Information about developments at snowballing problem

Users who are viewing this thread

Ok so test 3 got very interesting.

Test 3 1.5.10Test 3 10 yrsTest 3 20 yrs20 yr StrengthOriginal ClansRecruited ClansRebel ClansMercenariesTotal Noble ClansTotal Clans w/ MERCs
Aserai
24​
21​
10941​
9​
3​
0​
1​
12​
13​
Battania
25​
26​
6910​
8​
1​
0​
1​
9​
10​
Khuzait
33​
48​
10174​
9​
0​
0​
0​
9​
9​
Northern
6​
1​
1235​
3​
0​
0​
1​
3​
4​
Southern
22​
14​
4881​
9​
1​
1​
0​
11​
11​
Western
25​
30​
6601​
9​
1​
2​
0​
12​
12​
Sturgia
19​
10​
4646​
9​
0​
1​
0​
10​
10​
Vlandia
19​
23​
8633​
11​
0​
3​
0​
14​
14​
Snowball score
16​
48​

Northern empire had a baaaaaaad time, essentialy dead by 20 years but even by year 10 they had lost the majority of their cities to 3 different enemies. They had massive defection, down to only 3 clans, which no doubt sealed the deal of their death. We are still under our snowball threshhold so while the Khuzait are definitely winning i don't think we can state they are snowballing yet (at least compared to previous versions). I actually think this result is good, still the chance for a challenge in the first 20 years with a clear strong enemy (I know some people were worried about the map becoming stable and stale).

VPiCJ.jpg
l3mKv.jpg

Wooooweee there were a lot of rebellions. 49 total rebelllions, with 11 succeeding to become clans and 6 of those being recruited by kingdoms. Still a majority are empire cities, but nice to see some other kingdom cities as well.

9XPe4.jpg

FUS7T.jpg
 
Ok here are test 4's results.

Test 4 1.5.10Test 4 10 yrsTest 4 20 yrs20 yr StrengthOriginal ClansRecruited ClansRebel ClansMercenariesTotal Noble ClansTotal Clans w/ MERCs
Aserai
24​
29​
10162​
9​
1​
1​
0​
11​
11​
Battania
19​
34​
11000​
7​
3​
0​
1​
10​
11​
Khuzait
24​
24​
7280​
9​
2​
0​
0​
11​
11​
Northern
18​
9​
1813​
6​
0​
1​
0​
7​
7​
Southern
18​
3​
1126​
5​
0​
0​
0​
5​
5​
Western
26​
42​
10267​
9​
4​
1​
1​
14​
15​
Sturgia
18​
10​
2873​
8​
0​
0​
5​
8​
13​
Vlandia
24​
22​
7364​
10​
0​
1​
0​
11​
11​
Snowball score
7​
45​

Things are still within acceptable range for snowballing. I have to admit this is the first time I've seen one of the empire kingdoms come close to actually uniting the empire land. Although if i had to guess which one would do it, it would definitely be Western. Its also pretty clear to me, when comparing 1.5.10 to my last batch of tests in 1.5.8, that lords are now more likely to defect from their faction if they start losing. In 1.5.8 it rarely happened which i think helped keep the snowballing score super low (avg of 24). Right now we are looking at a 38 average for snowballing which I think is more appropriate so winners and losers start to appear in 20 years.

P68MS.jpg
y6Izi.jpg

As far as rebellions there were 33 total, with 5 succeeding to become a clan and 4 of them being recruited by a kingdom.

t6kLm.jpg
RQB69.jpg
 
@LuciusDomitiusAurelianus, actually there is some form of war exhaustion, clans want to make peace more as war duration gets longer but we are not showing this data anywhere. With war / peace reasons added player will see sometimes major reason of a peace decleration is war exhaustion. Of course this is not a common reason compared all reasons. Usually a good tribute offer or having multiple enemies or captured lords are major reason of acceptance of a peace offer.

You should perhaps apply this to be visible, or maybe have it interacts with the votes more, as I still get after years of endless wars 0% intrest in peace.

as others point out, its "not fun" when you never get any peace, typically the game is fine up until about 600-800 days or when your faction gets about 8-10k power, then its endless wars, and I get it may be to counter one factions power over the others(counter snowballing?) but it just gets "stale" when it never ever end, there should be some kind of forced peace after a certain time.

