Information about developments at snowballing problem

Users who are viewing this thread

Hey folks, going to dip my toe in here, go easy on me - first post - but I've been lurking quite a bit.

First off I have to really take my hat off to Mexxico and forum members like Blood Gryphon and Flesson19 - I've been reading (And watching, in some cases) a lot of the work you have all done and it's fantastic. I am not a game developer, but I build data science and cybersecurity solutions with probably at least a similar codebase, and the amount of collaboration, data collection, and general work that goes into making something like Bannerlord and all of the intricacies explored here is outstanding.

I wanted to weigh in a bit on wars, I only got the game when 1.5.6 had came out so I do not have any past context but in my current campaign with SE we are either at war with 3 major factions at a time (plus hardcoded minors) or we are just not at war. I think there are a lot of things that can be done in regards to war, and many of them have been touched on here in the last 15 pages or so but I wanted to collect some thoughts and expand on them. I do not purport to be a military historian or anything - I'm just a security guy who builds ML models after all - but I did spend some time with USSOCOM in my formative days and am a big history buff for what it counts, and *think* I know what I am talking about.

Historical Context of Kingdoms/Culture Groups
I get this is a video game, and I am glad it is, I don't want to play a medieval simulator. I want to have fun and I am a huge fan of the franchise as everyone else is. That said, it would be good to get a good understand of what inspired the various cultures to maybe instill some balance. For instance, it's obvious the 3 Empires have a heavy Byzantine influence, and thus have a very well-balanced military. That said, being an "Eastern" style military, the Eastern Roman Empire employed much more cavalry and of different variations than the cataphract - you would think they would have more cav than the noble line, especially since their primary threats were in the East in the form of the Sasanians/Abasids/Umayyads/Mamluk Sultanate (Aserai, I guess?) and later the Turkic peoples tribes from the Pontic Steppe (Seljuqs/Pechenegs/Ottomans/Ghaznavids) -- so they employed various types of cavalry, multi-functional dismounted troops, anti-cavalry and specialist units.

In Bannerlord, I'd expect the various empires to reflect this - such as swapping out the crossbowmen for lighter cavalry (actual Equites) and have elite horse archers in the noble line in another branch then the Elite Cataphract. I am digging into this example primarily because that is where my knowledgebase lies - but you can look at a lot of the cultures and where they were inspired by, they'd be much more mixed or at least have their AI tactics and troops trees reflective of such. The Battanians are influenced by various Celtic/Gallic peoples - they'd actually have chariots and light cavalry instead of their elite bowmen, the Vlandians (Normans?) would have heavy cavalry but pretty poor infantry (at least if you compared them to Anglo-Saxons pre-1066/Hastings).

The point is I think some rebalance is needed to at least give the obvious culture groups more cav to counter the Khuzaits - this also means a speed nerf since cav-heavy troops (like the armies of my namesake) during the crisis of the 3rd century weren't at full gallops. I think this is addressed, and it's hard to totally nerf it, but at least leveling the playing fields would help. And while the mongols were able to sweep through places very effectively - they still had as much trouble as anyone crossing through Anatolia - and the Normans under the First Crusade kicked the crap out of the Seljuks at various engagements - so it shouldn't be so one-sided.

Logistics
You can look through antiquity and see the Romans extending their supply lines extremely far to wage war, or consolidate provinces, but that was not the rule for most of human history - definitely not the Bronze Age and after various plagues had wreaked havoc on Europe and Asia - that practice did not really continue too much. You can only fight as far as your supply line can take you, and the further it does, the more likely you are to exhaust resources which leads to decreased morale, loss of cohesion, increased chance of sickness, poor decisions, and lack of mobility. That applies to modern armies and special operations units - and to ancient armies.

