When it happens 200 days in there's a real issue. Ends campaigns, not worth playing the few hours because of this chance.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
-
If you are posting SP feedback without an actual suggestion, please head over to The Keep - Singleplayer section.
My thoughts on the Faction Snowball effect. Campaigns should go on forever!
正在查看此主题的用户
When it happens 200 days in there's a real issue. Ends campaigns, not worth playing the few hours because of this chance.
Lovec1990
Regular
Horse archers are so lethal on field battles thats why give them free space and watch them delete enemy army
My take on this has always been that a very easy way to fix this would be to increase the rate at which factions make peace and make their goals smaller. Small border conflicts, curbing a nation's power, land-grabbing, etc. Rather than all-out rip and tear eradication. And having factions request peace more frequently, rather than waiting until half their territory is gobbled up.
Another possibility is increasing the price of troop wages and feeding armies. Although I don't know if this would have an unintended consequence such as lords raiding and attacking MORE frequently to make up the income loss for their increased spending. Not sure how they're coded so it might be an issue or it might not even be connected but seemed worth mentioning.
Another possibility is increasing the price of troop wages and feeding armies. Although I don't know if this would have an unintended consequence such as lords raiding and attacking MORE frequently to make up the income loss for their increased spending. Not sure how they're coded so it might be an issue or it might not even be connected but seemed worth mentioning.
Aho
Recruit
Yeah, yeah you right but im saying lords should have little bit of character. Some people just don't care who they serve for as long as they have their stupid land and money so im saying if a guy doesnt turn up for an combined army think of my example
Right, but this was in thing in Warband as well occasionally (not always, but occasionally).
Theo_07
Regular
Funny how in the Beta they were dominating,but now are the weakest in SP.
I like that game progresses without player doing anything, but it is too fast, at least at start. Because often before finding all lords to talk about the battle and finding all pieces of banner many factions are wiped out (in one of my games, it was earlier patch, i wanted to pledge for some empire faction, but by the time i found it , there was only southern empire with few towns and by the time i found the leader they were already beaten).
I would suggest few things to fix this. I guess the first quest run to talk with nobles is way to introduce factions to newcomers and help them decide, but don't see a point in taking away some of the options before they can make decision.
1) Total war could be triggered by some date in game, or by the banner quest? Or both if player decides to not do the quest? By that time they might work on mustering armies, fortifying borders, raiding etc.
2) Weaker kingdoms making alliances to beat the stronger agressor.
3) Buff towns, more militia in towns (simulate townsmen/ crafters joining the defence).
4) Siege events like it was done with Viking Conquest to reduce attackers fighting power.
5) Tweak influence gain/ cost (clans seems to have almost infinite influence in comparsion to costs) Less influence = less organized armies in fields.
I would suggest few things to fix this. I guess the first quest run to talk with nobles is way to introduce factions to newcomers and help them decide, but don't see a point in taking away some of the options before they can make decision.
1) Total war could be triggered by some date in game, or by the banner quest? Or both if player decides to not do the quest? By that time they might work on mustering armies, fortifying borders, raiding etc.
2) Weaker kingdoms making alliances to beat the stronger agressor.
3) Buff towns, more militia in towns (simulate townsmen/ crafters joining the defence).
4) Siege events like it was done with Viking Conquest to reduce attackers fighting power.
5) Tweak influence gain/ cost (clans seems to have almost infinite influence in comparsion to costs) Less influence = less organized armies in fields.
Bannerlord is a different engine and there are a ton more interacting features. It's likely that the Warband algorithm isn't balanced in this setting.
As to why they didn't see it before, that's just how testing works. They likely had relatively short patch cycles, so testers don't have time to play 15 hours into campaigns. When I did software testing, they gave me specific tasks to run again and again. "Ad hoc" tests exist where you just play around and see what happens, but it makes more sense to get that data from the community in early access since that's what they'll do anyways.
There's a lot of inspiration that could be drawn from the Paradox games. After all that studio has been trying to find ways to prevent what that community calls "Blobing" for years. From cultural integration mechanics to civil war & revolts, there's plenty of proven ideas to pick from.
What I'd like to see on top of whatever else would be something akin to "World Tension" we can find in Hearts of Iron 4. In that game (about WW2), the vast majority of the warring and conquering of territory is done in the later part of the campaign as every faction becomes more motivated and less limited to go to war. Something similar could be done for Bannerlord, where the world could go through more or less cyclic phases of chaos and order, so to speak. Then, it can be balanced so that without player intervention, there's very little chance great chaos starts. Without great chaos, it's a lot harder for faction rulers to get their armies together, and prevent internal fighting.
I guess "chaos" is a bad name for it, but you get the point.