And tbh this is based on actually playing multiple games now for 2k+ ingame days.
The few times you get peace is if there is too many strong other factions who attack, but even then its rare.
When we start to loose "alot of power" there is still 0% intrest.

Now if you actually do get peace with a faction, for then to focus on the other 2 warfronts.. yah they got all their lords out of prison.. so now they are "powerful again" boom 2-3 days after they have all collected their troops - war..

Why isnt there a peace-duration -> this is a MUST imo, at the very minimum for 100 days ingame so you know you wont be bothered by them for abit.

The endless wars "just is exhausting", gives you 0 time to focus on other aspects of the game, like you could do in Warband, do missions for lords, trade abit, craft abit(ok this is a new feature but you get it)).

End frustration.
Overall though the snowballing problem isnt there anymore though in my 2k plays though, atleast not like it used to be so its sort of fixed from the original form, but at the expense imo at the problem 0 peace..
2k days played and have had an enjoyable 20 days of peace in totaly wohoo.. you get the idea.
 
Yes, endless wars should be fixed but it is not new at all and it also has been the case since the release. Plus, wars should last for longer and war/peace declaration amount should be halved. Would be great to have longer wars lasting for 50-80 days, while at the same time, 10-20 days of peace before starting a new war.

Currently the most of wars last for just 10-20 days because a new war gets declared pretty fast and one of the kingdoms decide to make peace with one of their enemies. This is almost as annoying as snowballing for me (well, the current situation is far better but still pretty annoying).
 
Yes, endless wars should be fixed but it is not new at all and it also has been the case since the release. Plus, wars should last for longer and war/peace declaration amount should be halved. Would be great to have longer wars lasting for 50-80 days, while at the same time, 10-20 days of peace before starting a new war.

Currently the most of wars last for just 10-20 days because a new war gets declared pretty fast and one of the kingdoms decide to make peace with one of their enemies. This is almost as annoying as snowballing for me (well, the current situation is far better but still pretty annoying).

Well I dont get it, 10-20 days of war? I wish.. literally none of the wars that I've been in last less than 200-400 days!(my kid got born and got to be 2 yrs before it ended, so that should be about 400?).

Not to mention that it is a 3 ways wars with still 0 % intrest in peace, and constant flipping of the same castles/cities back & forth with no progress.
Again this could be down to my playstyle being the defender of 1 flank, while the other ai, do a poor job in terms of defending vs attacking(which I think is down to the AI being on the offensive and not balanced or defensive).

This war/peace you talk about short durations like that for me typically only happends in the first 600-800 days, until we hit that peak of power, and then its endless wars.

I think the AI calculate/emphasis? the power too much in terms of intrest for peace or lack of it.
So we're at 8k power, but in reality we dont have more than our original clans, but its tied to defenders at castle/towns.
The enemies have 3,5k + 4k + 6,7k power.. and yet 0% intrest in peace..
They have all their clans + a few of the rebel clans that joined them.
We dont have any of the merc-clans atm though.

is it the AI and their bloodthirst for this specific faction that makes them so hellbent on conquest or is it something in my plays or how I play it that result in this?

Just is driveing me frustrated, as I dont think its enjoyable thats why I want more peace, to slow down the paceing.
Typically at that power-stage, you never get peace at all.
Well ok if a 4th joins in, typically Aserai or Western Empire that in most cases are at 7k power by then.
 
Well I dont get it, 10-20 days of war? I wish.. literally none of the wars that I've been in last less than 200-400 days!(my kid got born and got to be 2 yrs before it ended, so that should be about 400?).

Not to mention that it is a 3 ways wars with still 0 % intrest in peace, and constant flipping of the same castles/cities back & forth with no progress.
Again this could be down to my playstyle being the defender of 1 flank, while the other ai, do a poor job in terms of defending vs attacking(which I think is down to the AI being on the offensive and not balanced or defensive).

