Resolved Food shortage in high prosperity cities

Users who are viewing this thread

Version number
1.6.2
Branch
Beta
Modded/unmodded
No, I didn't use any mods.

cifre

Section Moderator
M&BWB
Summary: Day 3145. I have 4 towns, from which 2 were all ok up until now. 2 of them which are the oldest in my possession (Ortysia, Lageta) have villages with more than 5-600 hearths(not robbed for a long time already), all upgrades in the town and prosperity above 7000. They suddenly start to bleed dry of food. The main reason is negative prosperity value which is around 150-200 points. Garrison only takes up to -8 points. I added a screenshot with the city which lost food and decreased prosperity to below 7000. The small amount of increase is also due to one of the villages that got a bit screwed up by a raider so it will add in short time another +6 to food.
How to Reproduce: I believe you have to raise the town to high prosperity (above 7000).
Have you used cheats and if so which: No
Scene Name (if related):
Media (Screenshots & Video): see picture here
Computer Specs:
OS:
GPU:
GPU Driver Version:
CPU:
RAM:
Motherboard:
Storage Device (HDD/SSD):
 
Last edited:

CrowleyCZ

Recruit
It makes sense.

More prosperity = More people
More people = More food needed (garrison needs to eat too).

I don't believe this is a bug.
 

CrowleyCZ

Recruit
I think there is. Growing your villages should provide more food. Also perks for your governor can reduce food consumption and increase food production. It's not always easy but it's possible.
 

jacex

Recruit
@cifre @CrowleyCZ I do think this happens too often. What happens is that the most prosperous cities often have more trade caravans go to them, buying and selling and ultimately reducing the city's food supply. Even when no villages are raided, certain cities (Epicrotea, Marathea, etc.) inevitably revolt repeatedly. If a player supplies those cities with food manually and enacts certain policies, they can prevent such revolts from occurring. Other cities start with larger granaries and therefore have much better resistance to starvation.

All that said, I do very much enjoy the starvation/revolt feature. I just think the AI needs to handle it better. For example, if Sturgia raids the villages around Epicrotea, the city is guaranteed to revolt. Personally, I prefer forcing cities to revolt via starvation because then I don't have to deal with the full 500-800 militia/garrison stack. I don't want the AI to "cheat", just to be aware of starving settlements, and for AI lords to maybe "resolve" village/city "issues" from time to time.
 

CrowleyCZ

Recruit
@jacex I agree, there might be some minor calculation issues and sometimes I run into food issue, but mostly it's handled. Also, I agree with necessity of AI lords being aware of starving and other settlement issues that need to be solved to at least try avoiding revolt. But that is a different topic.
 

Zorion_no

Regular
I've told them in suggestions that the wording "prosperity" isnt what we typically think of in terms of how its being seen in the "food" section.
There it would be better if it was labelled as POPULATION.

So the bigger the population the more food they need.

You have sweetspots for each town more or less based on how many cities tied to it.

The best way to counter this is to buy grain for instance and dump it into the town.
Also look at what the town is lacking, those prices will be red, buy those in other places and dump it there.

As for haveing more food for the settlement there is plenty of ways.
*Orchards provide up to +30 I belive.
*each village attached to a city can provide as much as 18 food pr village(so with a 2 you get 36, but many cities have 3 or even 4).
*Dump food into the market so they have all the basic and some, if you have "excessive food" it will show up on that roster with a + x to how much it contributes.(since grain is so plentyful, and cheap typically, thats why I sugges it, dump like 1k in it and you shouldnt have that much issues in general).

Also most of the time when the city have spikes of starvation, in most cases its cause of a few things
*Caravans being raided/stopped by hostile lords(they may not be hostile towards you, but along the way)
Example Sturgia vs Vlandia, however you are Battania(for this example), and your town of Seonon is starveing, cause of the Vlandian caravan is intercepted by Sturgia.

