Information about developments at snowballing problem

[Old-Bull]

Khuzait speed bonus is now gone. Are we about to see Khuzait get snowballed?

 

[Nalgasucia507]

@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 they are always required to vote and spend influence to make peace instead of it just happening.

Next issue would be, what happens if a player declines the peace offer. I think that maybe a 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.

+1. You are pretty spot on bro.

 

[Apocal]

Khuzait speed bonus is now gone. Are we about to see Khuzait get snowballed?

Nope.

 

[mexxico]

@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.

Since first day you mentioned about this idea in your pm (3-4 days ago) I am thinking about this. I think really this can be a solution to several current problems of game (fe. player conquers most lands of enemy but still he need to pay small amount of tribute for peace (this has some logical reasons if enemy has no lands then they make gerilla fight (because if enemy has no lands they have nothing to lose to make come back they do not accept paying tribute) but in most cases player opens diplomacy tab for peace and tribute amount for peace offer shown there does not be as good as it could be if enemy goes inside voting - hard to tell this situation in English but I will try, whoever make inside voting always make with a bit worse tribute amounts than they can get if opponent goes inside voting and always one side goes inside voting).

Anyway, this idea is brillant. I will suggest your idea internal and if accepted it can be easily implemented to current war - peace - voting systems in 1 week and I think this can suit game really good and make gameplay better. I thought for negative side effects but could not find a major side effect. Only side effect can be if there is an inside voting in a faction for peace it is asked to all clans with a tribute amount all opponent clans are ok with (same formulas calculate which amount this tribute have to be for all opponent clans to accept peace) and if that inside voting is accepted then opponent always accept it. There is no second voting in Bannerlord at these war peace votings, one faction goes inside voting with a tribute all opponent clans are ok with and if inside voting pass opponent always accept. If your idea is applied this will create an exception / rule change for player kingdom. After an inside voting at player's enemy there will be an additional approval step for opponent ruled if it is ruled by player. So this will create an exception / different rule for player ruled kingdoms. This will not damage gameplay but different rule for player is not something good. However currently we still have a different ruleset for player. If player is king then it's enemies cannot go internal peace voting currently. Thats why I cannot count this new exception as a major problem.

I do not know if this idea will be accepted or not but let's try. Maybe it can be accepted.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Since first day you mentioned about this idea in your pm (3-4 days ago) I am thinking about this. I think really this can be a solution to several current problems of game (fe. player conquers most lands of enemy but still he need to pay small amount of tribute for peace (this has some logical reasons if enemy has no lands then they make gerilla fight (because if enemy has no lands they have nothing to lose to make come back they do not accept paying tribute) but in most cases player opens diplomacy tab for peace and tribute amount for peace offer shown there does not be as good as it could be if enemy goes inside voting - hard to tell this situation in English but I will try, whoever make inside voting always make with a bit worse tribute amounts than they can get if opponent goes inside voting and always one side goes inside voting).

Anyway, this idea is brillant. I will suggest your idea internal and if accepted it can be easily implemented to current war - peace - voting systems in 1 week and I think this can suit game really good and make gameplay better. I thought for negative side effects but could not find a major side effect. Only side effect can be if there is an inside voting in a faction for peace it is asked to all clans with a tribute amount all opponent clans are ok with (same formulas calculate which amount this tribute have to be for all opponent clans to accept peace) and if that inside voting is accepted then opponent always accept it. There is no second voting in Bannerlord at these war peace votings, one faction goes inside voting with a tribute all opponent clans are ok with and if inside voting pass opponent always accept. If your idea is applied this will create an exception / rule change for player kingdom. After an inside voting at player's enemy there will be an additional approval step for opponent ruled if it is ruled by player. So this will create an exception / different rule for player ruled kingdoms. This will not damage gameplay but different rule for player is not something good. However currently we still have a different ruleset for player. If player is king then it's enemies cannot go internal peace voting currently. Thats why I cannot count this new exception as a major problem.

I do not know if this idea will be accepted or not but let's try. Maybe it can be accepted. I hope.

This would be huge for the game. Regardless of if it gets accepted thank you for trying.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

For those interested, I ran a snowball test today to test out 1.6.0.

Test 1 1.6.0	Test 1 10 yrs	Test 1 20 yrs	20 yr Strength	Original Clans	Recruited Clans	Rebel Clans	Mercenaries	Total Noble Clans	Total Clans w/ MERCs
Aserai	24​	21​	7577​	9​	1​	0​	3​	10​	13​
Battania	26​	27​	5804​	8​	1​	0​	2​	9​	11​
Khuzait	23​	25​	7395​	9​	0​	0​	0​	9​	9​
Northern	18​	21​	6185​	9​	0​	0​	1​	9​	10​
Southern	27​	27​	6100​	9​	0​	0​	0​	9​	9​
Western	16​	16​	8630​	9​	0​	1​	7​	10​	17​
Sturgia	15​	9​	3577​	7​	0​	0​	0​	7​	7​
Vlandia	22​	25​	9636​	11​	0​	0​	0​	11​	11​
Snowball score	11​	15​

Test 1 1.6.0 Clan Wealth	Very Poor	Poor	Average	Rich	Very Rich
Aserai	0​	2​	5​	3​	0​
Battania	0​	4​	2​	3​	0​
Khuzait	0​	5​	3​	1​	0​
Northern	0​	5​	2​	2​	0​
Southern	0​	4​	4​	1​	0​
Western	0​	7​	1​	2​	0​
Sturgia	2​	5​	0​	0​	0​
Vlandia	0​	7​	1​	3​	0​

Spoiler: 10 years

Spoiler: 20 years

So Sturgia is definitely dying off (having lost 2 clans and no remaining clans above poor wealth), but no one is snowballing. 1.6 is looking good. I'm going to run more tests to see if Sturgia is a consistent loser.

 

[Spinozart1]

Really nice info.
I'd like to run similar tests and post the results.
Could you please share your methodology?
I see you are using the console command to speed up the campaign time right?

EDIT
I can't find back how to calculate snowball score.. plz advise

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Really nice info.
I'd like to run similar tests and post the results.
Could you please share your methodology?
I see you are using the console command to speed up the campaign time right?

EDIT
I can't find back how to calculate snowball score.. plz advise

Yeah you should be able to see all the console commands I use to run these test in the bottom right hand of the 10 year picture above.

To generate snowball scores add up all the towns (2 points) and castles (1 point) for each of the kingdoms. Then look for anyone outside of the range of 20-35 score and take the difference between the kingdom score and either the low end or high end of that score (whichever is closer to the kingdom score).

For example using my scores above for 10 years, we see northern at 18 ( so 20-18 = 2), we have western at 16 (so 20 - 16 = 4), and we have sturgia at 15 (so 20-15 = 5) and we add up all the differences to get the snowball score, so 2 + 4 + 5 =11.

 

[Spinozart1]

Thx @Blood Gryphon !
By the way, I don't know if it has any impact but the difficulty presets are "bannerlord".

Test 1 1.6.0	10 yrs	10 yrs Strength	20 yrs	20 yrs Strength	Original clans	Recruited clans	Rebel clans	Mercenaries	Total Noble clans	Total clans w/ mercs
Aserai	24​	7906​	22​	6917​	9​	0​	0​	0​	9​
Battania	27​	7087​	24​	8011​	8​	0​	0​	0​	8​
Khuzait	24​	5593​	31​	6756​	9​	0​	0​	0​	9​
Northern	21​	3976​	18​	3417​	9​	1​	0​	2​	10​	12​
Southern	21​	5345​	17​	5977​	9​	0​	0​	3​	9​	12​
Western	16​	5991​	14​	3279​	9​	0​	0​	0​	9​
Sturgia	16​	5064​	23​	7974​	9​	0​	0​	0​	9​
Vlandia	24​	5927​	24​	4888​	11​	0​	0​	2​	11​	13​
Snowball score	8​		9​

Clan wealth	Very poor	Poor	Average	Rich
Aserai	0​	0​	2​	7​
Battania	0​	3​	1​	4​
Khuzait	0​	8​	0​	1​
Northern	0​	6​	2​	2​
Southern	0​	5​	2​	2​
Western	0​	7​	0​	2​
Sturgia	0​	5​	2​	2​
Vlandia	0​	5​	0​	6​

Screenshots of the world map (before - after)

Sturgia is not the big loser.
Khuzait seems to not generate that much wealth from its fiefs, only one rich clan and the rest is poor.

 

[mexxico]

Thanks for tests @Blood Gryphon and @Spinozart1.
A question : Did you combined "very rich" and "rich" ? Or there were no "very rich" labeled clans?

It seems our labeling for average as financial situation is not large enough. We should take some space from poor. I will report it. Also "very poor" can take some space from poor.

Actually I checked and gap for "average" is already large enough. Interesting. Maybe 0-20, 20-40, 40-150, 150-450, 450+ suits better because when clan money goes below 30k clan leaders start to go economical savings more maybe thats why there are more clans with leaders have money around 30k.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

@mexxico in my test there were no very rich clans by year 20. Sorry should have had it in the table, have edited it above and will going forward.

 

[Apocal]

Khuzait seems to not generate that much wealth from its fiefs, only one rich clan and the rest is poor.

Yeah, their new culture bonus is a double nerf.

 

[Spinozart1]

Thanks for tests @Blood Gryphon and @Spinozart1.
A question : Did you combined "very rich" and "rich" ? Or there were no "very rich" labeled clans?

It seems our labeling for average as financial situation is not large enough. We should take some space from poor. I will report it. Also "very poor" can take some space from poor.

Actually I checked and gap for "average" is already large enough. Interesting. Maybe 0-20, 20-40, 40-150, 150-450, 450+ suits better because when clan money goes below 30k clan leaders start to go economical savings more maybe thats why there are more clans with leaders have money around 30k.

Just like Blood Gryphon, there were no "Very Rich" clans.
Do you need another test till 30 years? Do you need other informations (prosperity, loyalty, etc...)
Regarding the wealth categories, just a thought but maybe you could set "Very Poor" to 0-30k? Because, as you said, below 30k they change their behavior.
I don't know if there are other tresholds, but it could be more instructive for the player to get categories matching a specific behavior change.

Yeah, their new culture bonus is a double nerf.

In terms of wealth maybe, but in terms of power I don't know... Khuzait is the kingdom who has the most fiefs after 20 years...
10 towns and 11 castles. That's why I was suprised to see that only one clan was "Rich" and the rest was "Poor".

	10YRS			20YRS
	Towns	Castles	GT	Towns	Castles	GT
Aserai	8​	8​	16​	7​	8​	15​
Battania	7​	13​	20​	6​	12​	18​
Khuzait	6​	12​	18​	10​	11​	21​
Northern	5​	11​	16​	6​	6​	12​
Southern	8​	5​	13​	5​	7​	12​
Western	5​	6​	11​	4​	6​	10​
Sturgia	6​	4​	10​	7​	9​	16​
Vlandia	8​	8​	16​	8​	8​	16​

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Regarding the wealth categories, just a thought but maybe you could set "Very Poor" to 0-30k? Because, as you said, below 30k they change their behavior.
I don't know if there are other tresholds, but it could be more instructive for the player to get categories matching a specific behavior change.

​

Completely agree with this they should be associated with any game mechanics if they exist.

 

[Dabos37]

Nice tests, thanks. By the way, has been war length increased in 1.6.0?

 

[mexxico]

Nice tests, thanks. By the way, has been war length increased in 1.6.0?

I can send latest war data to @Blood Gryphon until weekend and we can see latest situation.

Thanks @Spinozart1 these datas are enought. I already count lots of other datas time to time. I can share one day.

These days I also count number of armies in each year and it is about 1 per kingdom as average. Changes between 0-1-2-3 mostly 1. Will try to reduce it to 0.8s

 

[Dabos37]

I can send latest war data to @Blood Gryphon until weekend and we can see latest situation.

Thanks @Spinozart1 these datas are enought. I already count lots of other datas time to time. I can share one day.

Thanks!

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I can send latest war data to @Blood Gryphon until weekend and we can see latest situation.

Awesome, more than happy to go through it.

 

[Spinozart1]

These days I also count number of armies in each year and it is about 1 per kingdom as average. Changes between 0-1-2-3 mostly 1. Will try to reduce it to 0.8s

Sorry I'm maybe misunderstanding something.
One army per kingdom per year?
Is it maybe per week?

 

[mexxico]

Sorry I'm maybe misunderstanding something.
One army per kingdom per year?
Is it maybe per week?

I collect data at different moments for army count. That value was average of all moments. You can count each day or once in each 5 days or once in each 50 days. If your sample count is big enought you will always see that average army count per kingdom is 1 at each moment.