Information about developments at snowballing problem

Users who are viewing this thread

in 1.8 S Empire still gets trampled and Batannaia most of the time also, ran a 50 year run

So after 50 years your test had a snowball score of 43, which is pretty good. It does give me a bit of a pause though as my test are ending up much higher (most recent tests are looking at 70+). I'm curious what speed multiplier did you use to run the test? I've been using 20 as that's the max Mex felt comfortable using without it starting to impact gameplay.
 
So after 50 years your test had a snowball score of 43, which is pretty good. It does give me a bit of a pause though as my test are ending up much higher (most recent tests are looking at 70+). I'm curious what speed multiplier did you use to run the test? I've been using 20 as that's the max Mex felt comfortable using without it starting to impact gameplay.
yeah from earlier tests it is much better, but it just seems most games I play the south Battania get their butt kicked
 
yeah from earlier tests it is much better, but it just seems most games I play the south Battania get their butt kicked
Did you use the campaign speed multiplier cheat for the timelapse or is it the normal game speed and speed up with video editing? If you did use the campaign speed multiplier cheat, what did you set it at?
 
250 X in game, then it was 6 X in editing
ah unfortunately I think 250x is too high for us to trust the results, mex was worried that 20x was too high and didnt feel comfortable going higher than that. If you plan to do anymore (which would be appreciated) could you run it at 20x and increase the timelapse through editing? Might have to cut your timeframe down to 20 years though as it take 2 hours at 20x.
 
ah unfortunately I think 250x is too high for us to trust the results, mex was worried that 20x was too high and didnt feel comfortable going higher than that. If you plan to do anymore (which would be appreciated) could you run it at 20x and increase the timelapse through editing? Might have to cut your timeframe down to 20 years though as it take 2 hours at 20x.
gotcha ill speed it up more in editing
 
Ok here are 3 more tests. First two tests don't seem to be anomalies, these new tests snowball scores are 92, 86, and 72, giving us an average snowball score of 80 between my 5 tests. Surprisingly the last test had Battania and South Empire as part of the winning kingdoms. The most consistent thing throughout these tests is Sturgia getting stomped by 20 years. I'll add some more observations later. Let me know if you would like any of these saves @SadShogun

Test 3

6xa8l.jpg
6oMMa.jpg
cjzem.jpg
gS5ry.jpg
SKUYz.png
q5l0C.png
wUI2_.png



Test 4
xaG0z.jpg
4VBNd.jpg
htFnF.jpg
w_Ggq.jpg
m8cl_.png
UO74Z.png
5WFzG.png

Test 5

JWBgc.jpg
dYB50.jpg
UisLV.jpg
e4rBg.jpg
q_ABN.png
k7WiK.png
Dc785.png
 
What does Sturgia need changed in order to not suck? Is it its geography that's the fundamental problem or something else?
 
What does Sturgia need changed in order to not suck? Is it its geography that's the fundamental problem or something else?
From the beginning it was clear (at least I thought) that both geography and army composition(less horses) where mayor factors for the less than stellar performance of Sturgia.

I still think the early attempts of stopping the khuzait snowball, by giving every faction more horses, was wrong. Makes all the battles more or less similar. It addressed the problems with speed benefits on the campaign map(ai only having to fight winnable battles) and cavalry bonuses to autocalc by levelling the playing field.


A way of making sturgia more resilient could be by increasing the snow penalty for other factions, movement speed and food consumption.
In addition Sturgia could get a fighting in snow bonus in autocalc.

A more different approach could be: reducing Sturgian party sizes but also give them more parties. This would give them the opportunity to avoid bad matchups on snow, because of the movement speed on snow and smaller size. While also retaining the ability to unite in big enough armies to take settlements.

This all would keep the Sturgian core lands safer, while preventing them to expand easily below the snow line.

Another nice feature would be for more aggressive raiding during winter times.

This all would adress some of the problems while keeping the factions unique (I hope)
 
What does Sturgia need changed in order to not suck? Is it its geography that's the fundamental problem or something else?
I'm not particularly familiar with all the factors and systems in place, but I wonder if the autocalc system needs to be more fleshed out and robust? In theory, a spear-heavy army should generally beat a horse-heavy army, an archer-heavy army should generally beat a shieldless infantry-heavy army, and certain infantry-heavy configurations should beat other infantry-heavy configurations.
 
@SadShogun have you guys noticed yet that kingdoms wont make armies to fight rebellions if they are at peace with all other kingdoms?

They will attack a rebelled city if they have an existing army like when at war but wont create them during peace. So the rebellion goes untouched. Pretty sure this has a big part to play in the increased rebel clans.

I got a 10 minute vid of a city rebelling against the strongest kingdom that happens to be at peace without an army and 10 minutes later the rebels become a clan because no army was ever formed to take back the city. Let me know if you want it or the save.
 
Last edited:
What does Sturgia need changed in order to not suck? Is it its geography that's the fundamental problem or something else?
I don't have enough experience with Bannerlord yet to say for sure, but it does seem like geography is a big issue for Sturgia. The campaign I'm currently playing is only on day 70-something, but Sturgia has already started to lose pretty badly, with Tyal, Sibir, and some castles falling to the Khuzait in the east.

The Sturgians were dominating almost all of the open field battles against the Vlandians in the starting war, and traded Nevyansk Castle and Caleus Castle back and forth a couple of times. I actually signed on with the Vlandians as a mercenary, but my army was much too small and weak to even think about turning the tide - the Sturgians were fielding some pretty high tier units, and in significant numbers. But once the Khuzait and Northern Empire both declared war, it all started going downhill for the Sturgians. They eventually made peace with Vlandia, returning to the initial borders, but they'd already lost numerous parties to both the Khuzait and Northern Empire (along with some of the aforementioned settlements).

Any kingdom can obviously have a lot of trouble when fighting 3 wars simultaneously like that, but that long distance trek for the main body of the Sturgian troops meant that they were fighting piecemeal and losing numerous parties and settlements in battles that they had no chance to win. I'm also not sure if the main two armies even had enough food to make the trip without starvation, considering how long many of the lords had been in the field whilst fighting the Vlandians.
 
I don't have enough experience with Bannerlord yet to say for sure, but it does seem like geography is a big issue for Sturgia. The campaign I'm currently playing is only on day 70-something, but Sturgia has already started to lose pretty badly, with Tyal, Sibir, and some castles falling to the Khuzait in the east.

The Sturgians were dominating almost all of the open field battles against the Vlandians in the starting war, and traded Nevyansk Castle and Caleus Castle back and forth a couple of times. I actually signed on with the Vlandians as a mercenary, but my army was much too small and weak to even think about turning the tide - the Sturgians were fielding some pretty high tier units, and in significant numbers. But once the Khuzait and Northern Empire both declared war, it all started going downhill for the Sturgians. They eventually made peace with Vlandia, returning to the initial borders, but they'd already lost numerous parties to both the Khuzait and Northern Empire (along with some of the aforementioned settlements).
Sounds a lot like my experiences with Neyvansk lol.

Neyvansk Castle: *exists*

Vlandia: it's free real estate
Any kingdom can obviously have a lot of trouble when fighting 3 wars simultaneously like that, but that long distance trek for the main body of the Sturgian troops meant that they were fighting piecemeal and losing numerous parties and settlements in battles that they had no chance to win. I'm also not sure if the main two armies even had enough food to make the trip without starvation, considering how long many of the lords had been in the field whilst fighting the Vlandians.
Yeah, their territory is long, thin, cut in half, full of snow that slows them down which they don't get a movement bonus in, and exposed on a land border to 4 different factions. Unlike say Aserai who are also long but protected by the not-Mediterranean on most of their northern border, and are able to move quickly in sand.
 
Sturgia should get a snow bonus and enemies a penalty to food consumption so it would be harder to maintain a army and siege in snow conditions. Sturgia could also use a second pathway in the middle of their territory.
 
There is a similarity between Sturgia and Aseraii, they are both very extended from East to West, with less zig zags for the Aserai (thinking to the detour between Sibir and Tyal).
Khuzait have the same issue with North and South but I think the distance is shorter.

I don't know how this snow-balling and faction performance is calculated, but when I join Sturgia I manage to do it.

From a point of view, Sturgia should absolutely make peace if necessary to absolutely avoid war both in east and west.

Well, my little thought on this topic. :wink:
 
@SadShogun have you guys noticed yet that kingdoms wont make armies to fight rebellions if they are at peace with all other kingdoms?

They will attack a rebelled city if they have an existing army like when at war but wont create them during peace. So the rebellion goes untouched. Pretty sure this has a big part to play in the increased rebel clans.

I got a 10 minute vid of a city rebelling against the strongest kingdom that happens to be at peace without an army and 10 minutes later the rebels become a clan because no army was ever formed to take back the city. Let me know if you want it or the save.
I will check if we can address this issue, though it would cause a lot more rebellions to fail. (Though it can be balanced in some other way)
 
I will check if we can address this issue, though it would cause a lot more rebellions to fail. (Though it can be balanced in some other way)
Could you also check the Clan Names?

Usually the names just say: "X (leader name)'s Clan"

I know this a very small issue, but is most immersion one. But the clan names are totally weird for rebellion clans

Appreciate a lot the work you guys being doing for balancing, the game is getting better at each update
 
@SadShogun I made the comment below else where but wanted to know what your thoughts were on what's causing the current snowball/defection issue.

@Sir Frederic Yep thats essentially the game loop right now, kingdoms will be normal for about the first 5 years because they all start out at average wealth and a big kingdom bank, but after the first few wars are decided and tributes start being paid the losers are on a downward spiral to bankruptcy. You lose one war and then every other kingdoms recognizes it can easily get tributes from you so they declare and get a massive tribute because the kingdom is even weaker when at war with multiple kingdoms. Sadly i dont have the data to say whether tribute is causing snowballing or if snowballing is causing the tribute. It could be maybe tributes are higher than they use to be so clans are being bankrupted to defeat faster or kingdoms are getting their asses handed to them and tributes are higher because of it. It might be the latter due to them slowing down the recruit leveling up, we use to have on average tier 3-4 easily recruitable from villages and towns but now its on average tier 1-2.
 
I will check if we can address this issue, though it would cause a lot more rebellions to fail. (Though it can be balanced in some other way)
Rebellions *should* fail in a stable kingdom at peace, right? A rebellion distracts/weakens a faction, especially if it's at war; and vice-versa, a faction at war might have its hands too full to go stop a rebellion from succeeding.
 
@Blood Gryphon You might be the only one with the Data / Observations to show this.
But whats the tendency for stonger factions to get ganged up on?
Then what follows? Do the strong factions now facing multiple wars instantly sue for peace and get drained by tributes until the pendulam swings the other way, despite only fighting one opponent but now paying tribute to avoid people ganging up on them? Or are they actually ground down on the battle field?
Or is it the case that because all AI think about is their next immediate success and have no view for future threats they simply attack whoever they think is weak. Leading to dog piles where again, the one dog piled I imagine tries to sue for peace untill it is paying tribute to everyone leading to its financial ruin.
 
Back
Top Bottom