*Armies that come into your town, which cleans out your market for food. Even if they arent hostile, even friendly, they will do that.
I typically for this for instance if we are useing a town so to speak as a hub for further conquest into hostile territory - I'll keep on dumping grain into it after the main army leaves, and resupplying the city, so it wont revolt.
When the army comes back they clear out the market, and I dump more into it etc.

Dont get me wrong the whole issue with keeping the cities fed is at times in some of those cities abit "too much micromanagement".
Lageta is horrible for this typically, as its situated very vunerable, and the cities attached to it dont produce grain either, wood and pigs?
While pigs offer meat and hides, it still nothing compared to how villages who make grain contributes to foodproduction for the city.

As for the comment about how AI dont deal with revolting cities, that is an issue.
They will continue to focus on prosperity instead of festival & games to counter low loyalty, too often, which is annoying to say the least.
 

cifre

Section Moderator
M&BWB
I've been informed that this is not a bug as CrowleyCZ explained. Thanks for reporting.
wait... it doesn't make sense. Is it a bug or is it intended?
If it is a bug then the thread should be still opened.
If it is not a bug, then how come I loose all the food and part of garrison if city and villages are living happily? if this is the case, it should need another implement that does not affect my garrison quality and quantity, but instead to cap it to a certain size.
 

Zorion_no

Regular
wait... it doesn't make sense. Is it a bug or is it intended?
If it is a bug then the thread should be still opened.
If it is not a bug, then how come I loose all the food and part of garrison if city and villages are living happily? if this is the case, it should need another implement that does not affect my garrison quality and quantity, but instead to cap it to a certain size.
As I tried to explain in my lengthy post, it works as intended/designed.


Imo the issue is mostly on the wording of prosperity and how imo its wrong way to describe the status of the city in "modern terms of english" (ok based on how non-native english speak it atleast).

The problem imo is that prosperity should be replaced with population(population however leads to taxes = prosperity kind of).
However useing the term in the consumption bar though, "dont make obvious sense" as it there should be used "population".
More population more they need to eat.

I also in my post explained alot of the issues with some of the cities and why they may randomly starve etc.

There is one other cause I didnt mention - War.
So for instance you have Epicroeta, which have 1 town with grain + 1 with fish and 1 with iron ore.
Mecalova castles villages is 1 wood and the other is iron ore.
Ataconia castle is 1 cow and the other is iron.
Rhesos castle is 1 cow and 1 grain.
Normally if the controller of Epicroeta is as the starting faction and all the castles aswell is the same faction (Northern Empire) then all theese would mostly sell their goods at that town(sometimes the other nearby towns aswell).
However often Western Empire controls Ataconia castle, so they will instead go to Rhotae.
Sturgia Controls Epicroeta.
Mecalova is Northern and same is Rhesos.
The ones not controlled by Sturgia will more often go to the town controlled by northern empire, specially if the NE and Sturgia is at war.
This will lead to the 3 towns linked to Epicroeta wont be able to produce enough food.
However caravans from other factions can also be intercepted by other along the way.

So overall yes, it do work as designed, is it ideal? maybe not.
Do you need to keep an eye out for this, to some degree yes, you may need to micromanage some of the towns in your faction by going around finding grain, fish and cows(slaugther them) and sell the foods at the starveing towns randomly.
Typically you'll skill up trade and make abit of cash aswell.
Could it be bad that you are not at the frontlines for your wareffort - yes, very bad typically.
Basically unless the town is actually starveing and have 0 in the granary so it influence the loyalty - you shoudlnt bother, there is spikes in it all the time for all the reasons I've mentioned often.

