Maximum997
Squire
Can i do it midgame?
How much time it needs to make garrisons big enough?
How much time it needs to make garrisons big enough?
-
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!
- Thread starter Koartz
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Squire
Economy should resolve around fiefs and troop recruitment/training/upkeep and upgrading.
That is where most money should go.
Now lords(or player) roll around with fat stack of cash with nothing that overpriced armor to spend.
That is where most money should go.
Now lords(or player) roll around with fat stack of cash with nothing that overpriced armor to spend.
Very true ! A casus beli feature should be implemented !
There's way too much war, that's the problem. Every faction is a genocidal blood cult that wants to raze the entirety of Calradia to the ground. If you imagine a slider between war and peace, the arrow has slid all the way over to the "war" side and broken through the frame. I'd be personally a lot more satisfied if factions actually wanted to get more prosperous and maintain peace. Faction leaders' personalities don't matter at all, the factions have no identity. Everyone wants to kill each other. It's not fun at all, it basically makes the game look like a video game in the worst way possible.
The balance should be a lot closer to peace than to war. Wars would still happen if there were actual legitimate disputes, but they shouldn't just declare war on each other over a stolen carafe of wine from a caravan like in Warband. World domination should be practically impossible on a consistent basis. Maybe you could conquer the entire map, but factions would keep coming back, new factions would form, rebellions would take place. Actually conquering the world should be a titanic task.
The balance should be a lot closer to peace than to war. Wars would still happen if there were actual legitimate disputes, but they shouldn't just declare war on each other over a stolen carafe of wine from a caravan like in Warband. World domination should be practically impossible on a consistent basis. Maybe you could conquer the entire map, but factions would keep coming back, new factions would form, rebellions would take place. Actually conquering the world should be a titanic task.
Last edited:
Maximum997
Squire
It works, but numbers in post are totaly wrong
The economy should not be able to support a lot of huge armies, at least until the various villages and towns have been upgraded to boost income and population. In the early stages, lords should struggle to boost or maintain army size beyond some fairly modest numbers, and never actively recruit above what they can afford to pay and feed on their incomes (the sum of some base income level plus their fiefs). Above that limit (if exceeded by recruiting captives after battle) their incomes and existing savings shouldn't be enough to pay and feed those extra troops indefinitely, potentially leading to gradual desertions if/when the food and/or money runs out. That same income should be adequate to allow defeated lords to at least return to active operations relatively soon with a smaller army, but it should also take a long time to train and recruit back up to original size and effectiveness.
Warband allowed defeated lords to return with a larger army than before, over and over with no limit. Bannerlord apparently makes it difficult for a lord to return with enough troops to even engage bandits after only a single defeat.
Possible solutions to faction "blobbing":
1 - "Infamy" mechanism, so factions which "blob" too quickly are increasingly more likely to be attacked by other factions. Slow growth becomes possible, but any faction that gains territory increases its risk of attack until that infamy bleeds off over a period of months to a year. Take one castle and there's a slight risk increase; take two in a short span of time and you're significantly more likely to be attacked; three and you're considered a major threat by all, and very likely to be attacked by multiple opponents over the next couple of months. MOST Lords should be hesitant to continue wars past one conquest, two if they're particularly ambitious, and only the most shamelessly power-hungry should be willing to risk a third in under a year.
2 - Troops in reserve at castles, so a lord can pull 20-40 men out to replace losses, with a priority to begin replacing those reserves as soon as new recruits are hired.
