Issues being granted a town

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
So to show the approximate difference between having the Capturer Bonus in its current form and not having it I made some graphs with a simplified version of the equation. This will also give people a rough idea of the distribution of fiefs in a kingdom per clan tier.

The Distance Factor for the graphs is set to 1 for all cases.

For the equation I set all base clan strength numbers to 200. By this I mean I made the total strength of all vassal parties combined equals 200 for each faction. Then for each fief owned I assumed a standard value of 1,000,000 and a combined strength of 500 (garrison + militia parties). So for each fief owned, a clan's total strength would increase by 500 and their total settlement value by 1,000,000. For example, a clan with two owned fiefs would have a total strength of 1200 and a total value of 2 million.

The ruling clan gets an extra 100 points from the Ruler Bonus. For non-ruler factions I plotted the line both with and without the Capturer Bonuses for tiers 3-5.

The Y axis shows approximate initial Merit Scores for an election based on the current number of fiefs each clan owns. The X axis shows the current number of fiefs owned (sorry I didn't label my axes in the pictures).

Here's a comparison of each tier with and without the capturer bonus vs. the ruler clan.

Each dot represents the Merit Score per number of owned fiefs of a clan in a new fief election. For example, in the last graph, the ruling clan with 4 owned fiefs would have a merit score of ~20, while a tier 5 clan with 1 owned fief would have a merit score of ~22, meaning the tier 5 clan would have a slight advantage in the election initially (without distance factored in). If the same tier 5 clan were the capturer of the fief, then they would have a merit score of ~27, giving them a large advantage.

This is just meant to be a simple illustration and these numbers are not are true representation of the conditions you would see in a real game because the settlement values and clan strengths vary significantly, so please don't take these numbers as 100% fact.

Once the bug is fixed that halves the average distance for ruler clans, the distance factor for each clan should be more or less fair (depending on where their starter fiefs are located). Some factions will still have rulers with clear advantages from the Distance Factor depending on starting wars and fief locations. For instance, Monchug owns both Chaikhand and Makeb and is at war with the N. Empire to the west, so he will always have an advantage when it comes to newly conquered lands, but it (probably) won't be as insurmountable as it is currently.

I will deal with this problem. Thanks for detailed analsys.
Great! Don't forget to subtract the total strength of the militia and garrison parties of the newly conquered fief (including militias from bound villages) from the ruler clan's total strength or he will still get a small boost from having a slightly higher total clan strength.

Funny that you mention it, that's exactly what I did with my mod here:
Nice!

When you wrote this on your mod page:
it fixes a bug in how the game determines what clans are to be candidates for the fief that affected only the player's faction
which part are you referring to. Was that the case for patches prior to 1.4.1? The current formula applies to all factions, including non-player ones. Or did you mean something not related to the distance calculations?

Also, have you had a chance to look at the SettlementClaimantDecision.DetermineSupport yet, and if so, what are your thoughts on it? The stuff with the Calculating trait seems a bit off to me.
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
When you wrote this on your mod page:

which part are you referring to. Was that the case for patches prior to 1.4.1? The current formula applies to all factions, including non-player ones. Or did you mean something not related to the distance calculations?
It was prior to 1.4.1, when AI-only factions awarded fiefs instantly upon capture, so there was never a temporary point where the ruler held them.
 
Best answers
0
Aye, like Apocal said, when I wrote that description there was no point where the ruler of a non-player faction held the fief between it being captured and it being awarded, so this bug didn't affect non-player factions back then

In fact, I'm only finding out just now that they're waiting before voting since the latest patch hahaha.
I'll have to update my description.
 
Best answers
0
Also, have you had a chance to look at the SettlementClaimantDecision.DetermineSupport yet, and if so, what are your thoughts on it? The stuff with the Calculating trait seems a bit off to me.
I remember reading it after patch 1.4.1, when I was trying to figure out the exact numeric value that this method would return (more or less) to see what numbers the were being juggled for ruler vote overruling, but I can't quite remember exactly how it worked now

Calculating seemed to boost the support for lords with whom the lord had high relations, no? Gah, I can't quite remember
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
It was prior to 1.4.1, when AI-only factions awarded fiefs instantly upon capture, so there was never a temporary point where the ruler held them.
Aye, like Apocal said, when I wrote that description there was no point where the ruler of a non-player faction held the fief between it being captured and it being awarded, so this bug didn't affect non-player factions back then
Oh yeah, that's right. It's all coming back to me now. Thanks!

