Users who are viewing this thread
Doofus
Sergeant
Typically, when offered a ransom, I accept it, even if I feel its too little. My assumption is if I don't accept a ransom it will harm relations with other lords, possibly even those in my own faction. That in turn would make it harder to recruit lords to my faction. Is this true? Or is it a false assumption. Although there are times I can definitely use the extra cash, there are also times I don't care about it & I do understand that it ends wars faster if you have more lords prisoner. I could just experiment with it, I suppose, but its something I've been meaning to ask here for a while anyways.
Lusitani 5th Empire
At the very least make it so that you don't loose garrison or high tier units.
There is good feedback in this thread to make better decisions, I hope you can find solutions that make both sides happy.
Last edited:
pin-pointed the absurdity of it!Lusitani 5th Empire
I'm confused on what is happening with in this case, you may be creating the whole problem...
In short, prosperity is dependent on food availability and not the other way around.
Just stop buying food.
I might be understanding it wrong but I think that essentially what's happening is that the town is already so prosperous (high population) that there isn't enough food produced to sustain more prosperity (more people), so you saw the prosperity drop because food reserves often fluctuate and because it was reaching the "prosperity limit". Also, you probably had the garrison maxed out and you lost troops because the limit of troops decreased or because you had 0 food, probably the second one. You then proceeded to buy and dump food into the city but the situation is unsustainable (food get consumed) so you continue to dump more and if the prosperity keeps increasing as a result the need for food does too.
What I'm not sure is the "+ food" in the UI is indeed the result of you keeping putting there food or if there is enough food production around, and if you loosing troops and prosperity even when food is available in the town.
Also there may be another dependency driving prosperity down or devs just put and artificial cap to keep the game stable, so that cap would drive prosperity down while food production still meets demand and that may be a problem if it the garrison limit is directly determined by the prosperity change and you loose troops as a result.
So that would be a bug I think.
But again if the garrison lost/change is somehow determined by the prosperity change I'm not sure if you only loose garrison when you had it maxed out (you loose troops because the troop limit was reduced) or if you always loose garrison troops regardless of it being maxed out or not, result of not having food left.
But either way I think the way UI represented is confusing and that you shouldn't loose any troops as a result of artificial caps, small prosperity fluctuations or (more debatable) food availability, I consider it a problem specially when you loose high tier troops.
Sorry for the long text but @MArdA TaleWorlds if you could tell us if what is exactly going on it would be appreciated.
Last edited:
Marek15
Veteran
Two things are needed to fix this issue:
1. A prosperity penalty for when the food storage is not full. Can be explained as increased food prices.
2. Changing the prosperity bonus of perks from a flat value to a % bonus to the net prosperity growth of a settlement.
With these changes settlement prosperity should plateau while maintaining a mostly full food storage.
1. A prosperity penalty for when the food storage is not full. Can be explained as increased food prices.
2. Changing the prosperity bonus of perks from a flat value to a % bonus to the net prosperity growth of a settlement.
With these changes settlement prosperity should plateau while maintaining a mostly full food storage.
More prosperity means more people and more people means more food is needed is what confirmed by the QA team. If you think this needs to be shown to the players please open a suggestion topic in the UI feedback sub-forum.
Lusitani 5th Empire
Sorry to insist but
Is this how it works, if so I think this can be considered a bug.
Marek15
Veteran
It does exist already, but the thresholds do not make much sense.
Code:
if (fortification.IsTown)
{
if ((double) fortification.Prosperity < 250.0)
explainedNumber.Add(6f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity < 500.0)
explainedNumber.Add(5f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity < 750.0)
explainedNumber.Add(4f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity < 1000.0)
explainedNumber.Add(3f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity < 1250.0)
explainedNumber.Add(2f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity < 1500.0)
explainedNumber.Add(1f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
if ((double) fortification.Prosperity > 21000.0)
explainedNumber.Add(-6f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity > 18000.0)
explainedNumber.Add(-5f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity > 15000.0)
explainedNumber.Add(-4f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity > 12000.0)
explainedNumber.Add(-3f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity > 9000.0)
explainedNumber.Add(-2f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
else if ((double) fortification.Prosperity > 6000.0)
explainedNumber.Add(-1f, DefaultSettlementProsperityModel.HousingCostsText, (TextObject) null);
}
