Recent content by ElCrisp

  1. Progression: the Drug of Any Game - and something Bannerlord Needs a LOT more of...

    Sheepify said:
    The problem is that a lot of it comes from "design" (and I use this term extremely loosely :razz:) decisions.

    Removing attributes relationship to equipment removed horizontal progression. You'll no longer get this feeling of "finally" when, after grinding two more levels, you can finally put that 16th point of Strength in to use that masterwork greatsword you bought in-game months ago.

    Removing village as an independent fief (seriously, who TF thought this was a good idea when EVERY Warband overhaul mod added to the management of it) removed the whole "now you have a place you need to take care of" potential early-mid-game progression. Meanwhile, we couldn't even get a "build your castle from ground up" (that was possible even in modded Warband) because reasons.

    Weapon and combat balance makes it possible to win tournaments with level 1 no-equipment-no-skill character. So you don't even get the kicks from finally being able to swing fast enough to duel Lord This of That. Honestly, the whole character development subsystem is just... bland, with no sense of accomplishment to it. Oh, goodie, another 2% bonus perk.

    Clans could've worked as expansion of gameplay, but Taleworlds did nothing with them. Instead of having some kind of back-stabbing and inter- as well as intra-clan intrigues and open warfare, they are just organizational labels with little value to them. I mean, period history pretty much is a cycle of "mom wanted ME to have that cutlery set, not you, you harlot!" conflicts on a larger scale. It's also what drives a lot of "historical" or pure fantasy shows. This is where you could get drama without involving an entire faction into a war against another, and incidentally allow player at lower progression level to get immersed in the "emergent storytelling" part of the game. So we wouldn't have to look up Encyclopedia simply to identify some RandomLord462, but remember them as "oh, yeah, this guy who fought for three years over that village," or "Lady Poison who got me to remove Derphart's firstborn so her hubbie can inherit."

    Incidentally, relying on inter- and intra-clan conflict to provide a stepping stone between looter-chasing and full-on factional warfare would not just add another layer of game progression, you could use that mechanic to control faction snowballing potential as well. Having uppity lords go at it behind the rulers' back would be enough to provide the necessary drama (and smaller-scale conflicts to let the player advance) without having to worry about half the map being repainted in months.

    Crusader Kings showed very well how it worked (Gavelkind, nevah furgit). Doesn't need to be that level of details, but some kind of relationship system between nobles (and possible notables) was absolutely warranted.

    FFS, even village notables should have some quests to remove an aspiring competitor (or the other way around), and related to competition with other villages for better terms/warehousing rights/sales contacts in the city. At the very least.

    Entertainment without conflict is bland, and you can't just go "randomly-spawned-'bandits' and faction wars take care of it, we're done," especially considering the settings.

    Then again, the whole game is just unambitious to the point of being a pile of wasted potential, and what's there doesn't even work that well.

    Meh.
    Click to expand...
    I'm going to have to agree massively with a lot of what you said here. There is so little game design in bannerlord it is painful.
    Soccer and boardgames have game design bannerlord has none of it. This game is in many ways a tech demo + a wishlist.
    The many simulated features of this game's supposed wide scope are in reallity disconected or entirely out of balance with one another, not because they are hard to balance (which may also be in fact true) but because as far as I can tell, and understood from various peoples deep dives into the code, there is no attempt to connect these things. They are just free floating signifier that dont connect to anything, but especially not a larger unified game design which considers pacing and progression.

    The throbing thumb of this being the dynasty and clan system. They asked themselves only is they could, not why they should. "it would be cool if we had children we could play as!" Can we interact with these children in any meaningful way? Do these children face any different challenges to their parents? Do they affect the gameloop in any meaningful way? Are they just exactly the same as the wanderers you meet in taverns who also have no stories or personalities? Am I even your real father!?

    On the point of progression, especially villages as you mentioned. I remember in warband, one of the harder things was replenishing your troops after a serious defeat, if however you rose relations with a village you would get more recruits and even ones of a higher tier. This helped the progression of my warband, me and this village were symbiotic This connectected me with that village, I didnt want it to get raided. I did the same with the villages I was given as fiefs.
    Which also made me want to defend the castle that kept my village in our kingdoms territory.

