Information about developments at snowballing problem

[mexxico]

@mexxico do you need more test runs of 1.5.6?
And would it be helpful if we started doing test runs with the cav bonus cut down to 40 or 50%?

Its good having more samples. I think currently we have about 8 samples from 1.5.6 with average snowball score between 60-65. I will make a table from all at weekend or monday too see peak and min numbers for each faction. Then we will wait 1.5.7 (probably we have about 10-20 days to it) to see how much it will improved.

Are other kingdoms getting as big as Khuzaits in 1.5.7? For example, Vlandia or Battania (just one of them per campaign) usually get as big as Khuzaits in 1.5.6 but not sure it it is still happening in 1.5.7. If it is the case, instead of giving specific nerfs for Khuzaits, would be great if you can add something to penalize all kingdoms getting too big.

In table we will see answers of all these but what I see sometimes Battanians dominate 25% of world with Khuzaits's 25% and sometimes Vlandia dominates 25% of world with Khuzaits's 25% and sometimes WE / Aserai dominates with Khuzait (at 1.5.7 especially). And remaining 50% is shared between 6 factions. Means Khuzait nearly always be one of biggest 2 factions. Other faction changes. So there is no problem at others or even we need a blocking factor for powerfull factions we first need to solve Khuzait problem. Then we can think about how to block dominating factions. Probably it (blocking powerful factions at some point) will be very minor problem after Khuzait OP problem is solved because having a dynamic world is good. We do not need to stop factions at 15-20-25%. Important thing is not same faction should dominate all the time and one faction should not dominate 40+% of world without player interaction in late game. This is already the case currently even Khuzaits cannot take half of world without player interaction at 1.5.6 even 30-40-50 years past.

So imo currently only problem is Khuzait's OP which also make SE and NE weaker. With 1.5.6 fixes problems mostly solved except Khuzait OP and other factions resists better to Khuzait at 1.5.6 compared to 1.5.5 and previous.

 

[sniparsexe]

Its good having more samples. I think currently we have about 8 samples from 1.5.6 with average snowball score between 60-65. I will make a table from all at weekend or monday too see peak and min numbers for each faction. Then we will wait 1.5.7 (probably we have about 10-20 days to it) to see how much it will improved.

I'm currently doing second of my tests, my first result is really interesting, I think it'll be done in an hour

 

[sniparsexe]

@mexxico

Faction	Cities	Castles
Aserai	10 (1 in rebellion at the time it finished)	12
Battania	13	16
Khuzait	15	17
N.E	6	8
S.E	3	6
W.E	2	1
Vlandia	2	5
Sturgia	2	3

This is a bit unlucky run I guess.^ (I forgot to take a screenshot for this run) Everyone was doing good but the snowballing happened fairly quick. in 15th year everyone was pretty much equal, then the Khuzaits declared war on Sturgians, they obliterated them and moved on

Faction	Cities	Castles
Aseria	12	11
Battania	2	9
Khuzait	17	17
N.E	5	10
S.E	2	2
W.E	3	3
Sturgia	3	5
Vlandia	9	11

What I noticed is, Sturgia keeps going strong until they start fighting with the Khuzaits.

Spoiler: map for the second test

I think hardcoding an Aserai - Khuzait war will prevent Khuzait from getting strong in many cases, Aserai are strong as well and their cities are in a very good location. Maybe adding a lore point for hardcoding an Aserai - Khuzait war that will last around a year would be good

 

[Shun]

Its good having more samples. I think currently we have about 8 samples from 1.5.6 with average snowball score between 60-65. I will make a table from all at weekend or monday too see peak and min numbers for each faction. Then we will wait 1.5.7 (probably we have about 10-20 days to it) to see how much it will improved.



In table we will see answers of all these but what I see sometimes Battanians dominate 25% of world with Khuzaits's 25% and sometimes Vlandia dominates 25% of world with Khuzaits's 25% and sometimes WE / Aserai dominates with Khuzait (at 1.5.7 especially). And remaining 50% is shared between 6 factions. Means Khuzait nearly always be one of biggest 2 factions. Other faction changes. So there is no problem at others or even we need a blocking factor for powerfull factions we first need to solve Khuzait problem. Then we can think about how to block dominating factions. Probably it (blocking powerful factions at some point) will be very minor problem after Khuzait OP problem is solved because having a dynamic world is good. We do not need to stop factions at 15-20-25%. Important thing is not same faction should dominate all the time and one faction should not dominate 40+% of world without player interaction in late game. This is already the case currently even Khuzaits cannot take half of world without player interaction at 1.5.6 even 30-40-50 years past.

So imo currently only problem is Khuzait's OP which also make SE and NE weaker. With 1.5.6 fixes problems mostly solved except Khuzait OP and other factions resists better to Khuzait at 1.5.6 compared to 1.5.5 and previous.

I agree very much that no faction should be always in one of the top 2 spots.

However, I do question that no faction should rule 40+% of the map late game w/o player interaction, ever. As long it's not every game and not always the same factions which domintate, it seems fine to me. Doesn't it put an artificial cap on the rules of dynamic faction interaction if factions getting too strong get capped? Also, a big faction may make for a good late game adversary.

If the reason is that all factions should stay available throughout the playthrough, IMO the rebel system, with the addition of giving the palyer the option to nurture a rebellion, would achieve that goal as well.

 

[mexxico]

@mexxico

Faction	Cities	Castles
Aserai	10 (1 in rebellion at the time it finished)	12
Battania	13	16
Khuzait	15	17
N.E	6	8
S.E	3	6
W.E	2	1
Vlandia	2	5
Sturgia	2	3

This is a bit unlucky run I guess.^ (I forgot to take a screenshot for this run) Everyone was doing good but the snowballing happened fairly quick. in 15th year everyone was pretty much equal, then the Khuzaits declared war on Sturgians, they obliterated them and moved on

Faction	Cities	Castles
Aseria	12	11
Battania	2	9
Khuzait	17	17
N.E	5	10
S.E	2	2
W.E	3	3
Sturgia	3	5
Vlandia	9	11

What I noticed is, Sturgia keeps going strong until they start fighting with the Khuzaits.

Spoiler: map for the second test

I think hardcoding an Aserai - Khuzait war will prevent Khuzait from getting strong in many cases, Aserai are strong as well and their cities are in a very good location. Maybe adding a lore point for hardcoding an Aserai - Khuzait war that will last around a year would be good

Thank you for 2 tests.

 

[sniparsexe]

Thank you for 2 tests.

no worries

 

[Worlok]

I would cheer on TW if they extend the EA for a full year after the original EA deadline to refactor completely their code so as to include a lot of our feedback.

I would not mind if they would extend the EA period if it would mean some cool content. Yet, I am not sure what is the opinion of the majority of player-base.

 

[babelfisch]

How about my suggestion above to add a culture penalty to Khuzait? They would still be able to expand fast which makes sense for a faction relying on horsemen, but it would be harder to keep the settlements because of rebellions. Would that make sense?

 

[sniparsexe]

How about my suggestion above to add a culture penalty to Khuzait? They would still be able to expand fast which makes sense for a faction relying on horsemen, but it would be harder to keep the settlements because of rebellions. Would that make sense?

I agree, I think it makes sense

 

[Dabos37]

Problem is, should the player has to face the same if playing as Khuzait? Plus I am not sure if this will be enough to stop Khuzaits.

I think the easier way to fix Khuzaits snowballing is what we will get in 1.5.7:

- All kingdoms having more cavalry
- Cavalry speed bonus getting reduced (I hope to 40% from 60%, because 50% would be too conservative IMO). I am currently playing a campign with 40% speed bonus for cavalry and 20% for mounted infantry and it feels great.

Plus some extra tweaks like:

- Decreasing prosperity and hearths across all Khuzaits Settlwments and Villages.

Will be this enough? Probably not. It is pretty clear that cavalry units have not been properly balanced for the AI. The player has some drawbacks because we have to pay for horses but for the AI having horses is simply too good, and it gets positive bonus for speed and strength in simulated battles without any negative aspect. Forcing the AI to buy horses is not a good idea because it will bring a lot of other issues but, what about increasing wages for cavalry units just for the AI?

 

[皮w蛋]

If I read the Code right(edit):

public static int GetCharacterTier(CharacterObject character)
{
if (character.IsHero)
{
return 0;
}
return Math.Min(Math.Max(MathF.Ceiling(((float)character.Level - 5f) / 5f), 0), 7);
}

khans guard lvl=31 with this Math arround it, it comes to tier 6 (like all noble lines)
Heavy Horse Archer lvl=26 = tier 5
Legionary lvl=26 = tier 5


so the tiers goes into this calculation(Field battle) for Simulation:


private static float DefaultTroopPower(CharacterObject troop)
{
int num = troop.IsHero ? (troop.HeroObject.Level / 4 + 1) : troop.Tier;
return (float)((2 + num) * (10 + num)) * 0.02f * (troop.IsHero ? 1.5f : (troop.IsMounted ? 1.2f : 1f));
}



I don´t understand your point regarding the tiers, since the Math is for all factions the same, because the level (or level steps) of all troops are the same.

