed.

From the gameplay aspect, making war too complicated may hurt more than help, I see this similar as Apocal. In the end it might promote snowballing more than hindering it.

I agree that making them too complicated would be bothersome for many players but right now they lack any depth.

There is no reason for war and when it starts it's just blindly running around fighting whatever You encounter with no real purpose. If controlling the whole map is the only goal of waging war then it's getting boring after few sieges.

Current party/army management is too simplistic and have no downsides. It's easy to raise and keep army, it's easy to feed it. You get more troops by doing so. No additional cost or problem with it. You can basically just gain from wars cause loot give tons of money that You can't even spend since there is nothing to spend it on.
 
I agree that making them too complicated would be bothersome for many players but right now they lack any depth.

There is no reason for war and when it starts it's just blindly running around fighting whatever You encounter with no real purpose. If controlling the whole map is the only goal of waging war then it's getting boring after few sieges.

Current party/army management is too simplistic and have no downsides. It's easy to raise and keep army, it's easy to feed it. You get more troops by doing so. No additional cost or problem with it. You can basically just gain from wars cause loot give tons of money that You can't even spend since there is nothing to spend it on.

All about war and diplomacy is probably the worse part of this amazing game. I would prefer a much deeper diplomacy over any other new feature.

Would be great to see the AI focusing on re-taking lost territory and taking advantage of campaign specific situations instead of just declaring new random wars every 15 days. This is for sure the part of the game which has a huge margin for improvements, but sadly we probably won’t see much getting changed about this.

Hopefully, a better diplomacy system gets released as one of the new features in a future DLC.
 
They already do but that particular point in the map is problematic in that regard.
Ai trying mindlessly going this "one" route rather than finding new route after few tries


 
Ai trying mindlessly going this "one" route rather than finding new route after few tries


yes this would be gold!
if this can work, than it could also work for a zone of control around a garrison for parties less then 50% of garrison strength (example %, would represent the fact that not the entire garrison would leave the castle/town to engage)
 
yes this would be gold!
if this can work, than it could also work for a zone of control around a garrison for parties less then 50% of garrison strength (example %, would represent the fact that not the entire garrison would leave the castle/town to engage)

This could take full garrison into account but not militia. That would make sense to have full castle garrison on the borders.
 
Ai trying mindlessly going this "one" route rather than finding new route after few tries
I can't explain the behavior in your examples but I'm pretty sure that they change their plans if the threat in their way doesn't change for some time. At least that's how @mexxico explained. Maybe he can tell us what's going on in these examples.
 
Information about problem found yesterday :
Today I made several changes at code and today they are catching 733 men army with these changes. Yesterday this 733 men army was escaping from this bad situation because of fast and small parties were not engaging it, they were coming closer and running away back. However I need to test if there is any side effects. These codes are a bit dangerous to change because they effect many things. Also we have to understand what to do in miliseconds for each party in world because these calculations are done in all map (1000s of parties) so these calculations should be done so effectively means we cannot check all parties in a large area for each party, also it become like AI cheating. This development also will have positive effects on snowball imo, maybe minor, also walking in enemy lands will be more dangerous now (good for gameplay). However more important than snowball this was probably so annoying for player to experience these cases.

y1NcJ.png
this will be really good thanks
 
I can't explain the behavior in your examples but I'm pretty sure that they change their plans if the threat in their way doesn't change for some time. At least that's how @mexxico explained. Maybe he can tell us what's going on in these examples.
It is very interesting, it does seem like it eventually happens. You can see in the very first example there are two W Emp caravans on the top right, the party with 45 does eventually stop coming back (right before the 10 troops desert the party). This may just need to be adjusted so it happens earlier
 
Wonder how many people would be interested in a Mount & Blade real Medieval simulator would be. That being a game with predefined boundaries of factions, real that Lords would feel threatened by if enemies tended to "hang out " on their borders and react to incursions with minor retaliation. Real natural resources like rivers and the fertile land around them as welll as increased trade revenue they provide.With real farm areas that could be raided for food and real citizen concern for resources leading to thieving, hoarding, public perception, faction vanity and the outbreak of war over these types of things. Personally i would find these absolutely enjoyable but maybe it sounds boring to others.
 
Wonder how many people would be interested in a Mount & Blade real Medieval simulator would be. That being a game with predefined boundaries of factions, real that Lords would feel threatened by if enemies tended to "hang out " on their borders and react to incursions with minor retaliation. Real natural resources like rivers and the fertile land around them as welll as increased trade revenue they provide.With real farm areas that could be raided for food and real citizen concern for resources leading to thieving, hoarding, public perception, faction vanity and the outbreak of war over these types of things. Personally i would find these absolutely enjoyable but maybe it sounds boring to others.

In my experience people like selective realism, usually stuff that feels authentic but is really just there to add an air of authenticity. You try adding soldier stamina, dysentery tearing through your troops, seasonal-only campaigning, realistic frequency of battles and non-magic wealth assets and suddenly the pendulum swings firmly back to gamey artifice, and I don't use that term pejoratively.
 
Last edited:
It is very interesting, it does seem like it eventually happens. You can see in the very first example there are two W Emp caravans on the top right, the party with 45 does eventually stop coming back (right before the 10 troops desert the party). This may just need to be adjusted so it happens earlier
it does happen, it just takes too long, they should lower it a bit
 
Back
Top Bottom