• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that the developer team will be on leave until 26th of July. All technical support tickets will be handled when we're back in action. Thank you for understanding.

Food-Prosperity=Bug

Currently viewing this thread:

iRkshz

Regular
UPD: this bug is understandable, the reason is clarified
full explanation on the link or in my last post (June 23)

plASpAr.jpg
 
Last edited:

Spinozart1

Sergeant
In your above example, you may try to reduce the garrison at an appropriate level. Militia do not consume food but garrison does.
But be aware that for towns, if you reduce the garrison number far below militia number, AND that loyality is realy low, then it will lead to rebellion.

Also, devs are aware of the abnormal prosperity inflation.
About prosperity inflation
Another thread about similar topic
Another thread somehow linked
It will get better in next beta patch, but this kind of tweaks will not instantly change the situation, so you will have to suffer a little bit before seeing any improvements, I guess.
 

iRkshz

Regular
In your above example, you may try to reduce the garrison at an appropriate level. Militia do not consume food but garrison does.
But be aware that for towns, if you reduce the garrison number far below militia number, AND that loyality is realy low, then it will lead to rebellion.

Also, devs are aware of the abnormal prosperity inflation.
About prosperity inflation
Another thread about similar topic
Another thread somehow linked
It will get better in next beta patch, but this kind of tweaks will not instantly change the situation, so you will have to suffer a little bit before seeing any improvements, I guess.
oh come on, really dude?
at finaly I remove the garrisons COMPLETELY, but it still leads to an analogous bug, as a result, I lose all property
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
oh come on, really dude?
at finaly I remove the garrisons COMPLETELY, but it still leads to an analogous bug, as a result, I lose all property
What do you mean by losing the property? Is it a rebellion?
In case of castle, is it transfered to another lord?
You should post in the bug section for further investigation from the support.
 
As others said -- reduce the size of your garrison.

And just let that prosperity decline. Eventually it will drop to an equilibrium where your villages and gardens can support it. 1275 is pretty high for a castle.

Meanwhile, stick around and make sure no one raids your villages. That will really tank your food supply.
 
Last edited:
If you report it they'll ask you for .sav and then in a week tell you it's working as intended.
It's just a crappy mechanic.
It's meant to balance out prosperity getting too high, however although it kind of works for the AI, to the player, who's garrisons often represent a time investment and not just a coincidental excess of units (like the AI) it's an unacceptable way to balance as we can't proactively cap prosperity or give food only to our garrison (letting prosperity plummet till it evens out) or what not.
In your above example, you may try to reduce the garrison at an appropriate level.
Yes and to add on you want to use higher tier troops to keep security okay while reducing food consumption. 20 guys = 1 food a day, but they all add thier tier to security, so a tier 3 is worth 3 recruits and so on. Governor's can also have perks that give security bonusses or cost reduction to certain unit types so you can use that to min/max. Keep track of where you put your best troops, don't make more then you can use or transport if you have to.

@Duh_TaleWorlds @mexxico anything coming up for this? Like a box we can put food in to save JUST for the garrison? It's been requested/suggested all year.
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
If you report it they'll ask you for .sav and then in a week tell you it's working as intended.
It's just a crappy mechanic.
It's meant to balance out prosperity getting too high, however although it kind of works for the AI, to the player, who's garrisons often represent a time investment and not just a coincidental excess of units (like the AI) it's an unacceptable way to balance as we can't proactively cap prosperity or give food only to our garrison (letting prosperity plummet till it evens out) or what not.
I would find it strange to be able to have an option allowing you to set a limit to prosperity.
If the conditions are all favorable, then the town is prosperous.
Security, food are obvious constraints to demographic expansion of a town.
They are planning to increase the food from villages and a daily auto recruitment to garrison, which is already a good step forward.
We will be able to set a limit to the recruitment as well.
But i kinda agree that we should get the option to enroll patrols to ensure the security around the town, to limit raids and bandits attack.
 

iRkshz

Regular
As others said -- reduce the size of your garrison.

And just let that prosperity decline. Eventually it will drop to an equilibrium where your villages and gardens can support it. 1275 is pretty high for a castle.

Meanwhile, stick around and make sure no one raids your villages. That will really tank your food supply.
nope, its bug, and this plague dont stop

oslCx3h.jpg
 

iRkshz

Regular
Hi can you show the detailed tooltip for this last screenshot? I would like to take a look.
sorry, I didn't see your message, but the save game has already been deleted
but I started a new game, when this bug happens (and it will happen when the prosperity is above 900 for castle), then I will record a video for you, np
 

SadShogun

A Furtherer of the Calradic Cause
Developer
Also @SadShogun why do we have the boom bust cycle? Yes, I suppose it's more realistic but it's an annoying mechanic. What's the rationale if you don't mind explaining.
If you are referring to the cities growing and become unsustainable and decline then when the population is low enough it starts to grow again.
I think this is not that we want this to happen exactly this way but when we put together our constraints this is the behaviour we get. In its current state what you consider as boom-bust cycle is emergent. It is (generally) caused by a delayed increase in garrison count, though it can be triggered by village raids as well.

For this not to happen, the cities somehow have to plan for "if I go over a certain population, this would lead to my decline" and adjust their prosperity gain accordingly.

Another possible solution is reducing the prosperity gain as it gets higher drastically, so the city won't have "time" to exceed its max population before facing its consequences.

If the players feel the boom-bust cycle is a large problem, we change parameters or even write a simple logical mechanism to cap the prosperity at a maximum.

Why do you think these boom-bust cycles are a problem? Does it affect your ability to plan the feature? Does it feel unfair in a way?
 
Why do you think these boom-bust cycles are a problem? Does it affect your ability to plan the feature? Does it feel unfair in a way?
personally I view the fiefs as unit storage and money secondary, I don't like feeling that I can't limit prosperity to prevent a food issue. I would rather just lose the prosperity and not risk loosing garrison units. My character is a bad guy, I would just kick those people out and not let anymore move in before I would tap into the granaries stock that's for soldiers. I guess I just feel my personal military should be separate from the balance of prosperity/food and such. It might be nice to have a quest to deliberately undermine the prosperity of your towns to manage what is an acceptable balance for you.
 

iRkshz

Regular
How are you getting your prosperity so high? Lol my castles are all approaching 0 because of the policy Serfdom.
it is easy, but it works only with Khuzaits, Vlandia, Aserai
why only with these three kingdoms?
1. Because it is these three kingdoms that have a good location on the global map - they have their rear covered and only 2 or 3 directions for an enemy attack. Thus, their settlements are infrequently raided and looted.
2. When I capture their towns and castles, I always choose "mercy" to save buildings and prosperity.
3. Then I choose the right policies that maximize rapid development and use only t5 troops for 100% security and loyalty (140 t5 for towns and 40 t5 for castles).
4. I do not allow to raid my village - I always choose who to fight with and I am not interested in the opinion of my clans.
5. As a result, these castles and their villages have not been robbed since the first day of the game. And then in 10 years (from the start) you will have 900+ prosperity from castles (sometimes 1200+).
 
If you are referring to the cities growing and become unsustainable and decline then when the population is low enough it starts to grow again.
I think this is not that we want this to happen exactly this way but when we put together our constraints this is the behaviour we get. In its current state what you consider as boom-bust cycle is emergent. It is (generally) caused by a delayed increase in garrison count, though it can be triggered by village raids as well.

Yea that's exactly what I'm describing and it's not just triggered by village raids but by unsustainable growth.

Another possible solution is reducing the prosperity gain as it gets higher drastically, so the city won't have "time" to exceed its max population before facing its consequences.

I think this would be the optimal solution. Maybe as a function of surplus food so that as the surplus dwindles, prosperity starts to slow.

Why do you think these boom-bust cycles are a problem? Does it affect your ability to plan the feature? Does it feel unfair in a way?

Garrisons hold our prize troops. I store surplus t6 troops there that I can call upon after a vicious battle. Losing them to prosperity is like...I don't know...ironic I suppose.

And yea, there's very little control that the player has over the whole thing. I'm for famine but perhaps we could separate the solution.

For example, for garrison, allow us to have a separate store for them and for the town, provide quests that would allow us to provide food in exchange for increase loyalty.

But famine should only occur during sieges/war. I don't think prosperity should directly lead to starvation as caravans ought to be attracted to the town.

It would also be nice if Kingdom policies would forbid attacks against civilian targets so caravans would continue trading with the town even though it's at war.
 
it is easy, but it works only with Khuzaits, Vlandia, Aserai
why only with these three kingdoms?
1. Because it is these three kingdoms that have a good location on the global map - they have their rear covered and only 2 or 3 directions for an enemy attack. Thus, their settlements are infrequently raided and looted.
2. When I capture their towns and castles, I always choose "mercy" to save buildings and prosperity.
3. Then I choose the right policies that maximize rapid development and use only t5 troops for 100% security and loyalty (140 t5 for towns and 40 t5 for castles).
4. I do not allow to raid my village - I always choose who to fight with and I am not interested in the opinion of my clans.
5. As a result, these castles and their villages have not been robbed since the first day of the game. And then in 10 years (from the start) you will have 900+ prosperity from castles (sometimes 1200+).

Yea but those idiots tend to vote for serfdom...
 

iRkshz

Regular
Yea but those idiots tend to vote for serfdom...
they choose serfdom because they need security (I tested)
so, just accept other policies given by the security, like "Bailiffs" and "Magistrates" - in general, this is a subtle game with politics that needs to be balanced so that everyone gets what they need... experiment on this

P.S. I will give advice - accept ALL correct policies before inviting clans to your kingdom
 
it is easy, but it works only with Khuzaits, Vlandia, Aserai
why only with these three kingdoms?
1. Because it is these three kingdoms that have a good location on the global map - they have their rear covered and only 2 or 3 directions for an enemy attack. Thus, their settlements are infrequently raided and looted.
2. When I capture their towns and castles, I always choose "mercy" to save buildings and prosperity.
3. Then I choose the right policies that maximize rapid development and use only t5 troops for 100% security and loyalty (140 t5 for towns and 40 t5 for castles).
4. I do not allow to raid my village - I always choose who to fight with and I am not interested in the opinion of my clans.
5. As a result, these castles and their villages have not been robbed since the first day of the game. And then in 10 years (from the start) you will have 900+ prosperity from castles (sometimes 1200+).
+100 Good post!
 

iRkshz

Regular
Hi can you show the detailed tooltip for this last screenshot? I would like to take a look.
@SadShogun I promised it and I did it :grin:

And so, here are five videos - each video shows a new stage of the deterioration of the situation (first for castles, later for towns), I also have saves (if they are needed, tell me how to download them).

As I understand it, the situation becomes critical when the castles becomes prosperity above 2k, and for the towns above 12k, after which the collapse begins:
-> lose food -> lose the garrison (this is the most offensive, since I have a garrison of elite troops t5-t6, thousands of troops in total) -> lose militia -> lose prosperity -> lose security -> lose loyalty -> loses fiefs (if you do not have the right policy, you will lose the fiefs due to the rebelion - in any case, you will lose the garrison and the militia, which means that the fiefs becomes an easy prey for the enemy)!!!

When a critical drop in food began due to prosperity, changing the daily default does not help, because it does not significantly affect.

And so, the solution to this bug is simple - you need to PROHIBIT the growth of prosperity if the growth of food becomes zero. The prosperity penalty does NOT have the right to touch the reserve (because then you will lose everything, including the fiefs).

if the player added a large garrison (for example, the maximum for 636 troops), or problems with food begin (for example, due to siege or raiding of villages), then prosperity should drop immediately (for example, by 1% of the total) - because for any fiefs, the priority goal is to preserve its existence, garrison and militia, security and loyalty, and only then prosperity.

btw, this bug made me take my playstyle seriously, reconsider my attitude towards policies, in order to neutralize the loss of fiefs and speed up the completion of the game :mrgreen:






you welcome :coffee:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom