Beta Patch Notes e1.5.5

[mexxico]

By definition at least half the lords in a close battle will get wounded (defeated). If they fight 50 losing battles before their heirs reach 18, which is ~3 losing battles per year, they, on average, will die before they become adults, so if we believe they will fight 50 losing battles in 18 game years, which to be honest, it is pretty likely, we will end up with no lords in no time as younger people will take time to marry and have children themselves... (or at least no lords on losing factions, which will tend to get outnumbered and killed in battles as lords die and armies become smaller)

50 battles * 2% dying change = 100% chance of dying (on average)

By the way, I think there is no children/adolescents, they should add that to smooth that transition...

Yes you are right even 2% is a huge probability. I am not owner of design at these parts but I suggested reducing death probability 5x when I see it is 10% currently. I do not know why that huge probability is decided at first. It was 10% before and as a bug it was not added to simulations, maybe we can make it even 1% after seeing results of long term tests.

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

Yes you are right even 2% is a huge probability. I am not owner of design at these parts but I suggested reducing death probability 5x when I see it is 10% currently. I do not know why that huge probability is decided at first. It was 10% before and as a bug it was not added to simulations, maybe we can make it even 1% after seeing results of long term tests.

0.5% or 0.2% will do, doing some quick maths might be wrong lords should survive around 60% of the time if defeated 50 times in one year but since its RNG you can never really know

 

[fanugi]

Hi Mex, thanks for communicating with us. When should i come back for 156? Your best guess? I'm on this forum too much and i want to start a new playthrough. y'know?

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

Hi Mex, thanks for communicating with us. When should i come back for 156? Your best guess? I'm on this forum too much and i want to start a new playthrough. y'know?

You ruin the best part of a new patch by being told when it comes you ruin speculating which is the most fun part of any patch

 

[Blood Gryphon]

@mexxico i know its not in your area but did you notice the education system in 1.5.6 or we waiting on that still?

 

[SGT_Night]

Great news! Thanks for the info!!

 

[khuzait haircut]

0.5% or 0.2% will do, doing some quick maths might be wrong lords should survive around 60% of the time if defeated 50 times in one year but since its RNG you can never really know

You want to make it better? Make it a 50% chance they get a scar (on the face) and suffer an attribute loss or something. Old soldiers don't die. They fade away.

EDIT: What I mean is falling in battle means you are mortally wounded but may recover.

 

[Andrei[beast]]

You ruin the best part of a new patch by being told when it comes you ruin speculating which is the most fun part of any patch

Exactly. Don't ruin the bets. @sniparsexe would disagree.

It will be something I need to spend about 1 week (probably at January) to find out most suitable reason but I think it will add so much sense to game. So spending 1 man's 1 week is not big deal for that feature. Also probably one UI guy's 2-3 days also for showing these reasons at voting menu (not sure if this will be selected as final decision but seems best for now imo).

Also at January I will also work on micro management for your clan members.

This sound great! Especially the micro management. Damn i can't wait for that one.

 

[sniparsexe]

Yes, it (reducing probability) is something very basic and easy. Problem is I am far to these parts, first I need to find owner of code & design and second after this is changed (reduce to 2%) and dying is added to simulations also I need to do several tests if it is breaking something new (snowballing tests, counting lords) in long term 20-30 year tests. Anyway we can use this mechanic (npcs dying also at simulations) to slow down lord / clan inflation also. So it will be something good for game's balance because now we are creating new clans with rebellion feature.

These are nothing delaying 1.5.6 by the way. 1.5.6 is currently being tested by test team. These changes are already added, these small code changes are already done. Probably there will be questions about date, unfortunately I have no information about 1.5.6 date. If I get any info I will share.

Also we did several works / tests / calculations with @Blood Gryphon one week ago about war & peace, I gave him data and he helped me analsysed it and prepaired very useful tables. I will share their results soon. One new good news is I suggested showing reasons of war / peace votings to player and it is approved. So we will be showing why a voting is started by a clan about war / peace probably 2 patches later. It will be something like "We should declare war aganist X because we have stronger armies compared to them and we can enlarge our territories" or "We should make peace aganist X because currently we are at war aganist several enemies". Of course there will be 4-5 different war & peace reasons with better wording & grammer.

damn this is good news

It will be something I need to spend about 1 week (probably at January) to find out most suitable reason but I think it will add so much sense to game. So spending 1 man's 1 week is not big deal for that feature. Also probably one UI guy's 2-3 days also for showing these reasons at voting menu (not sure if this will be selected as final decision but seems best for now imo).

Also at January I will also work on micro management for your clan members.

this is really good news too

Yes you are right even 2% is a huge probability. I am not owner of design at these parts but I suggested reducing death probability 5x when I see it is 10% currently. I do not know why that huge probability is decided at first. It was 10% before and as a bug it was not added to simulations, maybe we can make it even 1% after seeing results of long term tests.

this also is a good new

thanks for the infos mexxico

also, thank you @Blood Gryphon

 

[Dabos37]

Concerning lords percent dying in battles, 1-2% probability be good but instead of continuing getting this number pretty close to 0%, why do not changes things like these:

- Increasing a bit peace time and balancing lords economy according to it.
- Drastically reduce days per year, so kids will be ready faster. Yes, older lords will also die faster but this will helps with deaths in battles. If a lord is getting defeated 50 times in a year, halving days per year means that this lord will get defeated just 25 times per year.
- Make kids available at 16 years old.
- This one would be hard but would be nice if armies would not get totally wiped after defeats and they could retreat like it happens in CK3.

Thanks for the info Mexxico!

 

[Dabos37]

By the way, to avoid seeing some tier 5 or tier 6 clans having just one lord because all other ones have dead, would be possible to add an adoption system to allow some clans to get lords from other ones under some circumstances? Or maybe you are more interested in seeing some clans disappearing in order to balance the new rebellions system?

 

[Andrei[beast]]

By the way, to avoid seeing some tier 5 or tier 6 clans having just one lord because all other ones have dead, would be possible to add an adoption system to allow some clans to get lords from other ones under some circumstances?

Meaning one lord leaving a clan to join other? That leaves another clan without a lord, and what if a single lord from a clan leaves to another one? Also i love the "adoption" part, made me chuckle.
This would most likely be a problem.

 

[Dabos37]

Meaning one lord leaving a clan to join other? That leaves another clan without a lord, and what if a single lord from a clan leaves to another one? Also i love the "adoption" part, made me chuckle.
This would most likely be a problem.

You are probably missing the “under some circumstances” part of my post. Obviously, this should happen when a clan has a lot of lords while other one just has one member.

Not sure about you but seeing a tier 6 clan with two or three fiefs and having just one available lord seems weird to me and annoying if this clan form part of my kingdom. It is like: really you are not able to find someone you trust within your men to let him lead some of your troops?

Maybe not an adoption system but allowing these clan with only one member to be able to hire a companion per year or so until the clan gets 3 members again.

 

[Andrei[beast]]

You are probably missing the “under some circumstances” part of my post. Obviously, this should happen when a clan has a lot of lords while other one just has one member.

No, no, i noticed it but couldn't think of any at the moment. These could be a lot really, maybe ranging from relation, to traits to power, to influence and so on.

Not sure about you but seeing a tier 6 clan with two or three fiefs and having just one available lord seems weird to me and annoying if this clan form part of my kingdom.

+1
imagine that one lord going "I'm too old for this ****e" and taking the credit for all the fiefs. Also what about governors? If a clan has say 2 lords left and 3 fiefs does one of the fiefs remain with no governor? This is another problem that the solution of joining other clan would help, I think.
Huh, this one's new.

 

[Gandamula]

I have five cities and seven castles to offer, but nobody wants that. Two different Empire faction nobles are stucked in two Castels, they have nothing, but they refuse to join me. I try several times, I saved before, but even with good percentage and mainly a reasonable charm, I have 92,I cannot convince them. Is that the late game is naturally boring, if I could menage some nobles it could give a bit of spice to the game, In fact, logically, they should offer to serve me. I hope that the developers take this into account in the next Patches.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

also, thank you @Blood Gryphon

No need im happy to help.

Ok for everyone interested in the impact of deaths rates for campaigns I did some

Spoiler: Quick Maths

Naw but really to get in to it we need to think about birth rate and death rate to understand the population growth rate. Luckily I have the numbers we need for this equation from evaluating clans with their recent updates. All of this is excluding potential player parties.

We start the game with a population of 343 lords with 34 kids in 72 clans, as new born kids take 18 years to grow up only these 34 kids will turn into adults over the first 18 years. So there is only those 34 kids to replace whoever dies. With that in mind lets look at the death rates proposed so far.

For death rates I had to make some assumption, lets say a lord loses a fight and gets injured 2 twice a year, over those first 18 years they would have lost 36 battles with an opportunity to die. Whats important to remember is that clans can only have 3 parties out at once so not all lords will be out fighting. At the start of the game all the clans combined can field 208 parties (not all clans have 3 members). In the table along with the percents for yearly rate and chance of dying over 18 years of battles, it will also show the total potential population reduction after 18 years based on both the total pop and the max parties as it will probably land somewhere between those. It also shows yearly reduction but take that with a grain of salt.

Spoiler: Death rate table

Battle Death rate	10%​	5%​	7.5%​	3%​	2%​	1%​	0.50%​	0.20%​
Yearly Death Rate (2 loses/yr)	19%​	9.75%​	14.4%​	5.91%​	3.96%​	1.99%​	1.00%​	0.40%​
Chance of dying over 18 yrs worth of battles (36 loses)	97%​	84%​	94%​	66.60%​	52%​	30%​	17%​	7%​
Pop Reduction After 18 yrs based on Pop	333​	289​	322​	228​	177​	104​	57​	24​
Pop Reduction After 18 years based on Max parties	202​	175​	195​	139​	107​	63​	34​	14​
Death Yearly Reduction based on Max Parties	40​	20​	30​	12​	8​	4​	2​	1​

Next we have what the population would be after 18 years after the reductions. Its pretty clear that only having 34 starter kids is not nearly enough to keep to population above the maximum parties for all clans for any rate above 1%. But wait this is not the full story, remember this is before we get the onslaught of new born children.

Spoiler: Population after 18 years

Death rate	10%​	5%​	7.5%​	3%​	2%​	1%​	0.50%​	0.20%​
New Pop after 18 yrs Based on Pop Reduction	11​	59​	23​	126​	182​	263​	315​	351​
New Pop after 18 yrs Based on Max Parties Reduction	175​	202​	182​	238​	270​	314​	343​	363​

Its also hard to calculated birth rate but lets use another few assumptions and look at these three birth rates; 1 child/clan a year (72 kids a year), 0.5 child/clan a year (36 kids a year), and 0.25 child/clan a year (18 kids a year). We know that these kids will only become adults after 18 years so lets look at the overall net growth rate using the yearly death reductions from the first table.

Spoiler: Net Adult Pop Growth rate after 18 years

Death rate	10%​	5%​	7.5%​	3%​	2%​	1%​	0.50%​	0.20%​
Net Adult Growth After 18 years based on 1 child/clan/year	32​	52​	42​	60​	64​	68​	70​	71​
Net Adult Growth After 18 years based on 0.5 child/clan/year	-4​	16​	6​	24​	28​	32​	34​	35​
Net Adult Growth After 18 years based on 0.25 child/clan/year	-22​	-2​	-12​	6​	10​	14​	16​	17​

With the net adult population growth estimates and population after 18 years estimates we can now look at what the potential total population will be for the next 10 to 20 years after the initial 18 years (so 28 years and 38 years later).

Spoiler: 1 child/clan/year pop potential

Death rate	10%​	5%​	7.5%​	3%​	2%​	1%​	0.50%​	0.20%​
Pop after 28 years Based on Pop Reduction	336​	577​	442​	723​	820​	941​	1014​	1062​
Pop after 38 years Based on Pop Reduction	661​	1094​	862​	1320​	1457​	1620​	1713​	1774​
Pop after 28 years Based on Max Parties Reduction	500​	719​	601​	836​	907​	992​	1042​	1074​
Pop after 38 years Based on Max Parties Reduction	825​	1236​	1021​	1433​	1545​	1671​	1741​	1786​

