Thanks mexxico it certainly seems like a step in the right direction.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Diplomacy Developments
- Thread starter mexxico
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Thanks for your effort. Really appreciate it. Most likely there will be some glitches but good diplomacy is worth of it. I am more than happy to test the new adjustments and provide feadback.
@mexxico really appreciate the effort to share your work with us -- taking the time to post all this adds up, but it's great to see! Also, your English is good so don't feel that you need to apologize 
Questions that you may be able to answer:
- Is it programmed that some factions find it more difficult to create and maintain armies than others? if not, should it be so? I am thinking of the Khuzaits in particular, and how to balance their tendency to snowball. Like their inspiration the Mongols or the Huns, IF the Khuzaits are able to get a large army going into a war, they should be near-unstoppable. BUT, it should be very difficult for them to make that happen -- tribal politics / factionalism / grudges / blood feuds should prevent the lords from uniting, instead they should all be acting independently. In the absence of a feature to let lords within a faction fight each other, at minimum you could make the influence cost for Khuzait armies to be called and maintained much higher than it is for e.g. imperial factions, which are much more centralized.
- Is it possible or planned to have different types of wars, small and large, and change lord behavior based on the type of war?
This occurred to me when you wrote about the 'small wars' to stop tribute -- maybe there should be war aims/goals to allow for such situations. That would let factions declare smaller wars, e.g. 'to avenge an insult', 'to punish a particular lord', 'to stop paying tribute/ to impose tribute', etc. Lords would be able to prioritize different behaviors depending on the war goals -- if it's not a war of conquest, they wouldn't bother with sieges but would prefer to hunt down the offending lord, for instance.
Questions that you may be able to answer:
- Is it programmed that some factions find it more difficult to create and maintain armies than others? if not, should it be so? I am thinking of the Khuzaits in particular, and how to balance their tendency to snowball. Like their inspiration the Mongols or the Huns, IF the Khuzaits are able to get a large army going into a war, they should be near-unstoppable. BUT, it should be very difficult for them to make that happen -- tribal politics / factionalism / grudges / blood feuds should prevent the lords from uniting, instead they should all be acting independently. In the absence of a feature to let lords within a faction fight each other, at minimum you could make the influence cost for Khuzait armies to be called and maintained much higher than it is for e.g. imperial factions, which are much more centralized.
- Is it possible or planned to have different types of wars, small and large, and change lord behavior based on the type of war?
This occurred to me when you wrote about the 'small wars' to stop tribute -- maybe there should be war aims/goals to allow for such situations. That would let factions declare smaller wars, e.g. 'to avenge an insult', 'to punish a particular lord', 'to stop paying tribute/ to impose tribute', etc. Lords would be able to prioritize different behaviors depending on the war goals -- if it's not a war of conquest, they wouldn't bother with sieges but would prefer to hunt down the offending lord, for instance.
Lorcalus
Nice changes to AI logic but i personally think a better diplomacy system with different stances (eg. pact of non aggresion, alliance etc.) would solve this issues better. With that kind of system smaller factions could form alliances to fight wars together and even tthe odds. On other hand, pact of non aggresion would provide each kingdom a tool to prolong peace with other factions and easily focus on wars they want. This would, in my opinion, stabilize game a lot and give factions that are on the brink of destruction some chance of surviving.
Yeah he said settlements have 20% more food now, he also mentioned to be careful when comparing the tables he provided because the old data shows high food in the later years (which was due to world wide peace of major factions bug).
yeah To don't think @mexxico knows that isn't a problem it is more with how lords and armies manage their food, I wrote him a message 3 days ago saying that was all good, must have missed it
Yes we should use revolts / rebellions to balance things. Currently still winning factions are getting constantly bigger (slower than 1.5.0). So this is a problem. These changes are only one step. More need to follow in future.
Still average of 400-500 food is less for a town. Its good having s bit more. Because you know when a big army enters a settlement they can buy 200-300 food.
