Diplomacy Developments

[Wolfmensch007]

They've been doing this since release.

only with mexxico you notice most that he is involved with the community. Even the link you posted me is a thread created by mexxico.

 

[Apocal]

only with mexxico you notice most that he is involved with the community. Even the link you posted me is a thread created by mexxico.

Not.

 

[Apocal]

I've actually tested this already in both 1.5.0 and 1.5.1. Here are the results:

This is only one test a piece, but I don't think the cavalry bonus is as strong as people make it out to be. I think it's the sum total of their advantages, but the extra speed is probably the biggest factor.

**By the way, a confounding factor in these tests is the "King Bonus" for influence applying to everyone, which would make armies much more common (I can't remember if that was an issue in 1.5.0, though).**

Now that I figured out how to strip out the Khuzait culture bonus, I can give it a test run or two to see if they snowball in 1.5.1.

 

[Wolfmensch007]

Not.

Nope, i still think that mexxico is engaged the most with the community

 

[Stromming]

Plan 3:
Khuzait's T2 cavalry is so strong that it has gained an advantage in movement speed and combat computing. Can we change his proficiency, for example, to bring his proficiency closer to that of a T1 recruit.

If TW changed it so chance of T2 units getting a horse works like in Warband, this could make this work better. * Obviously this would only apply to AI, not players.
Instead of a T2 unit always having a 100% chance of getting a horse (Bannerlord), make it a 50/50 chance of getting a horse (Warband). Horses are expensive after all and not every tribesman could afford one.

This will do a few things:

1. Reduce how imba AI Lords will be early game when playing with Khuzait culture, assuming they will not have to use horses to upgrade troops like players do
2. Reduce how fast AI Lords will recover, compared to lords with mostly Infantry, after being defeated and training their recruits

It is very annoying that Khuzait seem to recover faster than other factions, and its very possible its because how strong their low tier units are.

 

[皮w蛋]

The GetPower formula is actually very simple and you can trust this because even I understand it. (Mostly)

Shifting by level is how it works for named characters ("HeroObject"). It takes their level, divides by four and adds one. That's their tier, for purposes of autocalc. Unfortunately for your idea, tier can only be an integer, so it any fraction gets rounded away. So it won't have any effect in some cases.

Plan 1, I think a modest nerf to the Khuzait culture bonus would work but I disagree that the Aserai bonus is zero. I actually think it is incredibly powerful but most people don't know how to play with trade and caravans so it comes across as weaker than it actually is.

Plan 2, I doubt matters particularly much. The AI only besieges and assaults when it has an overabundance of advantage, which is why the attackers virtually never lose when facing the garrison + militia alone.

I understand. Thank you

About Plan 1
I'm talking about aserai's situation with AI Lords. Of course, the present Lord aserai seems relaxed in a war situation.
I would like to give sturgia's lords some advantages, especially in snow.

If TW changed it so chance of T2 units getting a horse works like in Warband, this could make this work better. * Obviously this would only apply to AI, not players.
Instead of a T2 unit always having a 100% chance of getting a horse (Bannerlord), make it a 50/50 chance of getting a horse (Warband). Horses are expensive after all and not every tribesman could afford one.

This will do a few things:

1. Reduce how imba AI Lords will be early game when playing with Khuzait culture, assuming they will not have to use horses to upgrade troops like players do
2. Reduce how fast AI Lords will recover, compared to lords with mostly Infantry, after being defeated and training their recruits

It is very annoying that Khuzait seem to recover faster than other factions, and its very possible its because how strong their low tier units are.

You reminded me that Khuzait recovered faster, and the Empire couldn't recover and couldn't fight back. I understand the changes that mexxico has made to village restoration and the formation of legions in vulnerable countries.

 

[MostBlunted]

If possible, can someone make a small mod with just removes the cav bonus in autocalc? I don´t know if this is much work, if so then don´t do it of course .

 

[whentheragequithappens]

If possible, can someone make a small mod with just removes the cav bonus in autocalc? I don´t know if this is much work, if so then don´t do it of course .

I request same, please.

