Food Shortage

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
I see. This would be stronger strategy, then, if there was a messenger mechanic in the game. Otherwise, the player is forced to physically go all the way across the map to retrieve the companion from the city if (e.g. if the engineer is done boosting production and now needs to come back for player army siege purposes).

Given the difficulty of retrieving companions, then, I feel like the boost to construction rate might not be worthwhile in many/most instances even given the construction rate nerfs. Player time (and opportunity cost) is a currency too!

Edit: Maybe it would be more worthwhile in a recently conquered border settlement, if the player needs to hang out there anyway.
Definitely. There are pros and cons to every companion role, and I think governors are easily the weakest use of a companion slot right now (though that may change when kingdom management is added).
I do think player parties are maxed at 3 as well. Certainly at clan tier 5 you only have 3 parties, and tier 6 screen indicators do not appear to advertise any added parties.
Nope. For the player it's driven by clan level.



Edit: Though, the text for tier 5 does not state an additional clan party, so maybe the limit is 4 not 6. I've never made it to tier 5 myself.
 
Last edited:

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
Definitely. There are pros and cons to every companion role, and I think governors are easily the weakest use of a companion slot right now (though that may change when kingdom management is added).

Nope. For the player it's driven by clan level.

Sure - 4 total parties at clan tier 4. I should have said 3 NPC player-clan parties. At clan tier 5, I cannot make a 4th NPC player-clan party; the "Create Party" interface is greyed out. (I suppose that is 1 more than the NPC clans can field, which is a slight player advantage.)
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
Sure - 4 total parties at clan tier 4. I should have said 3 NPC player-clan parties. At clan tier 5, I cannot make a 4th NPC player-clan party; the "Create Party" interface is greyed out. (I suppose that is 1 more than the NPC clans can field, which is a slight player advantage.)
That's fair. I did sneak that into the edit, but I didn't get there fast enough.

PS: Just in case it wasn't clear, I meant the suggestion to give NPC governors some engineering skill as a way to help low prosperity NPC owned towns. The player does not need help boosting construction rate for low prosperity towns, because they can get +50 from reserves.
 
Last edited:

wendoll

Banned
Best answers
0
Let me give you some information about latest developments :

I examined why kings are overriding most decisions and taking all settlements and I see related code is changed new (at 1.4s) and new code is not well written and not working good, there were lots of bugs there, reported it. I hope it will be fixed. Also currently at 1.4s kings do not spend any influence for overriding decisions, that part is also forgetten while rewriting that code parts. So you are right kings being so greedy is a bug / not intended and I had no information about this part is changed. Still even it is fixed we need to give reasons for kings to stop overriding all decisions, they can have enough influence but other than influence cost we need more penalties like relation penalties.

We decreased influence gain of forum building by half and prosperity effect of aquaduct building by half and increased all building costs about 2- 2.5x also decreased village hearth increase to 0.5 from 1 daily. Now you will not see all buildings are level 3 and all village hearths are 600+ from 1090s. So this will slow down influence / prosperity / village hearth inflation a bit. If this is not enough we can implement new decay systems for especially influence variable in future. Also hostile actions like sieges should damage buildings more we can add these developments in future. Also I see most policies award clans with 3+ tier. So they get lots of influence. I will report this too these policies need some work & balance.

About starving problem, I added a new code to lower garrison numbers in fortifications with low prosperity, if tests are finished today this will be send with hotfix today with above ones, this will probably reduce amount of starving settlements. I will continue working on starving problem. I know this is not enough. I will make new tests to see what is starving settlements ratio now after these and will report you. Also related people are working on to reduce number of wars at 1.4.1 (which is another reason of starvation) if everything goes fine we can send hotfix today.
For a dev, you seem to be more more interested in the community than the community manager. Luv u xoxo
 

drallim33

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Let me give you some information about latest developments :

I examined why kings are overriding most decisions and taking all settlements and I see related code is changed new (at 1.4s) and new code is not well written and not working good, there were lots of bugs there, reported it. I hope it will be fixed. Also currently at 1.4s kings do not spend any influence for overriding decisions, that part is also forgetten while rewriting that code parts. So you are right kings being so greedy is a bug / not intended and I had no information about this part is changed. Still even it is fixed we need to give reasons for kings to stop overriding all decisions, they can have enough influence but other than influence cost we need more penalties like relation penalties.

We decreased influence gain of forum building by half and prosperity effect of aquaduct building by half and increased all building costs about 2- 2.5x also decreased village hearth increase to 0.5 from 1 daily. Now you will not see all buildings are level 3 and all village hearths are 600+ from 1090s. So this will slow down influence / prosperity / village hearth inflation a bit. If this is not enough we can implement new decay systems for especially influence variable in future. Also hostile actions like sieges should damage buildings more we can add these developments in future. Also I see most policies award clans with 3+ tier. So they get lots of influence. I will report this too these policies need some work & balance.