Where this can be factored in is in a few ways, I am unsure how possible this is given I am unfamiliar with what metrics and datapoints are exposed in the code. Here is a more or less ordered list:
- Gold: Cannot go to war without paying people or paying for materials. There should likely be a threshold in where in financially makes sense to go to war, maybe the game can forecast out 2 years of paying double the salary of all currently enlisted troops plus the time span for food (grain, fish?) at a median price (or just use a placeholder of 10-15 per unit for double the current conscription). And if the total gold reserve of the kingdom isn't above a specific threshold they won't go to war. I know it'd be very easy to get down a rabbit hole with all of the parameters - but there needs to be some way to account for money in logistics

- Food Stores: Similar to the above point, cannot move an army if you cannot feed it, it would be great to forecast some form of loss factor when it comes to overall food. Maybe have the game calculate what would happen if half of the villages were raided (And thus didn't produce) and there is a certain threshold set depending on how negatively that would impact food prices and food of the current fiefs. The map is such that you can pretty much get anywhere decently fast and need to play both an offensive and defensive war in border zones.

- Military size (not really a pure logistics issued): I know sizes are captured, they're in the UI after all. There needs to be a weighting here where you need to both outnumber another kingdom's forces by a degree divided by how many Major Factions they are at war with. There should also be a way to account for recruitment opportunities - and some weighting to assume half of your villages will get nuked. EU4 has the Manpower pool for reinforcement - something like that would be great that is pegged to Kingdom-wide Security + Prosperity. The higher than manpower modifier is the quicker towns can replenish....this also means the AI recruitment cheat needs to go away.

- Distance: Does not make sense that Vlandia, who is also at war with Battania and Sturgia is declaring a war on SE. Not sure how distances are calculated since there is not a capital per se - but if you do not share a border you shoud have a dimished chance of going to war. I can see the various Empires at war all the time against themselves and against the Khuzaits - but not so much anyone else. Another important note: the map needs a serious rework to spread the border zones or at least funnel them through terrain features that will make castles much more important. Pretty much the perfect thing would be similar to how Dark Age of Camelot did it - where RvR zones got forced into waypoints and you pretty much ALWAYS had to siege it down.

Diplomatic Enhancements
Outside of the modern era where we fight a lot of conflict via econmic proxies (See: China), cyberwarfare and now the "5th Theater" (PsyOps/disinformation), most warmongering was very formal. Or at least in the attacker's eyes it was in the case of the Mongols - then again I guess you can stay many Turkic and Pontic Steppe peoples were less concerned about formal wars as they were in pillaging. I still think Bannerlord can make use of that. I won't belabor the points as they have been made before, most are stolen concepts from EU4 anyway.

- Casus Belli: Some penalty / AE mechanic is needed if you just declare war on anyone (especially if you yeet a random lord), as well as original ownership. A kingdom would be much more motivated to take back territory or at least take territory on their border versus marching halfway across the world to take someone's butter.

- Enforced peace periods: You can break these with a massive penalty (pretty much you lose 30 relationship with like everyone and kingdoms REALLY want to yeet you) - so hopefully that'll dissuade the AI from breaking them. Can make it 2 x War Length, that will at least get kingdoms to recover and plays into the Gold/Food/Distance/Troop Count mechanics.

- Alliances: Maybe this requires a heavy amount of relationship, influence loss, or gold loss (or all of the above) - or some important folks being married - but I don't see why I cannot enter into various alliances with other kingdoms. This can be a NAP, military alliances when at war, trade treaties, or otherwise

- Subterfuge: It would be great to fund rebels or sow discontent. You can sort of do this with a high-enough Charm (and bank account, annoyingly enough). What would be great is the ability (via quests or otherwise) to incite rebellions, assassinate clan leaders, or cause general economic mayhem. A cool extension of minor factions and Rebellion clans could be to enlist them to do the dirty work on your behalf.

- Bribes: Think of it as preemptive tribute: I'd rather just pay someone like the Khuzaits or idiots like the Sturgians to NOT declare war on me while I consolidate territory. The Eastern Roman Empire did this with Atilla, and the Western Roman Empire did this a buttload with the various Germanic tribes. Of course they didn't always listen :wink: and neither should you. That would be fun as you can be collecting passive kingdom-wide income and use the money to fund asymmetric warfare operations in their kingdom via minor factions

Other thoughts
- Consolidation of fiefs should be a primary goal post-war, and thus have a weighting that is more likely to make a kingdom Bribes or fund guerilla warfare/subterfuge depending on how aggressive they are. I can see it both ways: I want to keep fighting a war without using my troops or I am depleted and rather funnel the tribute from my current war to someone likely to attack me

