High tier armor prices still too high

[Sweynforkbeard]

Want that t5 only army? Sure, but that's for the endgame. Otherwise you're going to have to rely on lower tier troops you can actually afford.

How would you achieve this?

 

[Apocal]

I feel like making troops radically more expensive would have been it. Again, expensive troops, cheaper gear. Make army management feel like a real concern... but I'd also like all sorts of features added to make maintaining an army more interesting and engaging beyond just having food and being able to pay them.

When I tried this (I think a 500% increase?) every single clan went broke and it had weird knock-on effects, so most garrisons were 95% militia and lord parties were tiny. The real monsters on the field were the minor factions which apparently don't pay their "native" troops?

How would you achieve this?

I'm not HMJ but:
1. A baseline 66-150% increase for the wages of troops.
2. Decrease the income gains from loot (XP gains are fine) down to around a third of what they are now.
3. A modest increase in income gains from fiefs.
4. A blanket 50-75% decrease in garrison wages, off the top, before any perks are applied.
5. The Charm and Leadership passive effect reducing troop wages by a certain percent.
6. Each supporter of the player clan in a fief or its attached villages reducing garrison troop wages by 3-5% or so.

Napkin math and ballpark figures but the sum total effect would be to make a running an all-T5/T6 power party financially unsustainable. Fighting lords constantly is far less lucrative (from loot selling) and running such a party is cost prohibitive. As the player gains fiefs, they have incentive to garrison troops in them, which creates a sort of peacetime "demobilization" and opens the space up for small party quests and actions to remain relevant. Gaining supporters to further reduce the wages in times of peace would create an environment where long-term fiefs became more financially lucrative while conquests have to be invested in before they create a return. But it would be worth the effort because there would still be a progression if players couldn't go all-T5/T6 out of the gate.

The decrease in garrison wages would also help the AI from going broke and faceplanting as a result.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I'm not HMJ but:
1. A baseline 66-150% increase for the wages of troops.
2. Decrease the income gains from loot (XP gains are fine) down to around a third of what they are now.
3. A modest increase in income gains from fiefs.
4. A blanket 50-75% decrease in garrison wages, off the top, before any perks are applied.
5. The Charm and Leadership passive effect reducing troop wages by a certain percent.
6. Each supporter of the player clan in a fief or its attached villages reducing garrison troop wages by 3-5% or so.

Napkin math and ballpark figures but the sum total effect would be to make a running an all-T5/T6 power party financially unsustainable. Fighting lords constantly is far less lucrative (from loot selling) and running such a party is cost prohibitive. As the player gains fiefs, they have incentive to garrison troops in them, which creates a sort of peacetime "demobilization" and opens the space up for small party quests and actions to remain relevant. Gaining supporters to further reduce the wages in times of peace would create an environment where long-term fiefs became more financially lucrative while conquests have to be invested in before they create a return. But it would be worth the effort because there would still be a progression if players couldn't go all-T5/T6 out of the gate.

The decrease in garrison wages would also help the AI from going broke and faceplanting as a result.

No it would not.

I am on day 78. Ignoring what I have spend on gear, troops etc. my cash + inventory is worth 2,6 mill. So, reduce that to onethird and it would come out to 850k. My daily wages are 2,1k. If we double that and assumed that I have had this for the entire period (obviously not), that would come out at roughly 150k additional expenses.

So, my net income would be down to roughly 700k or or 9k per day.

What it would likely do instead is to make any other way of playing, in a martially oriented manner, obsolete.


What is needed is to create an environment where there is room to play in a more casual stile and where you can still achieve notable progress. Aka, make gear cheap enough that it feels rewarding to focus on levelling and gearing up you and your companions before you venture into allout war.

 

[Apocal]

No it would not.

I am on day 78. Ignoring what I have spend on gear, troops etc. my cash + inventory is worth 2,6 mill. So, reduce that to onethird and it would come out to 850k. My daily wages are 2,1k. If we double that and assumed that I have had this for the entire period (obviously not), that would come out at roughly 150k additional expenses.

So, my net income would be down to roughly 700k or or 9k per day.

Yeah, like I said, I'm not wed to the specific numbers because I was going by own playthroughs. It usually takes me until around day 120 before I'm a multimillionaire, so you're better at the game than me. But my party wages are usually higher than 2.1k at that point too.

What it would likely do instead is to make any other way of playing, in a martially oriented manner, obsolete.

I don't see how?

Players can still rob caravans and raid villages with a much smaller party, definitely snipe all but the biggest lord parties and probably snipe under-garrisoned fiefs using (much cheaper) T3/T4 parties. They wouldn't be able to go head-up against full stacks, that's true, but you don't need to in order to progress. And by building up Leadership/Charm, thing would get back to the level we have right now. It would just take longer to reach that point.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Yeah, like I said, I'm not wed to the specific numbers because I was going by own playthroughs. It usually takes me until around day 120 before I'm a multimillionaire, so you're better at the game than me. But my party wages are usually higher than 2.1k at that point too.

I don't see how?

Players can still rob caravans and raid villages with a much smaller party, definitely snipe all but the biggest lord parties and probably snipe under-garrisoned fiefs using (much cheaper) T3/T4 parties. They wouldn't be able to go head-up against full stacks, that's true, but you don't need to in order to progress. And by building up Leadership/Charm, thing would get back to the level we have right now. It would just take longer to reach that point.

My overriding priority is to always keep my party intact; so I dont take on enemies that are numerically superior, by a large margin, as it is.

If you reduce the potential income from loot it will not only affect highcost parties, it will also affect your T3/T4 parties. Basically, you would have to strike a balance where the cost difference between a highcost party and a midtier party would be sufficiently large that it would compensate for the midtier party

1) fighting fewer enemy parties
2) spending more time fleeing from superior forces
3) and spending more time recruiting replacements

This is going to be downright impossible. You would need to dial down loot so hard that you would reach a point where an army basically goes from a profit center to a cost center. In all likelihood, you would end up at a point where you would need to turn to other sources of revenue from trade, quests and fiefs to operate (smithing really).

I dont see a problem with reducing loot as such, it is high enough that it is the least important resouce, but it is going to do nothing to change how you would play (efficiently). A much simpler solution would be to make other approaches more viable instead.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

When I tried this (I think a 500% increase?) every single clan went broke and it had weird knock-on effects, so most garrisons were 95% militia and lord parties were tiny. The real monsters on the field were the minor factions which apparently don't pay their "native" troops?

I mean obviously I would adjust the parameters of everything else in such a way as to make it feasible... though I do not know how. Frankly, I would not care if AI get a massive income bump to let them remain somewhat competitive. This whole 'plays by player rules' thing is overrated.

I'm not HMJ but:
1. A baseline 66-150% increase for the wages of troops.
2. Decrease the income gains from loot (XP gains are fine) down to around a third of what they are now.
3. A modest increase in income gains from fiefs.
4. A blanket 50-75% decrease in garrison wages, off the top, before any perks are applied.
5. The Charm and Leadership passive effect reducing troop wages by a certain percent.
6. Each supporter of the player clan in a fief or its attached villages reducing garrison troop wages by 3-5% or so.

Napkin math and ballpark figures but the sum total effect would be to make a running an all-T5/T6 power party financially unsustainable. Fighting lords constantly is far less lucrative (from loot selling) and running such a party is cost prohibitive. As the player gains fiefs, they have incentive to garrison troops in them, which creates a sort of peacetime "demobilization" and opens the space up for small party quests and actions to remain relevant. Gaining supporters to further reduce the wages in times of peace would create an environment where long-term fiefs became more financially lucrative while conquests have to be invested in before they create a return. But it would be worth the effort because there would still be a progression if players couldn't go all-T5/T6 out of the gate.

The decrease in garrison wages would also help the AI from going broke and faceplanting as a result.

Something like this ye.

 

[Apocal]

This is going to be downright impossible. You would need to dial down loot so hard that you would reach a point where an army basically goes from a profit center to a cost center. In all likelihood, you would end up at a point where you would need to turn to other sources of revenue from trade, quests and fiefs to operate (smithing really).

That's the idea, yes.

By time you don't have to give a damn about any of that, you're at endgame and can finally afford the blinged-out party. If you don't agree with that as a desirable goal, fair enough, but you asked how it could be achieved.

edit:

If you reduce the potential income from loot it will not only affect highcost parties, it will also affect your T3/T4 parties. Basically, you would have to strike a balance where the cost difference between a highcost party and a midtier party would be sufficiently large that it would compensate for the midtier party

I just realized that it wasn't entirely clear, but the increase to troop wages would be scaled -- lower-tier troops have a lesser increase while high-tier ones get bumped proprotionately even higher.

