• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Another quick patch has been pushed to Beta branch

Users who are viewing this thread

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
The problem was that it was so strong that it broke the entire influence system. Council of Commons was a large part of the reason why AI kings could always override votes. It was a snowball of king has most settlements -> king has by far most notables -> king overrides votes to take fiefs -> king's settlement and notable count grow -> king has even easier time overriding future votes.

edit: I could easily see it being tweaked back up in the future (maybe 0.2 influence and 0.2 militia per notable?), but a hard nerf was definitely needed now.

^^^ Yup. I've recommended Council of Commons to many people asking for the best policy, but it being OP, cannot be denied. Even with just modest amount of fiefs, my daily inf. gain is like +85 per day. Inf. just becomes meaningless with this much.
 

Stratigo

Sergeant
Yes there should not be any policy with only positives. All should have positives and negatives. I informed people who are responsible about problems at policies. Many of them are still very weak and incompleted / unbalanced like perks.

Previously 50% of all influence gains in world were because of this policy. It was insane. Influence inflation was also causing king to override all decisions also.

You can see how previously influence inflation was (starting with 80 average and goes to 200+ by time) (increase at influence gain mostly come from "Council of Commons" policy and buildings)
N7EGw.png

I'm a bit worried because council of commons is the only way I found to prevent merc companies from going full bankrupt since I can't donate money to them directly, only indirectly through influence.
 

svennd

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SVC
You guys have to much influence ? my kingdom had a +1 for clan lvl 3, +1 for clan lvl 5, and everyone else got -2. Now I got my clan to lvl 3 and I added a policy for some more influence i run break even with 1 castle + 2 towns. New joins get - influence ...
 

Mikey

Sergeant at Arms
"Influence" should ideally only matter in comparison to what other Lords have, though right now it works just like a currency, irrespective of what other Lords have/do not have. If I wanted to "force" a very influential vassal to stay with my army, that ought to cost (a lot) more than keeping someone who just joined. But yes, CotC is way too good, it accounts for roughly 100 out of the 120 or so influence I receive (passively) in my current save.

However one policy generating large amounts would be less of a problem if things weren't capped at specific influence costs - I may have ~30K influence, but I have several other Clans who have 15-20K, rendering the whole system pretty meaningless - it's not like those other clans can exercise more than ~300 Influence's worth at a time anyway.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
I'm a bit worried because council of commons is the only way I found to prevent merc companies from going full bankrupt since I can't donate money to them directly, only indirectly through influence.

Policies work on mercs? When I played as Merc no policy gave influence or took it from me. I had standard contract -x influence and could gain only through battle and donating prisoners.
 

VanHoven

Veteran
Imo its also about specific policies arnt too powerful. It can always happen that a kingdom does not enact the most beneficial policies, I'm not sure how the ai decides to support a policy or not but it seems rather random to me at times, my best guess would be the relation with the person suggesting a new policy is the main variable here. But still, some kingdoms dont enact CotC and hence are at a clear disadvantage compared to other kingdoms. Even after the nerf it should still be a noticeable difference between kingdoms which have this policy or not when it comes to daily influence income of all clans.
 

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
Maybe Clans would use few hundred influences to boost relationship with some other clans within the faction, if they happen to have more than 5k influence. This could create more dynamic gameplay specially after Rebellion feature is added to the game, that, independent city-state clans could invite other clans to their factions easier with good relationship, and there would not be influence inflation. I currently use a mod that caps the influence at 5k so no clan can get more than 5k influence, but i would prefer clans to use excess influence to get relationship with other clans to deal with influence inflation rather than using a mod.
 

firion66

Recruit
"Influence" should ideally only matter in comparison to what other Lords have, though right now it works just like a currency, irrespective of what other Lords have/do not have. If I wanted to "force" a very influential vassal to stay with my army, that ought to cost (a lot) more than keeping someone who just joined. But yes, CotC is way too good, it accounts for roughly 100 out of the 120 or so influence I receive (passively) in my current save.

However one policy generating large amounts would be less of a problem if things weren't capped at specific influence costs - I may have ~30K influence, but I have several other Clans who have 15-20K, rendering the whole system pretty meaningless - it's not like those other clans can exercise more than ~300 Influence's worth at a time anyway.

It reminds me of Stellaris: Federations Galactic Council mechanics. There you have policies, which empires can enact and they do it by comparing sum of diplomatic power of empires voting for and against said policy. Diplomatic power is sum of their technology/military/economy x previously enacted multiplier policies (for example +20% power from military or -20% from economy).
Additionally you can buy and sell "favors" for any other resource or pact. One favor is worth 1/10 of empire's diplomatic power, so, with help of good economy and diplomatic strategy and planning, you can become the senate.

I think it'd be nice to see voting as some kind of diplomatic battles rather than just spending 50 influence as level 2 clan and having not less control than level 6 clan, which spends the same amount of it.

What about coherency then? It could be nice decision making there: You have a choice, whether you want to save your influence to have more power over resolutions or to spend it and get some good ol' army for few more days.

Then, policies would need to be less universal and be punishable for one and rewarding for another lord. In turn lords would have to be 'conscius' of their situation and potentially best moves for themselves. It'd make internal politics much more enjoyable and competitious, at least for me.

Of course I don't say 'let's rip off Stellaris', but I think there, and in other Paradox grand strategies, devs could find some good inspirations.

EDIT:
Maybe Clans would use few hundred influences to boost relationship with some other clans within the faction, if they happen to have more than 5k influence. This could create more dynamic gameplay specially after Rebellion feature is added to the game, that, independent city-state clans could invite other clans to their factions easier with good relationship, and there would not be influence inflation. I currently use a mod that caps the influence at 5k so no clan can get more than 5k influence, but i would prefer clans to use excess influence to get relationship with other clans to deal with influence inflation rather than using a mod.

In system described above, I'd see it as spending favors for relations, so somebody else could just use your diplomatic power to have more control over voting and then you'd have some good relations with them.
I think that influence is mostly internal politics mechanics at the moment, but maybe it'd be better if it had wider approach.
 
Last edited:

bodhi

Sergeant
I say rip and adapt. These things are open mechanics (like path-finding, etc), not intellectual property. If they see anything that can work in our game, that has already been tried & tested in games like CK or EU, go for it!
 

firion66

Recruit
I say rip and adapt. These things are open mechanics (like path-finding, etc), not intellectual property. If they see anything that can work in our game, that has already been tried & tested in games like CK or EU, go for it!

+1
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
I'm a bit worried because council of commons is the only way I found to prevent merc companies from going full bankrupt since I can't donate money to them directly, only indirectly through influence.

Does your mercenaries are going bankrupt in your gameplay?

Do not they earn influence in natural ways like going into battles? You should be paying 100-200-300 gold per influence they earned.
 

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
I think that influence is mostly internal politics mechanics at the moment, but maybe it'd be better if it had wider approach.
Currently, player can use influence points to get more relationship with other clans. Afaik AI cannot do that (i may be wrong). So if AI clans also do that with excess influence points, i dont think there would ever be influence inflation.
 

MasterRai

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&S
Does your mercenaries are going bankrupt in your gameplay?

Do not they earn influence in natural ways like going into battles? You should be paying 100-200-300 gold per influence they earned.


Do you have plans to update skills and policies in the near future?
 

MasterRai

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&S
I want more than you these stuff to be developed / improved. Different teams are working on these issues however there are very less development in these stuff for weeks. You can make more pressure writing in forums about policies, skills and perks need developments.

Fair Enough. Thanks for answer.

One more Question @mexxico

I have a different question when I come across a ready developer. Although there are not many technical issues in the Turkish Forum, there is no response. What can we do as Turkish forum residents to help Community Support Team and Developers deal with this section?

We've been pressure for about a month, but it didn't work.
 
Last edited:

Stratigo

Sergeant
Does your mercenaries are going bankrupt in your gameplay?

Do not they earn influence in natural ways like going into battles? You should be paying 100-200-300 gold per influence they earned.

They do when I'm not at war. I'm a bit of an edge case I suppose in that I will spend long period of time not engaging in warfare as a kingdom.

But that said, the mercs I hired were all bankrupt before I hired them, as are most mercs in my playthrough. A consequence of, I suspect, taking away free retinue respawns with mods meaning they have no ability to climb out of a death spiral after being beaten.
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
They do when I'm not at war. I'm a bit of an edge case I suppose in that I will spend long period of time not engaging in warfare as a kingdom.

But that said, the mercs I hired were all bankrupt before I hired them, as are most mercs in my playthrough. A consequence of, I suspect, taking away free retinue respawns with mods meaning they have no ability to climb out of a death spiral after being beaten.

Thanks for informations. I will deal with these problems.
 
I want more than you these stuff to be developed / improved. Different teams are working on these issues however there are very less development in these stuff for weeks. You can make more pressure writing in forums about policies, skills and perks need developments.
That's truly sad news. Thanks for your effort; I can see you are not just a developer but a devoted community member amongst us. I hope even without our pressure other teams will start work at least as much as yours.
 

John Shepard

Regular
"Council of Commons policy effect was 1 influence per notable in the settlement, it is now 0.1 influence per notable. Also, +1 militia effect per notable is removed. "
Ouch, it was a very strong policy, but now it is basically useless...
It wasn't a strong policy it was a downright broken one. If you passed it, you never cared for influence ever again.

And thanks developers, I hope to play it again when 1.3 becomes the main branch so mods can catch up.
 

AfLIcTeD

Sergeant at Arms
I think that there should be a limit on how many policies a faction can get. As it is now you can get all policies if you wanted.

Policies should be more than just little bonuses. They should make kingdoms unique from each other. Maybe even kingdoms having policies that other kingdoms can't get, the player kingdom getting their own policies.
Most policies are useless anyway, the only ones worth getting are the influence ones and party size ones and castle charter. That policy is broken, with that and money in reserves, castle upgrades complete in less than a day.

Hopefully they can come up with a more interesting policy system than just minor bonuses.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
I think that there should be a limit on how many policies a faction can get. As it is now you can get all policies if you wanted.

Policies should be more than just little bonuses. They should make kingdoms unique from each other. Maybe even kingdoms having policies that other kingdoms can't get, the player kingdom getting their own policies.
Most policies are useless anyway, the only ones worth getting are the influence ones and party size ones and castle charter. That policy is broken, with that and money in reserves, castle upgrades complete in less than a day.

Hopefully they can come up with a more interesting policy system than just minor bonuses.

I think that adding mechanic that will block policies if others are active would be nice. Something like counter policy.
 
Top Bottom