Sorry about my English.
#424 and #466 They means right.

He's referring to capping tiers for certain troop types, in certain factions. For example, horse archers only going up to tier 4, or one faction having tier 6 common infantry. That was how it was done in Warband.

Thank You!

@mexxico. i know troop trees aren't your specialty but maybe you can bring this up with the upper management guys?
in warband, highest khergit troops were only level 21 while other factions had levels 24-28.

Troop Trees

The following are the troop trees of the various factions.

mountandblade.fandom.com

khuzaits can keep their tier 5 horse archers but lose the other units tiers. maybe have the lancers tier 4, archers tier 4 and infantry tier 3 or 2.

other factions can have the same thing done to them depending on their lore strengths and weaknesses.
empire can have everything on tier 4 to show that it is the balanced faction.

this way, you might be able to balance the game while keeping factions unique. instead of giving them all a boost to cavalry numbers.

That's what it means

There are also some minor problems.
For example, the cavalry of Khuzait, their defense (armor) is better than that of Vlandia.
This may be a problem with shoulder armor, but in any case, the latest version has made the horse archers defensive (armor) power start to decrease, which I think is a good direction.

 

[Dabos37]

I am going to copy here what I have read in the rebellion thread, something pretty interesting about Khuzaits which I have not had keep in mind:

So, I have been playing the 1.5.6 beta and I've noticed a few things. First, at most 10% of rebellions succeed to create new clans. Second the Khuzaits do not experience rebellions because of "Grazing Rights", which is a government policy they have. They have steadily grown to become the world's dominant power, they aren't unstoppable, but they haven't been experiencing any major setbacks, because they don't experience rebellions. Given enough time they will conquer the entire world, but it will take several decades. The other rising power in my Game, Battania has experienced 3/4ths of all rebellions.Third, because most rebellions fail, there end up being a bunch of clans that don't do anything but laze around in castles and towns far away from their original town. 2/3rds of all clans formed from rebellions in my game have no army and do absolutely nothing. Finally, the naming system is tedious. In my game there are 5 clans called Sargot's rebels, none of which have any armies even close to Sargot.

I suggest a few changes. It's okay that most rebellions fail, that's fine and to be expected, but the Khuzaits do not experience rebellion because of the government policy they get and thus have an unfair advantage. The policy is too strong and it has no downside, because the militia will always be loyal. All policies should have downsides. Maybe having a large militia should decrease the loyalty of town, like -0.5 loyalty per every 100 militia or something. Next, when a rebellion loses its town, the rebel clan should resort to banditry, and the AI should have an increased chance to execute them. That way all these useless clans will do something and if they keep failing they will eventually be killed off. Lastly the naming system (I know it's WIP) needs to be changed; If a rebel clan succeeds in becoming a real noble clan, then it should get a real family name, selected at random from a list of family names for each culture, but it should also check to make sure that no living clan has the same name. If a clan fails to become a real clan and it loses its original town (there is no coming back from that) its named should be changed to a gang name selected from a random list for each culture, and when this clan is destroyed it should be expunged from the encylopedia.

Changing this policy or removing it from Khuzaits in the spkingdoms.xml is probably a good idea.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I am going to copy here what I have read in the rebellion thread, something pretty interesting about Khuzaits which I have not had keep in mind:




Changing this policy or removing it from Khuzaits in the spkingdoms.xml is probably a good idea.

 

[Varrak]

Here is my two cents about some additional feature ideas, that i think would help prevent snowballing naturally, rather than changing values to put balance between factions forcefully. These feature ideas aren't actually new ideas, some are bulletproof features that have been implemented in more than dozen games, where army composition and market based economy exists.

Demographics penalty for rebellion: There is already rebellion in the game with the last patch, but i guess it's implementation, naturally, is lacking. This is not unexpected, it would take many patches to perfect it. Demographics penalty for rebellion would be that, if, for example Battania has 20 Battanian fiefs and 15 Vlandian fiefs, chance for one rebellion in Vlandian fiefs would be higher than another scenario with 20 Battanian + 5 Vlandian fiefs under Battanian control. There could be some math to calculate additional rebellion chance for those Vlandian fiefs under Battanian control. More different cultured fiefs one faction gets, fiefs with that culture in that faction would get additional rebellion risk point. A lot of games uses this type of features.

How would that prevent snowballing naturally? If one faction expands aggressively, they would face higher rebellion risks than others who don't expand as much aggressive. (Assimilation feature would be needed to balance this feature, or no faction would get so big even after centuries).

Faction aggressiveness penalty for rebellion: There is already aggressiveness as a kind of variable if i remember correct. If one faction is warmongering so much, that faction's cities would have higher loyalty loss penalty during and after the war (effect would gradually decrease when the war is over). This would put additional stress on lords to side with peace. Some games use such features for rebellion calculations.

War targets: A lot of games have that, factions would have their own justifications and targets to achieve, before declaring war. How would that help prevent snowballing? There are wars that start in the beginning of the game, and continue like they will never end until one is no more. I guess war targets would add a lot of color into the game, and help prevent snowballing naturally.

City States: Rebellion feature was very needed, but i think it could be more fun to see city states, like one city-factions. If a rebelled clan fails to join any faction, they would create their own faction. How would this prevent snowballing? It would add more balls into the diplomacy pool, imo this ca naturally slows down the overall expansion of factions.

Pike bracing units (Pikemen): As a 5th unit after inf, archers, cav, horse archers, they would have their own division. I remember reading that TW already plans to add Pike bracing units. So, instead of changing cav ratios of factions to put balance, AI battle calculation would count Pikemen as a negative variable for enemy cavs (and non-Khuzait factions would have more Pikemen naturally). How would that help prevent snowballing? Imo, it at least would help prevent certain snowballings where Khuzait is the one leading the race, and there wouldn't need to play with the cav ratios in armies. I personally find Khuzait realistic for them to have many cavs, even tho i don't like playing with them. Pikemen unit would be a natural antidose againt cav-based factions. (also shock troops need to have their own divission too, instead of getting stuck with shield infantry).

 

[Dabos37]

@mexxico I think I have found something which also make worse snowballing in general. When an army win a battle or a siege, most of the men of the winner army get injured instead of killed, and I have seen Khuzaits being able to take 3 fiefs in a row with the same army for this. Would be possible to increase the number of men who get killed in the battle?

 

[Apocal]

@mexxico I think I have found something which also make worse snowballing in general. When an army win a battle or a siege, most of the men of the winner army get injured instead of killed, and I have seen Khuzaits being able to take 3 fiefs in a row with the same army for this. Would be possible to increase the number of men who get killed in the battle?

Please don't. I know it hurts snowballing, I've written as much myself, but for most players the worst part of the experience is training up new troops. You can say they playing the game wrong by doing it by slaying looters (longest and most boring way) but most players continue and hate it. Killing more trrops means they'll be even more cautious and feel even more pushed towards safe strategies and actions.

 

[great_khan]

I want to give some information about upcoming developments about snowballing problem. All these developments are already done and will be ready at 1.5.6 beta. Unfortunately next beta 1.5.5 (which will be uploaded next monday or tuesday) will not have these changes.

hi, i think nock out chance is high and after every fight winner almost recover half of his lost soldiers that upgraded too, but looser loose every thing.
with rediucing nock out chance or option that looser lord could flee with his nocked out soldiers, this can rediuce loosing battle effect and looser can have more chance to recover himselfe and winner hit harder and cant continue so fast and need more time for recover.
in sum up the battle result must be so near between winner and looser.
sorry for bad english

 

[Dabos37]

Please don't. I know it hurts snowballing, I've written as much myself, but for most players the worst part of the experience is training up new troops. You can say they playing the game wrong by doing it by slaying looters (longest and most boring way) but most players continue and hate it. Killing more trrops means they'll be even more cautious and feel even more pushed towards safe strategies and actions.

Well, I think we need something else then. When you see an 1000 men army totally wiping an 900 men army, while the winner side gets just few kills, something is wrong here.

Same happens in sieges, 900 men take a settlement with 300-400 defenders, and these 900 men just lose about 50, and put 70-80 men inside the conquered fief, while 750 men continue getting more fiefs.

Anyway, do you know how to mod this? I could try it for myself and test the result. If I like the result, I will apply it just in my games because I rarely kill looters. But yes, I can understand that it could be frustrating for other players.

 

[niekdegrijze]

Please don't. I know it hurts snowballing, I've written as much myself, but for most players the worst part of the experience is training up new troops. You can say they playing the game wrong by doing it by slaying looters (longest and most boring way) but most players continue and hate it. Killing more trrops means they'll be even more cautious and feel even more pushed towards safe strategies and actions.

There could be a difference between player and ai. With a higher wounded chance for the player and a higher kill change for ai engagements.

 

[D0c1]

There could be a difference between player and ai. With a higher wounded chance for the player and a higher kill change for ai engagements.

or keep his idea and have the AI hire companions as was intended.
maybe buff medicine to compensate.