What I'd like to see on top of whatever else would be something akin to "World Tension" we can find in Hearts of Iron 4. In that game (about WW2), the vast majority of the warring and conquering of territory is done in the later part of the campaign as every faction becomes more motivated and less limited to go to war. Something similar could be done for Bannerlord, where the world could go through more or less cyclic phases of chaos and order, so to speak. Then, it can be balanced so that without player intervention, there's very little chance great chaos starts. Without great chaos, it's a lot harder for faction rulers to get their armies together, and prevent internal fighting.
I guess "chaos" is a bad name for it, but you get the point.
Sidhwen_Khorest
Sergeant
KaterinaBucket
Recruit
Imo this particular commonality isn't really an "issue" per se. I mean the empire is canonically in the midst of a civil war, following a disastrous defeat, and with external threats to all sides. It has much less of a Warband analogue than the other factions. It should absolutely either consolidate or collapse, and certainly decline in prominance no matter which happens.
Kings are talking about a war that happened a decade ago (main quest) as if it was such an important event, yet, factions fall down after and after in just few years. One can imagine the level of immersion being broken during the gameplay, yet this was expected in Early Access, and Early Access means it's time for players to help devs with suggestions. Here is my two suggestion;
1) Stop-gap solution for immediate fix for the problem (until other features comes into the game):
- Factions to have war targets at the beginning of the war which is limited to 2-3 fiefs at max, they will not go after any other fiefs once those targets are taken. This is a stop-gap suggestion, not a suggestion i would like to have in full release. Factions will also not go to war with current steady rate. No faction would have 3 wars at the same time (except player's faction, player can just declare war as he likes), and wars should happen rarely. There should be some good old peace times.
2) Real solution would be that:
- New Feature: War exhaustion
-- If war takes so long, or one side takes huge casualties, they go to negoation table, then peace comes in either that loser faction pays the money the winner asks, or they will become tributery, which leads us tooo...
- New Feature: Faction becomes tributery of another faction
-- Tributery faction will join wars of overlord faction & will fight for them, they will also pay certain percentage of their gold revenue to the overlord faction. Tributery faction could declare independence with war upon overlord, they may win or lose. If overlord faction continues to snowball over other factions, different culture settlements will start rebelling against it, which leads us tooo...
- New Feature: Rebellion
-- We already know that there will be a rebellion feature, but i don't know how it would look like, so i will bring my own thoughts about it here. Each new fief will has higher risk of rebellion for a decade (except capital cities [if player creates a new faction, capital city would enjoy the benefit of being a capital rather than rebelling against it, or if one faction's last city -aka capital city- was a different culture, it wont get any negative effect from it]). Increasing amount of rebelling cities in faction will increase the chance of rebellion in those cities. After a decade in the game, those fiefs will get a new trait of assimilated, which leads us tooo....
- New Feature: Assimilation
-- I don't see any reason to make it complex. Just automatic assimilation in a decade or so (it could take longer or shorter, depending on some of the active policies). If one fief is in rebellion status and didn't assimilated yet, taxes would be like %50 less than the normal level, which will make it harder for factions to snowball, because fief will still require it's militia to be paid but it will give less revenue. Factions will have to slow down their expansion, or they may not just get into economic crisis, but also their stability would be broken, which leads us tooo...
- New Feature: Broken Stability Trait
-- When one faction overexpanded so much, they will gain broken stability trait, which will not go away until all their fiefs will be assimilated. This would halt their expansion for a while. During broken stability trait, even same-culture fiefs will get high rebellion risk, and taxes will cut by half during the trait. If they continue their expansion during broken stability trait, that giant snowballing faction would just explode like a balloon, and new civil war woul arise! This leads us tooo....
- New Feature: Civil War
-- Strongest 3 clan will get independence, and their biggest supporters (most friendly clans) will join their newly empire. They all will have the claim of dead faction, and when there is just one faction left out of three, that exploded-faction will be formed again over the lands on the winner. Foreign factions could benefit of this situation, and can declare war on those mini-factions seperately to take their lands.
1) Stop-gap solution for immediate fix for the problem (until other features comes into the game):
- Factions to have war targets at the beginning of the war which is limited to 2-3 fiefs at max, they will not go after any other fiefs once those targets are taken. This is a stop-gap suggestion, not a suggestion i would like to have in full release. Factions will also not go to war with current steady rate. No faction would have 3 wars at the same time (except player's faction, player can just declare war as he likes), and wars should happen rarely. There should be some good old peace times.
2) Real solution would be that:
- New Feature: War exhaustion
-- If war takes so long, or one side takes huge casualties, they go to negoation table, then peace comes in either that loser faction pays the money the winner asks, or they will become tributery, which leads us tooo...
- New Feature: Faction becomes tributery of another faction
-- Tributery faction will join wars of overlord faction & will fight for them, they will also pay certain percentage of their gold revenue to the overlord faction. Tributery faction could declare independence with war upon overlord, they may win or lose. If overlord faction continues to snowball over other factions, different culture settlements will start rebelling against it, which leads us tooo...
- New Feature: Rebellion
-- We already know that there will be a rebellion feature, but i don't know how it would look like, so i will bring my own thoughts about it here. Each new fief will has higher risk of rebellion for a decade (except capital cities [if player creates a new faction, capital city would enjoy the benefit of being a capital rather than rebelling against it, or if one faction's last city -aka capital city- was a different culture, it wont get any negative effect from it]). Increasing amount of rebelling cities in faction will increase the chance of rebellion in those cities. After a decade in the game, those fiefs will get a new trait of assimilated, which leads us tooo....
- New Feature: Assimilation
-- I don't see any reason to make it complex. Just automatic assimilation in a decade or so (it could take longer or shorter, depending on some of the active policies). If one fief is in rebellion status and didn't assimilated yet, taxes would be like %50 less than the normal level, which will make it harder for factions to snowball, because fief will still require it's militia to be paid but it will give less revenue. Factions will have to slow down their expansion, or they may not just get into economic crisis, but also their stability would be broken, which leads us tooo...
- New Feature: Broken Stability Trait
-- When one faction overexpanded so much, they will gain broken stability trait, which will not go away until all their fiefs will be assimilated. This would halt their expansion for a while. During broken stability trait, even same-culture fiefs will get high rebellion risk, and taxes will cut by half during the trait. If they continue their expansion during broken stability trait, that giant snowballing faction would just explode like a balloon, and new civil war woul arise! This leads us tooo....
- New Feature: Civil War
-- Strongest 3 clan will get independence, and their biggest supporters (most friendly clans) will join their newly empire. They all will have the claim of dead faction, and when there is just one faction left out of three, that exploded-faction will be formed again over the lands on the winner. Foreign factions could benefit of this situation, and can declare war on those mini-factions seperately to take their lands.
最后编辑:
Of course, your example with the film would be relevant if I go on treacherously invading someone’s country and ask for help, due to the lack of a marshal, and in the game with these influence points everything works very crookedly and delusionally, the military generals themselves do not have points influences probably right from the start, since they can’t get together in order to defend their country, okay, one or two military generals would not support the protection of their lands, it would not be so painful to look at the absolute helplessness of all countries.Yeah, yeah you right but im saying lords should have little bit of character. Some people just don't care who they serve for as long as they have their stupid land and money so im saying if a guy doesnt turn up for an combined army think of my example
In my save game there is now 300 gaming days, I wrote earlier that I supported Strugia so that it would not be completely erased from the history of Calradia.
He started destroying villages on the principle of AI, while the Battanians recklessly ruled there, seizing cities and castles, clicking seeds like a detachment of 400 people - this is probably some kind of ultras.
Never in the mods on the engine Varband did not rob the village, but here the game itself forces it to be done. Complete nonsense - it is so interesting to go robbing the local population, so that for more time AI could not recruit new recruits for the Lords of Battania. 4- I looted the villages nearby, I didn’t have enough strength to deal with such nonsense, they already have these villages unmeasured.
Then he went to the lands of Strugia to try to take at least one city back, so that a few more villages became for the lords of Strugia.
The only solution could be to stop the Snowball:
1. When looting a village, move the recruitment of troops for Lords to cities and castles, even if only one city remains, all the same the militia must move to this city from all the villages that were captured so that there is at least some chance for countries not to be destroyed.
2. Prohibit absolutely all transitions of Lords to other kingdoms.
3. Solve the problems of influence points between the Lords, since after defeats, their influence points apparently go negative, and without victories they cannot score enough to form a combined army for the fight.
Or do you really want to cut out all the hires of soldiers in the villages from the game, otherwise in the game only the Lords do what they rob the villages. Worn like mad in these villages - move them to castles and cities.
I think rediucinig nocked unit can balance battles. In curent state half soldiers dies and half nocked, it's couse battle winner with even few remaining units get half of fallen units back and looser loose all fallen units, by rediucing nocked units after Battle winner and looser both brock, and winner can't follow conquering so fast and need to rebuild.
sorry for poor english
sorry for poor english
durbal
Sergeant
Yeah, a big issue is that armies are basically doomstacks and when one doomstack falls the other ones gets stronger. It doesn't help that the defeated army basically loses EVERYTHING -- troops are either dead or captured or any that somehow retreated are chased down and then again are killed or captured. It shouldn't work this way.