3 - Fighting to the last man was rarely ever done. Historically, most armies fled after only 5-10% casualties, or less, and most casualties were inflicted while running away, although that wouldn't be much fun in a video game. Most armies in the game should rout and regroup (re-appear) back at the nearest friendly town or castle after roughly 50% casualties (more or less, depending on morale and leadership), and half of the wounded should leave with the defeated army, rather than have every battle continue to the complete extermination of one side or the other. That means, after some number of casualties, no further reinforcements should come onto the field, and the off-board remainder of the broken army should disband and flee for their lives, but any troops remaining on the field at the time could still be chased down and killed if they can't reach a map edge. That still allows many of the small looter bands and tiny armies vulnerable to complete extermination by mounted troops or ranged troops, since all of them would be on the field at once, and could potentially be run down or shot and killed before reaching the edges of the map. The defeated lord's troops would regroup with the lord, and he'd be back to 50% strength in a few days once the wounded recover, but might take months to return to full strength, depending on availability of recruits. It wouldn't mean dropping from 120 men down to 12 with one loss.
4 - Higher priority given to defending nearby towns and castles, or those of friends, with a much greater willingness to enter and join the battle for the defense. It's currently too easy to take a castle, and the attackers don't suffer enough losses to prevent sieging taking a second castle almost immediately afterwards.
5 - Defender advantages in auto-resolve to make taking fortified holdings considerably more costly (2:1 or 3:1 losses for the attackers if equal numbers), even if successful. The victor of such an assault should be in no shape to immediately go and take another, requiring a period of recovery and recruitment back up to former numbers.
Warband allowed defeated lords to return with a larger army than before, over and over with no limit. Bannerlord apparently makes it difficult for a lord to return with enough troops to even engage bandits after only a single defeat.
Possible solutions to faction "blobbing":
1 - "Infamy" mechanism, so factions which "blob" too quickly are increasingly more likely to be attacked by other factions. Slow growth becomes possible, but any faction that gains territory increases its risk of attack until that infamy bleeds off over a period of months to a year. Take one castle and there's a slight risk increase; take two in a short span of time and you're significantly more likely to be attacked; three and you're considered a major threat by all, and very likely to be attacked by multiple opponents over the next couple of months. MOST Lords should be hesitant to continue wars past one conquest, two if they're particularly ambitious, and only the most shamelessly power-hungry should be willing to risk a third in under a year.
2 - Troops in reserve at castles, so a lord can pull 20-40 men out to replace losses, with a priority to begin replacing those reserves as soon as new recruits are hired.
3 - Fighting to the last man was rarely ever done. Historically, most armies fled after only 5-10% casualties, or less, and most casualties were inflicted while running away, although that wouldn't be much fun in a video game. Most armies in the game should rout and regroup (re-appear) back at the nearest friendly town or castle after roughly 50% casualties (more or less, depending on morale and leadership), and half of the wounded should leave with the defeated army, rather than have every battle continue to the complete extermination of one side or the other. That means, after some number of casualties, no further reinforcements should come onto the field, and the off-board remainder of the broken army should disband and flee for their lives, but any troops remaining on the field at the time could still be chased down and killed if they can't reach a map edge. That still allows many of the small looter bands and tiny armies vulnerable to complete extermination by mounted troops or ranged troops, since all of them would be on the field at once, and could potentially be run down or shot and killed before reaching the edges of the map. The defeated lord's troops would regroup with the lord, and he'd be back to 50% strength in a few days once the wounded recover, but might take months to return to full strength, depending on availability of recruits. It wouldn't mean dropping from 120 men down to 12 with one loss.
4 - Higher priority given to defending nearby towns and castles, or those of friends, with a much greater willingness to enter and join the battle for the defense. It's currently too easy to take a castle, and the attackers don't suffer enough losses to prevent sieging taking a second castle almost immediately afterwards.
5 - Defender advantages in auto-resolve to make taking fortified holdings considerably more costly (2:1 or 3:1 losses for the attackers if equal numbers), even if successful. The victor of such an assault should be in no shape to immediately go and take another, requiring a period of recovery and recruitment back up to former numbers.
Last edited:
Grendlewalt
Recruit
I specifically watched some sieges happening to get those numbers, and this is after 6years in game so some towns will be highly defended by this point.
The numbers are probably a bit too high overall and generally they are only applicable to AI vs AI sieges of castles/towns that have been held for a reasonable amount of time.
Obviously something that has been recently taken it will likely have only 200ish militia.