 

[Ettenrocal]

Yes armor prices are stupid and now you can find far better armor in the loot, in the end i never buy armor in shops. There is also another problem prices are not very logical according with stats. And another in design one some items that look stronger than other like leather hat compare to padded hat have far weaker stats. The troop trees are also badly done with too much troops using heavy mails in Battania and Vlandian crossbowman. This game is need a complete redone. It's still a "good" game but it's not what many expected, it's a console good game...

 

[Dabos37]

When I tried this (I think a 500% increase?) every single clan went broke and it had weird knock-on effects, so most garrisons were 95% militia and lord parties were tiny. The real monsters on the field were the minor factions which apparently don't pay their "native" troops?



I'm not HMJ but:
1. A baseline 66-150% increase for the wages of troops.
2. Decrease the income gains from loot (XP gains are fine) down to around a third of what they are now.
3. A modest increase in income gains from fiefs.
4. A blanket 50-75% decrease in garrison wages, off the top, before any perks are applied.
5. The Charm and Leadership passive effect reducing troop wages by a certain percent.
6. Each supporter of the player clan in a fief or its attached villages reducing garrison troop wages by 3-5% or so.

Napkin math and ballpark figures but the sum total effect would be to make a running an all-T5/T6 power party financially unsustainable. Fighting lords constantly is far less lucrative (from loot selling) and running such a party is cost prohibitive. As the player gains fiefs, they have incentive to garrison troops in them, which creates a sort of peacetime "demobilization" and opens the space up for small party quests and actions to remain relevant. Gaining supporters to further reduce the wages in times of peace would create an environment where long-term fiefs became more financially lucrative while conquests have to be invested in before they create a return. But it would be worth the effort because there would still be a progression if players couldn't go all-T5/T6 out of the gate.

The decrease in garrison wages would also help the AI from going broke and faceplanting as a result.

I would love to see a mod with these changes applied.

No it would not.

I am on day 78. Ignoring what I have spend on gear, troops etc. my cash + inventory is worth 2,6 mill. So, reduce that to onethird and it would come out to 850k. My daily wages are 2,1k. If we double that and assumed that I have had this for the entire period (obviously not), that would come out at roughly 150k additional expenses.

So, my net income would be down to roughly 700k or or 9k per day.

What it would likely do instead is to make any other way of playing, in a martially oriented manner, obsolete.


What is needed is to create an environment where there is room to play in a more casual stile and where you can still achieve notable progress. Aka, make gear cheap enough that it feels rewarding to focus on levelling and gearing up you and your companions before you venture into allout war.

Day 78 and 2,6 millions in cash+inventory really sounds like someone is using exploits (full khan’s guard or full fian champion army). Not saying that getting this money is impossible without going full OP units, but you are probably going to find it much harder to achieve if you do not exploit the game going full archers army.

“My overriding priority is to always keep my party intact”

I can see now why you argue in favor of OP Kahn’s Guard and Fian Champion in other threads. Then you argue about how easy is to get money in this game. This is unbelievable xD.

 

[Akka]

What else are we going to do with the money in game? Not like there's anything to spend it on/with besides that. If money was hard to gain, I can see it being a larger issue but with how they set things up, you can top-up your companions in no time and still have time to accumulate more before the next tier unlocks.

But then, if the gear stuff wasn't so grossly inflated, would we have such amount of money in game to begin with ?
Blacksmithing and looting feels like they make for the overwhelming majority of anyone's revenue.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I agree, top tier armor prices are stupid, and they seem even stupider when tier 5 & 6 troops that you can get a couple of within one in game week for little cost have these top tier armors equipped as part of their loadouts. Imo just decreasing the top tier equipment prices would be fine. The problem feels to me that making money is too easy in the game after 1.9, and decreasing it seems like a more feasible solution. Maybe tier 5 troop loadouts can be overhauled so that the best armor and weapons will only be equipped by tier 6 noble units and lords. Lategame economy becomes too inflated with millions being necessary for "buying" lords. It's acceptable for me to pay millions as a trader to buy towns and castles, but not paying off lords. Late game economy should make us have less disposable gold overall for lords and the player (unless we're role-playing as giga trader that buys whole kingdoms, then it's fine for me).

One thing that I really want changed in the game is the process of forming armies. Imo we should be co-paying the daily wages of other parties in the army, and should also have an initial gold "summoning" cost for inviting lords to armies (that scale with the number of troops, the lord's clan tier, as well as the cost depending on whether they are the clan leader or not). AI lords are literally giving control their own and their troops' lives to the army leader, there should be a much bigger incentive for this humongous risk other than +x influence per day as part of an army. Forming and maintaining armies should be an expensive and risky process that shouldn't be blocked off to non-vassals (so that we can form armies as mercs as a risky venture for great influence and loot rewards).

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

That's the idea, yes.

By time you don't have to give a damn about any of that, you're at endgame and can finally afford the blinged-out party. If you don't agree with that as a desirable goal, fair enough, but you asked how it could be achieved.

I dont actually agree with that endgoal. The reason that I dont is that I find that the game already encourage you to speed to the endgame enough as it is.

On a more practical note. You cannot really scale it in a way that will likely satisfy all that many. You will have less experienced players for whom it would likely make the economy difficult to manage, and at the other end of the scale you would have those who would manage it anyway.

Keep in mind that all the other resouces are dependent on fighting as many battles as possible.

In the middle you will have a group of players who will up their game so they too can manage. And what is left is essentially those for whom it might make a difference.

I just dont believe it is going to happen. It is just not realistic.

edit:

I just realized that it wasn't entirely clear, but the increase to troop wages would be scaled -- lower-tier troops have a lesser increase while high-tier ones get bumped proprotionately even higher.

I guessed that, though I doubt it would really matter. As it is, I would probably still go full T6, even if everything below was free.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Day 78 and 2,6 millions in cash+inventory really sounds like someone is using exploits (full khan’s guard or full fian champion army). Not saying that getting this money is impossible without going full OP units, but you are probably going to find it much harder to achieve if you do not exploit the game going full archers army.

“My overriding priority is to always keep my party intact”

I can see now why you argue in favor of OP Kahn’s Guard and Fian Champion in other threads. Then you argue about how easy is to get money in this game. This is unbelievable xD.

Yeah..except, I am actually argueing FOR cheaper gear prices...

To make other options, than going full on T6 lordhunting, more attractive. I dont care that that would still be the most optimal choice, no more than I cared that you could become insanely rich from smithing. What I do care about is that there are other ways of playing that can provide a reasonable pace of progression.

Lower gear prices (and availability) would help opening up an option to go for gearing up you and yours; before moving into mid-lategame. So, I am for that.

 

[Dabos37]

Yeah..except, I am actually argueing FOR cheaper gear prices...

To make other options, than going full on T6 lordhunting, more attractive. I dont care that that would still be the most optimal choice, no more than I cared that you could become insanely rich from smithing. What I do care about is that there are other ways of playing that can provide a reasonable pace of progression.

Lower gear prices (and availability) would help opening up an option to go for gearing up you and yours; before moving into mid-lategame. So, I am for that.

At this point, I really doubt that someone is happy with the current gear prices. Well, aside from some devs, for some weird reason. The same devs which after reading tons of complaints, still do not fix smithing and keep it insanely OP.

The most curious part is that at the same time, devs have been trying to deal with the player’s money inflation issue, but for some reason they are still in favor of keeping smithing OP, and in favor of keeping gear overpriced (which makes it easier for the player due to loot).

While I am not sure about the perfect numbers either, it is for me pretty clear that wages are too easy to pay currently. This is probably because lords’ economy as @Apocal has pointed out. Devs took the bad decision of removing the Warband feature which halves garrison troops wages, in favor of adding perks and buildings which reduced wages, which the AI is not able to handle properly and most of AI clans are probably paying full wages prices most of the time. Plus, thinking about what makes and what does not make sense, paying 50% less for garrison wages does a lot of sense. It is pretty evident that mobilized troops should be more expensive than these one resting in towns.

Anyway, I have not much faith on devs concerning economy. There are too many fundamental mistakes and decisions which do not make any sense, and clearly make the game worse, but for some reason they refuse to fix.

Talking again about the player’s money inflation issue, it is 100% related to exploits and unbalances, and I really do not get why you want to keep in game units like fians or Khan’s Guard which clearly make the game too easy, and bring clear issues like player’s money inflation issue, which devs try to fix increasing gear cost (which is ironically worse for money inflation at the same time).

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Talking again about the player’s money inflation issue, it is 100% related to exploits and unbalances, and I really do not get why you want to keep in game units like fians or Khan’s Guard which clearly make the game too easy, and bring clear issues like player’s money inflation issue, which devs try to fix increasing gear cost (which is ironically worse for money inflation at the same time).

Because there is a lack of other decent alternatives. As a warlord you have one option available to you and that is to fight an obscene number of battles to progress. So, as long as the game require you to fight as much, as it does, then you are going to need a set up that will help you do that; and that would be T6s (primarily Fians or KGs).