 

[Apocal]

If possible, can someone make a small mod with just removes the cav bonus in autocalc? I don´t know if this is much work, if so then don´t do it of course .

I request same, please.

I can throw together a quick thing, once I figure out how to package mods in Harmony.

There already is one

No Autoresolve Bonus for Mounted Units

Removes the vanilla 1.3x power multiplier for mounted units in autoresolve.

www.nexusmods.com

 

[Dabos37]

I am maybe late and there is not chance for more changes but, would be nice that some WE towns also could get tier 3 walls. Especially Lagerta is usually captured pretty soon.

@mexxico thank you very much for all the changes and communication.

 

[MostBlunted]

I can throw together a quick thing, once I figure out how to package mods in Harmony.

There already is one

No Autoresolve Bonus for Mounted Units

Removes the vanilla 1.3x power multiplier for mounted units in autoresolve.

www.nexusmods.com

Thanks, I´ll try it.

The comments under the mod are funny .

 

[Worlok]

This game is already a CPU hog though, and they're trying to develop it for a wide range of machines. There's still a limit.

I'm just trying to rationalize it from their perspective. It's okay if you don't agree with it.

Not necessarily... I am using CPU under minimal recommendations and the load mostly jumps up during battlefield 3D animations (obviously cause that's where serious calculations and huge amount of objects comes into play).
Auto-Calc usually happens while the player is on main map. When I am on main map I rarealy get under 50FPS. I definitely think there is spare CPU power to make more complex GetPower function.

Additionally, all those values (about Power) does not necessarily have to be calculated when 2 parties clashes. Most likely there is a struct/class instance where these Power values could be kept and periodically updated when something happens what modifies the Power level of a party (recruiting, upgrading, moving to different terrain, leader skills ...). After that it should be as simple as get some variable from a struct instance.

I know it's easy to make theoretical expectations, but if it will be never tested we cannot know if it's doable (I don't know if TW ever tried to use more complex GetPower methods). I hope TW will find time for this ? there are so many missing factors in current decision of battle outcome.

 

[MostBlunted]

I have an like 7-8 year old i7 3,4 ghz, 16 GB DDR3 Ram, Geforce 970 and can play 1000 troop battles with around 30-35 FPS (not all settings on max of course), seems fine for me.

 

[mylittletantan]

Has it on BL's engine? The only auto calc mod I know of so far for Bannerlord is this one, which just increases the power difference between troop tiers.

Yes, shame it's hasn't been updated since it had very nice features Light Combat Mod Collection. Had a look and it should apply to all simulations since it patches GetPower(). It caches the power for different troops so it doesn't have to repeat the more advanced calculations in GetPower, likely due to performance issues as you mentioned.

Edit: It might not be/was ever truly balanced but it proves you could have more advanced/demanding calculations in bannerlords autocalc without major performance issues.

 

[froggyluv]

Yes, shame it's hasn't been updated since it had very nice features Light Combat Mod Collection.

Wow! Thats it! That mod maker was way ahead of the curve with a far more realistic determination of auto resolving getting rid of the silly "Duel system" vanilla uses and even applying equipment it seems.

Look at his detailed explanation:

To understand why vanilla auto battles are flawed, we must first understand how is it calculated. Here is a simple breakdown of how "Send Troops" (simulation) in vanilla is:

• When two opposite parties meet on the world map to fight, it becomes an Event.
• For every several in-game minutes, the two sides fight a Session. You would notice AI vs AI battles lose soldiers every now and then (half an in-game hour), that is a Session.
• A Session is composed of multiple Rounds.
• In every Round, one random troop is selected on one side to Hit another randomly selected on the other side. The order of attacking is also random.
• The number of troops detemines the number of Rounds each side in a Session has. A side with N soldiers do N^0.6 attacking rounds.
• When oen troop is Hit, the Damage is a random number between 0 and 50 * Striker Power / Striked Power.
• And the Damage is compared to another random number between 0 and the striked max hitpoints (usually 100). If the Damage is higher, the striked instantly dies, and if it's lower, nothing happens.
• Then how is Power calculated? It's 0.02 * (2 + Tier) * (10 + Tier), and if the soldier is mounted, multiply the result by 1.2. The mounted bonus is applied even in sieges. That means, a Battania Horseman(2.52) is stronger than a Battania Fian (2.1). You know how they perform in field battles.