Spoiler: 0.5 child/clan/year pop potential

Death rate	10%​	5%​	7.5%​	3%​	2%​	1%​	0.50%​	0.20%​
Pop after 28 years Based on Pop Reduction	-24​	217​	82​	363​	460​	581​	654​	702​
Pop after 38 years Based on Pop Reduction	-59​	374​	142​	600​	737​	900​	993​	1054​
Pop after 28 years Based on Max Parties Reduction	140​	359​	241​	476​	547​	632​	682​	714​
Pop after 38 years Based on Max Parties Reduction	105​	516​	301​	713​	825​	951​	1021​	1066​

Spoiler: 0.25 child/clan/year pop potential

Death rate	10%​	5%​	7.5%​	3%​	2%​	1%​	0.50%​	0.20%​
Pop after 28 years Based on Pop Reduction	-204​	37​	-98​	183​	280​	401​	474​	522​
Pop after 38 years Based on Pop Reduction	-419​	14​	-218​	240​	377​	540​	633​	694​
Pop after 28 years Based on Max Parties Reduction	-40​	179​	61​	296​	367​	452​	502​	534​
Pop after 38 years Based on Max Parties Reduction	-255​	156​	-59​	353​	465​	591​	661​	706​

So @mexxico here are my main take aways from all this data and results from the population after the initial 18 years and then down the line another 10 to 20 years.

• We need a lot more pregenerated kids in the game, spaced out so they dont all become adults at once. I would suggest at least another 100. Even with a 2% death rate we are looking at between 182-270 total pop after 18 years.
• The birthrate should be around 0.25 kids/clan/year or another way to think of it the kids need to come of age (18 years old) at a rate of 0.25/clan/year. This will help keep the population from growing to much even when considering the death rates.
• With the assumption/requirement of at least 100 more starter kids and a growth rate of 0.25 kids/clan/year, I think the best death rate to help keep a small natural growth in population is 3%. If you look at the net growth table you can see 3% death rate has a net growth of 6 new adults a year, which if the population doesn't drop drastically thanks to the new 100 starter kids in the first 18 years would keep the total world population about 20% bigger than it started 40 years ago.
• Without those additions I would suggest bumping it down to 1% for 1.5.6 so population doesnt drop to far down after 18 years, although the potential growth of the overall population could be a problem long term.

 

[MArdA TaleWorlds]

Neat stuff @Blood Gryphon

 

[Andrei[beast]]

Great info, Thanks a lot for helping out! Also,

No need im happy to help.

Ok for everyone interested in the impact of deaths rates for campaigns I did some

Spoiler: Quick Maths

[/SPOILER]
.

I laughed at this so goddamn much. Thanks for the good laugther xD

 

[Because]

For death rates I had to make some assumption, lets say a lord loses a fight and gets injured 2 twice a year, over those first 18 years they would have lost 36 battles with an opportunity to die.

Won't this increase snowballing a lot as surely losing factions will have their lords defeated more and hence killed more and so it will lead to them getting weaker and then losing even more lords? It's realistic, but it seems like it will go quite a way to undoing all of the recent work done at balancing out the kingdoms.

Bloody Gryphons figures above while excellent don't account for one side loosing 3-4 battles a year and the other losing 0-1.

For what it's worth I would not favour reducing the days in a year any further. To me the 4 month years are already too short and feel unnatural, so increasing this would really jar.

 

[Dabos37]

Won't this increase snowballing a lot as surely losing factions will have their lords defeated more and hence killed more and so it will lead to them getting weaker and then losing even more lords? It's realistic, but it seems like it will go quite a way to undoing all of the recent work done at balancing out the kingdoms.

Bloody Gryphons figures above while excellent don't account for one side loosing 3-4 battles a year and the other losing 0-1.

For what it's worth I would not favour reducing the days in a year any further. To me the 4 month years are already too short and feel unnatural, so increasing this would really jar.

So, having big battles every week, lords being defeated and coming back after some few days, etc, look more realistic and natural for you?

The way the game goes currently, I pretty doubt that someone has been able to play as his grandchild. It is even hard to find players who have played as their sons. Years currently last for too much IMO and this makes the generational gameplay feature almost nonexistent for big part of the player base, which is sad because this has been one of the most anticipated features of Bannerlord, and probably one of the hardest features to make work properly.