Either way if it works for you guys but the numbers are off then that's a good thing.
Update from post: Got to 10 years and no sign of any factions being eliminated yet.
Maximum997
Squire
Day 300.
Food bonuses:
Town gets a lot of food. For example average town gets about 100-130 food from a lot of sources.
And you have "citizen food drive" That is your bonus from tweak.
So it does nothing when you add another +7. It is like 5%. It changes nohing. Tp prevent constant starving you should add about 30-40.
Second: about Militia:
Base +1
Retired -21.35
From prosper +6 (6000)
Weapons 0.2
Citizen Militia X
Citizen Militia X. This is your bonus from Tweak.
With that numbers you have 200-250 militia troops + from prosperity. What is your prosper bonus after 6 years?
In my testing i make this bonus 25. And now towns and casttles has about 600-700 militia troops. It prevents any snawballing
Food bonuses:
Town gets a lot of food. For example average town gets about 100-130 food from a lot of sources.
And you have "citizen food drive" That is your bonus from tweak.
So it does nothing when you add another +7. It is like 5%. It changes nohing. Tp prevent constant starving you should add about 30-40.
Second: about Militia:
Base +1
Retired -21.35
From prosper +6 (6000)
Weapons 0.2
Citizen Militia X
Citizen Militia X. This is your bonus from Tweak.
With that numbers you have 200-250 militia troops + from prosperity. What is your prosper bonus after 6 years?
In my testing i make this bonus 25. And now towns and casttles has about 600-700 militia troops. It prevents any snawballing
Last edited:
Grendlewalt
Recruit
Give it a try, I'd say it will probably work unless you have someone who is already way too far ahead.
I managed to finally get BannerlordTweaks to work after a clean install and even its default settings are glorious. The most obvious thing is that I actually have mostly reasonable skill levels, After 10 hours of play including fighting a ton of tournaments and arena fights, my 3 primary weapon skills are in the 100-120 range, my riding (which I invested heavily in) is at 123. Also a lot of my other skills are in the 50-60 range except for ones that seem to be missing key requirements to level such as scouting which lists things such as finding tracks, that don't currently exist in game, as a one of the ways to raise the skill. The bad (maybe balanced) is that around level 15, you start running out skill and attribute points because levels start to become hard to come by, so the caps are starting to limit me significantly. I just don't have enough points to keep raising the caps and still get other things I need like leadership, tactics and charm. Still as I mentioned, this is going to make it hard for me to keep raising my skills despite the increase in rate of skill gain which kind of feels balanced to be honest.
Also in my entire 10 hours, only two cities had changed hands when I logged off last night.
I don't know how the other tweaks will effect me as I continue but these two changes along make the game 100x more enjoyable. I mean I have enough weapons skill now that I can ALMOST beat a lord in a Tournament (actually I am still 0 for like 20 in one-on-one duels with lords).
Also in my entire 10 hours, only two cities had changed hands when I logged off last night.
I don't know how the other tweaks will effect me as I continue but these two changes along make the game 100x more enjoyable. I mean I have enough weapons skill now that I can ALMOST beat a lord in a Tournament (actually I am still 0 for like 20 in one-on-one duels with lords).
Grendlewalt
Recruit
The 700 was 200 garrison and 500 militia. Generally all of the castles and towns will get over 400 militia after some time.
I don't know about the equations I was just looking around the map.
Examples from current save:
3 towns nearby all different factions
- Onira : Militia 427 - garrison 145 - Total defenders 572
- Syronea : M 468, G 224 , T 692
- Akkalat: M 407 G 174 T 581
- Odryssa castle: M 404, G 109, T513
Edit: To answer your question though prosper bonus for the towns was between +6 & +20 and generally prosperity from 3000-4000
There's definitely some playing around to be done with the settingsto perfect it. I think I agree on the food thing and may increase that a fair bit more too, this was just the first playthrough.
