This exactly, the structure is there, just needs overhauling.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Linking prosperity with food production creates an inescapable downward spiral for fiefs
- Thread starter the_mango55
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
This exactly, the structure is there, just needs overhauling.
bearmans
Recruit
I want to just drop a possibly related anecdote.. yesterday, I started a new game and played for a few hours as primarily a trader, and eventually realized a pattern that lead me to go check (almost) every settlement in the game. I don't know if this is how it tends to go or an anomaly, honestly, but every single settlement but one that I checked, which was average, was "on hard times". Similarly every fief I checked was not doing well. This is ~260 days from the start.
Is this how it tends to go right now? It feels kinda busted, and I don't know what the systems are in place to allow things to recover from that point, particularly given how often fiefs get pillaged..
Is this how it tends to go right now? It feels kinda busted, and I don't know what the systems are in place to allow things to recover from that point, particularly given how often fiefs get pillaged..
Slint
Recruit
The lack of a consistent way to keep food supply up is nearly gamebreaking for me. I'm afraid to leave anything above a tier 2 unit in the garrison as I don't know how many times I've left for a campaign with food stocks increasing by double digits and literally thousands of units of food on the market only to come back to a garrison half the size due to negative food supply with no bandits in sight. I get the "realism" aspect of prosperity to food, but the economy of each town should be smart enough to be able to adequately supply food to the populace with the lord (me) only needing to step in during times of crisis.
when you get into late game you will own about 10 fiefs, maybe more, all across the map
that means you can't keep going back and delivering large stacks of food to each one, or you won't be able to focus on anything else
perhaps it could be an option to ask the town governor to send out parties to gather more food
that means you can't keep going back and delivering large stacks of food to each one, or you won't be able to focus on anything else
perhaps it could be an option to ask the town governor to send out parties to gather more food
paladinx333
Sergeant at Arms
You should be able to increase the food level of towns and castles by adding food directly. I have tons of food with me, why can't I feed my starving people? There is nothing logical about the current system.
You can't do anything to increase food in castles so this is an issue. I had 2 castles, one which produced way more than the other. One, I could put in a garrison of like 50 to 60, the other I had to remove the entire garrison and I still wasn't gaining food. It may be though that this will have something to do with villages being able to be developed in the future. Maybe once they add village development, you can fix this type of thing, I don't know.
yeah right now the game is a dynamic battle simulator, the economy, politics, personal clan, all that stuff is not developed even close to the same extent.
The way it's supposed to work is that your VILLAGES provide food to their respective parent holdings, I.E. Castle/Town. The reason it isn't really working out so well is because:
1) All of these supplies need to be delivered by actual NPCs in game. If you're surrounded by bandit infested lands then this will obviously play a toll on overall food delivery and prosperity. (Not much of an issue, besides the banditry)
2) Fiefs, namely Villages, aren't upgradable/manageable at this time, so there's no way to improve food output.
3) Food isn't allowed to be delivered directly to a fiefs Granary by the PLAYER, which is where the ACTUAL Fiefs food value is taken into account.
These are some of the issues I've noticed that cause this feedback loop and eventual downward spiral. For reference though, I owned Ortysia and babysat my fief and holdings and NEVER had an issue with food or prosperity. I always eliminated bandits and made sure all my villages were prospering and not "neglected".
1) All of these supplies need to be delivered by actual NPCs in game. If you're surrounded by bandit infested lands then this will obviously play a toll on overall food delivery and prosperity. (Not much of an issue, besides the banditry)
2) Fiefs, namely Villages, aren't upgradable/manageable at this time, so there's no way to improve food output.
3) Food isn't allowed to be delivered directly to a fiefs Granary by the PLAYER, which is where the ACTUAL Fiefs food value is taken into account.
These are some of the issues I've noticed that cause this feedback loop and eventual downward spiral. For reference though, I owned Ortysia and babysat my fief and holdings and NEVER had an issue with food or prosperity. I always eliminated bandits and made sure all my villages were prospering and not "neglected".
Last edited:
zeidrich
Recruit
It's not really a downward spiral, but the system is underdeveloped.
A big issue is people misunderstanding how the bonus from food in the market impacts things. It's quite confusing and I don't blame people for not getting it. The market bonus from food is part of the general town consumption model, where the town decides to sell off excess goods when there's low demand, it really has very little to do with actual food need in the town and gets messed up by other lords and caravans buying up the food when the demand and the price is low.
The main way that food is provided to the settlement comes basically directly from the villages. It's not the mobile villagers as was mentioned, that just delivers goods to the market, and only gives a kind of basic bonus based on demand. But rather a function of the number of hearths in the villages that aren't pillaged.
This won't be enough to maintain high prosperity. So those food related bonuses are required. A normal settlement with 3 villages at mid-ranged hearths will get about 34 food, which will get you to about 1700 prosperity without a garrison, with 500+ hearths it will go up to 46 food, or leveling at about 2300 prosperity. So you do rely on the food consumption calculations. But those are just a bit funny. Basically they're tied to the demand of the good, which is generally tied to the supply of the good, but so is the price, and as soon as the price gets low enough, caravans will come in and buy up all the stock to sell to another town.
Now, the thing is, demand doesn't go up when your settlement is starving, and if it DID, it would actually hurt the calculation because high demand for food means that you will sell less of it on the market so you'll get a lower bonus. So it's this weird situation where food in the market is tied to your food for the granary but only when it's cheap and there's enough of it, but if it's cheap, traders might buy it. If you drop it on the settlement some of it might make its way to the granary, but your prosperity also increases demand for goods so it still might not be enough to get as much bonus as you'd like.
So basically, your base static food is going to provide for about 1700-2300 prosperity if you keep your villages healthy. Everything else comes from this weird settlement consumption system, which is pretty counterintuitive, and while you CAN assist by delivering goods yourself, it's a bit weird. You can end up with a much higher bonus from having a reasonable amount of grain where the price has become 7 versus an absolute ton of grain if it somehow manages to be 14 because the whole supply/demand system can be a bit confusing.
Now, having 3 villages pillaged will essentially wipe out about 1200 prosperity worth of food as they don't contribute as long as they're pillaged, then over time more from the lack of hearths. Villages provide +4 food up to 199 hearths, +8 from 200 to 499, and +12 for 500+. Villages also produce 50%, 100% and 150% as many goods for those same values.
I think the big issue is that the starting prosperity isn't calibrated for these numbers. You're probably looking at, in the long term, settling in at a prosperity below 5000 typically, maybe even more like 3000 if you maintain your hearths, but so many settlements start at much higher prosperity than is natural. So it feels like a 'downward spiral' just because the system isn't built to be stable at high numbers. On the other hand, if settlements started at 1500 prosperity they would all seem to climb. This is especially the case in the provinces and for settlements that have fewer bound villages. The thing is, it is set up so that they hit a bit of an equilibrium, it's just that this equilibrium is generally lower than the settlements are started with.
A big issue is people misunderstanding how the bonus from food in the market impacts things. It's quite confusing and I don't blame people for not getting it. The market bonus from food is part of the general town consumption model, where the town decides to sell off excess goods when there's low demand, it really has very little to do with actual food need in the town and gets messed up by other lords and caravans buying up the food when the demand and the price is low.
The main way that food is provided to the settlement comes basically directly from the villages. It's not the mobile villagers as was mentioned, that just delivers goods to the market, and only gives a kind of basic bonus based on demand. But rather a function of the number of hearths in the villages that aren't pillaged.
This won't be enough to maintain high prosperity. So those food related bonuses are required. A normal settlement with 3 villages at mid-ranged hearths will get about 34 food, which will get you to about 1700 prosperity without a garrison, with 500+ hearths it will go up to 46 food, or leveling at about 2300 prosperity. So you do rely on the food consumption calculations. But those are just a bit funny. Basically they're tied to the demand of the good, which is generally tied to the supply of the good, but so is the price, and as soon as the price gets low enough, caravans will come in and buy up all the stock to sell to another town.
Now, the thing is, demand doesn't go up when your settlement is starving, and if it DID, it would actually hurt the calculation because high demand for food means that you will sell less of it on the market so you'll get a lower bonus. So it's this weird situation where food in the market is tied to your food for the granary but only when it's cheap and there's enough of it, but if it's cheap, traders might buy it. If you drop it on the settlement some of it might make its way to the granary, but your prosperity also increases demand for goods so it still might not be enough to get as much bonus as you'd like.
So basically, your base static food is going to provide for about 1700-2300 prosperity if you keep your villages healthy. Everything else comes from this weird settlement consumption system, which is pretty counterintuitive, and while you CAN assist by delivering goods yourself, it's a bit weird. You can end up with a much higher bonus from having a reasonable amount of grain where the price has become 7 versus an absolute ton of grain if it somehow manages to be 14 because the whole supply/demand system can be a bit confusing.
Now, having 3 villages pillaged will essentially wipe out about 1200 prosperity worth of food as they don't contribute as long as they're pillaged, then over time more from the lack of hearths. Villages provide +4 food up to 199 hearths, +8 from 200 to 499, and +12 for 500+. Villages also produce 50%, 100% and 150% as many goods for those same values.
I think the big issue is that the starting prosperity isn't calibrated for these numbers. You're probably looking at, in the long term, settling in at a prosperity below 5000 typically, maybe even more like 3000 if you maintain your hearths, but so many settlements start at much higher prosperity than is natural. So it feels like a 'downward spiral' just because the system isn't built to be stable at high numbers. On the other hand, if settlements started at 1500 prosperity they would all seem to climb. This is especially the case in the provinces and for settlements that have fewer bound villages. The thing is, it is set up so that they hit a bit of an equilibrium, it's just that this equilibrium is generally lower than the settlements are started with.
There were no bandits at all killing my villagers when I had my castles. I patrolled constantly and also had a few other clan members patrolling the area too. There was no way bandits were killing people and all my settlements were prosperous. It still could not produce enough food and what is ridiculous is that the 2 villages that were connected to the castle were both food producing villages. One was fish and the other grain and it couldn't feed the castle lol.
Yeah this is the main issue I have with it. I actually like having all the details and logistics, but they need some fleshing out to justify their inclusion. Otherwise managing it is a nuisance or in some cases, not even properly possible because of the limited input the player has.
I found this too, Just got to fief management and settlements seem to always be in a state of starvation. I think this is related to the endless wars in the game also. Constant raids tend to **** up villages.
Deathwish16
Recruit
The massive crashes in prosperity are linked to how the game calculates the towns current food needs/stockpile and how food is delivered to the settlement. The first way that it receives food it through direct, permanent bonuses to the food supply as shown in the granary food bonus and the "land around settlement bonus". These basically teleport food into the town stockpile.
The second way is through consumption of food in the settlement market. I will be parroting what is said in the dev diaries but basically a settlement is given a budget to buy food based on the settlement's prosperity. For example, a town with 5000 prosperity will have a budget of 1000 denars (this is a random number I made up I have no idea how the budget scales) that they will spend to buy as much food from the market as that sum can buy. In addition, higher prosperity will increase the total amount of food a settlement needs to consume before things go to ****(loyalty loss, garrison starvation, militia starvation, production decline, ect.) and increase its total budget to do so.
All food is delivered to the market/sold by trade such as the caravans swarming the place and the nearby villagers hand delivering it to the town. When they sell it to the market the price of the food item on the market declines and the town's budget can go further to buy more food for the stockpile. If the supply of food in the market dwindles its price will increase and the town will not be able to buy enough food with its allotted budget. This is basic supply and demand. However as some in this thread have pointed out if the price of food is low enough that it favors town growth caravans will buy all the cheap food to sell in higher priced markets, this is one of the problems.
This system is a house of cards that becomes more difficult to maintain as prosperity increases. The slightest disturbance in supply chains, (raided caravans, raided villages, looters that scale with player level but villagers that do not), can cause this balance to collapse and prosperity to crash back to more manageable levels. I have a suspicion that prosperity can get high enough that no amount of trade will be able to sustain it. A player can add food to the town stockpile buy dumping obscene amounts of food into the town market, thus crashing the price of said food so the town can buy a greater quantity with their budget. Many players didn't notices this happening when they sold the food because it doesn't effect the number immediately or they didn't bring the price low enough. I think an in game day must mass before the stockpile increases
Edit: A word
The second way is through consumption of food in the settlement market. I will be parroting what is said in the dev diaries but basically a settlement is given a budget to buy food based on the settlement's prosperity. For example, a town with 5000 prosperity will have a budget of 1000 denars (this is a random number I made up I have no idea how the budget scales) that they will spend to buy as much food from the market as that sum can buy. In addition, higher prosperity will increase the total amount of food a settlement needs to consume before things go to ****(loyalty loss, garrison starvation, militia starvation, production decline, ect.) and increase its total budget to do so.
All food is delivered to the market/sold by trade such as the caravans swarming the place and the nearby villagers hand delivering it to the town. When they sell it to the market the price of the food item on the market declines and the town's budget can go further to buy more food for the stockpile. If the supply of food in the market dwindles its price will increase and the town will not be able to buy enough food with its allotted budget. This is basic supply and demand. However as some in this thread have pointed out if the price of food is low enough that it favors town growth caravans will buy all the cheap food to sell in higher priced markets, this is one of the problems.
This system is a house of cards that becomes more difficult to maintain as prosperity increases. The slightest disturbance in supply chains, (raided caravans, raided villages, looters that scale with player level but villagers that do not), can cause this balance to collapse and prosperity to crash back to more manageable levels. I have a suspicion that prosperity can get high enough that no amount of trade will be able to sustain it. A player can add food to the town stockpile buy dumping obscene amounts of food into the town market, thus crashing the price of said food so the town can buy a greater quantity with their budget. Many players didn't notices this happening when they sold the food because it doesn't effect the number immediately or they didn't bring the price low enough. I think an in game day must mass before the stockpile increases
Edit: A word
ShotgunJed
Recruit
I just hope they improve the economy aspect of this game
Same issues...
I got 2 cities and 1 castle and it's Impossible to deal with food.
My garnisons are starving every 4 days and it's so boring because I have many elite units...
NPC castles and towns have hundreds of troops in garnisons and I can't have only 50 in Poros... all buildings are at 3, I'm using irrigation and I fought looters/brigands a lot. At the beginning the biggest village arround had only 24 peasants and now it has 32 so everything is fine there.
I also have the hunting policies and I even used some that reduced prosperity...
Nothing to do... Sometimes with 150 units it's okay, sometimes with 35 i have -25 food...
How am I supposed to play if I can't leave those towns alone with huge garnisons and if I always have to sell food on markets ? (Which is a solution that works for a few days and is possible because I only have 2 towns...)
I agree prosperity and food are linked but I really think the cap for prosperity should be the food production...
Prosperity should decrease first or really really better, I should be able to say I want +"number" (+10, +5, +20) food in cities and castles.
The prosperity level could auto go up/down to maintain the food supply level I choose.
There, I have the choices to boost garnisons OR prosperity without having to look at the fiefs health every 2 days... THIS is management...
This is really gamebreaking atm because you just can't do anything... I start a realm, I'm weak and I can't train units to defend my lands against huge ennemies armies...
I got 2 cities and 1 castle and it's Impossible to deal with food.
My garnisons are starving every 4 days and it's so boring because I have many elite units...
NPC castles and towns have hundreds of troops in garnisons and I can't have only 50 in Poros... all buildings are at 3, I'm using irrigation and I fought looters/brigands a lot. At the beginning the biggest village arround had only 24 peasants and now it has 32 so everything is fine there.
I also have the hunting policies and I even used some that reduced prosperity...
Nothing to do... Sometimes with 150 units it's okay, sometimes with 35 i have -25 food...
How am I supposed to play if I can't leave those towns alone with huge garnisons and if I always have to sell food on markets ? (Which is a solution that works for a few days and is possible because I only have 2 towns...)
I agree prosperity and food are linked but I really think the cap for prosperity should be the food production...
Prosperity should decrease first or really really better, I should be able to say I want +"number" (+10, +5, +20) food in cities and castles.
The prosperity level could auto go up/down to maintain the food supply level I choose.
There, I have the choices to boost garnisons OR prosperity without having to look at the fiefs health every 2 days... THIS is management...
This is really gamebreaking atm because you just can't do anything... I start a realm, I'm weak and I can't train units to defend my lands against huge ennemies armies...
Last edited:
Man if you were only there in 1910s 20s and 30s to tell the Bolsheviks this.... apparently they did not get it.
LOL.
Buncha idiots portraying farming itself rather than its exploitation as the path to despotic capitalism... yeah that's great. I don't think Lenin or anyone in the know believed that crap at all, it was simply a new path to exploitation of the basis of an economy for their own gains. Pretty flippin' obvious play.
Not a solution, just someones idea for a solution.