Grain is in the case of Epicroeta typically cheap at Seordas(Battania town) or Seonon if its been raided and the town isnt hostile to you, just go empty their market, and dump it in the starving city and boom - no more starvation.
Typically this will set you back 30-50k to buy the whole stock of a market, and typically you will loose when selling 10-30k if you sell it in the nearest town(but makeing money isnt a big deal, just win a few battles, sell prisoners(includeing lords) + loot, and you should rake in 10-30k easy pr battle.
Crafting is also a great income.
 

cifre

Section Moderator
M&BWB
I understand your point of view and I understand the devs wanting to cap the prosperity/population or pushing you to diversify your action in order to keep your settlements up and running. The thing I find frustrating in game (not funny) is losing high quality garrison because of the way prosperity and food implement. Prosperity/population can fluctuate at some point in the town development, but for the fun of things, I would like to have the garrison steady or at least a way to control it without running around towns to buy food. Moreover I am not even sure that your example of dumping food in the city market works as I have all types of food in the market and food shortage is still present. It looks like prosperity level will trigger food shortage which in turn will trigger a prosperity ramp-down. I'll trade happily this so called "make sense reality" to a more fun implementation.
 

Zorion_no

Regular
I understand your point of view and I understand the devs wanting to cap the prosperity/population or pushing you to diversify your action in order to keep your settlements up and running. The thing I find frustrating in game (not funny) is losing high quality garrison because of the way prosperity and food implement. Prosperity/population can fluctuate at some point in the town development, but for the fun of things, I would like to have the garrison steady or at least a way to control it without running around towns to buy food. Moreover I am not even sure that your example of dumping food in the city market works as I have all types of food in the market and food shortage is still present. It looks like prosperity level will trigger food shortage which in turn will trigger a prosperity ramp-down. I'll trade happily this so called "make sense reality" to a more fun implementation.
Dont get me wrong I agree the system they have in place isnt stellar to put it that way.

As for my suggestion with dumping food in the market, keep in mind that it may take some time before the starvation part is removed typically up to 24hrs ingame(so next day or so).

For the record I notice that Lageta is one of the towns that always struggle with this issue.
And imo that goes back to my "other reasons" for why.
Villages to castles nearby deliver to other towns(Ortysia, Jalmarys etc) Instead of the one shown in the example.
Or those villages could be looted also plays a part.
Caravans being intercepted before they reach Lageta(this area is generally infested with looters/mountain bandits)

As for the pic you show as an example.
The values can def be pumpe up ALOT MORE. Specially the grain part.
Montos only providing +12 instead of +18 is a difference of +6 food each turn aswell in terms of starvation.
Technically in this example your town isnt starving though, its +0,79.
Had Montos also provided 18 food instead of 12, you'd have +6,79.

Grain in this case is giveing the city +52 food.
However if you have 800 grain the same bonus would be +60 a net +8 gained.

Thus when I said in my example to dump a "ton of food" I quite literally mean it, dump 1000 units of grain and other food, and most any city will not starve cause of the grain alone.

What the cities kind of need is to "not sell food at all" when they are not on the positive side, cause an already starveing city who gets bunkered up food by a passing army is set back even further.
 

cifre

Section Moderator
M&BWB
The pic is taken after the starvation period.. it looks like it goes on a ramp=up back, but from 700 to 0 and then some - food period came when Montos was giving +18.. The thing is that this prosperity/population factor is easily going over the small amounts that you get from the villages. It looks like with no control. However I will keep an eye on the bonus of food in market as this is the first time I hear about it, thanks.
 

ceskymistr

Recruit
So far I found only 1 efective perk to reduce food consumption, but its very hard to have companion/clan member with this perk. It can reduce prosperity consumption by 5%, and it also need Steward skill at 250, wich is very dificult to find reliable person to train this skill. If they dont have Inteligence higher than 5 from start, its nearly imposible to get it. for last and best perk to govern its even harder, I was able to give it only to family member which is not adult at game start.
 