Last edited:
The problem with tweaking the whole "Starving" mechanic, is that it is there to balance out your fiefs prosperity level which in turn is used to insure that your income is not so much that it unbalances the game. If your people don't starve, then the prosperity level just keeps increasing, which means tax income just keeps increasing. I mean I already have one play-thru that has my lord earning 20k per day in income so too much prosperity is a bad thing if you want money to mean anything that is.
Maximum997
Squire
It is not stats that you need to see.
Militia number is simple as hell:
You have income, every income increase militia to 20 troops max. In my example i have 35,7 income, so overall militia count will be 35,5*20
SO if you want to add 200 troops of militia to every garrison in the game, just make this number 10. If you want to add 500 - make it 25.
My recomendation to prevent smowballing is simply as hell:
1) In the start of the game make it like 20+
2) In the middle of the game just make any number you want, just dont forget that 1 bonus = 20 militia troops.
Last edited:
Grendlewalt
Recruit
Sry I edited the old post as I realised i didn't answer the question.
Ill put the answer here too.
'Edit: To answer your question though prosper bonus for the towns was between +6 & +20 and generally prosperity from 3000-4000
There's definitely some playing around to be done with the settings to perfect it. I think I agree on the food thing and may increase that a fair bit more too, this was just the first playthrough'
Premu
Recruit
That's the problem I see, too. I think one solution would be to add war weariness for each faction. High war weariness will increase the chances that a faction offers peace and will prevent declaring wars themself. A high war weariness could also lead to some negative economic effects, like decreased taxes and slower regrowth of recruits in settlements.
War weariness could rise by:
- Declaring war should give a decent amount to war weariness right away
- Losses in battles
- Losing castles and cities
- own villages being plundered
- caravans and villager parties being destroyed by the enemy
War weariness could be lowered by:
- Conquering castles and cities (although the lowering effect should be not as strong as the penalty for losing a castle or town)
- Succesful plunder of villages and caravans (again the positive effect should be smaller than the negative effect for the losing side)
- Being at peace should slowly decrease war weariness over time towards zero.
So with time both sides in a war will get tired of it and seek peace. And kingdoms which just have finished a war will not start the next one directly afterwards. It will still allow wars to happen, and those kingdoms which are able to keep their damage low will be able to sustain a war far longer than wars which end in bloddy stalemates.
You could even add up another factor - that conquering back a fortress of your own culture will have a higher benefit, while losing a fortress with a different culture should be penalized stronger. It's one thing to fight for your land, but imperialistic conquests don't sell as easily to your own population. This could have a stabilizing effect on the existing factions if necessary.
Have you never heard of the "War of the Bucket"?
(To be fair it was most likely not caused by a stolen bucket, even if a legend claims that.)
Lucas Hood
Recruit
This. It's like there's no such thing as peacetime in the game, when I was a vassal for Vlandia all we did was war, once the war with the Sturgians finished, we opted straight into war with the Aesarei... And we were considered the most peaceful faction in the game since every other faction was at war with numerous factions at the same time.
The empire being at war with each other makes sense, but the other factions should chill out a bit.
Maximum997
Squire
It is very simple.
My reccomendation is:
1) At the start of the game make militia bonuses around 25 to prevent any snowballing and total repainting. You can make it even more if you want no repainting at all.
2) When you want map repainting and join wars - just change this number. Just remember that 1 bonus = 20 troops. So you can decrease that bonus, and militia will slowly(few weeks) decrease their numbers.
Late in the campaign you will figure out ammount of troops that you want in sieges.
You can castomise ammount of militia troops in any given time
Same with food - you can change it any time in the game.
Becouse my campaign with that ammount was not so good. I have 2 OPAF countries.Bigger nomber will prevent this 100%.
Last edited:
Neptune08640
Sergeant
In warband when a faction was getting to strong all the others were "joining" forces and declare war on the strongest. So even if a faction had more fief and vassals was equilibrated with an increasing number of enemies and war fronts. In Bannerlord I haven't see anything like it, Battania in my playtrough destroyed the Empire while Valida had some skirmish with Sturgia.