- A way to expose these various mechanics and weights to a player. Could be a good use of the Charm, Leadership, or Tactics tree to be able to more clearly predict the chance of someone declaring war. This increases with Influence + Quests + Reputation. I am thinking something similar to Scout Ratings in EA's NHL where you can predict a band of stats with a certain degree (+/- %) of accuracy

- Reworking tribute: why do I need to pay 3800 to the Aserai when I own all but one city and killed 80% of their ground armies? That's silly

- I really, really want to fight asymmetrically. Maybe because I did that in real life, but nothing would be cooler than being able to takeover the map via proxy wars and guerilla warfare. Of course, the counter to this is if your guerilla warfare clans get captured in battle they can snitch if they have low reputation / you have bad Rougery and then the kingdom will just come and try to kill you

- Economic toil needs to be more important in warfare. This can come with tripling troop wages during war, doubling it while campaigning out of your home territory, or increasing it the longer a war goes on. This will help prevent wars from happening or keep them from lasting too long. Of course there need to be some variance in there that lets kingdoms be reckless

- Give me something cool to do with castles - like an upgrade that makes the castle engage with an army / party that gets too close. Some passive attrition would be really nice - that's what castles were for anyway - small towns would crop around them, and lords could send parties to ravage a frontier.

All for now. Hope some of the above is not total garbage!
 

ElCrisp

Sergeant
Hey folks, going to dip my toe in here, go easy on me - first post - but I've been lurking quite a bit.

First off I have to really take my hat off to Mexxico and forum members like Blood Gryphon and Flesson19 - I've been reading (And watching, in some cases) a lot of the work you have all done and it's fantastic. I am not a game developer, but I build data science and cybersecurity solutions with probably at least a similar codebase, and the amount of collaboration, data collection, and general work that goes into making something like Bannerlord and all of the intricacies explored here is outstanding.

I wanted to weigh in a bit on wars, I only got the game when 1.5.6 had came out so I do not have any past context but in my current campaign with SE we are either at war with 3 major factions at a time (plus hardcoded minors) or we are just not at war. I think there are a lot of things that can be done in regards to war, and many of them have been touched on here in the last 15 pages or so but I wanted to collect some thoughts and expand on them. I do not purport to be a military historian or anything - I'm just a security guy who builds ML models after all - but I did spend some time with USSOCOM in my formative days and am a big history buff for what it counts, and *think* I know what I am talking about.

Historical Context of Kingdoms/Culture Groups
I get this is a video game, and I am glad it is, I don't want to play a medieval simulator. I want to have fun and I am a huge fan of the franchise as everyone else is. That said, it would be good to get a good understand of what inspired the various cultures to maybe instill some balance. For instance, it's obvious the 3 Empires have a heavy Byzantine influence, and thus have a very well-balanced military. That said, being an "Eastern" style military, the Eastern Roman Empire employed much more cavalry and of different variations than the cataphract - you would think they would have more cav than the noble line, especially since their primary threats were in the East in the form of the Sasanians/Abasids/Umayyads/Mamluk Sultanate (Aserai, I guess?) and later the Turkic peoples tribes from the Pontic Steppe (Seljuqs/Pechenegs/Ottomans/Ghaznavids) -- so they employed various types of cavalry, multi-functional dismounted troops, anti-cavalry and specialist units.

In Bannerlord, I'd expect the various empires to reflect this - such as swapping out the crossbowmen for lighter cavalry (actual Equites) and have elite horse archers in the noble line in another branch then the Elite Cataphract. I am digging into this example primarily because that is where my knowledgebase lies - but you can look at a lot of the cultures and where they were inspired by, they'd be much more mixed or at least have their AI tactics and troops trees reflective of such. The Battanians are influenced by various Celtic/Gallic peoples - they'd actually have chariots and light cavalry instead of their elite bowmen, the Vlandians (Normans?) would have heavy cavalry but pretty poor infantry (at least if you compared them to Anglo-Saxons pre-1066/Hastings).

The point is I think some rebalance is needed to at least give the obvious culture groups more cav to counter the Khuzaits - this also means a speed nerf since cav-heavy troops (like the armies of my namesake) during the crisis of the 3rd century weren't at full gallops. I think this is addressed, and it's hard to totally nerf it, but at least leveling the playing fields would help. And while the mongols were able to sweep through places very effectively - they still had as much trouble as anyone crossing through Anatolia - and the Normans under the First Crusade kicked the crap out of the Seljuks at various engagements - so it shouldn't be so one-sided.

Logistics
You can look through antiquity and see the Romans extending their supply lines extremely far to wage war, or consolidate provinces, but that was not the rule for most of human history - definitely not the Bronze Age and after various plagues had wreaked havoc on Europe and Asia - that practice did not really continue too much. You can only fight as far as your supply line can take you, and the further it does, the more likely you are to exhaust resources which leads to decreased morale, loss of cohesion, increased chance of sickness, poor decisions, and lack of mobility. That applies to modern armies and special operations units - and to ancient armies.

Where this can be factored in is in a few ways, I am unsure how possible this is given I am unfamiliar with what metrics and datapoints are exposed in the code. Here is a more or less ordered list:
- Gold: Cannot go to war without paying people or paying for materials. There should likely be a threshold in where in financially makes sense to go to war, maybe the game can forecast out 2 years of paying double the salary of all currently enlisted troops plus the time span for food (grain, fish?) at a median price (or just use a placeholder of 10-15 per unit for double the current conscription). And if the total gold reserve of the kingdom isn't above a specific threshold they won't go to war. I know it'd be very easy to get down a rabbit hole with all of the parameters - but there needs to be some way to account for money in logistics

- Food Stores: Similar to the above point, cannot move an army if you cannot feed it, it would be great to forecast some form of loss factor when it comes to overall food. Maybe have the game calculate what would happen if half of the villages were raided (And thus didn't produce) and there is a certain threshold set depending on how negatively that would impact food prices and food of the current fiefs. The map is such that you can pretty much get anywhere decently fast and need to play both an offensive and defensive war in border zones.

- Military size (not really a pure logistics issued): I know sizes are captured, they're in the UI after all. There needs to be a weighting here where you need to both outnumber another kingdom's forces by a degree divided by how many Major Factions they are at war with. There should also be a way to account for recruitment opportunities - and some weighting to assume half of your villages will get nuked. EU4 has the Manpower pool for reinforcement - something like that would be great that is pegged to Kingdom-wide Security + Prosperity. The higher than manpower modifier is the quicker towns can replenish....this also means the AI recruitment cheat needs to go away.

- Distance: Does not make sense that Vlandia, who is also at war with Battania and Sturgia is declaring a war on SE. Not sure how distances are calculated since there is not a capital per se - but if you do not share a border you shoud have a dimished chance of going to war. I can see the various Empires at war all the time against themselves and against the Khuzaits - but not so much anyone else. Another important note: the map needs a serious rework to spread the border zones or at least funnel them through terrain features that will make castles much more important. Pretty much the perfect thing would be similar to how Dark Age of Camelot did it - where RvR zones got forced into waypoints and you pretty much ALWAYS had to siege it down.

Diplomatic Enhancements
Outside of the modern era where we fight a lot of conflict via econmic proxies (See: China), cyberwarfare and now the "5th Theater" (PsyOps/disinformation), most warmongering was very formal. Or at least in the attacker's eyes it was in the case of the Mongols - then again I guess you can stay many Turkic and Pontic Steppe peoples were less concerned about formal wars as they were in pillaging. I still think Bannerlord can make use of that. I won't belabor the points as they have been made before, most are stolen concepts from EU4 anyway.

- Casus Belli: Some penalty / AE mechanic is needed if you just declare war on anyone (especially if you yeet a random lord), as well as original ownership. A kingdom would be much more motivated to take back territory or at least take territory on their border versus marching halfway across the world to take someone's butter.

- Enforced peace periods: You can break these with a massive penalty (pretty much you lose 30 relationship with like everyone and kingdoms REALLY want to yeet you) - so hopefully that'll dissuade the AI from breaking them. Can make it 2 x War Length, that will at least get kingdoms to recover and plays into the Gold/Food/Distance/Troop Count mechanics.

- Alliances: Maybe this requires a heavy amount of relationship, influence loss, or gold loss (or all of the above) - or some important folks being married - but I don't see why I cannot enter into various alliances with other kingdoms. This can be a NAP, military alliances when at war, trade treaties, or otherwise

- Subterfuge: It would be great to fund rebels or sow discontent. You can sort of do this with a high-enough Charm (and bank account, annoyingly enough). What would be great is the ability (via quests or otherwise) to incite rebellions, assassinate clan leaders, or cause general economic mayhem. A cool extension of minor factions and Rebellion clans could be to enlist them to do the dirty work on your behalf.

- Bribes: Think of it as preemptive tribute: I'd rather just pay someone like the Khuzaits or idiots like the Sturgians to NOT declare war on me while I consolidate territory. The Eastern Roman Empire did this with Atilla, and the Western Roman Empire did this a buttload with the various Germanic tribes. Of course they didn't always listen :wink: and neither should you. That would be fun as you can be collecting passive kingdom-wide income and use the money to fund asymmetric warfare operations in their kingdom via minor factions

Other thoughts
- Consolidation of fiefs should be a primary goal post-war, and thus have a weighting that is more likely to make a kingdom Bribes or fund guerilla warfare/subterfuge depending on how aggressive they are. I can see it both ways: I want to keep fighting a war without using my troops or I am depleted and rather funnel the tribute from my current war to someone likely to attack me

- A way to expose these various mechanics and weights to a player. Could be a good use of the Charm, Leadership, or Tactics tree to be able to more clearly predict the chance of someone declaring war. This increases with Influence + Quests + Reputation. I am thinking something similar to Scout Ratings in EA's NHL where you can predict a band of stats with a certain degree (+/- %) of accuracy

- Reworking tribute: why do I need to pay 3800 to the Aserai when I own all but one city and killed 80% of their ground armies? That's silly

- I really, really want to fight asymmetrically. Maybe because I did that in real life, but nothing would be cooler than being able to takeover the map via proxy wars and guerilla warfare. Of course, the counter to this is if your guerilla warfare clans get captured in battle they can snitch if they have low reputation / you have bad Rougery and then the kingdom will just come and try to kill you

- Economic toil needs to be more important in warfare. This can come with tripling troop wages during war, doubling it while campaigning out of your home territory, or increasing it the longer a war goes on. This will help prevent wars from happening or keep them from lasting too long. Of course there need to be some variance in there that lets kingdoms be reckless

- Give me something cool to do with castles - like an upgrade that makes the castle engage with an army / party that gets too close. Some passive attrition would be really nice - that's what castles were for anyway - small towns would crop around them, and lords could send parties to ravage a frontier.

All for now. Hope some of the above is not total garbage!

Just thought I'd give you some response to your post.

As to the Historical Context of the factions in game. They are semi fictional combinations of historic inspirations. The Battanians are very celtic now, but they also take inspiration from Welsh longbowman for their T6 units and were orignally more inspired by Britons than celts altough that has changed a bit over time. The Vlandians take Norman influences but also use the Genoese Crossbowman.
I understand you may have been raising the history of the byzantine army compostion as a basis to better their cavalry ratios through tree changes but you diverged from that.

The Diplomatic Changes you suggested have been discussed extensively here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/diplomacy-developments.429850/
There exists a lot of support for the things you have suggested or there abouts, but it has been deemed very difficult and outside of TW current scope for addressing the issues discussed there and in this thread. Although many would argue it is important enough to warrant the attempt.

As to your other thoughts, there lies a few issues. An enormous amount of the money made by clans is made through loot and there for battle. In this game it is actually far more profitable to be at war than to be at peace. The money it takes to recruit and upgrade troops is far less than the equipment that can then be looted and sold from said troops so as long as either faction doesnt get too stomped I think there is the possibility that both factions can be profiting off the conflict.
On top of this from a player and AI perspective there is not a whole lot currently to do during peacetime. You can solve issues (quest) which does stop minor negative affects on your economy, however this isnt something that is all together impossible to do during war time either.
I dont just mean there isnt a lot to do durring peacetime in terms of things that benifit you economically I mean there isnt a whole lot of game to play outside of battles.

Some form of peace time political intrigue or subtrifuge could certainly be interesting but it seems to again by whatever assesment be outside of scope or atleast a lower priority.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Got 10 years results of my first test, will be back with 20 years. Looking really good so far. So definitely an interesting result after 20 years. Battania and Khuzait are the clear winners here, although it is really nice to see Khuzait not be #1.

Going to take a break on testing snowballing and start a new playthrough

1.57​
Test 1 10 yearsTest 1 20 years20 year Strength
Aserai
20​
23​
7171​
Battania
33​
48​
8891​
Khuzait
34​
38​
4993​
Northern
26​
13​
5011​
Southern
15​
13​
4029​
Western
10​
7​
2849​
Sturgia
21​
20​
4894​
Vlandia
14​
11​
4116​

SY-Oo.jpg

unSRM.jpg
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
My first test has not been great but something amazing happened. Khuzaits are pretty strong and declare war on Sturgia, and somehow Sturgia has been able to puff back Khuzaits, won some battles and took Baltakhand. Then Khuzaits and Sturgia made peace.

1.57Test 1-10 yearsTest 1-20 years
Aserai2217
Battania165
Khuzait5152
NE112
SE50
WE2225
Sturgia3250
Vlandia140
Snowball score50108


@Blood Gryphon your test is looking pretty damn good. I think I am going to start a new test and complete my first test until 20 year later. I am curious if I can get as good results as you :razz:.

 
Last edited:

Sarissofoi

Veteran
M&BWBWF&S
I will post my first test then.
Clear 1.5.7

1.57
1st 20 years test on vanilla bannerlord
Nation: Town/Castles/Control(2xT+1xC)
Aserai 7/6 ___________ 20
Battania 5/5 ___________ 15
Khuzaits 8/11 ___________ 27
NIMP 9/11 ___________ 29
SIMP 10/13 ___________ 33
Strugia 3/6 ___________ 12
Vlandia 10/14 ___________ 34
WIMP 0/1 ___________ 1
rebels 2/0 ___________ 2

Vlandia rule. Sturgia suck(the movement bonus didn't help much in this situation). SIMP and NIMP eaten WIMP(as it should, weak should fear the strong). Battanians are on defensive and Khuzaits fairly well contained(growing but facing 2 strong empire factions).
Biggest troop count belong to SIMP at 8.3K.
Next are Vlandia and Khuzaits with 7k. Aserai have less than 4k troops(and at war with SIMPs). Rest have 5-6k(outside WIMP who still have like almost 2k troops even tho they have only one castle).
 
Last edited:

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
My first test has not been great but something amazing happened. Khuzaits are pretty strong and declare war on Sturgia, and somehow Sturgia has been able to puff back Khuzaits, won some battles and took Baltakhand. Then Khuzaits and Sturgia made peace.

1.57Test 1-10 yearsTest 1-20 years
Aserai22
Battania16
Khuzait51
NE11
SE5
WE22
Sturgia32
Vlandia14
Snowball score50


@Blood Gryphon your test is looking pretty damn good. I think I am going to start a new test and complete my first test until 20 year later. I am curious if I can get as good results as you :razz:.
Honestly I want to see the end of that run, sturgia lost to khuzait in mine and peaced out. I wanna know if sturgia actually holds it in yours. Also yours seems to be a good test on if snowballing with grow even faster because you snowballed fast in the first 10 years or if mex's preventative measures will kick in and keep it around that 50 (it will prob depend on how many lords have defected from NE/SE/Batt). In mine there were very few defections, and for the first time ever no sturgian defected despite losing Tyal.


I will post my first test then.
Clear 1.5.7

1.57
1st 20 years test on vanilla bannerlord
Nation: Town/Castles/Control(2xT+1xC)
Aserai 7/6 ___________ 20
Battania 5/5 ___________ 15
Khuzaits 8/11 ___________ 27
NIMP 9/11 ___________ 29
SIMP 10/13 ___________ 33
Strugia 3/6 ___________ 12
Vlandia 10/14 ___________ 34
WIMP 0/1 ___________ 1
rebels 2/0 ___________ 2

Vlandia rule. Sturgia suck(the movement bonus didn't help much in this situation). SIMP and NIMP eaten WIMP(as it should, weak should fear the strong). Battanians are on defensive and Khuzaits fairly well contained(growing but facing 2 strong empire factions).
Biggest troop count belong to SIMP at 8.3K.
Next are Vlandia and Khuzaits with 7k. Aserai have less than 4k troops(and at war with SIMPs). Rest have 5-6k(outside WIMP who still have like almost 2k troops even tho they have only one castle).
Wow snowball score of 32, that's a pretty good run.

Some great data so far that is showing that @mexxico was right in his testing of around, 40-50 snowball score. Definitely still need more tests from different people!
 

Sarissofoi

Veteran
M&BWBWF&S
ABCDE
Aserai
20​
18​
33​
27​
30​
Battania
15​
20​
25​
44​
4​
Khuzait
27​
50​
36​
46​
16​
NIMP
29​
11​
7​
5​
4​
SIMP
33​
5​
13​
2​
43​
Strugia
12​
14​
32​
8​
18​
Vlandia
34​
27​
14​
4​
35​
WIMP
1​
25​
13​
37​
22​
rebels
2​
0​
2​
0​
0​

Pretty wild ride.
Aserai are fairly consistent.
Khuzaits strong as always but as you can see sometimes even they fail to expand. Still i didn't see them in failed state.
Sturgia below average usually. Battania swing wild if opportunity arise.
Vlandia strong on average but can have its upside down.
Empire faction are consistently either going under or get big when they grow on other empire faction. WIMP look best from them but SIMP can go wild. NIMP is pretty much target and victim of their neighbours expansion.

Also map screenshots(first is made little late as i was testing if Sturgian Bonus work)
jlsXieB.png
tTukSFS.png
jwcbZev.png
3pwcWsd.png
lol7ht1.png
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
I am going to add more information later but in my two tests, Sturgia has been really strong, and pushed back Khuzaits in both campaigns. The results I am seeing are amazing to be honest and looking pretty good. Khuzaits are able to become huge in some campaigns but same for Battania, Vlandia, WE, and even Sturgia in my campaigns.

The final touch will be probably the last change about war evaluation formula where only prosperity had been taken into account. @mexxico amazing job! Even when it is not completely fixed, it is looking much much better, thanks!

EDIT: I am noticing that Aserai and Khuzaits are now usually going to war pretty often which is really great!
 

sniparsexe

Knight at Arms
Honestly I want to see the end of that run, sturgia lost to khuzait in mine and peaced out. I wanna know if sturgia actually holds it in yours. Also yours seems to be a good test on if snowballing with grow even faster because you snowballed fast in the first 10 years or if mex's preventative measures will kick in and keep it around that 50 (it will prob depend on how many lords have defected from NE/SE/Batt). In mine there were very few defections, and for the first time ever no sturgian defected despite losing Tyal.



Wow snowball score of 32, that's a pretty good run.

Some great data so far that is showing that @mexxico was right in his testing of around, 40-50 snowball score. Definitely still need more tests from different people!
I had 2 tests in 1.5.6 where Sturgia was the most powerful.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Second run (I forgot to stop the time so this is from year 24 :sad: ):


1.57Test 1-10 yearsTest 1-24 years
Aserai25
Battania9
Khuzait38
NE6
SE20
WE2
Sturgia27
Vlandia46
Snowball score57


 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
My first test has not been great but something amazing happened. Khuzaits are pretty strong and declare war on Sturgia, and somehow Sturgia has been able to puff back Khuzaits, won some battles and took Baltakhand. Then Khuzaits and Sturgia made peace.

1.57Test 1-10 yearsTest 1-20 years
Aserai2217
Battania165
Khuzait5152
NE112
SE50
WE2225
Sturgia3250
Vlandia140
Snowball score50108


@Blood Gryphon your test is looking pretty damn good. I think I am going to start a new test and complete my first test until 20 year later. I am curious if I can get as good results as you :razz:.



I have just updated my first test. Here you can see for first time Sturgia snowballing!! This run has been really bad for snowballing but I think it was just a bad lucky run. Nice to see Sturgia being the second strongest kingdom though. I think we are just missing something in the future to penalize huge kingdoms to make it harder for them.
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
We are missing this mod:

How this mod understand a (x, y) position belong to which kingdom's territory? Is this only work x distance radius around settlements?

It seems they care culture of nearby settlements according to their explanation. They should care culture otherwise retaking settlements does not happen much.

It seems this is a good addition to game with a simple touch. However if I suggest this probably it will not be accepted because in our game there is no clear info which map position belongs to which kingdom. Maybe 10-15 radius can solve it. I will post this mod's solution to design channel of TW. I liked it but hard to be accepted. But this addition also make castles a bit more important and going deep into enemy territory become harder. So it effects gameplay probably very good.

Also thanks for all tests I will make a new table showing all.
 

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
How this mod understand a (x, y) position belong to which kingdom's territory? Is this only work x distance radius around settlements?

It seems they care culture of nearby settlements according to their explanation. They should care culture otherwise retaking settlements does not happen much.

It seems this is a good addition to game with a simple touch. However if I suggest this probably it will not be accepted because in our game there is no clear info which map position belongs to which kingdom. Maybe 10-15 radius can solve it. I will post this mod's solution to design channel of TW. I liked it but hard to be accepted. But this addition also make castles a bit more important and going deep into enemy territory become harder. So it effects gameplay probably very good.

Also thanks for all tests I will make a new table showing all.
Just a separate thought on retaking cities. What if cities of a different culture to their owner had a cultural militia growth penalty? As less of the locals are willing to help defend the city for an outside power?

This would make cities owned outside of a factions home territories harder to control and easier to take back. It would also notably not affect the civil war imperial factions when they take each others towns - which I think is an interesting dynamic.
 

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
It seems this is a good addition to game with a simple touch. However if I suggest this probably it will not be accepted because in our game there is no clear info which map position belongs to which kingdom. Maybe 10-15 radius can solve it. I will post this mod's solution to design channel of TW. I liked it but hard to be accepted. But this addition also make castles a bit more important and going deep into enemy territory become harder. So it effects gameplay probably very good.
It didn't make sense to me. Why would a party slow down in enemy territory? Not knowing the area? What about for the kingdoms that lost their own territory? For example why would a Khuzait party slow down near Chaikand if they have lost it to Southern Empire? They still know the area. The people in the area would still have Khuzait culture so they won't slow the party down too. I don't see a logical explanation of why that would happen.

If we are looking for ways to give castles a purpose, they can shoot arrows at the enemy and damage them when parties are too close. This will cause problems and design change because you have to go in a castle to siege it in the game, which doesn't make sense, so that needs to change. We should be able to initiate a siege from a safe distance for this solution to work. And castles can have a small patrolling party(controlled by AI) in it and go out and raid smaller enemy parties when they get too close or attack bound villages. That patrolling party also can deal with the looters around too. This could let us use cavalry for castle garrison as well.
 
Last edited:

Sarissofoi

Veteran
M&BWBWF&S
This mod tries to simulate army movement speed by:

  1. Slows down in enemy territory.
  2. Speed up in Friendly territory.
  3. Speed unchanged in neutral territory.

When party moves into an 'At War' territory, it will slows down by 0.5.
When party moves into 'Own faction' territory, it will enjoy a speed up by 0.5.

The slow down/speedup is further adjusted based on the cultures of the party and the territory. If cultures are different, party will get a speed up. If culture is different, party will get a slow down.

After testing, the snowballing effect is reduced, because it impose an speed penalty invading and gives a speed bonus defending. It also gives possibility for retake.
For example
1. If Khuzait invades North Empire, Khuzait parties will encounter -1.0 speed penalty invading North Empire territory while North Empire parties enjoys +1.0 defending.
2. Let's say somehow Khuzait successfully invaded North Empire and took Ampela from North Empire. And now north empire tries to retake Ampela from Khuzait, North empire will not experience -1 speed penalty for retaking because of culture affinity with Ampela and Khuzait won't get +1 speed bonus for defending Ampela because of culture difference.
So its harder to take but its not harder to retake.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
@mexxico

I am making some fast campaing tests (5 years or so) and things look way better than before. On the other hand, Khuzaits are still pretty much the ones deciding against which kingdom going to war, and having less 1v2 wars than everyone and longer peace than any other kingdom. The change you mentioned about prosperity being only taken into account in the formula is still not in place right?

I think that we are better than ever with this issue and just some few things could completely fixed snowballing and Khuzaits being OP. Thanks!


BTW, is normal that most of clans are T5-T6 at day 450-500 or so? I have reado something about XP changes for clan tier but this looks overtuned IMO.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom