Information about developments at snowballing problem

[Apocal]

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.

They are measuring overall time spent at war, not time for any one specific war. That's the only way to explain the discrepancy and it is clear when they write about wars ending and new ones beginning.

Anyway, I'll get another playthrough going (a fresh one) and see if I can send off a save when/if I get stuck in an endless war loop.

 

[Dabos37]

They are measuring overall time spent at war, not time for any one specific war. That's the only way to explain the discrepancy and it is clear when they write about wars ending and new ones beginning.

Anyway, I'll get another playthrough going (a fresh one) and see if I can send off a save when/if I get stuck in an endless war loop.

Oh well, in that case it happens every time. Especially Empire kingdoms are usually involved in wars 99.9% of the time. I was talking about the 200 days war (single war duration) that was mentioned before which I have never seen since 1.5.2.

 

[BoominRandy]

when will we ever see alliances?

 

[Discount_Blade]

@mexxico

I'm having a completely different problem. I joined Vlandia and after 2-3 years, they just stopped recruiting. What I mean is, the Lords just stopped having large armies. So when the Battanians or WE invades, Vlandian lords can't even form armies because they just stopped recruiting. I can't form an army because none of the Vlandian lords have more than 20-30 people in their forces. This is ALL of them. Even the King, Derthert, has only 15 people and he's the only one mounted!!! This makes no sense. I can easily recruit a 200-300 force army just by myself...but the other lords can't even break 30. It didn't happen immediately. It took 2-3 years before it started.

What kind of bug is this? I'm scared to join another kingdom because i'm worried this will startr with that kingdom as well.

 

[mexxico]

@mexxico

I'm having a completely different problem. I joined Vlandia and after 2-3 years, they just stopped recruiting. What I mean is, the Lords just stopped having large armies. So when the Battanians or WE invades, Vlandian lords can't even form armies because they just stopped recruiting. I can't form an army because none of the Vlandian lords have more than 20-30 people in their forces. This is ALL of them. Even the King, Derthert, has only 15 people and he's the only one mounted!!! This makes no sense. I can easily recruit a 200-300 force army just by myself...but the other lords can't even break 30. It didn't happen immediately. It took 2-3 years before it started.

What kind of bug is this? I'm scared to join another kingdom because i'm worried this will startr with that kingdom as well.

I think your kingdom has financial problems which can happen because of losing too much fiefs. Otherwise lords always continue recruiting if they have less troops. If you send [email protected] your save file I can examine.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I think your kingdom has financial problems which can happen because of losing too much fiefs. Otherwise lords always continue recruiting if they have less troops. If you send [email protected] your save file I can examine.

Nah, I even used console commands and GAVE 7-8 different lords MILLIONS of gold and they are still running around with minuscule armies. One of them managed to get an army of 78, but he was the only one to break 30 and he wasn't even one of the lords I gave gold to. It should also be noted that I hadn't used any cheats concerning the lords and the economy beforehand. Only cheats I used were pertaining to me healing my party wounded instantly and of course unlimited source of food from inventory cheat. Also, Vlandia only lost Sargot. We (meaning me) even took Battanian Castles and a Western Imperial city. I forget which but I think it was Lageta or Ortysia. Probably Ortysia since us and Battania kept taking and retaking Lageta from eachother, same I got tired ot retaking Sargot on my own from Western Imperials/Battanians so I just stopped bothering with it.

 

[Moridin123]

Is there a recruitable population pool from which notables draw their possible recruits?

If not, then implementing something like this could really help with snowballing: the more a pool is tapped, the slower the respawning of recruits from notables would be. Thus, even a faction that constantly wins would still eventually be hit by this inertia, curbing their momentum.

This (the status of the recruitable population pool) could even be tied to a faction's willingness to war & peace, making the world's conflict feel a bit more organic.

 

[madnessario]

Is there a recruitable population pool from which notables draw their possible recruits?

If not, then implementing something like this could really help with snowballing: the more a pool is tapped, the slower the respawning of recruits from notables would be. Thus, even a faction that constantly wins would still eventually be hit by this inertia, curbing their momentum.

