Search results for query: *

ShaneRoach said:

original said:

This brings back memories to when I loved the game so much that I wanted to delve into the formulas. I'll explain why prosperity in Caldaria was doomed to always be low. ....

Click to expand...

That's some awesome research you did. I take it the forumlas were not something you could mod for some reason? You mentioned the dev changed one of them once you reported it... How in the world did you discover the formula in the first place?

Click to expand...

M&B release source files which should be what the modders use as well. They do have formulas in there. It was difficult to read at first, and it required testing to see what went wrong.

But me reading the formulas is still trivial, compared to the full blown mods that people create.

Stevebob said:

original said:

In Warband, with the revamped formulas, I understood the hardship formula, but again it was flawed, and prosperity of my Town did not increase despite my best efforts to help it.

Click to expand...

I never did a lot with the villages but the towns will grow in prosperity but it has to be through caravans so long times of trade will make your town great. you can talk to the gild master about the wealth of the town... sorry you were disappointed with the First and Second   if it helps the king always gives you the hardest off village.

Click to expand...

This brings back memories to when I loved the game so much that I wanted to delve into the formulas. I'll explain why prosperity in Caldaria was doomed to always be low.

Hardship Index
The hardship index is just a measure of whether or not the town has enough resources. If the hardship index is high, that means the town is suffering from shortages, usually due to villages around it being pillaged and no village is trading with them.

High hardship index = low prosperity.

Reason for low prosperity in towns: eternally high hardship index.
The first reason is that the hardship index of a town that just suffered a war, never decreased to the number before the war started.

Let's say the peace time hardship index of a town is 20. The higher the number, the more scarce the goods and the less prosperous the place.

If villagers bring a lot of goods to the town, the hardship index decreases. But most of the time, villagers only bring just enough to prevent the hardship index from being higher. So generally speaking, villagers only stabilize the hardship index, they don't have enough goods to decrease it.

Suddenly, war started. Villages around the town are being pillaged, causing a shortage of goods. No villages trade with the town, the town suffers resource shortages, and the hardship index increases to 50.

The war then stopped. Villages recover, and resume trading with the town.

There are 2 ways to lower the hardship index, one is a natural decay of hardship index that is not dependent on villagers trading. I cannot remember the exact rate, it's like 5%, a very small number. But it exists in the formula.

The 2nd is for villagers to lower it by bring more goods. The problem is, villagers as I mentioned earlier, can only stabilize the hardship index. They usually never trade enough to lower the hardship index.

So that leaves the hardship natural decay. The problem is, the number is so small, that it doesn't lower enough and is often countered by some other variable. So the town's hardship index remains at 50.
Again, the villagers only trade enough to prevent it from going any higher. They only trade enough to stabilize the hardship index, whether it was 20 before the war started, or 50 after the war.

This shows that the formula is flawed. The formula is supposed to lower the hardship index to 20, the pre-war number, from natural trading between the villages and town. But it never happened because the way the formula was written depends on the decay rate, and using that number just felt clunky.

Reason for low prosperity in villages: cattle numbers doomed

1. The first reason is due to rounding. The birth rate of cattle is 5%.
Decimals will get rounded down in for the game engine. So you need 20 cattle or more to ensure that there will be a birth of 1 cattle. If you have only 19 cattle, 5% of 19 is 0.95, no cattle born. So it must be 20 or more.

The developer actually fixed it after I pointed it out, but there are more problems.

2. The second reason is due to grazing size.
Cattle and sheep share grazing size. Yes there are actually sheep in the formulas but they are never sold. It is a way to control the cattle population, so that they never increase to millions.

Once the number of cattle and sheep exceed the grazing size, they will die to starvation and decrease.

The problem is, sometimes it is possible for you to have the perfect number of cattle and sheep to have exactly the same size as the grazing size. So the cattle and sheep will never die to starvation. I *think* cattle and sheep cannot give birth if they match the grazing size, so no births or deaths can happen at this point. But the 3rd reason will reveal why cattle population will always be low.

3. Only cattle suffer an epidemic. Sheep don't.
This means that the cattle population will always decrease, and the sheep will always increase when they compete for grazing size.
And once they reach that exact equilibrium with the grazing size, the population doesn't change, except when an epidemic happens to cattle again.

Villages also depend on cattle to make milk and cheese for towns. Low cattle means lower than intended resources for the town. And when I was playing, all villages will eventually have low cattle population, because as time goes by, the cattle epidemic will keep happening.

So what happened is Caldaria is forever doomed to have lower prosperity.

ToyBoat said:

Yeah, I play quite similarly to you, original. I've never even raided a village. I just like to take a small piece of land and nurture it. I don't have any interest in conquering the entire peninsula.

Click to expand...

I thought I was the only one... 

Tungdil Goldhand said:

@ Original,

That's a very interesting perspective. I think most people play it differently (being the murderous warlord and all) almost noone stops and takes the time to enjoy and nurture the little things like that tiny hamlet, which instead of pillage, you could also help grow into a very rich village.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's that difficult to add it to the game. All you need to do is just tweak the formulas a bit.
Put in more construction options.
Put in more missions.
Change the prosperity so that every time you help the elder by bringing cattle, prosperity increases. Or make it so that prosperity increases based on cattle. This way as cattle increases, the village prosperity increases.
It doesn't require much, just for people to tweak the formulas a bit. But it would add a lot to the game.

Warband had a few formulas that were flawed, that is why settlements could not recover from poor prosperity. I documented it properly on the bug report to show the developer what went wrong, but the developer at that time (nijis?) didn't want to tweak the formulas because he was worried he might break it further.

It's a shame, they purposely put in the hardship index to simulate a vibrant economy, but the economy didn't work the way they intended because they didn't want to fix the formulas.

Hey all,

It's been a very long time since I last played M&B.

I just wish to ask whether it will be possible to play a benevolent lord in Bannerlord.

When I first played M&B1, I did not participate in the large scale battles to get castles. I just wanted to nurture my first village and make it prosperous. I would watch my villagers go back and forth the main town, to protect them, and hopefully with every trip my village becomes prosperous. I would earn money and build all the constructions. I would do all the elder quests. Then I was hoping I would reap the rewards with a higher tax. Yes I know, it was silly but I liked the roleplay.

It turns out that in vanilla M&B, with the default formulas, a village will never reach Very Rich prosperity, no matter how much you help it.

In Warband, with the revamped formulas, I understood the hardship formula, but again it was flawed, and prosperity of my Town did not increase despite my best efforts to help it.

It was very upsetting that I could not nurture my village or Town, and it was one of the main reasons I left the game. I know the game is mostly about large scale battles, mounted combat and gaining heaps of lands, but I only need one land to call my own, and the ability to nurture it from ground up.

So I want to know, is it possible to play the game the way I want it in Bannerlord? Being able to proactively improve your holdings if you put time into it?

Anthropoid said:

In Brytenwalda, one can after gaining enough standing with a Town (via Guild Master quests) invest in property in a Town and create a 'Productive Enterprise,' for example Brewery, Bakery, Tannery, etc. I think I used to understand this system quite well but it has gone foggy. I cannot even recall for certain if this feature was part of Vanilla Warband or something in a mod that has become part of lots of other mods like Brytenwalda. Based on the wiki I'm guessing it was not part of Vanilla

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Mount%26Blade/Towns#Improvements

Click to expand...

Actually it is part of vanilla.

What do those numbers in the "We have shortages in: Wool (1215), Grain (1346), Iron (1187) . . . etc., actually mean?

Click to expand...

The numbers are the hardship index. Higher numbers mean there are shortages of those items, thus driving up the price. It will also affect other things like overall prosperity, lower production of goods that need them as raw materials, etc.

Based on the above poster's recommendation, I'm going to build breweries first, under the premise that they are the only truly profitable enterprise.

I'm using the "Assess Trade" results from Aegelsburh as a guide to where to set up a brewery (where the proft margin is highest are candidates).

I then go to the candidate town and check out what they say they produce and what the Guildmaster says they have shortages of.

Problem with both Londonwic and Cantwaraburh is, the villagers say that Beer is among their items produced (though granted not ale or mead, does the brewery make all three?), and I'm not sure if it says anything about shortages of beer, ale or mead.

Click to expand...

Vanilla doesn't have stuff like beer, ale or mead, so I assume the mod added those things in. Whether beer, ale and mead are made by the same factory or different factories you have to ask the mod creator.

Not every place has the same amount of production. Some places have more oil production, some places have more silk production. This number is initialized at the start and is fixed.

Are these info screens actually meaningful and helpful in deciding where to setup an enterprise? Assuming the information in the various screens IS meaningful, I'd assume that the best place to setup a brewery (for example) would be:
1. a place that recurrently offers the best profit margin for a beer caravan from Aegelsburh
2. a place that has abundant grain (villagers list it as one of the first 3 items they produce?)
3. Guildmaster says there is a shortage of beer and/or mead/ale?

Click to expand...

[/quote]

The info screens are useful, the problem is the price fluctuates and isn't constant.
1. No I do not think assessing the market helps. Any enterprises that you have in the town will sell your produced goods to the town itself.
How it determines how much to sell is based on the hardship index.
2. It is a criteria, but not the only one. Obviously low grain prices and high prices for brewery products are the best.
3. This is probably the best indicator of where to make stuff.

The best enterprise for profit in vanilla are those silks. The price rarely flunctuates, unless you are in Jelkala where they have factories that make those things.

A bit awkward because the dark knights couldn't even beat the Sarranid Sultanate. They got a few lands, but they ended up being eliminated.

Is it possible to increase the tax that you get from your lands if your relation with the village/castle/town is high?

The idea is that your people are grateful to you for always helping them, so they are less likely to evade taxes.

This also encourages people to roleplay and increase their relation with their lands, and makes the relation value more useful.

If possible I want the relation to also increase the prosperity of lands. I want more options to increase prosperity with lands through direct intervention by me.

Xprez said:

Bob the Insane said:

I have to admit to having some difficulty with the DK's as well.

I was doing well enough, start was a little tough but it is not hard to focus on trading to get some cash, and once you have built up around 40 decent troops you can start taking the bandit groups apart and making more money...

The DK's came as a surprize, they are currenty leagues ahead of any other faction with their heavy cavalry.  I joined a group of 450 Nords that had isolated a 155 DK unit.  The battle was a joke, the Nords where torn apart and my troops didn't last much longer...

I have no doubt that once you learn to deal with them and have a good group of maxed out troops you can fight back.  But I am 140 days in, have one fief (a bit slow I know) and the DK have 4 towns now...

It is just a pretty sudden, and steep, step up in difficulty compared to fighting anyone else.  But I suppose that is what it is designed to be like...

Click to expand...

u do know the NE is for advanced players right?
best way to deal with them is to get swadian cavs or rhodok spearman (to stop the horses from ramming through) and rhodok crossbow man

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be for advanced players. I consider myself advanced due to playing since the first mount & blade, and I am now at the stage where I can take on those roaming warbands and bandits.

What got me interested in Native Expansion wasn't the extra difficulty, but features that add to the native gameplay like new buildings, new quests, redone troop tree, etc. I'm sure most people want this mod for those refined features.

But the start really is difficult and needs to be toned down. Like selling a new game, the start should be made easy to hook people in. The sharp difficulty spike will just chase potential users away, and I'm sure the mod doesn't want that.

Looters party size scaling to your level can be put back in the game so that new players can get into the mod easily. As mentioned, you can make the mid and late game stages hard.
If you want the 20+ bandits at the start, you can always transfer that to Brutality mode.

The early stages of the game can be made easier. I'm not used to the smallest group being 20+, surely there must be some stragglers even for bandits.

It can be too difficult at the start. I would like the option to take on looters at the beginning and then slowly level. But that option is taken out.

The start can be made smoother and easier. You can make the mid and late game stages difficult.

Yes I find that in the beginning, it is really difficult. Normally in the beginning I level by taking on looters with some villagers. But I can't in this mod because the bandits and warbands are at least 20+, and the villagers that I recruit will fall like wet noodles against them.

The only starting play seems to be to level your character as high as possible, along with companions. You'll need money to level up, either by doing quests for villages or to recruit mercenaries to fight those bandits.
Then, once you are level 11 or so, recruit villagers and use the trainer skill to train your villagers slowly. You should get nice crossbowmen this way who have cheap upkeep compared to the mercenaries. Then you should be strong enough to tackle the bandits.

For people who play with brutality on, where you get -4 to trainer skill, and 0 surgery skill, I have no idea how you do it.

It disables the Trainer and Surgery skills.

You also cannot recruit from a village normally. You have to conscript them as a hostile action, getting 10 villagers but losing 10 relations with the village. Then you have to bring up the relation to at least 0 before you can conscript again.

Long term wound system, where you suffer attribute loss for a period of time.

That's as far as I know. And that is enough for me to turn it off. The game is hard enough as it is with minimum 20+ brigands roaming.

pongkrit03 said:

I don't know what I did wrong but whenever I accept this quest from guild master, I really never find the bandits. I kept asking everyone but all replys that I got were "There are full brigands in the road"

Did I do something wrong or it was just my bad luck ? Or we have alternative method ?

Click to expand...

Been a while since I played. The bandits roam a lot and could be really far away from the town of the guild master. You have to roam a bit to find them.

I'm surprised the devs are still working on Warband. I thought they abandoned it based on how empty the forums are in Fire & Sword.

I did some study on how price index worked. Here is the bug report that I uploaded.

http://bugs.taleworlds.com/edit_bug.aspx?id=3070

I will also post the link on that bug report that you linked.

h-edition said:

The city I deposit my money in was taken.

I tried sneaking in but the Merchant guild option isn't there anymore.

Under my money report is still says my money is in the city collecting interest.

How do I draw them out?

Click to expand...

The city has to be captured by your kingdom or a neutral kingdom.
As mentioned by the previous poster, it also has to have the bank built if it was razed in a previous battle.

It's been years since the first M&B game, and I do wish for more professionalism.

Take a look at Terraria, a game from another indie company.

http://www.terrariaonline.com/forum/

They have a few sub-forums such as the dev blog and patch notes, where the devs often post to gather feedback, keep the players in the loop to show them what they have in store for us, etc. They also patch the game often, adding new stuff.

Basically, the devs communicate with the players a lot.

In contrast, we barely even hear from the Taleworlds devs. We only hear bits and pieces of Project Obvious, relying on mods who in turn tell us what they themselves heard. No news or screenshots of their next game. No patch since June.

I'm quite disappointed with Taleworlds level of professionalism, and I do hope for better support in future. It has come to the point where I no longer look forward to their next game with anticipation, but rather, with wariness. Wariness because they may do what they've been doing for 3 games; release a game, patch it for a few months, then silence.

A little post from the devs themselves surely isn't too much to ask for. They can't make the excuse that they're an indie company so we should cut them some slack. Even other indie games like Minecraft and Terraria are more professional.

hermanizer said:

Hello fellow players.
I am really enjoying my self playing this game. However i have pretty low leadership and i find it difficult to sack stronholds with less then 100 troops.

Does anyone have some micro-management tips when attacking forts or is brute force the way to go?

btw: i allready blow up the wall.


Best regards

Click to expand...

You can get Lords to follow you into battle if your relationship with them is high. But be sure to be fast in laying siege to strongholds, because they can leave after waiting for a long time.

Vermillion_Hawk said:

They are supposedly still working on implementing a lot of the Warband features missing from the original game into a patch in the future, when that patch will come is unknown, but take heart in the fact that they ARE working on it, and it WILL come... eventually.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt it. It is already December. I created a thread in October that you posted in.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,200266.0.html

It has already been nearly 2 months, and I safely assume that Fire & Sword hasn't even been patched once during that period. The last patch was on 14th July, 5 months ago.