We can see there are at least three major flaws:

• It is a "duel" model, every troop fight on it's own, without the party fighting as a whole.
• The battle does not preserve states, mostly the remaining hitpoints of each troop, and how long the battle has been (how many arrow left for archers). Every troop is ether dead or at max hp. Every Session would be a fresh restart.
• The formula to calculate Power is too over-simplified.

And some minor but frustrating problems:

• The attacking order is totally random. If one side attacks first and kills several opposite soldiers, the returning fire will be weaker.
• Every attack has a chance to instantly kill anyone. Even you have 200 Tier 6 knights against 1 looter, if the looter gets the chance to attack first, he has 10% chance to instantly kill one knight.

Understanding the number of Rounds:
Let's take an example, a 1000 vs 100 battle, and both sides have the same type of soldier. You thought the size with 1000 soldier should crush the 100 side, but it is not that simple:

• The 1000 side do 1000^0.6=63 attacks every Session.
• The 1000 side do 100^0.6=16 attacks every Session.

So the attacking power of the 1000 side is not 10 times the 100 side, but only 4 times, or more precisely, 10^0.6=3.98 times. That means, even when one side outnumber the other side by 10 times, it is much less than 10 times stronger. The ^0.6 is the penalty to the side with more soldiers, so that it will not just steamroll the opposite.
With the ^0.6, the result seems still acceptable, as the side is still 4 times more powerful. But this is not the case if player is leading that side: if the player is involved in such battle, every side will do (1000+100)^0.6*3=200 Rounds per Session, they will have EXACTLY SAME attacking power, or say, the opposite side becomes 4 times more powerful!
An example at extreme will be the player lead 200 knights against a lone looter. The player party can do 72 attacks, while one looter can also do 72 attacks! The attacking order is totally random, the looter may have the chance to do multiple attacks, and every attack from the looter has a moderate (~10%) chance to instantly kill one knight. Now understand why the player can some time lose tens of soldiers in a 200-men party against a handful of bandits, or hundres when leading an army against a much weaker party.

To overcome the flaw of vanilla simulation model, SendAllTroop does the following:

• In each Session, both sides attack simutaneouly. No more random attacking order.
• In every Round, everyone attacks once. The total attacking power of one side is the sum of the attacking power of all troops.
• When attacked, the party take the hit as a whole. The incoming attacking is divided to everyone. Each troop takes a portion of the incoming attack, compare to thier respective defense to decide the damage.
• Upon taking damage, a troop loses corresponding hitpoints. If his hitpoints reach zero, he dies.
• After each Round, combat experience is shared among the whole party.
• The player is treated equally as AI and uses the same formula.

Breakdown of DetailedCombatModel:
This new model uses the troop's equipments to determine its strength. And it also tracks the battle progression.

• For every troop, the model searches his equipment sets to find wepaons, shields, armor and horse.
• A weapon's attacking power is determined by it's properties, including damage, speed, length, weight, etc. Weapons of multiple modes (like menavliaton) can have very different attacking power for different modes.
• Bows, crossbows and thrown weapons are limited by ammo. Every attack uses 1 ammo, and if the ammo runs out, the weapon cannot be used again. In siege battles ammo can be replenished.
• A unit can have multiple weapons, and will choose the best weapon for the current situation. For example, archers that run out of ammo will use backup melee weapons.
• The unit's attacking power is the weapon's attacking power multiplied by the unit's proficiency (0.6 + weapon skill level / 300 * 0.4).
• A unit's base defense is determined by the sum of his armor points.
• If he has a shield and not using two-handed weapon, he can use the shield, which slightly increase defense against melee attacks, and significantly against ranged attacks. The bonus depends on the properties of the shield.
• If he has a horse, the health, speed and manueuver of the horse and armor of saddle determineds the horse bonus. The bonus is applied to melee attacks, and doubled if he is using polearms designed for mounted combat. he also receives a bonus to defense, but attacks from polearms can negate the defense bonus.
• Mounted archers have high defense against melee attack. When they run out of ammo and start to melee they lose the defense bonus.
• If one runs on foot or it is a siege battle, the atheletics skill level is used to determine the attacking and defense bonus.