This (the status of the recruitable population pool) could even be tied to a faction's willingness to war & peace, making the world's conflict feel a bit more organic.

This will harm the losing side more, thus more snowballing. An army that wins does not need to go back to the villages to recruit, the losing side does; over and over until the settlement is lost.

 

[Moridin123]

This will harm the losing side more, thus more snowballing. An army that wins does not need to go back to the villages to recruit, the losing side does; over and over until the settlement is lost.

But a conqueror has to leave a garrison behind, so he still needs to recruit just to keep the army strength stable.

 

[Apocal]

Is there a recruitable population pool from which notables draw their possible recruits?

If not, then implementing something like this could really help with snowballing: the more a pool is tapped, the slower the respawning of recruits from notables would be. Thus, even a faction that constantly wins would still eventually be hit by this inertia, curbing their momentum.

This (the status of the recruitable population pool) could even be tied to a faction's willingness to war & peace, making the world's conflict feel a bit more organic.

Like @madnessario said, that will do the opposite of discourage snowballing. They not only lose all their wounded troops but also lose access to a portion of their recruitable population pool when the enemy conquers one of their fiefs.

But a conqueror has to leave a garrison behind, so he still needs to recruit just to keep the army strength stable.

The winner of a battle gets all his wounded troops back. It isn't about keeping his army strength stable, it is about becoming relatively stronger than the loser -- more than they already do. The winner has to garrison things, that's true; but they can use the new manpower to do that while the loser has to get an army big enough to defeat the army from a shallower manpower pool.

 

[mexxico]

Nah, I even used console commands and GAVE 7-8 different lords MILLIONS of gold and they are still running around with minuscule armies. One of them managed to get an army of 78, but he was the only one to break 30 and he wasn't even one of the lords I gave gold to. It should also be noted that I hadn't used any cheats concerning the lords and the economy beforehand. Only cheats I used were pertaining to me healing my party wounded instantly and of course unlimited source of food from inventory cheat. Also, Vlandia only lost Sargot. We (meaning me) even took Battanian Castles and a Western Imperial city. I forget which but I think it was Lageta or Ortysia. Probably Ortysia since us and Battania kept taking and retaking Lageta from eachother, same I got tired ot retaking Sargot on my own from Western Imperials/Battanians so I just stopped bothering with it.

If you upload your save to some platform or mail me I can examine and we can see where problem is.

 

[Bannerman Man]

Is there a recruitable population pool from which notables draw their possible recruits?

In a sense, the notables ARE the population pool, albeit a relatively shallow one. For instance, Aserai starts the game with something like 8 towns and 40 villages. If there's an average of 3 notables per village and 5 per town, then that's a pool of 160 troops that they have immediate access to (as long as they have high enough relations). The amount of notables a town or village has can grow or shrink with prosperity and hearths respectively, so a faction's total population pool can vary depending on how strong/prosperous they are as a whole.

If a faction is at peace or is dominating a war, then they will not be expending many troops, meaning their pool of recruitable troops should remain high, and the troops in that pool will be stronger from upgrading over time. If that faction enters a war or starts losing, they'll have a buffer of higher tier troops on standby that they can quickly draw from before they start to feel the effects of war.

Conversely, if a faction is struggling in a war, their notables' pool of troops will be drained, and they will have to rely on the daily rate of troop production of their notables in order to supply troops to keep fighting. The lords will spend more time bouncing around between settlements trying to scrape up what's generated each day before their other faction members do, thus hindering their ability to put up a resistance.

Basically if the rate of expenditure is greater than the rate of production, then the pool will eventually be drained and the faction will be restricted to how many troops can be created in a day. If the expenditure is less than the production, then a faction will not be limited (as much) by how many troops are created each day. Most other games with population systems have this same dynamic of being limited by per turn production if they hit the bottom of their pool, they just have deeper pools, so the effect of hitting the bottom is more stark. Bannerlord could be pretty easily tweaked to be more similar to other games by simply adding more total notables and reducing their daily rate of production so there's more of a difference between a full pool and an empty one. As others have said, that might just lead to more snowballing if the AI couldn't be made to properly manage it, and it's personal preference whether or not that's a good thing.

So essentially this game does have a population system already; it's just integrated into the sandbox as npcs rather than abstracted as a number in the corner in the way other games do like: ? 1000 (+20). There are still some meaningful differences though, such as lords having to physically visit a location, rather than just queuing up new units, as well as there being a maximum population represented by total notables' slots. Garrisons also act as sort of an extension of population pools.

 

[rocketpjs]

Alliances and binding peace treaties or truces would go a long way to eliminating snowballing, and enhancing gameplay. The ability to make or force an alliance (maybe even with family members as hostages) would be a great way to manage the map. THe need to keep allies happy would also be a fun element. Maybe some opportunities to break up alliances of other factions as well.

 

[Spinozart1]

In a sense, the notables ARE the population pool, albeit a relatively shallow one. For instance, Aserai starts the game with something like 8 towns and 40 villages. If there's an average of 3 notables per village and 5 per town, then that's a pool of 160 troops that they have immediate access to (as long as they have high enough relations). The amount of notables a town or village has can grow or shrink with prosperity and hearths respectively, so a faction's total population pool can vary depending on how strong/prosperous they are as a whole.

If a faction is at peace or is dominating a war, then they will not be expending many troops, meaning their pool of recruitable troops should remain high, and the troops in that pool will be stronger from upgrading over time. If that faction enters a war or starts losing, they'll have a buffer of higher tier troops on standby that they can quickly draw from before they start to feel the effects of war.

Conversely, if a faction is struggling in a war, their notables' pool of troops will be drained, and they will have to rely on the daily rate of troop production of their notables in order to supply troops to keep fighting. The lords will spend more time bouncing around between settlements trying to scrape up what's generated each day before their other faction members do, thus hindering their ability to put up a resistance.

Basically if the rate of expenditure is greater than the rate of production, then the pool will eventually be drained and the faction will be restricted to how many troops can be created in a day. If the expenditure is less than the production, then a faction will not be limited (as much) by how many troops are created each day. Most other games with population systems have this same dynamic of being limited by per turn production if they hit the bottom of their pool, they just have deeper pools, so the effect of hitting the bottom is more stark. Bannerlord could be pretty easily tweaked to be more similar to other games by simply adding more total notables and reducing their daily rate of production so there's more of a difference between a full pool and an empty one. As others have said, that might just lead to more snowballing if the AI couldn't be made to properly manage it, and it's personal preference whether or not that's a good thing.

So essentially this game does have a population system already; it's just integrated into the sandbox as npcs rather than abstracted as a number in the corner in the way other games do like: ? 1000 (+20). There are still some meaningful differences though, such as lords having to physically visit a location, rather than just queuing up new units, as well as there being a maximum population represented by total notables' slots. Garrisons also act as sort of an extension of population pools.

Really interesting and very well explained, as usual. ?

 

[Apocal]

So essentially this game does have a population system already; it's just integrated into the sandbox as npcs rather than abstracted as a number in the corner in the way other games do like: ? 1000 (+20). There are still some meaningful differences though, such as lords having to physically visit a location, rather than just queuing up new units, as well as there being a maximum population represented by total notables' slots. Garrisons also act as sort of an extension of population pools.

I think they added in additional notables being spawn as you gain prosperity, at least in a town. Some towns I've seen with like nine notables as a result, which makes economically well-off towns incredibly potent in terms of manpower.

 

[Zerofive]

Sorry if this topic was already discussed, but the thread is already too large to check every post.

Anyway, i hope you dont get this the wrong way as i appreciate all the hard work that was put into fixing the snowballing problem, but i think the implied mechanics work "too well". Currently your kingdom will have war with every other kingdom if yours is strong enough....which just turns the game into endless grind. The player is not rewarded with a strong faction for doing a good job, but instead punished by having to fight multiple kingdoms at the same time. To be honest i liked the game more when it not such a grind to conquer the map and therefore reach the ultimate goal of a sandbox.