Doofus

Veteran
I fully agree the wording prosperity is misleading, and really doesn't convey what its supposed to. If you ask a governor how the town is doing and he says its prospering strongly, you think the town is doing great. You don't think the town is over-crowded with slums, ghettos, etc. There should also be a way to control the population. I regularly go to my older towns and remove low level troops from the garrison so they aren't just sucking up food. Then I just delete them out of my party. (If I actually need troops I may pull the best out instead). If a town is overpopulated, maybe there should be a way to add another village to it or something. Having a need to CLOSELY monitor fully developed towns on the other side of the map, when you are almost always at war is too much of a hassle. When you first take over a town or if it is in the middle of a war zone it makes sense there would be problems and you would have to manage it carefully, but towns that literally have not been involved in wars in years shouldn't require a lot of time. I believe this is supposed to be a war game, not an economics game.
 

Zorion_no

Regular
I fully agree the wording prosperity is misleading, and really doesn't convey what its supposed to. If you ask a governor how the town is doing and he says its prospering strongly, you think the town is doing great. You don't think the town is over-crowded with slums, ghettos, etc. There should also be a way to control the population. I regularly go to my older towns and remove low level troops from the garrison so they aren't just sucking up food. Then I just delete them out of my party. (If I actually need troops I may pull the best out instead). If a town is overpopulated, maybe there should be a way to add another village to it or something. Having a need to CLOSELY monitor fully developed towns on the other side of the map, when you are almost always at war is too much of a hassle. When you first take over a town or if it is in the middle of a war zone it makes sense there would be problems and you would have to manage it carefully, but towns that literally have not been involved in wars in years shouldn't require a lot of time. I believe this is supposed to be a war game, not an economics game.

Agreed, the core part though is this line "when you are almost always at war" is the issue.
The game is flawed in its warlogic.
I've now been at war for the last 7 years at the very least, while not with the same faction, but with 2-3 at a time with peace with 1 of them when that faction either got a new warfront or the are beaten down too far and "give up".

The problem is that the AI dont take into account the amount of leaders it have when its doing the "power".
So once you typically hit 10-12k power, you will be locked into endless/chain wars unless you just "give up" and all the progress is undone by the other factions more or less.
While I "get its a way to balance out the factions etc", its also a poor design, in terms of actual war-fatigue on players.
Not to mention that it kind of kills of the whole need for "legacy"(children) as in general you will end up conquering the world in 30-50 years, so typically before your 1st character even dies.
Meaning there is no meaningful content for the 2nd generation.

They need to implement a few thing more
*Peace duration also tribute duration.
*Add in more "fatigue" based on rebelling city, looted villages(dont have it influence the tribute payment)
*Numbers of lords in dungeons(although this is much better, its not ideal for the next reason)
*Limit the amount of Merc companies a faction can hire, this only leads to prolonged war, and just means that there is "never peace".
*Limit the amount of wars a kingdome is intrested at being at once, being at war with 2 factions and then propose to declare war on 1 more just is absurd

Dont get me wrong the game is really awesome(for me until I hit that no-peace point, then it tanks the fun).
Travel time is also not ideal, with in some cases, travelling from frontlines to your settlement to micromanage the things - takes 7 days 1 way..
Pretty sure this could be handled automagically from the ui instead, just tax us for "hireing" couriers to give orders to the governor.
 

fantasyraul

Recruit
Should have at least some notification to keep warning you that your food has decreased to a certain level, and to get a way to make prosperity maintained. One of my town at 5k prosperity and food decreasing like -15 but prosperity still increasing daily (kingdom policy doesn't help in my case). Which means every time I need to rush back to top up the food stock when I'm conquering a kingdom far from my settlement? The assigned governor just sitting there and watch my tier 6 troops die of starvation, but should the governor die of starvation too? This is a really superb AI then, I will say.

This is tend to realistic but lose some of the fun from game. At this moment, I dare not to say Bannerlord is as fun as Warband. (But yes, the graphic is much much much more better than Warband :smile:)

And one thing, I'm just curios why my party leader will always choose a recruit and abandoned tier 6 troops that I transferred over to companion's party when the part size is just full but not exceed. The party leader will start recruiting tier 1 troops and abandoned my tier 6 troops when visiting town or village. What is the logic?

Usually this party in my army is full of tier 6 troops and after visit a town or village, some recruit will start to join. Not a bad idea though.

Sorry for all the complaints.
 

Zorion_no

Regular
Should have at least some notification to keep warning you that your food has decreased to a certain level, and to get a way to make prosperity maintained. One of my town at 5k prosperity and food decreasing like -15 but prosperity still increasing daily (kingdom policy doesn't help in my case). Which means every time I need to rush back to top up the food stock when I'm conquering a kingdom far from my settlement? The assigned governor just sitting there and watch my tier 6 troops die of starvation, but should the governor die of starvation too? This is a really superb AI then, I will say.

This is tend to realistic but lose some of the fun from game. At this moment, I dare not to say Bannerlord is as fun as Warband. (But yes, the graphic is much much much more better than Warband :smile:)

And one thing, I'm just curios why my party leader will always choose a recruit and abandoned tier 6 troops that I transferred over to companion's party when the part size is just full but not exceed. The party leader will start recruiting tier 1 troops and abandoned my tier 6 troops when visiting town or village. What is the logic?

Usually this party in my army is full of tier 6 troops and after visit a town or village, some recruit will start to join. Not a bad idea though.

Sorry for all the complaints.
Overall for me Bannerlord is still fun, but its some of theese design choices that "tanks the fun".

The issue with the troops is really annoying to say the least.
You have an army with 3 companions in it. You just gave each of them 10 cavalry units so that the pace of the party would be abit faster than if they dont have them in there.
Then you go to a town to get some supplies(note never do that, go to villages and buy from them instead or my issue will typically arise).

As you enter the settlement boom you notice the +x troops to settlement pops up and +x troops recruited.
You then investigate oh yes, they donated the cavalry + some other higher tier units to the settlement and got recruits instead..
The next thing they need to add to the party management button like they did withe "stance?" Neutral, agressive & defensive is to disable donating troops.

Just that some of the designs they have going is still work in progress imo.

Still overall until I get to that "power point" where its endless wars, the game is really great, I just wish they fix/do something about the state of endless wars that some of us players suffer from, I know we can just let the kingdome burn and peace will be forced, but it just feels like such a big loss that something you've spent decades on carveing out ingame is ripped away in mere days, cause of 3 other kingdomes ganking on the one that the player is in.

I get that its kind of a balance thing, but there is the balance between fun & not so fun.(for all I know I could be in a minority and most ppl find this mechanisme fun(I dont).
I'd rather the kingdome realize oh.. we're going to loose all our lands if we dont make peace etc.

Should be like some mods have added in "fatigue" cause in all honesty thats what I get from playing when the endless wars happend.
So that they are much more intrested in peace for a duration.

I think in some part the issue is that troops are just a resource, an replenish way to fast, vs how its in real life,
Wipe out 1 generation of soldiers, they arent just gonna poof grow over nite, it takes time.
 

Doofus

Veteran
I agree the troops replenish way too fast. I also think that as some sort of balance mechanism, Taleworlds ramps up the difficulty the more it goes on. Thats good in the early & mid-stages, but in the late stages I still feel that its ramped up to the point where you can't win itt as a war game. Yes, you can use diplomacy to help, but I don't want it to be purely a diplomacy game over a war game. Yes, you can just execute all opposing nobles as you capture them, but since I try to play as myself in a different world, I don't want to be a homicidal maniac. I still feel you should be able to eliminate factions...at least to the point where they only come back periodically as rebels & you eliminate them again.

When you get 3/4ths of the world conquered there's just too many factions attacking you all at once on a front you can't cover all by yourself and you can't trust the other armies in your faction to help with. (I hate that they besiege something, have it to the point they are about to attack it, then decide they need more food and drop the siege. Unless they are about to be attacked by a larger army, just have them follow through with te siege, then take care of their food problems after that. They'll have less troops to feed then anyways and if its a town they may be able to buy food at the town they just took).
 

Zorion_no

Regular
I agree the troops replenish way too fast. I also think that as some sort of balance mechanism, Taleworlds ramps up the difficulty the more it goes on. Thats good in the early & mid-stages, but in the late stages I still feel that its ramped up to the point where you can't win itt as a war game. Yes, you can use diplomacy to help, but I don't want it to be purely a diplomacy game over a war game. Yes, you can just execute all opposing nobles as you capture them, but since I try to play as myself in a different world, I don't want to be a homicidal maniac. I still feel you should be able to eliminate factions...at least to the point where they only come back periodically as rebels & you eliminate them again.

When you get 3/4ths of the world conquered there's just too many factions attacking you all at once on a front you can't cover all by yourself and you can't trust the other armies in your faction to help with. (I hate that they besiege something, have it to the point they are about to attack it, then decide they need more food and drop the siege. Unless they are about to be attacked by a larger army, just have them follow through with te siege, then take care of their food problems after that. They'll have less troops to feed then anyways and if its a town they may be able to buy food at the town they just took).
This is an issue that its "too benefical" to execute lords(I never do it tbh, as I'm a "White knight" player.)

Then again I do kill quite alot in sieges/battles tbh so there's that in culling the lords.
Tbh the death rate is also not ideal(I kind of dont see many lords in that time era being the first up the ladders in a siege tbh).
I cant spell it properly, but Fen Caernacth clan of Battania is typically killed of early, cause the first 2 in the clan is old, really old, so within 2-5 yrs tops they are dead by old age. Then you have Guaran or how you spell it, he dies to my lance/battle axe or arrow at times, and most of the time he's not married and have no heirs and poof gone.(I've also seen 1 of the Aserai die out on its own, both first 2 to old age, and they only had 1 kid, a daugther they married of early.. so no more heirs + old age - goodbye).

This is the problem though once you hit that "sweet spot I say" the 10-12 power rating, its war without end. Yes they've managed to make peace with 1 but declare on another or another declares.
This part just dont feel "fun" its too much when there is never ending, and again it dont cater to my type of player, and from the sound of you are similar.

The problem is that the lords dont defect fast enough from de facto defeated factions either.
I mean 5+ years without a holding of their own, should have made them leave.

I get that alot of theese mechancis is to prevent the snowballing effect that the faction the player joins happends, but it just isnt done in a "fun" way, it feels too forced, and or there is no "real way" to break out of the endless war-state.
(ok so there is 1 way - if you have alot of influence, like ALOT more than any other clan in the kingdome, you can just put out the vote for peace - spam it and you'll get it eventually as all the others run out of influence).
There should be some way for non-kings to "veto" peace or again like it was in Warband you could get quests by mayors in towns to bring peace by talking to 2 lords in the respective factions.

Biggest issue imo is the mercenary clans that mess the whole thing up tbh.
The games I've played where I tested with consoles for my own amusement(read I dont use it when I file bug reports etc, cause you never know) and removed the clans - then the other kingdomes will go for peace.

The problem is that the merc clans boost the kingdomes too much, so they can go on and on and on.
You have a decisive victory, and still no peace, then another.. another merc clan gets hired.

Should you be in a 1v1 in late stage you can have all the merc clans hired by the other, which tbh dont seem fair at all.
Given that each clan have 4 parties, and if they are rich enough can bring 100-150 units so 1 merc gives 400-600 units in the field.
And when they have like just 5 mercs thats an extra 2000-3000 units to that side..
So no wonder they wont have peace.
and it just keeps on dragging on.

They should have a minimum fix wage for the merc companies, so they are "really expensive" not the players, but the ai.
Thus they cant do this to prolong wars like they do - and must instead cave for peace instead.

Just be relentless and hunt down parties not in armies, or go for the armies they form, like be on them all the time, and imprison the lords - once they hit too high numbers they will eventually go for peace(imo this is way too high, typically 30-40 lords needs to be in dungeons, should be cut of at 20-30 tops).
 
Top Bottom