This war/peace you talk about short durations like that for me typically only happends in the first 600-800 days, until we hit that peak of power, and then its endless wars.

I think the AI calculate/emphasis? the power too much in terms of intrest for peace or lack of it.
So we're at 8k power, but in reality we dont have more than our original clans, but its tied to defenders at castle/towns.
The enemies have 3,5k + 4k + 6,7k power.. and yet 0% intrest in peace..
They have all their clans + a few of the rebel clans that joined them.
We dont have any of the merc-clans atm though.

is it the AI and their bloodthirst for this specific faction that makes them so hellbent on conquest or is it something in my plays or how I play it that result in this?

Just is driveing me frustrated, as I dont think its enjoyable thats why I want more peace, to slow down the paceing.
Typically at that power-stage, you never get peace at all.
Well ok if a 4th joins in, typically Aserai or Western Empire that in most cases are at 7k power by then.

No way a war could last for 200-400 days in the current game version. At least not in the first 10 years of a new campaing. Look the Mexico-s posts, even when he has managed to increase the war length in 1.5.11, the average is still 35 days per war. In 1.5.10, the average is probably 25-30 days per war as much.
 
No way a war could last for 200-400 days in the current game version. At least not in the first 10 years of a new campaing. Look the Mexico-s posts, even when he has managed to increase the war length in 1.5.11, the average is still 35 days per war. In 1.5.10, the average is probably 25-30 days per war as much.
Well then either my game is bugged, or I play it different and or the other ppl I've seen comment on it similarly play it different.

I think its cause I are on the ball all the time, and thus our faction wins - thus the lords have 0 desire to vote for peace on our side.

I sadly cant give you the file of an endless ongoing war, as the one I have atm is recent started.

But I wish I had a war that last that short and that I'd get a bit of peace in between.

At start I do get that sometimes, but its rare than we're at peace at all.

So the "no way" comment just because you guys havent experienced it, well dont mean it wont happend.
Maybe as I said its cause of different playstyles.

Thats why I think "forced" peace so to speak would be better and not just let it be other mechancis, as the faction just see no points to go for peace when they are dominating, and thus more or less end up eridacateing the other factions or makeing them so weak, they pose no real threat in the long run.

So yah I wish I'd have that kind of scenario you describe but its "not happening".

A more detailed explanation on what the "rules for the ai" to desire peace would be nice.
And do they get combat-exhaustion when they are winning?
 
Well then either my game is bugged, or I play it different and or the other ppl I've seen comment on it similarly play it different.

I think its cause I are on the ball all the time, and thus our faction wins - thus the lords have 0 desire to vote for peace on our side.

I sadly cant give you the file of an endless ongoing war, as the one I have atm is recent started.

But I wish I had a war that last that short and that I'd get a bit of peace in between.

At start I do get that sometimes, but its rare than we're at peace at all.

So the "no way" comment just because you guys havent experienced it, well dont mean it wont happend.
Maybe as I said its cause of different playstyles.

Thats why I think "forced" peace so to speak would be better and not just let it be other mechancis, as the faction just see no points to go for peace when they are dominating, and thus more or less end up eridacateing the other factions or makeing them so weak, they pose no real threat in the long run.

So yah I wish I'd have that kind of scenario you describe but its "not happening".

A more detailed explanation on what the "rules for the ai" to desire peace would be nice.
And do they get combat-exhaustion when they are winning?

Well, my apologies for the “no way” phrase, but it is actually really weird. I play short campaigns pretty often and in all my 10 years campaigns, wars are laying for 10-20 days. I mean, what actually happens is:

Kingdom X is at war with Kingdom Y, then after 10-20 days, Kingdom Z declares war on Kingdom X or Y, and Kingdom X and Y make peace after a pretty short war. In the other hand, all kingdoms are 99,9% of the time fighting a war against someone, and this is probably what you are complaining about. I also disagree the endless war thing, so wars should last for longer, there should be a way less war/peace declarations, and kingdoms should want to be at peace during at least some days (at least 10-20 days to have time to enjoy other features instead endless wars).
 
Well, my apologies for the “no way” phrase, but it is actually really weird. I play short campaigns pretty often and in all my 10 years campaigns, wars are laying for 10-20 days. I mean, what actually happens is:

Kingdom X is at war with Kingdom Y, then after 10-20 days, Kingdom Z declares war on Kingdom X or Y, and Kingdom X and Y make peace after a pretty short war. In the other hand, all kingdoms are 99,9% of the time fighting a war against someone, and this is probably what you are complaining about. I also disagree the endless war thing, so wars should last for longer, there should be a way less war/peace declarations, and kingdoms should want to be at peace during at least some days (at least 10-20 days to have time to enjoy other features instead endless wars).
The problem with this though is that when we are at war with X, and Y declares war, there is still 0% intrest in peace.

Even when Z declares war and you now have 3 front war, there is still 0% desire for peace.

Again this typically happends at either 600-800 days into the game(thats how many years 3 or so?)(200 years in a Bannerlord year roughly)
Or earlier/later if we hit that 8k power ranking.

The problem is when you play the 2k days games which is 10 years or so, and I can count the number of total days of peace overall to be less than I have fingers(and I'm not a mutan with many finges just the typical 5) or if lucky I can get 10-20 days in total of peace, thats an excessive amount of war imo.

Thats why there needs to be a mechanics to keep the factions in check to not constantly wage war so there is those breathers where you can do more of the other stuff aswell, and not just be focued on constant warfare(there is skirmish modes or multiplayer for just full out war, what I'm saying is that the other aspects of the sandbox "cant be enjoyed" once you join a faction due to constant wars".)

I feel the war/peace balance was better overall in Warband.

Endless wars, well I dunno but 5-6 years of war vs 1 faction that dont really progress much(thats the wars I've typically said "I'm out of this, you do the war, I'll send 3 of my clansmen to join the armies, but I'll go make sure our cities dont revolt due to starvation..).
Those times it just goes on and on and on. But again it may be that my approach to the game is different than what the designers have thougth of, and thus this is why the experience is so "different".

I'm overall just tossing in my 5 cent, no doubt that this will not be an issue when I start playing with mods, and can tweak it myself or use mods by others (I prefer to be pure in EA to have accurate experience to the core/vanilla).

I was thinking the constant wars on the faction that I'm in was a "gamedesign to twart" that faction from snowballing.
 
The problem with this though is that when we are at war with X, and Y declares war, there is still 0% intrest in peace.

Even when Z declares war and you now have 3 front war, there is still 0% desire for peace.

Again this typically happends at either 600-800 days into the game(thats how many years 3 or so?)(200 years in a Bannerlord year roughly)
Or earlier/later if we hit that 8k power ranking.

The problem is when you play the 2k days games which is 10 years or so, and I can count the number of total days of peace overall to be less than I have fingers(and I'm not a mutan with many finges just the typical 5) or if lucky I can get 10-20 days in total of peace, thats an excessive amount of war imo.

Thats why there needs to be a mechanics to keep the factions in check to not constantly wage war so there is those breathers where you can do more of the other stuff aswell, and not just be focued on constant warfare(there is skirmish modes or multiplayer for just full out war, what I'm saying is that the other aspects of the sandbox "cant be enjoyed" once you join a faction due to constant wars".)

I feel the war/peace balance was better overall in Warband.

Endless wars, well I dunno but 5-6 years of war vs 1 faction that dont really progress much(thats the wars I've typically said "I'm out of this, you do the war, I'll send 3 of my clansmen to join the armies, but I'll go make sure our cities dont revolt due to starvation..).
Those times it just goes on and on and on. But again it may be that my approach to the game is different than what the designers have thougth of, and thus this is why the experience is so "different".

I'm overall just tossing in my 5 cent, no doubt that this will not be an issue when I start playing with mods, and can tweak it myself or use mods by others (I prefer to be pure in EA to have accurate experience to the core/vanilla).

I was thinking the constant wars on the faction that I'm in was a "gamedesign to twart" that faction from snowballing.

Yes, in late game when your kingdom is strong, it is pretty common to fight against X number of kingdoms at the same time which sum a similar strength than you.