    Players used to go from being slow and useless with their weapons, to crack soldiers, and it wasnt just weapon profficiencies, it was skill points like Power Strike and Iron flesh. These skill points along with armour was a big reason troops and the player got stronger than their lower level counterparts - a big reason why looters still possed such a large threat to high tier troops in Bannerlord, is becuase equipemnt asside their damgage and hit point are far closer than warband.
    I would level my companions so that they could pass that next threshhold with the training skill, enabling them to train my regular soldier to the next teir passively. Allowing me to recover my forces quickly and turn the tide in my campaign. They were also valuble soldier when given good equipment and their skill progressed, they were my most valuable soldiers and I valued them. Maybe in part I dont feel this in bannerlord becuase of is its increased scale, more soldiers means less impact of individuals but the gap between lords and looters seem less than in warband.

    I also remeber not being able to run my whole party economy on battle loot alone if I wanted to maintain a party large enough to contest with senior lords and kings. I needed a fief, I needed workshops. Looting villages was also a huge component of the budget but maybe that was because there was more often peace in warband?

  2. Beta Patch Notes e1.9.0

    The thing is, whenever people suggest maybe the player should have some influence over their caravan's route, or that it may be silly that the default behaviour of caravans it to try and move trade goods through enemy territory...

    It is always the first time someone has concieved such a novel and unintutive implementation. The obvious and inherited wisdom is to give players no agency in these matters, and that when a.i. must act on behalf of the player they should take actions that the player would under no circumstances endorse. It just how we have been making games for generations.

    Simple honest work.

  3. Beta Patch Notes e1.9.0

    cuce said:
    not too soon. as it was mercenary troops were severely lacking in content. primarily we want them to be expensive but fast way to get some decent troops but they should not have the same potential as state troops (both cost and power wise), so they will not override regular troop raising methods. we want to do more with them but not just by simply adding more troops into the mix. at this stage we wanted to have some mercs that both feel out of place in their regions but will also will fill same gaps if you were to hire them with other factions.
    Click to expand...
    How did you guys come to the philosophy that Mercenary troops shouldn't perform aswell as state troops? Mercenaries were proffesional soldier before that was a wide spread convention and as such were generally better trained and equipted than all but the most knightly nobility. State troops not fighting all year round like mercenaries did.

    That aside under your own balance philosphy of a "fast way to get some decent troops but they should not have the same potential" They seem to me to fail in that regard too.
    As it is after maybe the first few game years notables tend to gain enough power in most settlements that finding troops at tier 2 and 3 is not at all uncommon. Add to this noble troops starting at tier 2 and often available at tier 3. Many of the tier 3 nobles perofrm at above their tier level in gear and proficenices. All well and good they are "elite" noble troops.

    It is not as though everytime mercenaries are availible to hire they are Tier 4 and 5, they are just as often in my experience tier 3. So we can see they arent much "faster" than regular state troops as far as tier is concerned, and avoiding the need to be upgraded.

    Then comes the issue of their gear, which not in every case but generally sits about a tier below State troops, so the tier 5 infantry has a tier 4 troops gear. their tier 4 such as the Mercenary Maceman has tier 3 gear.
    So while I can hire a mercenary at tier 4 or 5. I'm getting the power of a tier 3 or 4 troop.
    So again barely faster than a state troop.

    The greatest change in troops stats also generally happens in the upgrade between tier 4 and 5 with many infantry and cavalry going from 25 to 60 body armour or 30 to 50. So being a tier 5 troop in tier 4 armour is a hell of a lot worse than being a tier 4 troop in tier 3 armour.
    I dont think the 30 weapon proffeciencies difference makes up for this short fall of equipment, 2.1% weapon speed and 4.5% damage make little difference compared to the weapon that is equip in the first place.

    But now I am also supposed to pay Tier 6 wages at 18 denars for my tier 5 merc which has the power of a tier 4 troop??
    I can "fast" recruit my tier 4 mercenary troop without having to upgrade it, except its actually as strong as a tier 3 troop and has the wage of a tier 5 troop. So while much more expensive it not that much faster, primarily because the troop is not "decent".

    I do like that you guys chose to expand the cultural diversirty of the mercenaries though, adds to world immersion and fullness.

    Do you think while adding this content you could have had an intern or a community member check the equipment loadouts though? As it stands the Hired Pikeman has more body armour than its upgrade the Elite Hired pikeman and the Sellsword has more body armour than its upgrade the Merceneary Maceman, who also losses the Sell Swords Javelin. Thats just what I noticed when I took a brief looks at the new troops out of curiosity.

  4. Archer cheese still alive and well in 2022?

    Sweynforkbeard said:
    ME. As a player!

    I have already given the one important reason why it is not something that critically needs to be adressed: It only affect you if you choose to exploit it!

    There are a ton of exploits available in Bannerlord. The vast majority of which I choose not to exploit, archer cheese among them, and then there are a few that I do choose to exploit, most notably burning through my vassals influence to control the political system.


    Why is it so hard for you to just say "ok, this is too OP/too cheesy/too... for my taste, I am not going to exploit it".
    Click to expand...
    Your arguments are silly in my opinion, and are steeped in a simply negative vision of the game. That appear in bad faith.

    The reason Devs generally should and do strive to eliminate exploits in all games is because games are challenges existing within the framework of rules and limitations.
    These limitation provide the challenge and thus the opportunity for the expression of skill and mastery.
    Mastery and expression of skill is a large reason people find video games fun.
    To overcome challenging situations through skills learnt and creative chioces made is satisfying. If this process is made reduntant by exploits or obvious best choices, this satisfaction is taken away from the player to some extent.
    I can set my own rules of course, but I can also play in the mud outside and make up challenges in my head. A video games is a curated experience made by professionals to tickle my pschological buttons (The good ones anyway)

    Your argument "Devs shouldnt bother to fix exploit A because exploit B, C and D will still exist anyway" is obviously daft circular logic.

    The same is true for obvious balance issues and particularly balance outliers.

    Furthermore whatever your issues with the changes to the smithing system after nerf, are just that issues with those changes. To then argue that "other changes shouldnt be made because this one time it didnt go the way I prefer" is an argument made in the negative. You could instead argue positively for the conveniences you want in smithing. Here instead you are trying to starve of oxygen @five bucks expressed desire for balance changes in case the Devs mess it up?

    Like I dont blame you for your lack of faith in certain choices made by Devs, but then to come on the forums and post back and forth as though you are argueing points reasoned.
    This tendency for some people to post their feeling about how they think Devs should prioritise Development time, away from issues someone else raises in a thread, so that time may instead be allocated to whatever this persons pressing issues may be, is not constrictive its insecure. Then to pass off that expression of preference as reasoned argument is...

  5. Policies working as intended????

    Im glad we have great interesting perks functioning as intended. Where would I be without my 2% increased damage with polearms.

    The game feel just wouldnt be there without my 2% damage with polaearms!

  6. Do you enjoy smithing?

    The ability to make visually or statistically interesting weapons is very cool.

    Every other aspect of how the system is connected to the game is dog water, as bad as it could be.

    A boring grind of 1000 clicks through an interface that only needs to be improved so i can better access and overcome said boring grind.
    Add in some randomness to waste more time thats a *Chef's kiss* from me

    If say hammering out the steel was some sort of fun skill based mini game where you could feel accomplished for finally succeeding that master craft. It might add to gameplay. That would take dev time tho so...
    Maybe quests or some favorful ways to get unlocks, perhaps linked to the crafting orders? Tournament rewards? A lot of different options that would all be better fun than the current progression system as that only succeeds in giving me RSI

  7. Policies working as intended????

    It seems like many things, the current set of policy are more a place holder (lets hope) or proof of concept.

    It would be cool if after they improve and make transprent AI voting logic, they added some policies that actually felt more impactful.

    Enough to represent a stance of the kingdom. Different modes of governance expressed in numbers.

  8. Patch Notes e1.8.0

    azakhi said:
    yX6tRNF.png


    The settlement values are still bugged. That is Marunath getting 572 MILLION settlement value for Battania cause Battania doesn't have any fiefs and still considers Marunath the faction middle settlement.
    I explained in full detail how this bug happens and exact location of the code. I made a bug report where support confirmed you are aware. And it could be fixed easily temporarily by clamping distance value to minimum when faction doesn't have any fiefs or something similar.
    Yet you guys decided to just lower daily defection considerations and score when it is a player kingdom. Sorry but this is just sweeping it under the rug.
    Click to expand...
    Is there a chance this is in part intententional because the Battanians dont hold any fiefs. So that the kingdom attempts to reform around its starting / ancestral lands. Trying to recapture Marunath first. Assuming this settlement value is called upon in some capacity as far as picking siege targets.

    Also @TW I understand why this bandaid fix for defections has been chosen while you guys come up with some deeper reworking of the system.
    but why does it take 9 whole weeks to put a bandaid on?