About starving problem, I added a new code to lower garrison numbers in fortifications with low prosperity, if tests are finished today this will be send with hotfix today with above ones, this will probably reduce amount of starving settlements. I will continue working on starving problem. I know this is not enough. I will make new tests to see what is starving settlements ratio now after these and will report you. Also related people are working on to reduce number of wars at 1.4.1 (which is another reason of starvation) if everything goes fine we can send hotfix today.
Thanks for the update. These are good changes.
 

mexxico

Developer
Best answers
0
This is table from latest situation :


Previous table I shared was from 1.4.0, in new table (where daily hearth increase is 0.5) we have no inflation but there is now slighly reduce at prosperity and hearth. This is also a problem and I will try to make it slightly increase. Maybe we can make hearth increase 1 / 0.5 / 0.25 for t1, t2 and t3 villages. However real problem is nearly 20% of villages are raided at any moment. This also damages economy and cause starvings. Still 20-25% of towns are starving at final situation (not seen at table but I collected data). In different wars I see 40-50s of raids at diplomacy page. We already make AI to prioritize defence but it is not yet at 1.4.1, it will not send with hotfix it will send with 1.4.2, anyway today's hotfixes will not fix starving yet but we will continue working on this issue. I will search what make ai parties that agressive. There should be less raids otherwise towns cannot get their stable +4 / +8 / +12 food from villages.
 
Last edited:

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
Previous table I shared was from 1.4.0, in new table we have no inflation but there is now slighly reduce at prosperity and hearth. This is also a problem and I will try to make it slightly increase. Maybe we can make hearth increase 1 / 0.5 / 0.25 for t1, t2 and t3 villages. However real problem is nearly 25% of villages are raided. This also damage economy and cause starvings. Still 25% of towns are starving at final table. In different wars I see 40-50s of raids at diplomacy page. We already make AI to prioritize defence but it is not yet at 1.4.1, it will not send with hotfix it will send with 1.4.2, anyway today's hotfixes will not fix starving yet but we will continue working on this issue.
Yep, that chart matches more closely to what I've been witnessing in 1.4.1. The raiding is brutal.

Thanks for the update, sounds good!
 

Patwick

Veteran
Best answers
0
In my experience, raids are mostly done by the weak parties. They do not have strong units to fight with other parties, so they chose easy targets.
I think it might be deeper than that, like the RAID TEVEA behavior that was abnormal. That's reminding me of Ghandi on civilization game that suddenly H-Bombed everything because of a problem related to his aggressiveness score.
 

Patwick

Veteran
Best answers
0
The problem is that they have trouble adapting and changing course of action aswell, i had an example today where i just had a fief awarded to me and didn't want to leave too far untill the village recovered a little.

I had a lord that persisted on raiding one of them that i didn't wanted to fight because it would cost me too many troops, so i chased him away repeatedly, until i had enough and drove him back progressively to his kingdom...

Well as soon as i left him he turned around and came back to raid my fief.

The problem with those kind of things is that the issue in behavior could be related to so many different things and this really sound hard to solve on a dev pov.
 

The Bowman

Count
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I don't think raiding is preferred by small parties only. Yesterday I saw Caladog raid most of the villages around Rovalt with his 200 man army. Most of the raids I witnessed in my playthrough were done with 70-80 strong parties on average. 1.4.1
 

zenDzee

Veteran
Best answers
2
Well as soon as i left him he turned around and came back to raid my fief.

The problem with those kind of things is that the issue in behavior could be related to so many different things
Nah, I guess it's just something like that
Code:
settlementToRaid = EnemyFaction.Settlements.FirstOrDefault();
 

zenDzee

Veteran
Best answers
2
I don't think raiding is preferred by small parties only. Yesterday I saw Caladog raid most of the villages around Rovalt with his 200 man army. Most of the raids I witnessed in my playthrough were done with 70-80 strong parties on average. 1.4.1
I know, but if you look holding Alt key, you will see that these parties are mostly consist of recruits.

But it could be just my campaign. I chop a lot of heads, that may affect lords behavior.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
I will deal with lots of raid problem.
+1. Thanks!

The net result of less raids, but each raid being very meaningful because of the reduced hearth growth rate to average 0.5 vs constant 1, will be a generally positive development, I think. If raids are rare but very damaging per event, then the player will respect the heck out of that raiding notification and actually consider going to defend. As it is now, they are just constant and have to be ignored.
 
Last edited:

Badcritter

Squire
Best answers
0
I also thought that solution (changing according to hearth) but wanted to keep formula simple for now. Having average hearth increase as 1 is still too much according to datas I see. We can make it 1 / 0.5 / 0.25 maybe in future however average cannot be higher than 0.5. Currently there is too much hearth inflation. I understand your concerns but ratio of villages with low hearth is so low in world currently. To keep formula simple I reduced base to half for now. Later we can think 1 / 0.5 / 0.25 solution. As you see in picture even in first 4 years and even there are lots of raids how t1 villages are reducing and t3s are increasing.

FYI Spring 1085 T2 village data point is anomalous.

