Information about developments at snowballing problem

[Old-Bull]

Couldn't snowballing just be seriously slowed or even stopped by enacting a serious autocalc siege attack casualty debuff? With also changing AI to postpone actual assault until loss ratio is more favorable?

I mean isn't stopping loss/gain of real estate the main driver of snowballing?

Regarding defections, isn't there a cultural bias that influences clans defecting to other non-culture nations? Couldn't that be increased to lower defection % ?

Hopefully they'll figure out why it's impossible for castles to be defended by players. If they figure out the pathing for defenders, the correct placement of archers on walls, the amount of time it should take to knock down a door with a ram.......then defending a castle will be a lot more likely. It should require a massive force to siege a castle with a reasonable amount of defenders. There's a reason why there are so many castles scattered across Europe: they're easy to defend. Most castles were sieged by starving out the inhabitants because the chance of capturing them through attack was very small.

All of that should be taken into account for the auto-calc on castle sieges. It should require a huge advantage in the amount of troops to storm a castle. It should require the right type of troops to storm a castle. A dismounted cavalry army should struggle to siege.

My concern is the balance. When they finally figure out the correct balance of castle/city sieges, is that going to push snowballing to the other extreme after all of the fixes to snowballing have already been put in place? Will it become incredibly difficult to expand your territory because they didn't fix castle sieges before they started clipping factions abilities to grow their territory?

 

[AfLIcTeD]

I haven't read every page so it may have been mentioned. Will the new clans be getting a fief from campaign start? If not they will become very poor very quickly.

 

[mexxico]

I haven't read every page so it may have been mentioned. Will the new clans be getting a fief from campaign start? If not they will become very poor very quickly.

Yes it is also done. All clans will have at least one castle at game start with 1.5.6.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

Yes it is also done. All clans will have at least one castle at game start with 1.5.6.

One other thing I have noticed, don't know if you are aware of it is that army summoning doesn't take into consideration of wounded troops. This leads to starving parties with zero troops fit for battle being summoned to armies. Parties just don't get time to recouperate. This leads to huge armies being defeated easily since most of their troops are wounded. I remember before, that you couldn't summon a party if their troops that were fit for battle was less than 40%, this gave them time to recouperate. Maybe this could be reimplemented.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

@mexxico maybe you can save me from doing another 20 year test.

Does this

Hotfix 25/11/20

• Fixed an issue that prevented the player from choosing their children as their heir. (Also in 1.5.4 hotfix.)

fix new born kids activation at 18?

 

[mexxico]

@mexxico maybe you can save me from doing another 20 year test.

Does this

fix new born kids activation at 18?

I do not have information about it.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I do not have information about it.

All good, i'll be back with some results soon.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

@mexxico

Well god damn boys, they ****ing did it!

Children are now activated in the world (can be selected for party leader/governor) and are even getting married to start the 3rd generation, we got generation gameplay now.

New born children will spawn in the game with equipment but still with no skills (education update will fix im sure).

I am vlandian man and my wife is aserai, so it seems the equipment of the child will be a preset from the faction that matches the parent of the same gender(boys got vlandian gear, girl got aserai). Seems to be the same for AI kids.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Tlap]

@mexxico

nice find gryphon!

 

[sniparsexe]

@mexxico

this is really good cool
edit, I meant the thing you found lol

 

[Blood Gryphon]

this is really good cool
edit, I meant the thing you found lol

lmao I think the statement applies to both

 

[Blood Gryphon]

So im torn and not sure how I feel as I see positives and negatives, but i just found a pretty interesting case of this whole clan defection while surrounded subject.

Vlandia is losing towns in the south to Aserai, but Vlandia is just recruiting the lords who get ownership of them from the Aserai.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Lmao it seems like since Charas wasn't taken it gave Vlandia a strong surround bonus and it was easy to convert them, the Kuloving who owned Jaculan even owned Garontor Castle which was the initial settlement the Aserai gave them to convince them to join. You can also see that Vlandia did it with relative ease and only a few days apart (they were captured by Aserai shortly before).



I'm investigating Sturgia now as i have a sneaking suspicion that they just dont benefit from surrounding clan recruitment or have something wrong with them specifically. I have a good example of three potential clans I would expect them to try to recruit.

Spoiler

Like if the clan that own Takor castle (its only fief) doesnt get recruited by sturgia something must be wrong. Ov Castle (clans only fief) I would expect them to try, but wouldnt be surprised if Battania stole them. I would expect them to try for the clan in Urikskala Caslte, but again wouldnt be surprised if Khuzait took them. I'm gonna let it run and ill come back and update this post if sturgia actually recruits any of them. I let it go to 1088 and Sturgia never recruited the clan that own that Takor or any of those castles.

 

[Urzahil]

The initial post is pretty encouraging but it doesn't address mods that correct the imbalance between the different nations' troops as the research appears to be based on the vanilla kingdoms.

A much easier fix would be to implement a coalition system that's triggered if a kingdom gets too big. Once the "300 lb gorilla kingdom" is cut down to size, the coalition would disband.

There are real life parallels for that like the First, Second, Third Coalitions against France during the Napoleonic Wars as well as Protestant countries banding together against Catholic nations during the 30 Years War with Sweden finally swinging the balance against the Catholics.

And medieval? Easy enough. Richard I created a coalition of Flanders, the Holy Roman Empire, Navarre and England to keep France in check - which King John managed to unravel due to distrust/incompetence and proceeding to lose most of the Angevin holdings in France.

Plus the coalition idea would still work even for modded kingdoms.

 

[Apocal]

The initial post is pretty encouraging but it doesn't address mods that correct the imbalance between the different nations' troops as the research appears to be based on the vanilla kingdoms.

A much easier fix would be to implement a coalition system that's triggered if a kingdom gets too big. Once the "300 lb gorilla kingdom" is cut down to size, the coalition would disband.

There are real life parallels for that like the First, Second, Third Coalitions against France during the Napoleonic Wars as well as Protestant countries banding together against Catholic nations during the 30 Years War with Sweden finally swinging the balance against the Catholics.

And medieval? Easy enough. Richard I created a coalition of Flanders, the Holy Roman Empire, Navarre and England to keep France in check - which King John managed to unravel due to distrust/incompetence and proceeding to lose most of the Angevin holdings in France.

Plus the coalition idea would still work even for modded kingdoms.

It has come up before.

I am thinking all these stuff for a while too. Instead of nerfing Khuzait bonuses it seems real solution to all these problems can be alliances. Let leave game start unbalanced and if one faction start to be a problem for others (capture their settlements) they (at least two factions) should move together to stop this enemy and after they succeed this they can end their alliance and continue game individual (normal).

However problem is this solution has really work load and need good ai stuff even in map and deciding alliances. Different faction armies and parties will think together and join their map events / sieges / raids they will take war / peace decleration decisions together. However this will be a masterclass solution to all problems and if implemented good game can be even 90+ rating and this will be the real diplomacy game needs.

Yes, game needs alliances. This was obvious and most of us come to this conclusion at diplomacy developments thread.

I offered alliances idea to armagan too. It is “partly accepted” but we will talk about details at October. I offered when there is an alliance 2+ allied factions should be able to make a siege to a fortification together or they should join battles on map when allied kingdom party is attacked or they can defend allied settlements or they can get more open slots at settlements of allied kingdom + we should find negative side effect(s).

This feature will probably increase battle variety on game which will result in better gameplay experience and it will be slow down snowballing (if nobody make alliance with most powerful factions) which again results in better and more balanced gameplay experience.

It just won't be happening for awhile.

 

[RectalRanger]

I have been at work for 76 days and got another 18 to go before I'm home and can play. I pray that 1.5.6 is out by then, it's all I have been looking forward to since mexxico gave us the skinny.

 

[Qwezz]

Are alliances next on the list for snowballing developments after rebelions? Or has what's next not been decided yet?

 

[ManWithKnife]

Love the update! looking forward to seeing Rebellions added to the game.

 

[echoco]

While I like clans having their own castles in 1.5.6, I can't help but feel like the game is being forced to behave in a way we want it to. What I mean is it looks like TW made a system but only now begin to look at how it was designed and fix what they haven't thought of, duct-taping leaks as they find them. Like the recruiting problem that resulted in AI getting recruitment advantages.

There's also party upkeep cost being very low compared to history. Troop training is very fast compared to history. Armies gets completely destroyed when they loose instead of scattering and reforming. These amongst a lot of other little things doesn't simulate historical environment but we're expecting a more realistic status qou result.

For a start I'd like to see a test of a flat world map with towns and villages evenly and identically distributed. This eliminate favorable kingdom location as a variable. Run the game for 20 years and see if there are inherent advantages to factions. If Battania or Khuzait start to suffer like everyone else then we know it's due to their location. If Khuzait continues to rule, then we know its the army composition. There need to be a controlled environment to do these test, but at the same time no amount of control will account for random AI behaviors like 4 kingdoms declaring war on a single kingdom in one test and not in other.

The results we want from Bannerlord require a lot more complex AI behavior than the game currently provides. Things like alliance and client states (faction paying tribute to another getting some form of protection from them) is just the beginning. My prediction is, come 1.5.6 we're going to see something else emerge as partial cause of snowballing because kingdom-kingdom interaction in history was a lot more complex to maintain the status qou, not taking into account, events happened at a much slower pace.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

@mexxico

Which game version is this?

(talking about the new generation working)

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Which game version is this?

(talking about the new generation working)

1.5.5, worked with a previous 1.5.5 version pre hotfix that fixed it. Not sure about pre 1.5.5 saves tho