Information about developments at snowballing problem

[Dabos37]

maybe it can prevent the start of snowballing because they have more or less the same amount of towns.
and when one is taken, the loyalty mauls will prevent the new faction from making full use of the town taxes (maybe tax cuts due to loyalty can increase?). giving an opportunity for the original faction to get it back?
the player can always game the system. or ransoms can be increased so they would mean something.
also, the player can snipe a weak fief for his kingdom and sustain himself on its incomes.
taxes were the main source of income in warband and it worked fine.

The start of snowballing, as far as I have seen and aside from OP kingdoms like Khuzatis, is pretty much random. It mainly depends on how much 1v2 wars a kingdom is fighting during the campaign, and about how many armies are getting totally wiped in each side. For example, if Kingdom A starts defeating a lot of armies of Kingdom B, what usually happens is that Kingdom A starts having better army quality with more higher tier units, and more money to be able to afford higher wages and get bigger garrison. So when Kingdom B tries to attack Kingdom's A settlemets (better protected), it is fairly easy for Kingdom A to defeat more kingdom's B armies and get even more money, influence and renown. I have tested 20 years campaigns where all kingdoms are able to keep all their initial clans (which means that they have been somehow able to keep decent finances), but still some kingdoms are huge while other ones just have some few settlements... This means that the defections have not started yet (but close to happen), but even when most of clans have been able to afford wages and upgrades, they are still loosing fiefs.

I know that it is probably really hard to do but it would be great if kingdoms would be aware of they are losing a war and change its behavior to mainly focus on defend and defeat enemy armies.

 

[Nawki]

Maybe something like "saving mode" or "tighten the belt" for everyone.
When party Has < x% maximum size then :
-party needs x% less food
-party leader pays x% less wages
-Ai targets looters more often to regain their power.

Other idea is:
In peace time party wages are reduced because fighting looters is not as dangerous as fighting other armies.

 

[Apocal]

It seems to me that trying to maintain knife-edge balance over twenty years of a campaign might be too difficult to achieve, at least while keeping interesting shifts on the map. Obviously it would be easy to just double initial garrisons, put starting influence to negative and dump so much money into each clan that they never defect but that would be a bit boring.

But mexxico suggested alliances as a counter-balance, so is that still going ahead?

 

[SGT_Night]

however real solution is I think adding a feature for limiting party wage for both player and npc clans. So if a clan's income is low they can limit wage of clan parties at 500 - 1000 instead of unlimited so they will not upgrade their troops or recruit more troops at some point.

Secondary (best imo) solution is we can make clan parties feed themselves better with increasing their money making actions like better looter hunting (increasing looter's loots / plundered gold / targetting looters more) during peace time especially.

Why not this 2 options? if you as a player is low on money, what you would do? first think i would is to limit my party size and tier troops and i would try to gain money by trading, killing looters, managing caravans/shops, doing quests...

Even we do these we have one problem we always need to think of. We should not make Npc clan's economy perfectly balanced so there will be some poor lords in late game. So player will be able to recruit them cheaper than paying 1-2M denars. Thats why totally balanced world is not something we want. After 20 years past it is good seeing several kingdoms lost their territory and we have several poor clans at map. Of course currently this ratio is high.

I'am not a expert on bannerlord economy stuff but even if you applied those changes that i quoted above lords would not be 100% safe from bankrupt, they could fail in getting enough money (not killing enough looters, etc) and they will be weaker (smaller party sizes and with low tier troops)

What do you think about this?

 

[Marbles20]

But mexxico suggested alliances as a counter-balance, so is that still going ahead?

Though I'm all for alliances, and truces, I doubt that alone will solve anything as the system stands. I think having the tribute system (especially since it is infinite until the next war between the kingdoms) being a determining factor in whether or not to go to war is having a negative affect on kingdoms' economies.

Lets use Khuzait (since they are usually considered OP in most playthroughs) and NE as examples. NE has more fronts than Khuzait even though they both have 4 direct neighbors. As mentioned by another poster Khuzait tend to cherry pick their wars. So they bite a little off of NE and declare peace, a little from Sturgia and declare peace, and a little from either of their Southern neighbors. That usually means they are raking in 3-4 tributes from other nations + getting the income from the new fiefs. While NE gets bitten by Khuzait, gets a bite taken out by Sturgia or Battania, and possibly one of the other Empires like SE taking a bite out of them. That's 3+ tributes they have to pay plus the losses from those fiefs. Unless the kingdoms are pulling denars from thin air the tributes are bound to drain the kingdoms if they are held indefinitely until the next war.

I think their needs to be a time limit to tribute and possibly something else that could instigate or determine when kingdoms go to war with each other.

I liked how in Warband occasional border friction events occurred that let you know there could be a war brewing. It didn't happen with all wars but it gave the player time to prepare or get back to home territory. In Bannerlord it could also initiate build up of troops by AI Lords in preparation for the war as well, allowing lower troop numbers a little during peacetime.

 

[ElCrisp]

I agree the Infinite duration tribute system always struck me as problematic, It might not be a huge amount per clan but it can probably be a difference maker.

Low peacetime income strikes me as a problem in game design that affects both the player and the AI and therefore I think it deserves more dev focus, and more ambitious solution making. Also the lack of player things to do during peace is a parallel issue that could be addressed simultaneously with the right solution. While I am in support of doing some logical accounting fixes for that AI I think new systems or relationships between systems need to be made.

To be clear I think mexxico is doing amazing work within his limitations I am just making the case for him getting more help and a longer leash.

In regards to needing broke clans in the late game so the player has someone to recruit, maybe a player's relationship with that clan should do more to reduce the barter cost, and there should be meaningful ways to improve clan relationships.

Another thing i would look at is Issues (quests) as they currently exist, they are meant to simulate time spent looking after your settlements, as they generally speaking apply some sort of negative economic drag (-loyalty, -prosperity, -security) to your fiefs.
My understanding is AI clans will sometimes visit their settlemtents and "solve" these issues themselves. So my question is in practice which factions are most able to solve these issues and get the economic benefit? Is it clans who are winning all the wars and hence have a lot of safe space within their borders? Is it the clans at peace and therefore have the time to return home? Do AI clans get money rewards the same as the player? If peacetime can be made the best conditions under which to complete issues (or an AI that has taken a more defensive stance due their defeats on the battlefield) then this can be a balance knob for the economy of clans.
Perhaps some issues that when persisting can have a direct effect on fief income, or a positive effect on taxes for a period after completion.
As many issues only spawn under certain conditions, perhaps a number of issues could be made that only spawn during peacetime.


Perhaps lords should run caravans, given peace time is when they have their best return on investment. Or alternatively if a clan has the support of a notable perhaps the lord could collect their caravan's profits with the notable still gaining its power as normal. Representing the beneficial relationship of patronage, the merchant was able to requisition soldiers for its protection and pay the lord back their dues.

Along this line I think the game would massively benefit from trade agreements combined with the above change. ie a faction doesn’t have a trade agreement with another faction their caravans can't do business in that faction's lands.

This isn't just a cool change as to how it replicates the real world but it could actually perform an important balance function. There is currently no way to undermine another faction even economically except through direct warfare, this creates a huge problem. The only way for weak factions to regain any ground is to go to war and fight factions that are stronger than them which most likely just compounds their issues. Same with the infinite tribute system, the only way to solve their money issues is to go to war. This would provide a space for factions to "attack" the dominant faction without risking getting immediately stomped into the ground. Otherwise the only thing that really facilitates a come back is lucky 2v1 wars falling against the dominant faction

 

[Dabos37]

It seems to me that trying to maintain knife-edge balance over twenty years of a campaign might be too difficult to achieve, at least while keeping interesting shifts on the map. Obviously it would be easy to just double initial garrisons, put starting influence to negative and dump so much money into each clan that they never defect but that would be a bit boring.



But mexxico suggested alliances as a counter-balance, so is that still going ahead?

I think it is not about getting a totally balanced game in 20 years, but trying to keep snowballing score under 45-50, and all kingdoms alive. I have found that modifying some parameters like AI XP cheat help with most of the kingdoms, but the issue is still Khuzatis dominating in almost every single campaign. Check these screens:

1 hosted at ImgBB

Image 1 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

2 hosted at ImgBB

Image 2 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

3 hosted at ImgBB

Image 3 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

(the last screen is at day 2041 because I forgot to use the fordward command)

I have tested close to 10 campaigns and nerfing the AI cheat to slow down the AI getting T4 and especially T5 units help a lot (lower tiers should remain similar to avoid armies tons of recruits). Plus increasing a bit upgrade XP cost to 300-1500, from 300-1200 (T1-T5).

I am pretty optimistic with 1.5.8, because one of the things which makes Khuzaits insanely strong currently, is this kingdom's ability to always pick favorable wars. Hopefuly this gets fixed in 1.5.8.

 

[Althix]

the issue with Khuzait taking over half of Sturgia can be solved with the player's action, but that requires a lot of work being done fast. which sometimes is not something that can be done due to the current lack of quests across towns and villages. I build a character around Charm to get 'adventure stories' perk as fast as possible, which is the fastest way to increase the tier of the clan. There are two strategic towns for a player, one is Tyal and another is Sibir, simply because workshops there provide enough income to keep your 100+ army going, plus a single caravan is a way to go now.
Another thing to note is that for some reason most of the players focus on Khuzait, when Battania is actually way scarier now in my opinion. Battanian land is far more time-efficient than any other kingdom in the game, with the recent buffs Battania is the only actual super-power kingdom in the game, with Khuzait close second.

 

[Rycon Caldestan]

Edit: Another way of determining the average daily wage per troop would be to decide what you personally think the tier distribution of a party should be and calculating a number from that. So if you think the proportion of t1-t2-t3-t4-t5-t6 troops should be, say, 40%-25%-15%-10%-6%-4% respectively, you would add: (2 x 0.4) + (3 x 0.25) + (5 x 0.15) + (8 x 0.1) + (12 x 0.06) + (18 x 0.04) = 4.54 average gold per troop per day (which seems low to me).

I imagine a user screen of this to look like the troop selection in custom battle. You select the total number of troops you want and then adjust the troop percentages.
If we, the players, got to utilize this type of screen for select max wages you could input the denar cap, adjust ratios,
and it could output total party size.

There should be a default setting that you could reset to, but otherwise have player control for their party’s composition. Ideally this could be adjusted on a per-party basis.

 

[Sarissofoi]

That is kind of patching problems that you yourself create and call it solutions.
If AI(or player) shouldn't be able to upkeep elite armies in peace then maybe give AI proper budgeting skills?
The whole free soldiers for AI and also free EXP for them is more quick patch than a real solution.
Its shouldn't be permanent but I fear it will be.
Its ridiculous.

 

[Apocal]

The whole free soldiers for AI and also free EXP for them is more quick patch than a real solution.
Its shouldn't be permanent but I fear it will be.
Its ridiculous.

You do remember the reasons why they gave the AI those cheats, right?

 

[mexxico]

That is kind of patching problems that you yourself create and call it solutions.
If AI(or player) shouldn't be able to upkeep elite armies in peace then maybe give AI proper budgeting skills?
The whole free soldiers for AI and also free EXP for them is more quick patch than a real solution.
Its shouldn't be permanent but I fear it will be.
Its ridiculous.

We do not give lots of free soldiers to AI, only about 10 free soldiers when they first spawn. It has nothing related to our problems. This is nothing big.

I am not fan of AI cheats and try to remove as much as possible but we have to give passive XP to NPC parties because player party and NPC parties so different in lots of terms. Player make more battles compared to an average lord party (average lord party life (time between spawned - prisoned) is less shorter than player party) and if we do not give passive XP as AI cheat 80% of troops at Npc parties be tier-1 or tier-2. This damages gameplay so badly, we have tons of troop variety but we cannot show them to player. With passive XP cheat this ratio (tier-1, tier-2 troop ratio) reduces to 50%. I want to reduce passive Xp more but I fear to damage gameplay especially at combat side.

You suggested increasing fief income but lets examine a test from 1.5.8 results :

As you see total kingdom budget is 8000K at 1084 (game start) but it rises 30000K at 1104 (20 years later) so this shows we already have a money inflation at world and as you see kingdoms with high number of fortification (Khuzait, Vlandia, Aserai, S.Empire in sample test) have high money inflation. Increasing fief incomes will make rich kingdoms even richer and create new problems and make money inflation worse. Reducing loot income can be one solution but these lords mostly do not earn money from looter loots already. Loot is income for everybody while fief income is income for mostly powerfull kingdoms. Already 66% of total income is fief income currently remaining is loot income. Increasing fief income do not solve our problem, Battanians have already 2 town 2 castles in total for last 10 years of test they already have limited number of fiefs. Making fief income 1.5x will give them daily 2000 more maybe while we will be giving 10000 more to each other kingdom. This will help stronger factions with bigger territory more and total kingdom budget of 30000K will be 50000K at 20th year.

 

[GeluHUN]

We do not give lots of free soldiers to AI, only about 10 free soldiers when they first spawn. It has nothing related to our problems. This is nothing big.

I am not fan of AI cheats and try to remove as much as possible but we have to give passive XP to NPC parties because player party and NPC parties so different in lots of terms. Player make more battles compared to an average lord party (average lord party life (time between spawned - prisoned) is less shorter than player party) and if we do not give passive XP as AI cheat 80% of troops at Npc parties be tier-1 or tier-2. This damages gameplay so badly, we have tons of troop variety but we cannot show them to player. With passive XP cheat this ratio (tier-1, tier-2 troop ratio) reduces to 50%. I want to reduce passive Xp more but I fear to damage gameplay especially at combat side.

One huge difference for me compared to the AI is (and I'd guess for many players too) is that I care for my troops. I only ever do simulation battles if I'm 100% sure i'll suffer very few (if any at all!) casulties. All other battles are fight - and in fighintg I use shield wall and advance very slowly and use archers a lot - thus preserve troops and let them level up. Since AI can only use simulation they loose a lot of troops always.

So for now I guess AI cheat with passive XP is ok, because it "simulates" the player behaviour more (not the way, but the result). Maybe simulations could be made better? I think there were a lot of talks about that already?

 

[Dabos37]

We do not give lots of free soldiers to AI, only about 10 free soldiers when they first spawn. It has nothing related to our problems. This is nothing big.

I am not fan of AI cheats and try to remove as much as possible but we have to give passive XP to NPC parties because player party and NPC parties so different in lots of terms. Player make more battles compared to an average lord party (average lord party life (time between spawned - prisoned) is less shorter than player party) and if we do not give passive XP as AI cheat 80% of troops at Npc parties be tier-1 or tier-2. This damages gameplay so badly, we have tons of troop variety but we cannot show them to player. With passive XP cheat this ratio (tier-1, tier-2 troop ratio) reduces to 50%. I want to reduce passive Xp more but I fear to damage gameplay especially at combat side.

You suggested increasing fief income but lets examine a test from 1.5.8 results :

As you see total kingdom budget is 8000K at 1084 (game start) but it rises 30000K at 1104 (20 years later) so this shows we already have a money inflation at world and as you see kingdoms with high number of fortification (Khuzait, Vlandia, Aserai, S.Empire in sample test) have high money inflation. Increasing fief incomes will make rich kingdoms even richer and create new problems and make money inflation worse. Reducing loot income can be one solution but these lords mostly do not earn money from looter loots already. Loot is income for everybody while fief income is income for mostly powerfull kingdoms. Already 66% of total income is fief income currently remaining is loot income. Increasing fief income do not solve our problem, Battanians have already 2 town 2 castles in total for last 10 years of test they already have limited number of fiefs. Making fief income 1.5x will give them daily 2000 more maybe while we will be giving 10000 more to each other kingdom. This will help stronger factions with bigger territory more and total kingdom budget of 30000K will be 50000K at 20th year.

Your 1.5.8 example looks pretty good in terms of snowballing. Vlandia is huge but I am ok with only one kingdom getting huge in every campaign after 20 years if it is not always the same (Khuzaits). Interesting to see the SE’s come back and how Khuzaits were pushed back after getting 32 fortifications.

If you have time in the following days, would be great if you could share what changes we can expect for 1.5.8 related to snowballing. Thanks!!!

 

[ElCrisp]

As you see total kingdom budget is 8000K at 1084 (game start) but it rises 30000K at 1104 (20 years later) so this shows we already have a money inflation at world and as you see kingdoms with high number of fortification (Khuzait, Vlandia, Aserai in sample test) have high money inflation. Increasing fief incomes will make rich kingdoms even richer and create new problems and make money inflation worse. Reducing loot income can be one solution but these lords mostly do not earn money from looter loots already. Loot is income for everybody while fief income is income for mostly powerfull kingdoms. Already 66% of total income is fief income currently remaining is loot income. Increasing fief income do not solve our problem, Battanians have already 2 town 2 castles in total for last 10 years of test they already have limited number of fiefs. This will help stronger factions with bigger territory more.

If the winners of a battle recieves all of the loot and all of the fiefs this creates an obvious snowballing effect. We in this thread have been trying to reduce the acceleration of that snowball, and prevent it from being the same factions snowballing every game.

However the inescapable fact remains there is no way outside of warfare to inflict economic damage on a faction. Because war is almost the sole cause of a change in income for a faction.

We have quite a nuanced economic system but the only way to use it as a weapon against the dominate faction is while being at war with them. Raiding as a way to undermine fief income and the growth of dominate powers is only accessible through war. Wars which already weakend factions are simply more likely to lose.

In the real world politics and economics is the only basis that dominate military powers can be constrained, and even then military might is a more decisive factor.
All politics including tribute negotiations between factions is determined solely by war in this game.

 

[Dabos37]

I personally support every single nerf you want to add for loot income. Especially if it would help with snowballing (I haven’t tested it, so not sure). Of course, all this having in mind that high tier armor prices will get reduced soon.

 

[a_ver_est]

Loot is income for everybody while fief income is income for mostly powerfull kingdoms. Already 66% of total income is fief income currently remaining is loot income.

That's odd, I mean from my point of view, as human player loot is totally unbalanced due it is by far the easier way to get a lot of money making caravans, trading, fief investment, etc unattractive so the player can absolutely ignore all these features and just battle and sell loot.

I had my hopes that it will be significantly reduce in future patches but looking your numbers if you do the weakest factions economy will be really damage.

Looks like squaring the circle.

 

[Dabos37]

That's odd, I mean from my point of view, as human player loot is totally unbalanced due it is by far the easier way to get a lot of money making caravans, trading, fief investment, etc unattractive so the player can absolutely ignore all these features and just battle and sell loot.

I had my hopes that it will be significantly reduce in future patches but looking your numbers if you do the weakest factions economy will be really damage.

Looks like squaring the circle.

The thing is, how much money are getting weakest kingdoms from loot, and how much money are getting strongest kingdoms from loot? This would be a pretty interesting data to see. If weak kingdoms are the ones getting less money from looting, and something like < 20%, it would be clear for me which is the next thing to change.

 

[Apocal]

The thing is, how much money are getting weakest kingdoms from loot, and how much money are getting strongest kingdoms from loot? This would be a pretty interesting data to see. If weak kingdoms are the ones getting less money from looting, and something like < 20%, it would be clear for me which is the next thing to change.

Money doesn't count for much once an AI lord has enough. Loot income being decent helps keep weak factions on the running, so making it depend upon fief income will ensure they cannot recover from serious territorial losses.

 

[Dabos37]

Money doesn't count for much once an AI lord has enough. Loot income being decent helps keep weak factions on the running, so making it depend upon fief income will ensure they cannot recover from serious territorial losses.

Yes, this is what we could think but is that what actually happens? I mean, I have seen that once a kingdom starts snowballing, all I can read is this kingdom winning more and more battles, while weakest kingdoms lose, lose and lose.

So would be nice if there is a way to check the loot money for for every kingdom, every year, while checking the number of fortifications.

If reducing loot income is bad for snowballing, then of course that it should not be applied.