The above is far more interesting way to do culture bonuses. Having them be a consideration for gameplay, though this may be harder to code.I like the pro/con approach myself, it's just that they are heavily imbalanced in terms of what the player gets from them and what the AI does, as well as how general or niche they are. Some barely impact your game or are highly conditional(having to be a Merc for example to get part of Vlandia's), while others are a massive bonus from beginning to end - Battania being the most egregious outlier here with the move speed in forests.
Some of this is pretty fixable though, I think.Take Vlandia as the current total dud example:
These are incredibly boring and highly conditional.
- [Pro] 5% more renown from battles. 15% more income while serving as a mercenary.
- [Pro] 10% production bonus to villages that are bound to castles.
- [Con] Recruiting lords to armies costs 20% more influence.
What about something like this:
Bam, now you have perks fitting the same theme but less conditional and that affect your gameplay in some tangible ways. I have incentives to play a Vlandian differently - field more Merc troops, more aggressively go after enemies raiding villages, and take on bigger enemy parties when I can. The more elite Mercenaries at lower wages of course helping with that. And the con makes a little more sense now, as this would be a playstyle favoring spending more time as a smaller party or army.
- [Pro] 10% more renown from battles you're outnumbered in. +10 to all skills and 20% lower wages for Mercenary units in your parties.
- [Pro] Allied villages gain hearth when your nearby parties are victorious in battle.
- [Con] Recruiting lords to armies costs 20% more influence.
That's the kind of synergetic and impactful kind of culture bonuses I'd prefer to have, anyway.
There is partial truth to that, however people keep suggesting a few of the large obvious solutions because they are exactly that.I feel like a lot of people use "prevent snowballing" to add legitimacy to what they think are cool ideas. And some ideas are really cool but... they don't really address snowballing. The core of snowballing is winning factions being able to exploit their initial successes into permanent dominance, so any mechanic that doesn't directly gut a large faction's power doesn't do much.
Like, I tried to see if just gutting the army numbers helped and it did, somewhat, but it was a bandaid fix and nothing like a balancing mechanic.
If the winners of a battle recieves all of the loot and all of the fiefs this creates an obvious snowballing effect. We in this thread have been trying to reduce the acceleration of that snowball, and prevent it from being the same factions snowballing every game.As you see total kingdom budget is 8000K at 1084 (game start) but it rises 30000K at 1104 (20 years later) so this shows we already have a money inflation at world and as you see kingdoms with high number of fortification (Khuzait, Vlandia, Aserai in sample test) have high money inflation. Increasing fief incomes will make rich kingdoms even richer and create new problems and make money inflation worse. Reducing loot income can be one solution but these lords mostly do not earn money from looter loots already. Loot is income for everybody while fief income is income for mostly powerfull kingdoms. Already 66% of total income is fief income currently remaining is loot income. Increasing fief income do not solve our problem, Battanians have already 2 town 2 castles in total for last 10 years of test they already have limited number of fiefs. This will help stronger factions with bigger territory more.
Currently the in battle advantage of seiges is so low it probably wouldnt matter much if you did siege 1000v1000 but what op actually said wasNot when plenty of people already made it blindingly clear, that the particular situation the op is suffering from is not a problem with the system, but of his own doing.
As a rule of thumb, sieges for the attacker require around 3~4 times more men than the besieged. This is true in both actual history, and games that follow realistic depiction of history. The 1st siege of Rhodes in 1480 saw around 80,000 ~ 100,000 Ottoman troops laying siege to 3,000~4,000 defenders with around 20~30 times the numbers advantage for the Ottomans, and yet the Hospitallers successfully defended their island with 30,000 casualties (10k immediate deaths) for the Ottomans.
In contrast, the op, laid siege to a 1,000 man settlement with 1,000 troops -- a 1:1 ratio. Is it any surprise that a significant chunk of his army was decimated?
The amount of casualties that result from such poor tactics is something that does not happen normally, because seasoned players know better than to foolishly besiege a spot with 1:1 numbers unless they're intending to abuse the game system and cheese it out somehow. Again, enough people told the op that this is the case -- the op's mistake is what made it so difficult to replenish the troops, not the system.
And yet, page after page the op refuses to listen to the majority opinion of the community and insists it's the game that screwed him over, and does not acknowledge his mistake. So, who really broke the "good faith" of the principle of charity here? You tell me.
At this point, the only real response that's warranted is "git good", since taking time to explain things --- coming from multiple people who initially DID approach with good faith --- is obviously a waste of time.
He didn't "refuse to listen" he maintained his view that was based on his experiences. He recieved some rensponses that where counterposing his views in good faith. Then some counterposing his views that contained incomplete or incorrect infromation about the game. Then he copped a couple of rude responses and the conversation degenerated and its hardly surprising he dug in on his position as a result.The issue is that after a painful bloody siege or a 1000vs1000 bloodbath
Yes it doesIt doesn't though
The above post of mexxico's I am quoting included discussions about lowering this passive xp rate the AI recieve. This is in addition to any XP gained from perks of the AI party leader.current passive xp gain per troop is (5 + troop level) per each troop in npc parties and this is not a low value.
I think loot being a smaller share of income is a good thing in general. If you wanted to cheat it you could simply make it so AI pay less wages durring peace time.We have one more problem by the way. Longer peace time means poorer clans currently. Because 35% of clan income is wars and 65% of clan income is taxes currently (as average). So if AI vs AI wars decreases this will increase poor clans especially if a kingdom lost half of their territory and if they have no enemy they will have big problems. Loot from looters do not bring that much gold. You can suggest making this ratio 20% loot / 80% taxes by increasing taxes and decreasing loots but this can make some players unhappy. I already reduced loots a bit in 1.5.7. Maybe can reduce more later and increase taxes a bit. However this time still kingdoms lost territories suffer much because losing territory means lower tax income also.
|Faction||Clans YR0||Fief Score YR0||Clans YR20||Fief Score YR20|
I believe anything else but working on this is a bit of a waste of time..., in my opinion.