Ultimately tweaking constants to achieve rough balance on the average case will not be enough to solve the problem of long term inflation. Diminishing returns or other self-correcting practices will be necessary to keep metrics in desired ranges for all circumstances over the long term.

1/0.5/0.25 is a step in the right direction. I would suggest the hearth stat should be re-factored once good numbers are arrived at. ie. so that the player sees whole numbers in all expected cases. So in the example case it would be 4/2/1, with default/starting hearth size set to 4x what they currently are, and all the impacts of hearths would be 1/4 what they currently are.

The most likely fiefs for anyone to get (including the player) are ones which have seen war and have low hearths. The disillusionment of low hearths and the difficulty of raising them has a big impact on the player's belief that it will ever be worthwhile. Graduated growth is really important for the player's perception (at the low end), as well as to help control inflation (at the high end).
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
FYI Spring 1085 T2 village data point is anomalous.
I think mexxico just punched it in wrong, lol. I believe it should read 195. That might mean that mexxico fills the data in by hand to some extent, which makes me appreciate what he's doing here all that much more.

1/0.5/0.25 is a step in the right direction. I would suggest the hearth stat should be re-factored once good numbers are arrived at. ie. so that the player sees whole numbers in all expected cases. So in the example case it would be 4/2/1, with default/starting hearth size set to 4x what they currently are, and all the impacts of hearths would be 1/4 what they currently are.
I agree. Loading up the game after the patch just to see every village is listed as growing by "0" hearths each day is a bit jarring.
 

Badcritter

Squire
Best answers
0
This is table from latest situation :


Previous table I shared was from 1.4.0, in new table (where daily hearth increase is 0.5) we have no inflation but there is now slighly reduce at prosperity and hearth. This is also a problem and I will try to make it slightly increase. Maybe we can make hearth increase 1 / 0.5 / 0.25 for t1, t2 and t3 villages. However real problem is nearly 20% of villages are raided at any moment. This also damages economy and cause starvings. Still 20-25% of towns are starving at final situation (not seen at table but I collected data). In different wars I see 40-50s of raids at diplomacy page. We already make AI to prioritize defence but it is not yet at 1.4.1, it will not send with hotfix it will send with 1.4.2, anyway today's hotfixes will not fix starving yet but we will continue working on this issue. I will search what make ai parties that agressive. There should be less raids otherwise towns cannot get their stable +4 / +8 / +12 food from villages.
Thanks so much for your transparency @mexxico , you are providing a really important bridge between the players and the development team.

Regarding starving towns, in the early stages of this thread there was significant theoretical discussion backed with observational examples about the relationship between food, prosperity growth and starvation. This turned up a number of interesting things, like the way that poor towns would death spiral because rich towns were prepared to pay more for food they didn't need than poor towns would pay for food they desperately needed, so caravans would no deliver food to poor towns that were starving and couldn't feed themselves.

Another key thing that came from discussions and analysis was the thread's consensus that starvation appeared inevitable at some point in every town. ie. prosperity grows until there isn't enough food for it to keep growing, then starves until prosperity falls enough that there is enough food to support the town.

Do you know whether or not that analysis is accurate? Because if it is, the reduction of war and strife may reduce the incidence of starvation a little - but for the most part it will just delay starvation until towns get big and prosperous enough to reach their effective prosperity cap. And maybe that doesn't really matter for the town itself - but it does matter for the player who's garrison suffers starvation deaths in a highly prosperous town. A garrison should be able to be starved out, but not in a prosperous town that isn't even at war.
 

Patwick

Veteran
Best answers
0
Do you know whether or not that analysis is accurate? Because if it is, the reduction of war and strife may reduce the incidence of starvation a little - but for the most part it will just delay starvation until towns get big and prosperous enough to reach their effective prosperity cap. And maybe that doesn't really matter for the town itself - but it does matter for the player who's garrison suffers starvation deaths in a highly prosperous town. A garrison should be able to be starved out, but not in a prosperous town that isn't even at war.
I just selected a part of the table mexxico provided when there is already 2 factions destroyed, Battania has only 1 town left, so i guess that war should be less numerous between the four remaining, and the game is sufficiently advanced for town to reach high prosperity :



Starving town ratio doesn't go below 25%, Vlandia and Khuzait that have snowballed have a bit too many starving town in my opinion, while in the meantime Sturgia that seems to have it worse than the other reduce the number of it's starving town (and i don't know for you but i never saw a Sturgian town reach really high prosperity without player intervention).

So the 3 guys that should prosper are the one starving the most, while the one that should struggle at least a little is doing fine food wise. That's far from being a solid evidence because we don't have the average prosperity of thoses town tho.

The only thing we have to put that into perspective is the food average per town on another table (same data set) :



Sturgia and Vlandia kinda have the same food average per town while starving town for one tend to decrease, and increase for the other. Year 1103 to 1104 especially were average food decrease brutally for both, Sturgia take the hit while Vlandia goes from 3 to 6 starving
 
Last edited: