Information about developments at snowballing problem

Currently viewing this thread:

sabatonsky

Sergeant
Khuzaits have more horse villages than any other faction and more than Sturgia, Battania and Vlandia combined. And we already know what happens when a faction has outright cav superiority over the rest.

On the other hand, you can just burn their horse villages.
i mean, its logical they have horse villages.... they are horse faction... but i still think that when we reduce the cheat they might be less strong of a faction. at some point horses in towns will end, and they will be a priority of the Khuzaits.... I mean, i dont know, i THINK that once the cheat is gone it will be better...
 
By having moving parts is pretty vague -how about tying up AI lords into their regions as they are actually interested and invested in that region as opposed to mindless Borg expansion -you really dont think that could help slow down an out of control land sweeping AI no...cant envision it....huh..

Now imagine building a moderate Casus Belli on top of the above...still cant see it ..no..?

Question: Any major consistent snowballing in your playthrus?

As it is now in BL Lords are just programmed to steamroll as they dont have much else to do, no feasts, No personality rivals or traits to slow them *(Peaceful/Tentative etc) within clan and def none of the above type harassments from the Sicily mod -is it really that much of a stretch that given that the above was added the world map would play out quite differently each playthrough?

If you gonna argue piece by piece "no this one thing here wont solve the big problem blah blah blah" -sure you can successfully argue way anything -but taken as a whole as this mod itself is historical precedent and Warband is precedent on more Lord Personality and a little Casus Belli than it should be considered as possible other solutions besides just "gutting khuzait strength numbers"

Obviously if universal auto calc bumps are not corrected and a more nuanced bonus system implemented -steamroll could still happen. So its many things -not just one. IMO this is just a far more interesting and rewarding avenue to take than "slash khuzait auto calc and speed by -10"
+1
Correct by adding mini stuff like Feasts and other stuff that distracts/delayes the snowballing in bigger pictures can sometimes help way way more than constantly tweeking weapons,numbers of certain soldiers and so on.
Just adding Feasts itself can hugely help bcs then there will be quests of going/ammasing requierd stuff for feast wich will take some time,then on top of that waiting for lords to gather for a feast that give additional time,then on top of that when feasts starts that also gives more time for weaker state to recuperate/get back to some numbers bcs feast delays and gives more ways and opportunities for others especialy weaker states/kingdoms to get back.
The only thing with feasts is the need to properly make it and make it more timingly and more rational when and how (what circumstances feast can be made).

There should maybe even be several types of feasts that can be individualy made at specific times/circumstances:
1) have family feast that can be triggered any time where ONLY family members and your free companions can attend
2)Have normal Warband feast but more in depth and more logicaly made(timing wise)
3)Have a feast gathering at specific circumstance of ONLY King,Marashal and vassals sorta war room type of feats where the attack plan is discused and planned and not randomly going around and randomly attacking stuff but have somewhat of semi planned rout of events wher ethe main army will go and what to attacks proposals that will be voted among the war room/plan members/attendants.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Just adding Feasts itself can hugely help bcs then there will be quests of going/ammasing requierd stuff for feast wich will take some time,then on top of that waiting for lords to gather for a feast that give additional time,then on top of that when feasts starts that also gives more time for weaker state to recuperate/get back to some numbers bcs feast delays and gives more ways and opportunities for others especialy weaker states/kingdoms to get back.

Letting a strong faction time away from the war increases its strength relative to a weaker faction, in a normal situation (more clans, more settlements). It also lowers influence costs for raising an army when members are nearby.

You want as many of their parties floating around the 40% threshold for army service, in enemy territory, and filled with tier 1 troops as possible to make their paper strength mismatch their real strength. Strong factions start losing when they fight all the time, everywhere. They win pretty hard when they get to take breaks in between (see: Aserai).

Like, if you just want feasts, whatever. You do you. You don't need to legitimize the idea by presenting it as an anti-snowballing measure, especially when that issue is already resolved and you haven't even tested the solution once.
 

mexxico

Developer
Here is the results of your tests since 1.5.4 :

sK4rA.png

We reached average of 20 snowballing score at 1.5.8, most important reason of big reduce at 1.5.8 is now factions make better defending (both in long term AI and short term AI) so most hostile actions are being unseccusfull especially raids. What I see is only 33% of raids end with success remainings attacker give up or caught. As you remember we made some improvements to increase chance of small parties to catch bigger parties / armies on map if their total power is bigger. This development also helped better defending. Because of less ratio of succesfull raids now less starving happens at map. Because less starving happens prosperity goes up and most factions be rich. So nearly no defections happen. Even a faction lose nearly half of their towns they can still make money and stay at profit, so this stops defections. Actually my target is not making a fully balanced world where all factions are rich and all towns have high prosperity. So to make things harder for factions I think it will be good to increase raid process speed. So raids will finish 1.5-2x faster. Currently a party with 100 member take 2.5 days to finish a raid. This can reduce to 1.5 days. Also loots from battles can be reduced a bit more like 10%.

About noble troops I am still collecting data and I will share you results. What I see is noble troops are still so rare. Thats why empire lords only have 10% cavalry ratio. Because their main cavalry source come from noble troops. To make things better we can able all rural notables at villages bounded by castles give troops from noble troop tree. Also maybe they can start giving noble troops from even first slots. I am still collecting stats for these changes and I will share you soon.

Now our aim here will be increasing gameplay because we solved snowballing problem. Also while increasing gameplay in future versions snowballing score can increase to 30s or 40s but I do not think it is problem. Ideal snowballing score for best gameplay can be around 30-40. 20 is more balanced than what we want. We should be able to see several defections and successful rebellions at first 20 years in all tests.
 
Last edited:

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
@mexxico
One question (I don't think we've discussed this, maybe we have and I'm starting to get senile :lol: ). As long as we're talking about noble troops, how feasible would it be to deploy a couple of notables to a castle and from there generate noble troops? Is this something far-fetched to implement? would the base code be altered? at a conceptual design level, could this be implemented by Taleworlds at the end of the day? Pros and cons...
Basically what is discussed here.
 

mexxico

Developer
@mexxico
One question (I don't think we've discussed this, maybe we have and I'm starting to get senile :lol: ). As long as we're talking about noble troops, how feasible would it be to deploy a couple of notables to a castle and from there generate noble troops? Is this something far-fetched to implement? would the base code be altered? at a conceptual design level, could this be implemented by Taleworlds at the end of the day? Pros and cons...
Basically what is discussed here.
I am ok if they say ok to this. However I do not see any difference between spreading these notables (which give noble troops) to villages bounded by castles. At the end of day effect will be same.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I am ok if they say ok to this. However I do not see any difference between spreading these notables (which give noble troops) to villages bounded by castles. At the end of day effect will be same.
Yep, really the only difference is the "feeling" of the castle being more important since you can recruit there. Actually wait wouldn't this encourage lords to stop by castles more often and perhaps replenish garrisons more often (not quite sure how that functions right now)?

Also nice graphics, super cool to see our progress with snowballing. A glorious effort my friend. Suggested changes sound good!
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
I am ok if they say ok to this. However I do not see any difference between spreading these notables (which give noble troops) to villages bounded by castles. At the end of day effect will be same.
Then there would be no major inconvenience in having this distinction; high level notables giving noble troops in the castles and low level notables giving common troops in the villages. I say this because, picking up an opinion shared by many people, moving that kind of recruitment to the castle would imply giving more of a utility to it and indirectly we would be giving much more importance to that settlement (high value settemente / to protect-defend).

--- Blood Gryphon You have ninja'd me:shifty:
Yep, really the only difference is the "feeling" of the castle being more important since you can recruit there. Actually wait wouldn't this encourage lords to stop by castles more often and perhaps replenish garrisons more often (not quite sure how that functions right now)?
There is a point here.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Then there would be no major inconvenience in having this distinction; high level notables giving noble troops in the castles and low level notables giving common troops in the villages. I say this because, picking up an opinion shared by many people, moving that kind of recruitment to the castle would imply giving more of a utility to it and indirectly we would be giving much more importance to that settlement (high value settemente / to protect-defend).

--- Blood Gryphon You have ninja'd me:shifty:

There is a point here.
Couldn't help myself :grin:
giphy.gif

Absolutely love your new profile pic btw :lol:
 

brognar

Sergeant at Arms
I am ok if they say ok to this. However I do not see any difference between spreading these notables (which give noble troops) to villages bounded by castles. At the end of day effect will be same.
Right now castles seem kind of pointless to me. If they functioned as a source of noble and higher tier recruits there would be a real reason to fight over them. It could also remedy the issue of recruit armies, which is still present to a certain degree.
 
Here is the results of your tests since 1.5.4 :

sK4rA.png

We reached average of 20 snowballing score at 1.5.8, most important reason of big reduce at 1.5.8 is now factions make better defending (both in long term AI and short term AI) so most hostile actions are being unseccusfull especially raids. What I see is only 33% of raids end with success remainings attacker give up or caught. As you remember we made some improvements to increase chance of small parties to catch bigger parties / armies on map if their total power is bigger. This development also helped better defending. Because of less ratio of succesfull raids now less starving happens at map. Because less starving happens prosperity goes up and most factions be rich. So nearly no defections happen. Even a faction lose nearly half of their towns they can still make money and stay at profit, so this stops defections. Actually my target is not making a fully balanced world where all factions are rich and all towns have high prosperity. So to make things harder for factions I think it will be good to increase raid process speed. So raids will finish 1.5-2x faster. Currently a party with 100 member take 2.5 days to finish a raid. This can reduce to 1.5 days. Also loots from battles can be reduced a bit more like 10%.

About noble troops I am still collecting data and I will share you results. What I see is noble troops are still so rare. Thats why empire lords only have 10% cavalry ratio. Because their main cavalry source come from noble troops. To make things better we can able all rural notables at villages bounded by castles give troops from noble troop tree. Also maybe they can start giving noble troops from even first slots. I am still collecting stats for these changes and I will share you soon.

Now our aim here will be increasing gameplay because we solved snowballing problem. Also while increasing gameplay in future versions snowballing score can increase to 30s or 40s but I do not think it is problem. Ideal snowballing score for best gameplay can be around 30-40. 20 is more balanced than what we want. We should be able to see several defections and successful rebellions at first 20 years in all tests.
Awesome charts and even more awesome work from you, the development organization, and everyone involved in testing. Love to see balance like this, and excited for better gameplay functionality to be the focus now that this is just about perfect.

Not sure what will work better - but it would be cool to see a difference between Castle-bound villages giving noble troops, or hardcoding the max 5 notables at a castle that all give noble troops. Since villages can wax and wane all of the time based on hearths and reputation, it will either give 5 guaranteed noble-giving notables (all 5 at a castle, +2 with the headman) or you get up to 10 guaranteed (if you have 5 notables in a village, can it go up that high?).

I know a lot of people don't like castles given their low income generation and reduced projects, and make them vend noble troops permanently may help with the "psychology" but I would still like to see castles redone to be more strategic. Either via specialized projects, bound patrols (similar to how parties work in peacetime / how caravans are), or forcing the castles in a Town's "District" to be sieged down first before the Town can be taken.

Tl;dr = Let's test having 5 permanent notables with varying degrees of noble troops at all castles
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Right now castles seem kind of pointless to me. If they functioned as a source of noble and higher tier recruits there would be a real reason to fight over them. It could also remedy the issue of recruit armies, which is still present to a certain degree.
There is a 10-80% garrison cost reduction for castles, depending on improvements and governor perks.
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
Ideal snowballing score for best gameplay can be around 30-40. 20 is more balanced than what we want. We should be able to see several defections and successful rebellions at first 20 years in all tests.
are the first 20 years representative of the first 100?
shouldn't the game be balanced for decades for long playthroughs?
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Thanks bro, you see the image and the melody plays in your head, right? :lol:
Always :lol:🎻
are the first 20 years representative of the first 100?
shouldn't the game be balanced for decades for long playthroughs?
There are other issues that cause the game to start to break down after 20 years (minor clans dying out) that would have a significant impact on how the world continues. Also as mex said we don't want the game to get too balanced to the point nothing happens at all, so we should fix the first 20 years first as no one will play past them if they aren't fun.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
are the first 20 years representative of the first 100?
shouldn't the game be balanced for decades for long playthroughs?
The context of the 20 year timeframe was so that players who take their time with playthroughs still have a full (or nearly-full) range of options when they finally decide to become involved in kingdom wars. Barely anyone plays past thirty years though.
 

AJAJP_Juan

Knight at Arms
I am ok if they say ok to this. However I do not see any difference between spreading these notables (which give noble troops) to villages bounded by castles. At the end of day effect will be same.

It's not really the same effect. While its true that now AI defends better from raids, a castle can never be raided, only sieged, so it acts like a secure recruitment centre, like towns.
 
Awesome charts and even more awesome work from you, the development organization, and everyone involved in testing. Love to see balance like this, and excited for better gameplay functionality to be the focus now that this is just about perfect.

Not sure what will work better - but it would be cool to see a difference between Castle-bound villages giving noble troops, or hardcoding the max 5 notables at a castle that all give noble troops. Since villages can wax and wane all of the time based on hearths and reputation, it will either give 5 guaranteed noble-giving notables (all 5 at a castle, +2 with the headman) or you get up to 10 guaranteed (if you have 5 notables in a village, can it go up that high?).

I know a lot of people don't like castles given their low income generation and reduced projects, and make them vend noble troops permanently may help with the "psychology" but I would still like to see castles redone to be more strategic. Either via specialized projects, bound patrols (similar to how parties work in peacetime / how caravans are), or forcing the castles in a Town's "District" to be sieged down first before the Town can be taken.

Tl;dr = Let's test having 5 permanent notables with varying degrees of noble troops at all castles
This! I would like more changes to the castle’s but the recruitment alone would help. Preferably through NPC dialogue with a constable/weapon master
 

vito397

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Then there would be no major inconvenience in having this distinction; high level notables giving noble troops in the castles and low level notables giving common troops in the villages. I say this because, picking up an opinion shared by many people, moving that kind of recruitment to the castle would imply giving more of a utility to it and indirectly we would be giving much more importance to that settlement (high value settemente / to protect-defend).

--- Blood Gryphon You have ninja'd me:shifty:

There is a point here.

I agree with this, it seems like a sound idea
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
There are other issues that cause the game to start to break down after 20 years (minor clans dying out) that would have a significant impact on how the world continues.
they should be fixed.
Also as mex said we don't want the game to get too balanced to the point nothing happens at all, so we should fix the first 20 years first as no one will play past them if they aren't fun.
he wants to reduce the stability though. and the game isn't really balanced. fiefs are taken and retaken constantly. what factions gain an edge differ from one playthrough to another. what's the point of having kids if one faction will take over most of the map in the next generation?
The context of the 20 year timeframe was so that players who take their time with playthroughs still have a full (or nearly-full) range of options when they finally decide to become involved in kingdom wars.
thanks
Barely anyone plays past thirty years though
i believe this is due to the game being updated constantly and lack of mid-late game features. when you become a vassal. there is nothing to do but constant warring just to keep your wallet afloat.
 
Top Bottom