Information about developments at snowballing problem

[Marbles20]

I agree, honestly I just want more noble troops in the game to experience fighting with and against them, they are some of the coolest troops and I'd like to get to see/use them more.

This is why I kind of wanted tiers 5-6 to not be recruitable until 10-20 years into the game (save for maybe the legionaries since they were the dominate troop in the game lore and fell due to leadership follies). It would have felt like the world was advancing in tech through the years to keep up or get advantage over each other. Similar to how you can't find the best gear in the game in the trader until after a set date. Once they unlocked nobles would race to get at least a minimum threshold of t5-t6 troops.

 

[mexxico]

@mexxico Hey, I was looking at the new troop upgrade code (in UpgradeReadyTroops and CalculateUpgradeChance), and I wanted to point a few things out that might affect snowballing. I think Khuzait npcs are actually upgrading their recruits to the cavalry branch at a higher rate than they were prior to the change.

Before the change, I think how it worked is that they would just split troops 50/50 between the two upgrade branches. The problem now is that when they recruit a bunch of T1 Khuzait Nomads, this pulls down their cavalry ratio below 0.36 (because Nomads count as infantry), so they start funneling upgrades into the cavalry branch at a >50% rate. This means a higher proportion of their Nomads get sorted into the cavalry branch than the non-cavalry branch than before. Here's an example of what I mean:

Spoiler

Anat already has more Khuzait troops upgraded into the cav branch than non cav branch, but since she has 71 Nomads in her party, her cav ratio is only listed as 0.233, and the game therefore calculates a ~70% chance to upgrade her Nomads into the cavalry branch vs. 30% to non-cav. If you plug in the numbers, even at a 0.3599 cav ratio, the game will still be funneling Nomads into the cavalry branch at about a 63 to 37 split. After her cav ratio rises above 0.36, the upgrade split will return to 50/50. Compare that formula to 1.5.6, where the overall split would be a constant 50/50, regardless of cav ratio.

This means Khuzait as a whole will be getting more cavalry, at a faster rate. If you look at this comparison of the troop composition of two Khuz. armies from 1.5.4 (left) and 1.5.7 (right), you can see that the 1.5.7 army has a higher proportion of troops from the cavalry branch than non-cavalry branch (especially when looking at Tribal Warriors vs Footman):

Spoiler

I'm not offering this as hard proof, since it's only two data points, but it helps illustrate what I mean.

Then the other point I wanted to make is that for the other factions there is a significant amount of "lag" time between when a T1 recruit gets sorted into the half of the troop tree with cavalry, and when it actually becomes a cavalry troop. Specifically for the Empire, they only have one cav troop at T5 in their main line of troops, so a high proportion of recuits get sorted into the archer branch, but relatively few of them survive long enough to become horse archers. This isn't much of an issue on its own, but it makes the tactics perk Tight Formations (Infantry deal 10% more damage to cavalry in auto-calc) less useful against Khuzait since fewer troops get sorted into the infantry branch. Here's another screenshot of an Empire army in 1.5.7 with many more archers than infantry, but relatively few cavalry (only a ratio of 0.04):

Spoiler

So two possible solutions:

1. Only count T2+ troops in the cav ratio. There are no T1 cav troops in the game, but most non-bandit T1 troops have the potential to upgrade into cavalry eventually. This will hopefully prevent the game from sorting so many Nomads into the cavalry branch of Khuzait parties.
2. Allow npcs to recruit more tavern mercenaries (specifically Watchmen and Scouts). This gives factions more abundant access to cavalry troops quicker, but currently npcs don't recruit many mercenaries because there is a high gold requirement in place that only clan leaders can meet (though make sure there are still plenty of mercs left for the player ). As a side note, it seems the mercenary selection code might be bugged, because it isn't spawning any troops from the Scout branch of the merc tree that I can tell (unless that's intended).

That's overstating the advantage a bit though, as any unit can kill any other unit first try, since it's all probability based. If you crunch the numbers from the auto-calc model, a T5 cav unit has about a 40% chance on average to kill a T4 infantry unit on any given hit, but a T4 infantry unit also has a 22% chance to kill a T5 cav unit on any given hit. If you compare T5 cav vs T5 inf, it's a 34% vs 26% chance respectively. So even though the cavalry unit has a 20% bonus applied to its power level, this only shakes out to be roughly an 8% greater chance to kill a non-cav unit of equivalent tier than vice versa.


Strategic reasoning is the hard part though. You can add as many rules as you'd like to the actual auto-calc model (TW has already implemented conditional terrain and unit-countering perks in the tactics tree, for instance), but with those extra rules thrown in, making the AI understand how their party strength compares to every enemy they come into contact with before they attack isn't exactly trivial. I'm not an expert, but you'd probably have to run a bunch of strength comparisons for each of the different troop types between parties for every hostile party that comes close to every other party, or if the ruleset is too complex, just execute the auto-calc code in advance. Considering mexxico said this:

a few pages back, I think they probably want to keep that aspect of the AI code streamlined.

(Sorry for the novel, guys )

Finally I could find time to examine what @Bannerman Man reported here and he is right. I changed this code to as below so partyUpgrader code will choose always randomly if troop is at first tier :

Spoiler: Code change

Here are the cavalry ratios from 6 different tests (1 is 30 year test (pink, x2 counted at average) others are 8 year test (gray)).
Before developments / after developments / after developments + after fix
(however as you see ratios change very little even after developements) Anyway adding 1 line code reduces Khuzait cavalry ratio by 3.5% (others also reduced by 1% in average) its better than nothing.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Finally I could find time to examine what @Bannerman Man reported here and he is right. I changed this code to as below so partyUpgrader code will choose always randomly if troop is at first tier :

Spoiler: Code change

Here are the cavalry ratios from 6 different tests (1 is 30 year test (pink) others are 8 year test (gray)).
Before developments / after developments / after developments + after fix
(however as you see ratios change very little even after developements) Anyway adding 1 line code reduces Khuzait cavalry ratio by 3.6% (others also reduced by 1% in average) its better than nothing.

Wow im really surprised how low the cav rate is for empire. It seems like the empire really needs Bannerman man's second recommendation (allowing them to recruit mercenaries for more access to cav).

 

[mexxico]

Wow im really surprised how low the cav rate is for empire. It seems like the empire really needs Bannerman man's second recommendation (allowing them to recruit mercenaries for more access to cav).

Yes 8-9%s are so low cav ratio for empire. I was expecting a number between 12-18% actually. I will examine what can be done to increase it. Recruiting more mercenary troops can help increasing ratio by 1-2%.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Wow im really surprised how low the cav rate is for empire. It seems like the empire really needs Bannerman man's second recommendation (allowing them to recruit mercenaries for more access to cav).

+1, and thats how for a long time the Roman Empire recruited cav, not so much own roman cav, but allied tribes, etc.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Yes 8-9%s are so low cav ratio for empire. I was expecting a number between 12-18% actually. I will examine what can be done to increase it. Recruiting more mercenary troops can help increasing ratio by 1-2%.

Just curious did those results have any of the noble troop changes you had mentioned before? Maybe another way to achieve this is to increase the starting power levels of empire notables so there is more access to their cav? I was against giving the empire a bonus before but that was before I realized how bad the ratio is

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Yes 8-9%s are so low cav ratio for empire. I was expecting a number between 12-18% actually. I will examine what can be done to increase it. Recruiting more mercenary troops can help increasing ratio by 1-2%.

Is there a way to make a Kingdom bias towards hiring a Cav-based Minor Faction such as the Dawwal or Kharkhergit (sp?) ?

If not, I echo @Blood Gryphon, would be really good to see tests and an implementation of increased notable ranks to get the Empire some more cav. I would again echo how strongly I would like to see the Equites moved into the regular tier of troops for Empire as well. I am unsure if increased Noble rates will swing it past 1-2% either - you add that with Merc bias and we are still at 12% a most for Empire cav ratios. Doesn't help they seem to be more likely to declare on each other - in my current playtesting of 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 (anecdotal) I see that Empire, particularly S. Empire, is at least 3 wars - one is always another Empire and usually also Aserai and Khuzait at the same time.

 

[five bucks]

If loot gain is going to be nerfed by 10% in the future, perhaps tax income could be buffed a bit? So that lords/player don't lose money as fast in peacetime when trying to maintain an army

 

[Apocal]

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.

Most people conquer a huge chunk of the continent by then. If you play at a normal-ish pace, it is hard not to snowball your faction (vassal or otherwise) into being the sole superpower on the map. At which point, you face the usual Warband problem of the late-game/end-game being a boring grind of sieges.

Yes 8-9%s are so low cav ratio for empire. I was expecting a number between 12-18% actually. I will examine what can be done to increase it. Recruiting more mercenary troops can help increasing ratio by 1-2%.

Urban notables can give noble recruits?

 

[mexxico]

If loot gain is going to be nerfed by 10% in the future, perhaps tax income could be buffed a bit? So that lords/player don't lose money as fast in peacetime when trying to maintain an army

Yes if loot is reduced by 10% taxes can be increased by 10%. Because we are in better position now at snowballing problem this can be done now.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Yes if loot is reduced by 10% taxes can be increased by 10%. Because we are in better position now at snowballing problem this can be done now.

Awesome. Something I've been thinking about on this subject, would it be possible to introduce the option to change your tax rate? I figure you could do it pretty simply by giving us maybe 3 choices like low, default, and high taxes and have it impact loyalty (or other negatives).

I could also see something like this for when the player becomes king of a faction, like choosing their type of government to impact the % that reduces AI making vote decisions. So lets say you want to be an authoritarian dictator (raising that % to let the player make most voting calls), plutocracy (middle ground on the %, maybe the default 60% reduction like now) or a democracy (lower that % to raise the AI decision making back to levels where the player is just a vassal).

I really think these small choice customizations could add so much to the game and really make the player feel like they are making important choices while also not being micromanagy

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Awesome. Something I've been thinking about on this subject, would it be possible to introduce the option to change your tax rate? I figure you could do it pretty simply by giving us maybe 3 choices like low, default, and high taxes and have it impact loyalty (or other negatives).

I could also see something like this for when the player becomes king of a faction, like choosing their type of government to impact the % that reduces AI making vote decisions. So lets say you want to be an authoritarian dictator (raising that % to let the player make most voting calls), plutocracy (middle ground on the %, maybe the default 60% reduction like now) or a democracy (lower that % to raise the AI decision making back to levels where the player is just a vassal).

I really think these small choice customizations could add so much to the game and really make the player feel like they are making important choices while also not being micromanagy

+1 - right now the only tax related stuff is driven via Policies - but they are static, and usually only for Ruler or T5+ Clans.

I would love a dropdown to select tax rate at the cost of reducing Loyalty and Prosperity - which can be managed with same culture Govs and good perk selections.

War Tax and Debasement should also move out of being a Policy and into an action, it's very EU4-ish - but it can be a good "panic button" to give the AI or yourself in case you have issues. Debasement should tank prosperity across the board, and war tax should incur a limited loyalty penalty if done during wartime

 

[Marbles20]

Yes 8-9%s are so low cav ratio for empire. I was expecting a number between 12-18% actually. I will examine what can be done to increase it. Recruiting more mercenary troops can help increasing ratio by 1-2%.

I had an odd thought about this, what if the cavalry ratio for empire was kept around 9-10%, but their clan levels were increased +1? (ie they could recruit more troops per noble than other kingdoms) Would something like that be feasible in balancing them out without making them overpowered? It would be more lore friendly since the empire was infantry-centric.

 

[Apocal]

I had an odd thought about this, what if the cavalry ratio for empire was kept around 9-10%, but their clan levels were increased +1? (ie they could recruit more troops per noble than other kingdoms) Would something like that be feasible in balancing them out without making them overpowered? It would be more lore friendly since the empire was infantry-centric.

That advantage would disappear very quickly; NPC clans level up just like the player clan and by time year ten rolls around most of them are tier 5 or 6. They also never field more than three parties for some reason, intended or not.

 

[Bannerman Man]

Something I've been thinking about on this subject, would it be possible to introduce the option to change your tax rate? I figure you could do it pretty simply by giving us maybe 3 choices like low, default, and high taxes and have it impact loyalty (or other negatives).

There's a direct link between taxes and loyalty already, but it happens in reverse. Having high loyalty (> 75) can earn you up to 20% more tax. Having between 50 and 25 loyalty will cost you up to 50% of your taxes instead, and settlements under 25 loyalty won't pay taxes at all. There's also a smaller boost for having high security (and penalty for low security), some governor perk bonuses, and the marketplace building projects that all affect tax income. It can add up to a nice little bump.

Spoiler

Policies also affect taxes, but IIRC they all only lower tax income in exchange for some other benefit, such as Cantons.

Definitely agree with your point that many of the game's mechanics aren't explained very well though.

They also never field more than three parties for some reason, intended or not.

Clans at tier 1 and 2 get 1 war party, tiers 3/4 get 2 parties, and 5/6 get 3 parties; that's the limit. There's also a leadership perk @ 250 that gives clans an extra war party slot, but I'm not sure if any npc clan leaders have enough leadership skill to actually have that unlocked. I think they're super unlikely to ever get up that high if they don't start at 250+.

Spoiler

What we did here we did all together and we will do more at remaining time. Especially your, dabos37’s, bannerman man’s, nawki’s, terco_viejo’s efforts were huge and I used your valueable feedbacks. Every game company needs players like you. I will give some break after TW but if I decide to do something in future I will find you

It's been fun collaborating with you and everyone else to make the game better! I wish you the best on whatever comes next! In the meantime, I'll keep the feedback coming .

The changes to the upgrade code look good. It's a simple change, but it seems to help. I guess the only drawback that I can think of off the top of my head is that now the Empire is funneling fewer of their Watchman upgrades into the cav branch because they will be split 50/50 between cav and foot soldiers, whereas before they would heavily upgrade them into the cav branch because they had such low cavalry ratios. So fewer mercenary cavalry troops as a result. That also applies to other factions with low cav ratios, but the Empire was the faction that benefited the most.

Edit: I just remembered that Watchmen are tier 2, so that actually doesn't affect them. Ignore that part.

P.S. There seems to be an issue with the way settlements calculate their taxes when they are below the "Very Low Loyalty" threshold. Having low loyalty actually costs you money in taxes. And on top of that, having the high security bonus just makes the negative tax income even lower.

Spoiler

 

[Blood Gryphon]

There's a direct link between taxes and loyalty already, but it happens in reverse. Having high loyalty (> 75) can earn you up to 20% more tax. Having between 50 and 25 loyalty will cost you up to 50% of your taxes instead, and settlements under 25 loyalty won't pay taxes at all. There's also a smaller boost for having high security (and penalty for low security), some governor perk bonuses, and the marketplace building projects that all affect tax income. It can add up to a nice little bump.

Spoiler

Policies also affect taxes, but IIRC they all only lower tax income in exchange for some other benefit, such as Cantons.

Definitely agree with your point that many of the game's mechanics aren't explained very well though.

Thank you once again for enlightening me, it amazes me the things I still don't know after 1000 hours of gameplay.

 

[Bannerman Man]

Thank you once again for enlightening me, it amazes me the things I still don't know after 1000 hours of gameplay.

I don't think you're the only one haha.

The loyalty component to taxes has been there since launch, but over the course of EA they've added to and polished the mechanic some more, as they have with many of the game's other dynamic systems. Stuff like that generally flies under the radar though.

 

[froggyluv]

Stuff like that generally flies under the radar though.

This is an issue though. Mechanics need to be expressed to player via narrative of some sort or else its just Math and the player having little awareness of why whats happening is happening. Thats not good game design.

 

[Bannerman Man]

This is an issue though. Mechanics need to be expressed to player via narrative of some sort or else its just Math and the player having little awareness of why whats happening is happening. Thats not good game design.

Yeah, for sure. You can't really make proper decisions in the game without having access to relevant information about the mechanics readily available. IMO, the way to do that is by expanding upon the UI tooltips, combined with some tutorials and the encyclopedia. A while back, I made a suggestion for some UI changes that I'd really like to see, but unfortunately the UI dev told me that it's not very feasible, since extensive work would need to be done to make it happen. I get the sense that the UI department is already stretched pretty thin as it is.

They're certainly welcome to weave some immersive elements into it too if they want; such as having an animated portrait of an advisor, flavor text, etc.

And to be fair, Bannerlord is far from the only game that struggles with effectively communicating its mechanics.

 

[Marbles20]

Yeah I've brought up UI suggestions (whether its up front information, tooltips, or information parsing) and been shut down or ignored. Its why I haven't bothered suggesting making the kingdom charts like @mexxico suggested in this thread.