So, I dont see them as OP (much) but rather everything else as underpowered. The way the game work; you need to steamroll everything to get a decent pace of progression.

Its a game where you repeat the same activity over and over and over again. It cannot sustain insanely long campaigns other than for the most mentally resistant (or challenged) individuals.

 

[Nogand]

End game goals and sh*t man.

But yeah seriously I don't understand why they do things this way. Troops, kingdom management and all that should be end game goals. Not armour ffs.

It's quite plain that "end game goals" is the intent, because a save file is represented by a 3d model of your decked out character, just like the World of Warcraft character select screen. WoW made "gear progression" work with magic items that boost your character's stats, but it doesn't work in Bannerlord because they have to stick to believable Low Middle Ages capabilities.

 

[Dabos37]

Because there is a lack of other decent alternatives. As a warlord you have one option available to you and that is to fight an obscene number of battles to progress. So, as long as the game require you to fight as much, as it does, then you are going to need a set up that will help you do that; and that would be T6s (primarily Fians or KGs).

So, I dont see them as OP (much) but rather everything else as underpowered. The way the game work; you need to steamroll everything to get a decent pace of progression.

Its a game where you repeat the same activity over and over and over again. It cannot sustain insanely long campaigns other than for the most mentally resistant (or challenged) individuals.

I disagree. I always set some limits for myself for making the campaign more challenging.

- I do not use smithing
- I do not recruit Khan’s Guard/Fians
- I do not spam archers
- I do not use any exploit

The result is a more challenging game, still pretty much doable (and easy) where I simply cannot farm lords from day 50. The “need for steamroll everything” is just the way you enjoy playing the game.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I disagree. I always set some limits for myself for making the campaign more challenging.

- I do not use smithing
- I do not recruit Khan’s Guard/Fians
- I do not spam archers
- I do not use any exploit

The result is a more challenging game, still pretty much doable (and easy) where I simply cannot farm lords from day 50. The “need for steamroll everything” is just the way you enjoy playing the game.

Yes, it is entirely possible to set your own limits. I dont smith either (doesnt make sense + its boring). I do, however, use archers but on the other hand I never retreat from a fight.

But, this whole archer thing is overblown. They are good for early farming but once you start conquering stuff those palty numbers you bring are not going to change a damn thing. Hell, in my current campaign I have carved through Battania and only 76 of my men are Fians. Despite that, all sieges are still with single digit losses army wide.

Influence, and control over the voting system, is the only mechanism that truely matter beyond the early farming stage.

 

[Dabos37]

Yes, it is entirely possible to set your own limits. I dont smith either (doesnt make sense + its boring). I do, however, use archers but on the other hand I never retreat from a fight.

But, this whole archer thing is overblown. They are good for early farming but once you start conquering stuff those palty numbers you bring are not going to change a damn thing. Hell, in my current campaign I have carved through Battania and only 76 of my men are Fians. Despite that, all sieges are still with single digit losses army wide.

Influence, and control over the voting system, is the only mechanism that truely matter beyond the early farming stage.

Archers being OP for early farming allow the player to dodge any sense of challenge in early/mid game, which translates in the player getting tons of money and renown, and progressing much faster than intended.

On the other hand, I totally disagree with your reasoning about archers do not being decisive in late game. I can easily show you the big impact of having 200 fians in your army, compared to having other kind of unit. Archers are pretty damn effective and easily to keep alive, which makes battles in early/mid/late game much easier than they should.

Lastly, keeping in mind that there are tons of players who mostly enjoy early and mid campaign (because late game is probably the worst part of this game and feels incomplete), having units which make the game feels pretty unbalanced in early/mid game is for sure a serious issue.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

On the other hand, I totally disagree with your reasoning about archers do not being decisive in late game. I can easily show you the big impact of having 200 fians in your army, compared to having other kind of unit. Archers are pretty damn effective and easily to keep alive, which makes battles in early/mid/late game much easier than they should.

They dont make a damn bit of difference. What matters is Numbers; it is nearly totally irrelevant what you bring to a siege as long as you bring plenty of it.

Lastly, keeping in mind that there are tons of players who mostly enjoy early and mid campaign (because late game is probably the worst part of this game and feels incomplete), having units which make the game feels pretty unbalanced in early/mid game is for sure a serious issue.

And there are no other goals worth pursuing early game; other than building and army that can trash everything. Maybe decent prices on gear could help solve that problem.