This is such an amazing post. Thank you @mexxico
That made me laugh! I believe he means Side Note: @Flesson19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if more diplomacy options would be beneficial here? Introducing options such as:
Proposing a truce: Lasts 1 or 2 years. Costs less tribute. Ambitious/War-hungry Lords who don't want peace are more likely to support a temporary truce.
Buying an alliance: Small kingdoms pay for a temporary alliance lasting 1 year. Kingdoms declaring war on a small kingdom will have to also consider larger kingdom's strength. (Kingdoms only accept alliance if they have good relations or the tribute price is high enough).
Demand Tribute: A kingdom can demand a higher (or lower) tribute amount. If that is not successful then the kingdoms go to war. < This would 'solve' the short-war occurrence
Casus Belli Skirmish: A kingdom with a historical claim to a town or castle go to war with the goal of taking that specific Town/Castle. If they achieve that goal then the lords are much more likely to want peace. If they have not achieved the goal within a year then they also will want peace. < This could force Armies to be more aggressive and attack Towns/Castles even when their chances of success are low.
Border Skirmish: The same as above except the goal is to take a Town/Castle that is close to the current border. < Both of these war types would be beneficial for smaller Kingdoms wanting to take back lands without being overrun by a long and expensive war. If these small skirmishes are seen as "justified" then the attacked kingdom can offer lower tribute costs when peace agreements are made.
These ideas might be a bit complicated but I do think that adding more diplomacy options will add a lot of character and flavour to the game. As well as adding some focus and 'historical context' to some of the wars.
That made me laugh! I believe he means Side Note: @Flesson19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if more diplomacy options would be beneficial here? Introducing options such as:
Proposing a truce: Lasts 1 or 2 years. Costs less tribute. Ambitious/War-hungry Lords who don't want peace are more likely to support a temporary truce.
Buying an alliance: Small kingdoms pay for a temporary alliance lasting 1 year. Kingdoms declaring war on a small kingdom will have to also consider larger kingdom's strength. (Kingdoms only accept alliance if they have good relations or the tribute price is high enough).
Demand Tribute: A kingdom can demand a higher (or lower) tribute amount. If that is not successful then the kingdoms go to war. < This would 'solve' the short-war occurrence
Casus Belli Skirmish: A kingdom with a historical claim to a town or castle go to war with the goal of taking that specific Town/Castle. If they achieve that goal then the lords are much more likely to want peace. If they have not achieved the goal within a year then they also will want peace. < This could force Armies to be more aggressive and attack Towns/Castles even when their chances of success are low.
Border Skirmish: The same as above except the goal is to take a Town/Castle that is close to the current border. < Both of these war types would be beneficial for smaller Kingdoms wanting to take back lands without being overrun by a long and expensive war. If these small skirmishes are seen as "justified" then the attacked kingdom can offer lower tribute costs when peace agreements are made.
These ideas might be a bit complicated but I do think that adding more diplomacy options will add a lot of character and flavour to the game. As well as adding some focus and 'historical context' to some of the wars.
Not saying that, I know towns are good on food, i wrote you a message 3 days ago telling you economy in 1.5 is great.(in my original economy bug report thread)
It is that the armies are still not calculating food properly, they start a siege and wait to run out of food before stopping it so when they stop they are starving and enemy forces are waiting for them to lower the amount of troops then attack and win. They should stop a siege and look for food earlier than the instant they run out.
I am now 250 days into 1.5 and economy is still good. Economy 1.4.3 sucks 1.5 great
With all this said I will wait on my 1,000 day trader challenge till 1.5 to see how new things are working and let you know, since it only takes 3 or 4 days to get over 1,000 days
@mexxico and I have suffered through some terrible language barriers before. I never take it bad as i think he would never do that, but your 100% right, it made me laugh so hard when I saw itThis is such an amazing post. Thank you @mexxico
That made me laugh! I believe he means Side Note: @Flesson19
It was like mexico quoted you in a post, and your irrelevant even though I think he spelled it irrevelant, it was funny, I love and appreciate the guy
StewVader
Sergeant
As some of you know after your requests I have been working on war & peace votings for last one and half week. First 2-3 days I examined codes to understand what is going on then changed several parts and then tested new codes and changed again according to results of these tests. There will be several developments at these issues. I will give you some information about these. In several posts I already gave some information however it is better to collect all here now and give more details. All these developments will be ready at 1.5.1.
As you know we have several problems effecting gameplay negatively currently. These are :
1-Snowballing of some factions (especially Khuzait) and some factions being destroyed in first 1-2 years.
2-There is no comeback, if a faction is losing their settlements they cannot stop this generally and you do not see surprising results. If a faction did well in first years they 90% continue being better and better by time.
3-After some time world (which shared between 3-4 big kingdoms) can go into stable peace time for long years. If player do not make any interaction even 1 settlement do not change hands and even 1 settlement is not raided for years. (This do not happen 100%, only some games)
When I examine reasons of these problems it was obvious that general problem lays down on war / peace votings. Sometimes a weak faction face with 3 strong enemies and even in this scenario clans of this faction do not support making peace with any of these 3 kingdoms. Here is an example.
World situation :
In this situation if Western Empire does not make peace with at least 1 of enemies it is nearly certain they will lose some of their settlements. Lets look how support ratios at peace votings with 3 recent enemies (Note that 11% come from player) :
When player is member of these "usually" losing factions (Sturgia / Western Empire / Northern Empire) they become disturbed because of this situation. Player try to help his faction but it is nearly impossible. They need to go and help different fortifications in all borders facing with different enemies. Even some players made a video related to this :
Now after developments clans in our kingdom act more logical. If his faction have different enemies in diffewrent borders they now try to reduce number of enemies even by paying tributes. Paying tribute is not so big deal for a time until things get better. Now here are new supports in same situation after developments :
This is not only development. Also while peace or war votings clans now care what is the situation of garrisons / food stocks of fiefs (especially their own fiefs). Also they care how much % of party men limit are used in lord parties. For example if lots of villages are raided or lord parties are using less percentage of their party limits (if they need more men) they support peace more. They also care now how war is going. You see stats in diplomacy window. If enemy raided lots of villages and has lots of successful sieges in war clans tend to support peace by paying tribute. So all game elements are now connected better to each other and every action have a result even on these votings. Clans also now care location of their fiefs. For example if you are in war with Khuzait and clan X has settlements in border with Khuzait so "clan X" supports peace more than other clans.
I want to give you some numbers for comparing 1.5.0 situation (before developments) and 1.5.1 situation (after developments)
This table shows number of fortifications per faction before developments (1.5.0 run), as you see Western Empire is gone at 1086, Sturgia is gone at 1087, S.Empire and N.Empire is gone at 1092, after that time only 4 kingdoms are remained. And their owned settlements did not changed after 1092. Because they did not declare war aganist themselves. :
When I examine its (big kingdoms not declearing war aganist others) reason I see that some things were effecting war scores more than they need to do. For example if your kingdom have one settlement with less loyality (with lets say loyality is 0 and it has 5000 prosperity) declaring war score was getting -5000 x 65 x 0.1 = -32500 from only this factor. If kingdom gets bigger it was having more settlements which effects declearing war score negatively. For example if kingdom has 3 settlements with low loyality war score gets about -100K. This is only an example. There were more of them. Now all these effects are more balanced. If a kingdom has more settlements effects of these things are reduced now.
Now this is the same table for a run after developments. Here only Northern Empire is gone at 1092 and Western Empire is gone at 1091. However Western Empire make a comeback at 1093. Because even it is rare now kingdoms can make come backs, because weak kingdoms (which lost more than 75% of their starting settlements) were not forming armies this bug is also fixed during these developments. This area still needs work by the way. Even they make a comeback they cannot stay long. They again wiped out at 1096. Anyway even they are again wiped out it is a step forward for now also world did not be stable and snowballing is less after developments :
Another 9 year test results with developments. All war / peace declerations and map screenshots of this run is shared below this post :
Now what are new problems :
There are lots of different code changes in these areas so we can have another problems when 1.5.1 is out. For example now there happen 1-5 day small wars. I explained why they can happen yesterday in another post. I am making copy-paste it :
By the way you will see some short wars (1-5 days) because sometimes after a war is declared tribute is accepted by other faction. Or there are some cases “faction X” is paying too much to “faction Y“ because of a previous deal then “faction X“ does not want to pay that tribute at some point (because they get stronger or enemy get weaker or one of wars they are involved is ended) and to stop paying tribute “faction X” declare war. Then faction Y accepts getting less tribute then they make peace again. Or for another example “faction X” declare war aganist “faction Y“ then “faction Z“ declare war to “faction X”. Then X is facing two enemies then it accepts one peace offer. These are some scenarios creating short wars. Will try to make these short wars to happen less by time. Anyway I have control over these codes now and will follow your feedbacks. At first days when these new codes pass we can have some minor problems but they will be easy to fix.
Lets continue with more before / after tables; these are settlement variables :
Before developments, here as I mentioned above world goes into stable peace at some point so you see no raided villages after some time :
After developments :
Again another short 9 year run after developments :
Irrevelant : @Flesson19 you can compare food amounts in settlements before & after, there are developments at these too. Now settlements have 20% more food in average. Please do not compare before development table's food data after 1092, this game run went into world peace so foods were high after 1090s (because no raids no hostile actions safe world)
So still there can be problems of course. But these war & peace votings will be more logical with 1.5.1. This will slow down snowballing and will effect gameplay positively. I will continue giving information here time to time and will collect your feedbacks after 1.5.1 is out. Sorry for my English. Probably I did several mistakes.
Also bonus irrevelant information : By 1.5.1 AI armies which make siege will calculate player strength with less importance (they will take more risks) so you will be able to experience defender side sieges more frequently. As you know after you sneak in besieged settlement they mostly give up siege.
I want to thank also @Blood Gryphon he prepaired a table from data I shared yesterday. However in data there were some mistakes so he found some war counts as negative. I am giving a new data set (all peace war declerations) after developments. This time I collected them more carefully andbody interested can examine what is going on world after developments (w = war, p = peace, ne = northern empire, we = western empire, se = southern empire, kh = khuzait, st = sturgia, vl = vlandia, last value is tribute payed from faction1 to faction2) :
init, w, bt x we
init, w, kh x ne
init, w, as x se
init, w, vl x st
1084 :
sum09, w, st x ne
sum12, p, st x ne, -3290
aut08, p, bt x we, 250
aut17, w, bt x ne
aut17, p, kh, ne, -3850
aut17, w, we x ne
win01, w, kh x se
win01, p, as x se, 2050
win06, p, ne x bt, 1180
win08, w, bt x we
win16, w, as x vl
win16, p, st x vl, -3550
win18, p, as x vl, -540
win19, w, st x we
win20, p, ne x we, -3110
win20, p, st x we, -1940
1085 :
spr02, w, ne x st
spr10, w, as x se
spr12, p, kh x se, -4710
spr20, w, vl x as
spr20, p, vl x as, -1220
spr21, p, we x bt, 0
sum01, p, ne x st, 2660
sum06, w, we x as
sum08, w, vl x st
sum08, w, we x ne
sum09, w, kh x we
sum11, p, as x we
sum12, p, kh x we, -2260
sum14, w, bt x as
sum14, p, as x bt, 730
sum17, w, bt x se
sum17, w, bt x ne
sum18, p, as x se, -830
sum20, w, kh x se
sum20, w, as x vl
sum20, p, vl x as, 730
sum20, w, kh x ne
aut01, w, ne x we, 1360
aut03, w, kh x as
aut07, p, se x kh, 980
aut08, w, we x st
aut09, p, vl x st, -580
aut10, p, bt x se, 980
aut14, p, bt x ne, -340
win01, w, se x we
win03, p, st x we, -3070
win03, p, as x kh, 140
win04, w, as x we
win09, p, as x we, -370
win12, w, kh x se
win13, w, vl x as
win15, p, we x se, -2370
win16, w, bt x vl
win16, p, as x vl, -260
win19, w, we x bt
1086 :
spr01, p, vl x bt, -930
spr09, p, kh x se, -130
spr10, w, st x kh
spr11, p, kh x ne, -190
spr13, w, ne x bt
spr15, w, as x bt
spr16, p, bt x ne, 2230
spr20, w, ne x we
spr21, p, bt x we, 1160
sum02, w, se x we
sum03, w, ne x st
sum03, p, st x ne, -600
sum08, p, as x bt, -550
sum10, p, ne x we, 130
sum16, w, kh x se
sum18, w, bt x se
sum18, w, ne x se
sum19, w, vl x st
sum19, p, bt x se, -1820
sum19, p, we x se, -4720
aut01, p, st x kh, 1860
aut02, w, we x bt
aut02, w, as x se
aut15, w, kh x ne
aut17, p, ne x se, -2150
aut17, p, se x kh, 700
1087 :
spr11, w, se x we
spr11, p, we x se, -950
spr14, p, as x se, -1360
spr16, w, kh x se
spr20, w, as x bt
spr21, p, vl x st, -2150
sum01, p, bt x as, 1990
sum03, p, se x kh, 120
sum07, w, st x bt
sum09, p, bt x we, 560
sum11, w, se x ne
sum13, p, se, ne, -910
sum13, w, as x se
sum15, p, ne x kh, 740
sum16, w, we x st
sum16, p, bt x st, -1440
aut01, w, ne x we
aut04, w, kh x se
aut07, p, we x st, -3330
aut09, p, as x se, -720
aut12, w, bt x we
aut15, w, ne x se
aut17, p, se x ne, 1500
aut18, w, vl x as
win01, p, kh x st, -310
win02, w, st x bt
win04, p, as x vl, 520
win08, p, st, bt, -570
win08, w, st x vl
win09, p, we x ne, 980
win10, w, kh x ne
win11, w, st x we
win12, w, bt x ne
win12, p, ne x bt, -110
win16, p, we x st, -1400
win17, w, as x se
1088 :
spr04, w, kh x st
spr07, p, we x bt, 410
spr10, w, bt x as
spr10, p, as x se, -4060
sum01, p, vl x st, -820
sum02, p, se x kh, 590
sum04, p, as x bt, 0
sum15, w, bt x vl
sum18, p, ne x kh, 760
sum21, w, we x vl
aut02, p, kh x st, -1280
aut07, w, st x vl
aut07, w, ne x bt
aut08, p, vl x bt, -1090
aut10, w, as x bt
aut13, p, ne x bt, -2220
aut14, p, we x vl, -2420
aut16, w, kh x se
aut21, p, as x bt, -760
win01, w, ne x st
win05, p, st x ne, 1120
win05, w, as x vl
win07, w, ne x se
win09, w, bt x st
win13, w, bt x ne
win13, w, kh x st
win14, p, vl x st, -3940
win14, p, ne x se, -2100
win18, w, we x as
win19, p, vl x as, 2160
win21, p, ne x bt, -340
1089 :
spr07, w, ne x st
spr07, p, se x kh, 750
spr08, w, se x as
spr08, p, we x as, -870
spr09, p, bt x st, -2880
spr16, w, we x bt
spr19, p, st x ne, 1130
sum03, w, vl x we
sum06, w, kh x ne
sum06, p, vl x we, -2180
sum10, w, as x we
sum12, p, st x kh, 1860
sum14, p, as x we, -3470
aut03, w, st x ne
aut10, p, ne x st, 1050
aut13, w, kh x se
aut18, p, se x as, 4360
aut20, w, vl x we
aut20, w, st x vl
win06, p, bt x we, -7910
win09, w, as x ne
win11, p, we x vl, 2500
win12, w, as x we
win13, w, bt x ne
win13, w, kh x we
win17, p, as x ne, -1930
win21, p, ne x bt, 1900
1090 :
spr03, w, bt x we
spr10, w, kh x st
spr10, w, bt x kh
spr12, p, vl x st, -2870
spr12, p, kh x we, -3770
spr12, p, ne x kh, 850
spr16, w, st x we
spr16, p, st x we, -3360
spr16, p, st x kh, 570
spr21, w, ne x we
spr21, p, we x ne, 2880
sum10, w, st x vl
sum13, w, as x se
sum20, p, se x kh, 680
aut08, w, ne x st
aut10, p, we x as, 1920
aut14, p, bt x we, -3560
aut16, p, ne x st, -2540
aut18, w, kh x st
aut19, p, vl x st, -4210
win02, w, kh x se
win03, w, vl x as
win05, p, se x as, 2330
win17, p, vl x as, -390
1091 :
spr03, p, kh x bt, 2960
spr07, w, bt x vl
spr07, w, as x st
spr16, w, bt x st
spr17, w, as x se
sum07, p, st x kh, 2890
sum07, w, we x st
sum07, p, we x st, -2600
sum11, p, se x kh, 1960
sum13, w, we x vl
sum13, p, vl x we, -880
sum18, w, we x kh
aut01, p, vl x bt, 1820
aut01, w, kh x bt
aut02, p, bt x st, -2230
aut03, w, st x vl
aut05, p, as x st, -1160
aut06, p, vl x st, -1920
aut11, w, se x bt
aut13, w, se x ne
aut13, p, bt, se, -180
aut14, w, st x we
aut14, p, as x se, -410
aut17, w, bt x we
aut17, p, kh x we, -3750
aut17, p, st x we, -1360
win01, w, as x vl
win04, w, se x kh
win07, p, ne x se, -510
win11, w, ne x bt
win11, p, bt x ne, 380
As you see we still have snowballing. Problem is not completely solved but it will be better with 1.5.1.
I'm confused. Do you have a team of people you lead for this stuff, or are you just doing it yourself?
Yes I meant “out of topic”. Maybe used wrong word. What is important is getting the point at the end of day. Even sometimes we cannot do this too because of language barrier. Because these issues are a bit complex so you need to have a better control over language to tell others what you think.
Anyway it was a tiring & long day. Continue tomorrow. Good night all.
This is good. Can we get some seperatism, make war/make peace or diplomacy fixes integrated too, to also help with snow balling?
It will come, just give em time.
guiskj
Knight
Mexxico and Duh were already champ status in my book, but now the respect is real.
For others here, I hope it is not lost on you that this OP alone was a huge time investment paid by @mexxico 's free time in order to communicate to an often toxic community.
If I may make a suggestion, your post showed me how intricate the war decisions are. However, a vast part of that logic is completely invisible to the player.
Like the economy, which is intricate as well, this is very opaque. Without visibility into why things are happening, a complex system and a random one feel very similar.
In the future, please find ways to better inform the player how the decisions/economy is being affected, specially by their actions.
For others here, I hope it is not lost on you that this OP alone was a huge time investment paid by @mexxico 's free time in order to communicate to an often toxic community.
If I may make a suggestion, your post showed me how intricate the war decisions are. However, a vast part of that logic is completely invisible to the player.
Like the economy, which is intricate as well, this is very opaque. Without visibility into why things are happening, a complex system and a random one feel very similar.
In the future, please find ways to better inform the player how the decisions/economy is being affected, specially by their actions.