Maybe a compromise would do the trick...having the balancing features enabled until a certain time period (like player reaches clan tier 4 or 10 in-game years) so every kingdom would have a chance and after that every kingdom gets released from their leash and have to fight for domination or go down.

 

[Marbles20]

I don't know that the ultimate goal of a sandbox is/should be to conquer all. It has more to do with letting the player decide how they'd like to play/approach the game world. Some may view conquering all as their one and only goal, but others might view roleplaying as a merchant, gladiator, wandering sword for hire, etc as their primary goal. Bannerlord has been tailored for those people who want to conquer the map with more of a challenge than what Warband gave, which has diminished some of its sandbox appeal. You are right that their isn't really a reward for having a strong faction itself, unless you plan on conquering everything as quickly as possible.

Currently the game is in that paradoxical state; in order to stop player snowballs the AI mechanics have been tailored in such a way that it encourages AI snowballing to counter the ultra-aggressive players. This in turn forces the player's hand to play ultra-aggressively (or at least forcing the player to actively participate in every war their faction is in) or fall to the snowballing AI. There really isn't a middle ground or relaxed setting when it comes to AI diplomacy.

 

[Zerofive]

I don't know that the ultimate goal of a sandbox is/should be to conquer all. It has more to do with letting the player decide how they'd like to play/approach the game world. Some may view conquering all as their one and only goal, but others might view roleplaying as a merchant, gladiator, wandering sword for hire, etc as their primary goal.

I agree 100% on your statement there, but you know what the current problem with other play styles is: besides combat there is not really anything to do. The game isnt fleshed out enough to have anything meaningful but fighting (my personal opinion ofc). If you found a way to to play differently in the current state of game, by all means, Im all ears (seriously would be thankful for a new approach).

 

[Marbles20]

Yeah that's kind of what I meant by the direction of Bannerlord diminishing the other play-styles/sandbox appeal in order to try and make conquering everything challenging. They've shot down the peace time activities ideas like feasting, boar hunts, etc. outside of arena fighting. Arena fights even took a hit in usefulness since there isn't a boost to relations with other lords or courtship with a win. We'll have to wait until after release for the sandbox portion to get fleshed out.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

@mexxico playing recently i noticed in 1.5.10 that enemies clans can now offer to buy prisoners from you, which gives you a big side notification that pops up a offer with the option for accept or decline.

When i saw it, the first thing to came to mind is that this is one way how I imagined peace offerings coming to the player if they are king.

Obviously this would be a big fundamental change to how the current peace system works, currently once the player joins a faction other factions no longer get to make peace with them and it sits solely in the hands of whatever faction the player is a part of.

Because of this limitation the player kingdom can't do what other AI kingdoms can do and I think it even stops what the AI ones might be trying to do. We know that AI kingdoms will sometimes essentially renegotiate tribute by declaring war and then instantly asking for peace so that it lowers the tribute they pay or increase the tribute the other side pays. But because the AI kingdoms can't make peace they end up declaring war and being stuck until the player faction decides it wants peace.

Another example is when a player kingdom is already at war with a AI kingdom and then another AI kingdom declares war on the first AI kingdom. The first AI kingdom will make peace with the AI kingdom instead of the player faction even if technically it would make more sense for them to make peace with the player faction.

Honestly i'd prefer it be a kingdom vote on whether to accept or decline the peace treaty, but would also be fine if it was just left to the king to decide through a popup like the prisoner one.

I know this would bring up the issue of the player faction not working like the AI kingdoms since AI kingdoms don't get to choose to accept or decline peace offerings, but id argue that the player faction is already different from AI kingdoms since the player kingdom is always required to vote and spend influence to make peace.

Next issue would be, what happens if a player declines the peace offer. I think that maybe put a time limit on when the AI kingdom can ask again, but still let the player offer peace (meaning the player can now offer peace but it will now be more favorable to the AI). Also if that AI kingdom is at war with multiple people and needs to get out of war with one of them, even if the player is the best choice, if the player rejects then the AI moves on to the next faction to make peace with.

Would love to hear others thoughts on letting the AI kingdoms make peace with the player kingdom and how to tackle some of the issues I brought up.