Largest stable companion parties in Brytenwalda (spoilers)

Currently viewing this thread:

ellwoodis

Regular
Best answers
0
TweakMB.
Don't touch the options to deal with complaints or deserters in Tweak. Their is an inactive line in menus.txt with that threat, but it is never used.
Any change to menus.txt in TWeakMB seems to cause Brytenwalda to crash.
I would be interested in seeing if the stable party think works out.
I've been using it for all my games, but find that half-formed stable parties are quite unstable.
I have rarely had any problems with Ciniod around even though he's out of the good stable party.
 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
Hidole555 said:
Does the stable 16-man parties still work? Ceawlin keeps asking to leave.
Hi,

I haven't had a time to play Brytenwalda for a long time.

I have a feeling that although the feelings of dislike in Brytenwalda are not (generally) coded to be explicitly mutual (as in native) the npc's are probably still implicitly disliking those who dislike them. THey just don't complain about the person but still dislike them. If this is true then the listed stable parties won't work unless they also fulfill the following conditions:

1)  that any member A has at most one member B who dislikes them (and only if they don't dislike any one else than B themselves)
2) if a person A has a companion B who dislikes him then he must also have a friend C that he likes
(they must also fulfil all the old conditions for a stable party)

The strictly stable parties will of course have no problem, since they are not allowed to have any dislikes in any case.

If there is interest I could generate new listings of stable parties fulfilling these more restrictive conditions by effectively setting all dislikes to be mutual.
 

iskar

Master Knight
Best answers
0
Have the strange constellations of people liking those who disliked them been removed?
 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
iskar said:
Have the strange constellations of people liking those who disliked them been removed?
They were there when I looked at a reverse engineered piece of python code back in 1.332/1.34.

But if warband anyway gives "unhappy thoughts" to persons whom somebody dislikes then this leads to interesting situations:
let's say person A likes person B,  who dislikes A - then A would be both happy and unhappy about having B in group.

Judging by the observable morale effects of having a friend and an enemy then dislike is stronger than like, so that the end result is that A will slightly dislike B while B will have a "normal" dislike of A. Unless also likes are always "effectively mutual",  in which case both would only slightly dislike each other.
 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
I tried changing the definition of stable party into a more restrictive one:

a stable party is group whose all members either
[list type=decimal]
[*]have no person they dislike in the group, or
[*]have at most one unwelcome person  in the group while also having a person that they like
[/list]

where unwelcome means any person who is either disliked by or who dislikes the member in question.

Assuming that the likes & dislikes are still as in 1.332 then the maximal size of stable parties drops from 16 to 15:

    Party_#1              Party_#2             
1.  "Agasicles"            "Agasicles"         
2.  "Athrwys ap Gwawrddur" "Athrwys ap Gwawrddur"
3.  "Ceawlin"              "Ceawlin"           
4.  "Clovis"              "Eadwin"             
5.  "Eadwin"              "Eithne"             
6.  "Eithne"              "Frioc"             
7.  "Frioc"                "Gwenllian"         
8.  "Gwenllian"            "Inka"               
9.  "Inka"                "Liuva"             
10. "Liuva"                "Lothar"             
11. "Lothar"              "Matui Turthail"     
12. "Mihael Ap Cadwalladr" "Mihael Ap Cadwalladr"
13. "Osmund"              "Osmund"             
14. "Siwi"                "Siwi"               
15. "Ultan"                "Ultan"             

                    #1 #2
extra morale    1  1
morale penalty 10 10

 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
Now that the Brytenwalda team has published the module system it was trivial to check the hero interactions straight from the code. The info that was originally posted by XYP still holds.

However, it has been observed that although the dislikes are definitely non-reciprocal in the code they are reciprocal in practice, and hence the old definition of stable will give rise to parties that are in practice unstable. Therefore I will change the definition of the stable party to be more restrictive.

The old formulation was:

a stable party is group whose all members either

[list type=decimal]
[*] have no person they dislike in the group, or
[*] have at most one disliked person in the group while also having a person that they like
[/list]

This will be changed to the following:

a stable party is group where all members either

[list type=decimal]
[*] have no person they dislike in the group, or
[*] have at most one unwelcome person  in the group while also having a person that they like
[/list]
where unwelcome means any other person who is either disliked by or who dislikes the member in question.

I will soon edit the posts at the beginning of this thread and post there the new stable parties resulting from this change of definition. The change will not affect the strictly stable parties as they are not allowed to have any disliked members anyway.
 

qmax

Regular
Best answers
0
Your data table does not contain the instances where some members dislike 3 other characters.  Are you sure it is accurate?  Or was 1.4 changed to reflect your data table?
 

azxcvbnm321

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
I had problems keeping all the members of the stable party list together in the beginning, perhaps because I was recruiting them all one by one and it takes time for them to "discover" that they like each other.  Three left and I had to pay a fourth not to leave since she was my medic.  After getting back the other 3, the party seems to be stable now and I hope this continues.
 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
qmax said:
Your data table does not contain the instances where some members dislike 3 other characters.  Are you sure it is accurate?  Or was 1.4 changed to reflect your data table?
I verified  the data from the python source that the Brytenwalda team released. All members have exactly two dislikes. However, since just being disliked turned out to be enough to make a member unhappy some members have effectively more than two they need to avoid. This is the reason I changed the definition of 'stable' to a more restrictive one.
 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
azxcvbnm321 said:
I had problems keeping all the members of the stable party list together in the beginning, perhaps because I was recruiting them all one by one and it takes time for them to "discover" that they like each other. 
Which of the stable parties are you using?

What you have observed is correct: the stable parties are not necessarily stable until you have all the members and until all the necessary relationships have kicked in (fighting a lot helps). Until that you might need persuasion and bribes to keep them from leaving. But it is not always necessary: I'm currently rolling with stable-13 #3, and no one has never tried to leave (but then again, only 2 members have a penalty in stable-13 #3).

If you need a party that is stable from the start you need to pick a strictly stable party.
 

azxcvbnm321

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
I was using stable party option #2 with Matui instead of Clovis.  That's because I found Matui first. 

Question, if you assign a companion to lead the supply wagon or send him out on a scouting quest, does he still count as a member of the party?  That is will he still negatively impact others even if technically he isn't there? 

 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
azxcvbnm321 said:
I was using stable party option #2 with Matui instead of Clovis.  That's because I found Matui first. 
Ok, so you are aiming for a big (15-member) stable party. Since those have 10 members with morale penalties they are indeed quite hard to keep together long enough to for them to stabilize...

[quote author=azxcvbnm321]
Question, if you assign a companion to lead the supply wagon or send him out on a scouting quest, does he still count as a member of the party?  That is will he still negatively impact others even if technically he isn't there?
[/quote]

Good question! I'm not sure but I think  that at least persons on scouting quests wouldn't matter: I routinely hire those people that do not fit into my stable parties and immediately send them to gather kingship support (i.e. the "right to rule"-missions), sacking them right away when they return. No one in my parties has yet complained about those members, even if they hate their guts.

So you might be able to use the various missions also to keep the instable ones away until you have found the necessary friends for them...if done right this would help with the tricky building phase of the big stable parties...

 

Hrafnskald

Regular
Best answers
0
Are there really no stable raiding parties with Aleifr? I am loath to part with his high trade skill...  :sad:
 

Lohi-soturi

Knight
Best answers
0
Hrafnskald said:
Are there really no stable raiding parties with Aleifr?
Unfortunately Aleifr is humanitarian (=hates raiding):

Code:
        (troop_set_slot	 "trp_npc2"	 slot_troop_morality_type	 tmt_humanitarian)
        (troop_set_slot	 "trp_npc2"	 slot_troop_morality_value	 2)

so he is not used in any of the raiding party schemes.

However his humanitarian value is only 2 so you might be able to keep him in a raiding party provided he has no one he dislikes in the party (and is disliked by no one) - if you don't raid too much...

The idea with the "raiding parties" I've listed is that no member in those has (positive valued)  humanitarian morality types- with those parties you can raid to your hearts content (some members might still say that they object to the raiding (for example Eadfrith, Ciniod...) but they don't really care as their correspending morality value is negative...