I am talking about usual AI behavior without player interference, wars are pretty short and just last for 10-20 days usually. You just have to start a new campaign to test, and wait in a town without doing anything to check the behavior I am describing.

On the other hand, seeing in late game a pretty strong kingdom fighting 2 or 3 weak kingdoms look like intended behavior to avoid snowballing.
 
Yes, in late game when your kingdom is strong, it is pretty common to fight against X number of kingdoms at the same time which sum a similar strength than you.

I am talking about usual AI behavior without player interference, wars are pretty short and just last for 10-20 days usually. You just have to start a new campaign to test, and wait in a town without doing anything to check the behavior I am describing.

On the other hand, seeing in late game a pretty strong kingdom fighting 2 or 3 weak kingdoms look like intended behavior to avoid snowballing.
I see talking along eachother then(roughly translated from what we call it here).

But I do get your point in both cases, I'm just saying that for the latter the counter to "snowballing/dominating" for the faction the player is in - gets abit exhausting when there overall just is 0 peace.

Since I joined Sturgia in my play now, I've had 3 days of peace in roughly 550 days(I did use some days to get clan rank to get up join as merc).
Get peace with 1 faction, then another declares.

Just that it feels like "endless war", and there is no time to do the "sandboxy things".
I'd rather have longer wars perhaps if I understood you correctly, but also longer times of peace.

Or at the very least a peace-treaty with a minimum of days where tribute is collected, and in that time no one can declare war on either of the sides. After the end of the number of days, the tribute stops, but its not war either, but "cease fire".

I also overall think another way to counter it snowballing is to remove the option for the AI to warmongers, that they still need a "Just cause" like it was in Warband that is rng created, or you could incite war by missions.
Now it just seems that the ai do a day checks since how many days since war and declare on that with 0 rng behind it.
 
Yes, endless wars is something I have been complaining since a lot of time ago. In my case, it is a nonstop short wars against my neighbors and I am lucky if I have at least 2 days of peace between wars.

I do agree with there is not time to do anything different to fight battles, except if you do not care about losing territory. It is pretty frustrating not being able to find some days of peace to replace death companions/wifes, recruiting new clans, etc. Plus the new history mode quests, sometimes I have to travel to a far away settlement to deal with conspiracy but it is impossible if I am always involved in wars.
 
Yes, endless wars is something I have been complaining since a lot of time ago. In my case, it is a nonstop short wars against my neighbors and I am lucky if I have at least 2 days of peace between wars.

I do agree with there is not time to do anything different to fight battles, except if you do not care about losing territory. It is pretty frustrating not being able to find some days of peace to replace death companions/wifes, recruiting new clans, etc. Plus the new history mode quests, sometimes I have to travel to a far away settlement to deal with conspiracy but it is impossible if I am always involved in wars.

I decided to say, "this isnt fun" to be in the endless wars with my faction. So goodbye, I left them, I did return the fief I had(which was prolly the richest in that kingdome at the very least)(and more or less fully upgraded most of the things that "matter"(boost to loyalty building(I dont recall the name of the building) III + Orchard III)

Then I decide well since the faction I'm left is at war with Western Empire, lets see if I cant take Diathema from them(NE originally, but WE conquered it ages ago), was "lightly defended" vs other holdings they had - So it went over, I got it.
Naturally they werent too pleased so they sent in 2 armies, then stopped doing so.

Battania declared war on We, so they where eager to get peace for 0 tribute.

Since then I've had 0 wars, from anyone so far.

I noticed the original faction that I left now arent in 3 ways wars, they have had peace for "some time now".

So yah I think the devs think that "the faction the player is in" should have war.. I get that its content so to speak, but its just "too much" specially with player agency playing too big part, and ppl who are like me who hate the stalemate-wars that dont go nowhere, and the endless raids that leads to rebellions and still no desire for peace until the 3rd big powerful enemy attacks, still at war with 2 factions + 3 rebelling cities..

So again I think its abit of the "playstyle" issue that mixed with the devs pushing war on the player if part of a kingdome perhaps.

Overall I think the snowball issues would be resolved abit with dialing down overall agression, and let the AI consider a few more things for desire of peace over war(looted villages, rebelling cities(lack of loyalty etc etc).

Dont get me wrong I know that mods will make it to my likeing, but I'm thinking do most ppl really "enjoy" this state of the world, if so then I'll just shut up and not ***** more about what is "my personal preferences" that from other post I've seen indicate its not just mine :razz:

But yah I still think more peace would halt the snowballing of AI aswell, as it would give the "loosing side" time to regroup, bolster up, and when that other faction is at war with others, pounce(naturally soon as they declare war, the other sides go to peace, and the other that was war with the faction will declare war on the weak..)(this though needs to stop, and is one of the main reasons why NE gets steamrolled in all my plays.
(Thinking I may need to join them next tiem around so they can be a "contender" and not get walked over every single game)
 
Hello @mexxico , I'm sorry for tagging you but could you please confirm us if AI is coded in a way to "force war with the faction joined by the player"?
In other words, will AI changes its campaign behaviour when player joins a faction (as mercenary or vassal)?
And is it the case too when player creates own kingdom?
Any input would be appreciated.
 
Hello @mexxico , I'm sorry for tagging you but could you please confirm us if AI is coded in a way to "force war with the faction joined by the player"?
In other words, will AI changes its campaign behaviour when player joins a faction (as mercenary or vassal)?
And is it the case too when player creates own kingdom?
Any input would be appreciated.

There is no that kind of behavior. In most of above examples where players are facing too much enemies and long wars happens because kingdom includes player become strongest kingdom which conquered most lands. When a kingdom conquers 20%+ / 30%+ / 40%+ of settlements other kingdoms declare war against that kingdom (with higher probability) to stop that kingdom conquering all world.

@Zorion_no in your case it seems WE was not strongest faction but they were facing too much enemies when you were their vassal. If you send your save file to [email protected] I can examine what causes this.

By the way thanks for tests from 1.5.10 @Blood Gryphon somehow I missed them. Its good having new tests after each patch. Thanks for your efforts. After a time I will make a new table with adding new tests.
 
Last edited:
There is no that kind of behavior. In most of above examples where players are facing too much enemies and long wars happens because kingdom includes player become strongest kingdom which conquered most lands. When a kingdom conquers 20%+ / 30%+ / 40%+ of settlements other kingdoms declare war against that kingdom (with higher probability) to stop that kingdom conquering all world.
Would it be possible to add something to make this clear the players? It mostly escaped my notice (I kinda remember Top Dog penalty, was that it?) because there is no sign that the wars are anything but random.
 
Would it be possible to add something to make this clear the players? It mostly escaped my notice (I kinda remember Top Dog penalty, was that it?) because there is no sign that the wars are anything but random.
Player will be able to see war reasons in next patches. However it will be shown only when a new war / peace voting is announced. There will be a reason shown to player. For current wars there will be no reason shown. We can think alternative additions. Still there can be small bugs also according to player reports too much player is suffering multiple / long wars and no peace time remained, it can be related another problem also. I will examine it. Save files can be useful.
 
There is no that kind of behavior. In most of above examples where players are facing too much enemies and long wars happens because kingdom includes player become strongest kingdom which conquered most lands. When a kingdom conquers 20%+ / 30%+ / 40%+ of settlements other kingdoms declare war against that kingdom (with higher probability) to stop that kingdom conquering all world.

@Zorion_no in your case it seems WE was not strongest faction but they were facing too much enemies when you were their vassal. If you send your save file to [email protected] I can examine what causes this.

By the way thanks for tests from 1.5.10 @Blood Gryphon somehow I missed them. Its good having new tests after each patch. Thanks for your efforts. After a time I will make a new table with adding new tests.
Thank you for the info (y)
 
I am curious if many people are noticing this about pretty long wars. I have played tons of new campaigns in 1.5.9 and 1.5.10 and never found anything like that. Not saying that it is a lie, just that it is pretty weird and I have never seen something like that, except in one campaign where my kingdom was huge.

Wars are actually pretty short in all my campaigns, and this is something pretty common what I can see in 100% of campaigns I play. I know that it will be better in 1.5.11 though, but 35 days average is still not a good number in my view.
 
Back
Top Bottom