  9. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    niekdegrijze said:
    I am also wondering how the total amount of payd tribute effects the kingdoms over the course of a playthrough. I still think a predetermined total amount over x time is A more logical way.
    Now declaring war is the only way to stop paying tribute.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah infinite tribute on its face seems like an odd system, risks people winning in the bank rather than on the battlefield.
    I dont fully understand war calculations in depth. But currently it seems like tributes work as a grudge system -- kingdoms look to reduce the tributes they are paying, this leads to some behaviour that is logical for the tribute system but is odd from a gameplay perspective. Namely short negotioation type wars.
    I have seen this play out quite rationally (as far as the system is concerned) as a merc for NE I saw them enter into 3 different wars in turn to reduce tributes they were paying from 1000 down to paying 300. These wars were quite short not enough time for me to even move to the front on one of them. But succesful wars in terms of tribute. During these wars with various kingdoms, SE, BA, and WE the whole time NE was paying a wopping 3k from a very early war with Khuzait, total pay out around 270k. So from an early war where no territory traded hands Khuzaits are subsidised to the tune of 270k to fight wars with their other opponents.

    So you can see in a hypothetical situation a dominate kingdom could end up collecting tribute from most of their neighbours. Which provides continuous motivation for those kingdoms to declare war on the stronger kingdom.
    But how does that play out in practice when the dominate kingdom gets war declared on them from multiple kingdoms. I know there is code to encourage kingdoms to not fight multiple wars atleast to some extent, is it only the strong kingdoms who get these peace deals though?
    Do they actually recieve the tribute in this situation because they are stronger, or does the fact they are the ones seeking peace bias negotiations so the strong kingdom fighting multiple enemies end up paying tribute.

    So while you expect it to be the strong kingdoms collecting tributes motivating the weaker kingdoms to go to war with them.
    The tributes could be a result of historic lopsided 1v2 war negotiations. Leading to a strong kingdoms holding a tribute grudge against a weaker kingdom.

    This grudge type system has it merits I think. I just agree that after a set time the money part of it should end as to not be a "win more" mechanic.
    So while this grudge value could persist untill the next war re-negotiates it, the part where money changes hands could end after 30 days (number pulled out of butt) as to not pin weaker kingdoms getting drained by one faction and being at war with others targeting them for their weakness.

  10. Future Plans post 2 from Taleworlds

    xdj1nn said:
    try playing the game with reasonable balancing mods that actually make armors a little more logical, and reduces overall HP and you'll understand that the problem isn't the spears
    Click to expand...
    So in a completely different game that isnt the one I'm talking about spears arent a problem? Nice.

    Appart from that salient point. The armour in the video you presented is a single peice cuirass which isnt present in banerlord nore the periods that loosely inspires it. But dont worry I have seen the litany of other videos showing armour effectiveness everytime these realism discussions are rehashed.
    I'm all for bannerlord to be inspired by or reflect real life, but first and foremost I want it to be a fun game. It's not realistic that I can't suplex a man but this is a game with limitations. Certain realisms can't be mapped by this game. So to religiously persue the select realisms that you can implement just leads to bad game design. and something that doesnt really reflect real combat anyway.

    I think archers could use a nerf but that's just because I want unit tactics to not be one dimentional. I still think they should be a fun class to play with a lethal role beyond just harassment.

    My opinions on the relative strength of spears in this game still stands.

    Anyway we are off topic. I'm just here waiting for a patch ahah..

  11. Future Plans post 2 from Taleworlds

    xdj1nn said:
    you'll kill anything quite fast with headshots, you simply must understand that using long spears for melee infantry close range fights' just dumb, that's the reason why short spears existed, even historically.
    Click to expand...
    I have done many playthrough using spears and you are correct, that if you perk correctly and play correctly you can make spears work. But that's just it you have to make them work. You have no such problem with the other weapons, they simply work out of the box.
    There is nothing stopping you from hitting a character in the head with a 2hander and overkilling your target you simply dont have to.
    You can also stab with swords just as you can short spears. A shorter spear is what 180 at the high end and 140 at the low end (outside javelins)
    Im not even sure if a weapons reach is counted from grip to tip, or it is just the length of the weapon - in the latter case the spears lose a third of their length anyway.
    If taking a short spear over a sword, in what situations is that extra ~20-40 weapon length reaping dividends over the ability to swing your weapon in 3 extra direction each of which have a suprior damage hit box for the messy mob fighting that is bannerlord infantry combat.
    Which comes to in my opinion the biggest stat weaknesses of spears - their handling. This meassure the size and there fore duration of the damaging and peak damage windows during a swing or thrust.
    If you sweet spot it spears can do damage equal to other weapons its just harder because they have ~25 less handling. The two hander and one hander perk trees have ways to increase their handling further multiplying their higher base values. Both one hander and 2 hander skills give better scaling per skill point than the pole arm tree putting thrusting spears further behind.
    2hander swords are just a better thrusting weapon than a spear.
    Relating to long spears + pikes and their supposed or ideal effectivenes against cavalry it is a at this moment a more academic than practical question. As it currently stands cavalry seem to be completely inaffective. I can have 20 tier 4 cav charge full speed into an equal number of spread out looters and they will leave with 1-2 kills. They just dont hit anything, or they dont do enough damge to kill and by the time they get their second charge off the infantry melee will already be decided because they take less than 1 minute
    The most cavalry do is their minor CC disruptions when they charge / collide with you.
    They rarely even hit me though, I'll get run through by about 6 horses if im caught out of position before one of them even clips me with their weapon. This CC can be anouying as a player because loss of control always is. Plus the outsized effect we as the player have on the tide of battle means any down time for us can be dangerous given how random the outcome of relatively even fights can be.
    If you are talking about outright killing riders then two handers are also just as, if not more effetive because of their higher handling and base damage, multiplied by the speed bonus provided by the rider charging you. Most Cav dont have spears long enough that you cant stab the head of their horse with a two handed sword before they can touch you . the window just feels scarier because you have to let the horses get closer to you than with a spear.

  12. Future Plans post 2 from Taleworlds

    Duh_TaleWorlds said:
    :iamamoron:
    I wouldn't mind an adjustment for piercing in line with the buff that we saw against other damage types. Of course, it should be done in a way that doesn't invalidate archery and polearms in field battles and sieges.
    Click to expand...
    Thrusting polarms need all sorts of love. On foot they could use more thrusting speed / earlier hit detection. The AI needs a lot of help with spears as you guys know. If you load into a tournament where all AI have lances you can see this pretty clearly, they hug one another while they flaccidly prod each other.

    Archers could have their fire rate lowered too, that was one of the big difference I noticed loading into BL from WB with very low bow skill you are loosing arrows quick.

    If armour was buffed you could probably afford to nerf shields coverage or durabillity too Opening a few more lucky shots for archers. Which simultaneously would give a relative boost to shock troops as an infantry choice.

    Aslo I was unaware you worked on Floris Duh thank you for whatever your contributions were, that was my favourite warband mod and I sank 100s of hours into it. Your mod made me buy Bannerlord on release. :grin:

  13. Future Plans post 2 from Taleworlds

    Duh_TaleWorlds said:
    To be very dry... because work doesn't happen in isolation, time & resources are limited and a choice has to be made between different priorities. As the last change has achieved a reasonable improvement, other tasks were valued relatively higher.
    Click to expand...
    I appreciate most the dry and direct answers, especially because I appreciate how they attract further critisim. There is a bravery to them when you are in the minority making them.
    I understand Devs at TW wear multiple hats and there may have been a large sort of framework or foundational type issues that were given higher priority, lets say maybe seige ai and fixing those calaculations, which I appreciate is probably a complex problem.
    But it seems to me something like playing with numbers in forumla or equipment requires the least technical know how, but importantly leads to big differences in game feel for the player. So as far as the economics of Dev time it seems like an easy win. Like someone of fairly average modding abilities could be hired part time to play around with numbers if you agreed with or set their direction. I guess the development team is just that lean? Or the teams assesement of the time taken versus payoff is different to mine.

    Outside that more meaningful gameplay impact, when you see an armour peice that has stat values that make you go "huh why?" it makes the game feel more unfinished than it should.

    Again appreciate the asnwer even if it leads to perhaps unhelpful speculation of a few (myself included) But when we can't see the weather forcast we resort to reading entrails ahah.

  14. Future Plans post 2 from Taleworlds

    Duh_TaleWorlds said:
    Well, given that changes have been made since - in the direction of the feedback
    Click to expand...
    1
    Duh_TaleWorlds said:
    Further adjustments are possible but I wouldn't expect them in the near future.
    Click to expand...
    I find this approach very confusing. Since Bannerlords early access release there has been 2 (1?) Change to the the armour/ damage calculations. Why cant this go through a process of itterative change? Particularly in the beta branch where those changes dont have to make it to live.
    I would of have been fine if there were a slightly different armour formula tested in every single beta since early access. Why not?
    I do understand there are different views around the armour forumla and some people at Talewords certainly liked the flatter destinction between different armour values and thus tiers of units.

    But still why cant we test a new forumula next week?
    Why are things like item balance passes 3 month appart - what suddenly makes armour and item values need a pass when they didnt in the 2 patches before that.
    Because if they are not perfect then shouldn't they have a pass every week or every new patch/beta?
    Are you guys that good that you make it perfect in one pass?
    Why is this proccess not itterative?

    I also understand in the case of the campaign simulation that if you change something it can have flow on effects that cant be understood imediately so there you may have to take a more careful and gradual approach (though it can still be interative) However the combat side of things is siloed off completely, only in effect when the player is present. Why hasnt there been 4x the changes, to the paramters that are literally just numbers.
    Like I get if I were talking about iterative balanace passes on cavalry AI and its ability to swing and make contact with anything that this is actually a hard and multidimentional (literally) nut to crack.

    Why is TW so hessitant it seems to change a 10 to a 15 and a 0.7 to an 0.65 when they can change it back the next week if its inccorect.
    I'm not talking about the changes where a mail coif is made to finally have more armour than a cloth rag -- thats a bug fix not a balance change.
    These sorts of patches could come out without any major content of bug fixes
    "Hi I'm Talewords and this is my **** around and find out series of patches." Could open the patch notes just so people dont get too salty about a feature light change list.

  15. Economy Changes with 1.8 and onwards

    cuce said:
    With trade goods being abundant, the amount of raw materials consumed by workshops were not making a dent in the supply and did not affect the prices. Now even if we didn't increase their consumption, a town with a smithy will have higher prices for iron ore.
    Click to expand...
    I'm not sure how this is playing out in practice but the behaviour you suggest here would actually be a problem if realised.
    Workshops as they currently exist will always work actively against their own profitability - their profits are obviously dependent on the price difference between their inputs and outputs while selling and buying on the one market, they will always work to increase the cost of their inputs (pushing up demand) and decrease the cost of their outputs (saturating the supply) it doesnt make much difference if they pause when they cant see immediate profits if they then sell again bringing prices back down and eliminating profit opportunities once more keeping their own market at parity.
    There fore workshops in general need to not move the needle too much on the demand of their inputs and the over supply of their outputs to maintain profits. The ebb and flow of supply and demand needs to be external to workshops or too large to move for the workshops themselves.

    Or you could enable players to caravan their goods straight from home workshop markets to distant ones for fat profits.

    Another in game factor for workhops is caravans which through buying low and selling high (arbitrage) can smooth out these over supply problems for work shops.
    Which then links to our second problem regional price difference or comparitive difference in markets are being flattend by the trade momentum (volume of goods and speed of their transport) across the map. As identified by @StaceMcGate There are a large number of caravans on the map, at some point to make player caravans more survivable, caravans accross the board it seems had their movement speed increased which in turn increases the momentum of trade goods around the map. Your own changes this patch to enable caravans better use of beasts of burden giving them the abilty to move a larger mass of trade good will also increase global trade momentum, further dampening regional differences (assuming this change applies to AI caravans)
    But now we come to the third issue. Part of the reason I believe trade momentum was increased was to smooth the food markets to prevent starvation and modderate how strong grain villages are for the prosperity ceiling.
    For these problems I would suggest kingdom opperated food caravans to distribute and buy food for the kingdom. Tariffing private merchants heavily for essential food stuffs (this is how fuedal lords in part maintained social control was forced control of food markets) paired with this you could lower the overall trade momentum of private caravans bringing back regional comparitive advantage and trade profits and XP with it.

    While you are at it could you fix the glaring issue that has been raised multiple times. The growth over time of hostile parties such as bandits vs the static size of friendly parties such as villagers and caravans (another reason for caravans short life span and the bandaid speed buffs.)
    This no doubt only exacerbates the inflation issues in the late game and if nothing else makes it harder to balance the economy with this confounding variable.

    Glad somebody is workong on this stuff @cuce bet of luck
See more
Back
Top Bottom