It's very very basics of diplomacy so I should hope so. A mod already did it and it was sorely lacking in Warband. I will be shocked if it is not in the base game
-
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
It's very very basics of diplomacy so I should hope so. A mod already did it and it was sorely lacking in Warband. I will be shocked if it is not in the base game
I just had time to go over this in detail, and I really appreciate the effort you put into informing all of us. I have two questions:
1.
Doesn't this mean very high prosperity towns (with limited or unstable food stocks) will encourage peace in general?
2. Would it be better for AI clans to start off at negative influence so they wouldn't immediately be able to form armies from Day 1 of the game?
Yes you are right. In current and past versions (1.5.0 and below) this was main problem actually. These versions also care foods & loyality variables however if there is a problem in any town they add big negatives to WarFatiqueScore (which prevents declearing new wars and creating stable peace times if this value returns big negatives, it is something like war exhaustion) So when a faction gets bigger it has more settlements so settlements which have problems with loyality or food increases so this was ending up with big factions staying in peace because their WarFatiqueScores was big negatives. I changed this method so much. You can see below. Yellow codes are old (1.5.0 and below) WarFatique calculation method and blue codes are new (1.5.1+) WarFatique calculation codes.
So in new WarFatiqueScore calculation Food / Loyality / Garrison (new) / Lord party size usage ratio (new) / sieged - raided settlements (new) problems are counted and at the end they are divided to numberOfFiefs / numberOfLords (look at blue part 5) so at final kingdoms only care settlement or lord ratios having problem (not total count like at yellow codes). This ends up better WarFatiuq calculation results. Because if a kingdom gets bigger and if they have 2 settlements having food problems and if they have 20 settlements all they will care only 10% ratio (settlement ratio having problems (2 / 20)) not use directly 2.
Last edited:
Pinned list should be a short list (max 4-5 items). These are only development steps, each patch can have several of them. In future there will be more developments like these. Thats why its better these not to be pinned otherwise pinned list become so crowded by time.
I am aganist placing strict rules currently. I was fan of 25 days strict truce period previously because in these times there was no tribute system, player was paying a kingdom 100K to make truce then just 1-2 days later same kingdom was declaring war again so these times strict rules were needed. Now we have tribute system and if a kingdom break truce they lose tribute income. So we can get rid of strict rules like forcing kingdoms X days of truce after peace. Its better to balance things naturally if possible. So if we determine tribute amounts carefully kingdoms will not break truce just after war is declared except some special situations I mentioned before.
About alliances feature I have no information about this. We need to first implement revolts / rebellions. Currently loyality variable of settlements are nearly useless.
Last edited:
An amazing in-depth analysis and explanaitions by mexxico 
With this kind of communication, both sides going even beyond what's asked from, everyone benefits: developers having access to more detailed and better organized feedback, making their job easier, and players get a better game, according to their taste, and faster.
❤
With this kind of communication, both sides going even beyond what's asked from, everyone benefits: developers having access to more detailed and better organized feedback, making their job easier, and players get a better game, according to their taste, and faster.
❤
What if a peace is made without tribute. Can AI still vote for war let say a day after...? Would it be a problem to have both options implemented ?
Yes two diferent making peace options is currently a problem maybe we should remove making peace from barter by paying 100-200-300K of money. Thats why still we have 20 days of truce after a war decleration as seen in code :
By the way this 20 days rule is only applied for AI to declare wars after peace. There is no rule for opposite (peace after war). So there can be quick peace agreement after war is declared now.
Last edited:
Good to know. I didn't grasp that during the gameplay.. Thanks.
I'm sorry you mentioned that before and i must of forgotten when looking at them. As you said i went back and looked at those 4 occurrences and it was indeed factions getting better tribute deals. So we are all good there and honestly its awesome they are doing these negotiations!
I looked 1.5.1 data through the war/dec's to see if I find any instances. First out of 115 finished wars there were only 3 that ended without tribute and none of those declared war on those same factions next day. Most the times peace is being made because one of the factions is all of a sudden in to many wars.
What interesting is if you look at my graphs, you actually see most factions have a main enemy whose wars last at least 30 days. But now that factions only really want to be in one war, these other shorter wars are like turf wars to see whose the strongest in the moment and who should pay tribute while a faction continues to fight its main enemy. Its quite interesting.
Yeah 1.5.1 seems to really solve the issue! It will be interesting to see how the AI kingdoms handle a new player Kingdom. Your initial enemy may now play a waaaay bigger role in a play through. Can't wait to test it out!
Fantastic thread and example of dev communication. You the best mexxico.
ElCrisp
Sergeant at Arms
To the people who are requesting features such as Alliances, Non aggression pacts etc. need to understand that the fine tuning mexxico is doing here is what underpins the possibility of those features ever working.
For example you bring in Alliances as a diplomatic option, and the two largest faction just form an alliance early and steamroll the game. Alliances are a good addition to the game only in so far as the campaign AI logic is also really good. In a way that benifets gameplay. If you are looking for alliances to be a rubber banding mechanic to stop factions from galloping away with the lead, all that logic needs to be written and fine tuned.
For example you bring in Alliances as a diplomatic option, and the two largest faction just form an alliance early and steamroll the game. Alliances are a good addition to the game only in so far as the campaign AI logic is also really good. In a way that benifets gameplay. If you are looking for alliances to be a rubber banding mechanic to stop factions from galloping away with the lead, all that logic needs to be written and fine tuned.
Sidhwen_Khorest
Sergeant
Did someone say rebellions?!?! this is my most awaited feature. I feel like revolts give the independent lord the best chance to rise without swearing fealty to another.
can you comment on if these rebellions will only be from settlements loyalty score, being peasant rebellions, or if we will see vassals themselves rebelling against a hated king as well?