I remember reading it after patch 1.4.1, when I was trying to figure out the exact numeric value that this method would return (more or less) to see what numbers the were being juggled for ruler vote overruling, but I can't quite remember exactly how it worked now
Basically, the initial merit score that was calculated based on the equation I posted above is multiplied by 0, 1, or 2 depending on whether the Honor trait of the voting npc (a.k.a. "supporter") is -1, 0, or 1 respectively. Then, the same thing happens depending on the npc's Calculating trait (which is currently hidden from the player).

After that, the clans' relationship value is multiplied by the actual value of the Calculating trait (so -1, 0, or 1), and 20% of that number is added to the total merit score. So if the clan has a -100 relationship with another clan and the leader has a -1 Calc trait, then +20 points will be added to the merit score, which seems bizarre to me.

Finally, the merit score is now multiplied by 0.25 , 0.4, or 0.55 depending on whether the Calculating trait is -1, 0, or 1 respectively.

I guess some of that feels redundant to me, and I'm not sure why the clan's relationship score is only factored in based on the leader's Calculating trait.

Here's the DetermineSupport method for reference:

Edit: Also, you might already know this, but if you're looking for an easy way to see what kind of numeric values a method will produce you can add breakpoints in the code and run the game in debug mode to see what's being done at each step and the value of each variable. You can even take it line by line if you want. For instance:
 
Last edited:

ggttcc2

Recruit
Best answers
0
Thanks for the detailed analysis. (y)

Edit:

I just made a small mod that fixes this, by changing default owner to capturer
C#:
        private void OnSettlementOwnerChanged(Settlement settlement, bool openToClaim, Hero newOwner, Hero oldOwner, Hero capturerHero, ChangeOwnerOfSettlementAction.ChangeOwnerOfSettlementDetail detail)
        {
            if (settlement.IsFortification
                && newOwner != capturerHero
                && detail == ChangeOwnerOfSettlementAction.ChangeOwnerOfSettlementDetail.BySiege)
            {
                ChangeOwnerOfSettlementAction.ApplyBySiege(capturerHero, capturerHero, settlement);
            }
        }
And it really works! Other lords began to vote for me.
Greetings your mighty zenDzee.
Could you please upload the code into a mod so plebs like me who know nothing about coding can have it too?
Many Thanks! :oops:
 

Captain Obvious

Master Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
It needs to be close to your other fiefs I think. It really a bad system since the ruler gives them selves so much that everything is closer to their stuff. Although if you have the influence you should still be able to nominate yourself. You need to have more influence then you actually would spend though.
Wait hang on, it has to be closer to another one of your fiefs? That's bizarre.
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
Wait hang on, it has to be closer to another one of your fiefs? That's bizarre.
Keep reading the thread, there is more to than that. But distance from other fiefs isn't inherently bad; it allows for an adjacent or at least close-by collection of fiefs for lords -- both player and AI.
 

AnandaShanti

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Wait hang on, it has to be closer to another one of your fiefs? That's bizarre.
It's more complicated then that (of course) but it does effect something about them voting for you, or the ruler not taking it from you or something. I read there was a probable bug that mad a newly captured fief considered the rulers during the election, making the game think their fiefs were closer then they were. Don't know if it got fix or if it will.

In one game I duped Monchong by claiming a line of castles to the town I wanted. He won't spend all his influence to take a castle from you but he will splurge for a town, but if you're really really much closer then his stuff he backs off.

It also affect vassals staying your in faction too, if you give them a fief away from other faction fiefs they don't like it as much and will dump you.
 

AnandaShanti

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
. But distance from other fiefs isn't inherently bad
No but it presents a problem for someone wanting a town and not a castle, or not 6 castles. Keep in mind you can't get rid of your castles or give them to vassals later, so you're stuck with all this unwanted property that otherwise would be perfect for taking for new vassals.

If somebody know how to ruin your own garrison so you can lose a castle to enemies on purpose let me know!
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
No but it presents a problem for someone wanting a town and not a castle, or not 6 castles.
How so? There are no castles on the map that are particularly distant (as the game calculates things, not pathing) from a town.
 

zenDzee

Veteran
Best answers
2
Greetings your mighty zenDzee.
Could you please upload the code into a mod so plebs like me who know nothing about coding can have it too?
Many Thanks! :oops:
https://github.com/zenDzeeMods/zenDzeeMods_ZenFixes/releases/tag/v1.0.0
Download file: zenDzeeMods_GenerousRuler.7z

NOTE: this mod does more than just assigning the default owner of the captured castle. It also lets the AI kingdom ruler give away fiefs if his vassals have no fiefs.

NOTE2: e1.4.3 already has a fix for this bug.
 

paladinx333

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Keep reading the thread, there is more to than that. But distance from other fiefs isn't inherently bad; it allows for an adjacent or at least close-by collection of fiefs for lords -- both player and AI.
It might work that way in theory, but in my experience the lord that controlled Jaculan was often awarded Varcheg or Omor. Omor is almost half way across the map!

The distance calculation can make things seriously lousy for the player. The king of Vlandia likes to stick the player with some remote castle that is rather far removed from any of the choice cities on the map. In this case the player will always be disadvantaged when it comes time to vote on a decent fief.

In one of my games a bunch of enemy lords joined our fair kingdom. War was declared shortly thereafter. I made it my mission to capture several lightly defend castles far removed from friendly territory. I did not add any troops to the garrison after capturing them. I knew I wouldn't get stuck with any of the castles as I never seemed to be in the running for anything. I managed to take four castles and watched in glee as they were awarded to the new interlopers. Several of the frienemy lords were captured why trying to defend their new lands. HOPE YOU ENJOYED THE NEW FIEFS, BUCKOES!

:xf-grin:
 

ggttcc2

Recruit
Best answers
0

zenDzee

Veteran
Best answers
2
Thanks so much!
With this installed hopefully I may finally make proper use of the anarchy rebellion in Separatism.
There also many other little mods that I haven't published yet.

This mod allows AI parties to enter the castle as they flee from enemy parties.
https://github.com/zenDzeeMods/zenDzeeMods_ZenFixes/releases
File: zenDzeeMods_FleeIntoCastle.7z

This feature was very annoying in Warband, but I do miss it in Bannerlord.
 

ggttcc2

Recruit
Best answers
0
There also many other little mods that I haven't published yet.

This mod allows AI parties to enter the castle as they flee from enemy parties.
https://github.com/zenDzeeMods/zenDzeeMods_ZenFixes/releases
File: zenDzeeMods_FleeIntoCastle.7z

This feature was very annoying in Warband, but I do miss it in Bannerlord.
Damn your mod works just perfectly with Separatism.
Because kings are "Generous" now, floating clans start to get steady. No more consistent faction hops.
And because the capturing clan gets the temporary fief and its bonus effect on the vote mechanic, more clans are getting land and people are actually voting for them.
Not to mention the anarchy rebellion finally start to make sense. It used to cause immediate revolts upon capture of a fief before vote starts, if the faction ruler clan has too much land already.
I would say it really altered my whole experience. Definitely would recommend on 1.4.2, since 1.4.3 is basically unplayable right now.
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
With the new patch the fief election formula has changed a bit, so I figured I would update everyone on what has changed. A couple new variables were added, and some of the old ones were tweaked. Here's the new Merit Score equation:



  • The Clan Tier Bonus has not changed.
  • The Total Clan Strength now properly subtracts out the garrison strength of the captured fief from the faction ruler's total strength, which will lower the faction ruler's bonus by a small amount.
  • The No Fief Bonus has not changed and is still 30.
  • The Capturer Bonus has been reduced to 30 (from 50).
  • The Ruler Bonus has been reduced to 60 (from 100).
  • The Poverty Bonus is now added when clans have < 30k gold. The less they have the bigger the bonus up to a maximum of 30. The exact formula to determine the bonus is [30 - (Clan Gold / 1000)], so if a clan has 20k gold they get 10 points, if a clan has 10k gold they get 20 points, etc.
  • The Player Bonus is a flat 30 point bonus that only applies to the player clan.
The Player Bonus + Capturer Bonus now equals the bonus that the faction ruler gets from the Ruler Bonus, so those will cancel each other out if the player captured the fief.

Unfortunately, the issues with the newly captured fief being included in the Distance Factor calculations, and the value of the captured fief being included in the total value of all the clan's fiefs (meaning it gets counted twice for rulers), are both still present.

I don't know what the status of that issue is, whether it's intentionally being kept that way, or if it was just forgotten about. Keep in mind that these two factors somewhat balance each other out, since the value of the captured fief will reduce the faction ruler's Merit Score, while the distance factor will increase the Merit Score.
[Fixed with a recent hotfix]

Here is a link to the equation as it was in 1.4.2 as a comparison.
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Knight
Best answers
0
Thanks for this! While the issue has been improved, I still find rulers too greedy but It is now acceptable.