The new combat model also features a detailed combat progression:

• Every battle has a "distance", similar to the starting distant for field battles. Currently, the distance is 1 if the total number of combatant is less than 50, 2 if 50-100, 3 if more than 100, or 4 if it is a siege assult.
• Every weapon has it's range. Bows and crossbows have a range of 3, thrown weapons have 1, and melee weapons have 0. If the range is less than the distance, the weapon cannot be used until more time is passed. For every Session, the distance is closed by 1. The defending side in sieges receive +1 bonus range to ranged weapons because they have height advantage.
• In seiges, there's a penalty to the attacking power of the attacking side. Ranged attacks do reduced damage while melee attacks do very little damage. The defending side do increased ranged damage. The penalty and bonus depend on level of fortification (wall level), and siege towers reduces the penalty for melee.
• After some time, the main gate is breached, and the penalty is decreased. The time to breach the main gate depends on the number of siege engines built, and the battering ram is specialized in taking down the gate.
• Polearms behave badly in sieges because they easily get stuck.

Advanced Configuration items:

• Strength of Number: Controls the penalty applied to the side with more members. This is the same penalty described in "Understanding Number of Rounds". A higher value makes the side with more members stronger. Valid values are between 0.0 -1.0. In vanilla the value is 0.6. Earlier version of SendAllTroops has a value of 1.0. If you stick with the value of 0.6, set RandomDamage and RandomDeath to true, and set DetailedCombatModel to false, you will get very similar results to AI battles in unmoded base game.
• Siege Strength of Number: Controls the penalty applied to the side with more members in sieges. A lower value makes sieges more difficult.

 

[MostBlunted]

Nope, i still think that mexxico is engaged the most with the community

Me too, Mexxico and Duh and some MP devs (I´m not into MP so I don´t "care"), thats all.

So we have 2 devs communicating with us, that´s not much for EA.Callum is just doing his PR stuff.

But at least Mexxico and Duh are giving their best and listen too feedback. But most of the good feedback threads just go to nowhere unnoticed.

 

[Sgtskywalk]

If TW changed it so chance of T2 units getting a horse works like in Warband, this could make this work better. * Obviously this would only apply to AI, not players.
Instead of a T2 unit always having a 100% chance of getting a horse (Bannerlord), make it a 50/50 chance of getting a horse (Warband). Horses are expensive after all and not every tribesman could afford one.

This will do a few things:

1. Reduce how imba AI Lords will be early game when playing with Khuzait culture, assuming they will not have to use horses to upgrade troops like players do
2. Reduce how fast AI Lords will recover, compared to lords with mostly Infantry, after being defeated and training their recruits

It is very annoying that Khuzait seem to recover faster than other factions, and its very possible its because how strong their low tier units are.

+1

Wow! Thats it! That mod maker was way ahead of the curve with a far more realistic determination of auto resolving getting rid of the silly "Duel system" vanilla uses and even applying equipment it seems.

Look at his detailed explanation:

Damn, that modder should be working for TW lol

 

[Wolfmensch007]

Me too, Mexxico and Duh and some MP devs (I´m not into MP so I don´t "care"), thats all.

So we have 2 devs communicating with us, that´s not much for EA.Callum is just doing his PR stuff.

But at least Mexxico and Duh are giving their best and listen too feedback. But most of the good feedback threads just go to nowhere unnoticed.

100% agree with this

 

[Revenant342]

I'm honestly not a fan of the 50/50 mounted/not mounted idea for Khuzait Tribal Horsemen because I think it would break formations and AI, and horse archer AI has enough problems as it is.

 

[Sgtskywalk]

I'm honestly not a fan of the 50/50 mounted/not mounted idea for Khuzait Tribal Horsemen because I think it would break formations and AI, and horse archer AI has enough problems as it is.

Hadn't thought of the formations, I agree