Users who are viewing this thread

You and I are actually on almost the exact same page here. It is way to easy for a lord to gather very large armies and it takes way too long for castles and towns to build up decent sized garrisons. Further, it is very easy to take a castle/town with 1:1 odds when you should need significantly more troops to take a castle/town as to defend it. I would almost go as far as saying the defenders should get like a 20% bonus to damage/defense just to make it harder to take a castle at least in light of how easy it is to pull 500-800 man armies together.

As for a player is shooting for an independent kingdom, they should allow the player to call his clan parties to make up an army even if he is not a vassal. That would give the player access to 5 parties of 60 + his own party of around 80 by Clan Tier 2. That is up to 380 troops which should allow him to take a weakened castle even if the defenders were toughened up.

As for influence, usually I am swimming with it pretty quickly. It think my level 17 character has like 3200 influence already and earn like 40 influence a day passively. I can basically summon any amount of available nobles at a whim and so can most to order lords in my Kingdom. Considering there really very few things to use influence on, they really need to make more influence sinks, adjust influence gain or just make things that cost influence most costly to make influence meaningful. One thing I wish they would add as an influence sink, is the ability to use influence to override decisions. For example, in an castle/town election, if they don't list you are a candidate, I would like to be able to spend 1000+ influence to make myself a candidate. Another would be to campaign to remove someone as a candidate and/or maybe promote someone you want relationship with as a candidate. Another sink might be to just being able to use influence to build relationships with other lords, i.e. pay 100 influence to X lord and gain 2 relations. There is so, so much that can be done with the Influence system.

I also agree about the lords not having anything to do. They need other activities to keep them out of wars. Maybe if bandit bands get too big, they start to actually raid villages or disrupt prosperity and trade to your Castles/Towns. In that case, you and the other lords would have to hunt down all the large bandit parties in the area. Of course those banquets, tournaments, solo raiding, etc are go things for the lords to be doing as well.

Finally I mostly agree about how armies should react. Once a castle/town is captured, they shouldn't immediately move on to another castle/town. Instead they should either sit in the city for like 5 days to defend it against it being retaken and/or patrol around the castle/city for the same period for the same reason, then they should disband to go take care of other things. I would also say that maybe any party that is reduced to 30% of their max party size should immediately disband to go build up their forces.

I agree with pretty much all of this. There are a few things I'd add to each point.

I don't like the idea of stat buffs, unless it's just a bandaid fix until a better fix can come around. I'd start with lowering battering ram damage and increasing the health of the second gate. The troops behind the gate should also stand closer to the guard house. Ideally though I'd like to see cities and castle have additional tiers of defense. Troops right now route to what looks to be a second level of the castle, and there are additional battlements but you only need to take the outer walls to take a city.

I haven't started my own kingdom so no comment here.

I think the passive influence needs to be turned down and the influence from battles and activities turned up. Armies should take more influence to put together and some lords should have large influence requirements if they're busy doing other things. I like the idea of influence sinks though.

I think this is the biggest issue. Lords should spend time managing their lands, building up relations with the local towns, clearing bandits, etc.

I think you could change the healing rate, marching healing should be slower and wounded should slow you down more. This would encourage staying put after a battle.

I also think there should be a system of training troops at garrisons. This would naturally increase the garrison sizes.
 
There are several factors contributing to snowballing. One is as mentioned above, where "more = more". Another issue is that a defeated lord will either retreat to a castle and not venture out to recruit, or else recruit more troops than he has income to support. Once they've been beaten the first time, they can't recover.

One solution is to have enough "base" income to allow recruitment of a small army in a reasonable amount of time, but they will still need either a fief or a string of victories with loot afterwards to build and support anything larger. A lord should also have a small number of troops in reserve, so if he/she loses, that lord can put a modest sized army back in the field rather quickly, and then recruit to replace the troops in the reserve pool. Once the reserves run out, THEN they're in trouble, but not after their first loss.

I've seen "snowballing" in Warband, where an army defeats another army or castle with a long list of captives, and the winning army then grows even larger. Ideally, Bannerlord's upkeep requirements would soon force that army to reduce in size to remain financially solvent, or to put some of them in reserve in a castle or town, although taking castles and gaining additional income would still allow them to field a larger army. Having other lords refuse support of a massive army (due to rivalry, and fear of that lord becoming too powerful) might help reduce snowballing, so a winning general would need ever greater influence and relations to bring the rest of the faction in to support him or her. Competition is a real thing in reality, both between factions and between members of a faction.

There are two effects in play in reality: economies of scale, and diseconomies of scale. The first is where it pays to be larger, by having simply "more" to do things with. The second effect is where size causes communications delays and transportation costs, internal dissent between areas with different needs, and a larger perimeter to patrol. If not for economies of scale, we'd all be living in small tribal villages, instead of countries. If not for diseconomies of scale, there would have been one world government long ago, rather than empires rising and falling. As communications and transportation improve through technology, the diseconomies shrink, and countries become larger on average. Obviously, Rome exceeded the point where diseconomies of scale outweighed the economies.

In Warband, there was no disadvantage for having a larger kingdom, but no advantage either, as long as you kept enough lords to defend it. Those lords could be defeated repeatedly, and keep coming back with fresh armies of veteran troops, defeat after defeat. As long as they still had one castle and its attached village, they could recruit unlimited replacements. Looting the villages didn't affect the lords, only the player. Now, in Bannerlord, all of that is suddenly relevant, and it's going to take a while to balance. I'm at least reasonably confident that Taleworlds will address the most pressing issues, and at least make it fairly playable, although they've got no previous experience at building an "economy" from scratch.
 
Last edited:
There are several factors contributing to snowballing. One is as mentioned above, where "more = more". Another issue is that a defeated lord will either retreat to a castle and not venture out to recruit, or else recruit more troops than he has income to support. Once they've been beaten the first time, they can't recover.

One solution is to have enough "base" income to allow recruitment of a small army in a reasonable amount of time, but they will still need either a fief or a string of victories with loot afterwards to build and support anything larger. A lord should also have a small number of troops in reserve, so if he/she loses, that lord can put a modest sized army back in the field rather quickly, and then recruit to replace the troops in the reserve pool. Once the reserves run out, THEN they're in trouble, but not after their first loss.

I've seen "snowballing" in Warband, where an army defeats another army or castle with a long list of captives, and the winning army then grows even larger. Ideally, Bannerlord's upkeep requirements would soon force that army to reduce in size to remain financially solvent, or to put some of them in reserve in a castle or town, although taking castles and gaining additional income would still allow them to field a larger army. Having other lords refuse support of a massive army (due to rivalry, and fear of that lord becoming too powerful) might help reduce snowballing, so a winning general would need ever greater influence and relations to bring the rest of the faction in to support him or her. Competition is a real thing in reality, both between factions and between members of a faction.

There are two effects in play in reality: economies of scale, and diseconomies of scale. The first is where it pays to be larger, by having simply "more" to do things with. The second effect is where size causes communications delays and transportation costs, internal dissent between areas with different needs, and a larger perimeter to patrol. If not for economies of scale, we'd all be living in small tribal villages, instead of countries. If not for diseconomies of scale, there would have been one world government long ago, rather than empires rising and falling. As communications and transportation improve through technology, the diseconomies shrink, and countries become larger on average. Obviously, Rome exceeded the point where diseconomies of scale outweighed the economies.

In Warband, there was no disadvantage for having a larger kingdom, but no advantage either, as long as you kept enough lords to defend it. Those lords could be defeated repeatedly, and keep coming back with fresh armies of veteran troops, defeat after defeat. As long as they still had one castle and its attached village, they could recruit unlimited replacements. Looting the villages didn't affect the lords, only the player. Now, in Bannerlord, all of that is suddenly relevant, and it's going to take a while to balance. I'm at least reasonably confident that Taleworlds will address the most pressing issues, and at least make it fairly playable, although they've got no previous experience at building an "economy" from scratch.

Good points- the Lord being unable to recover after their first defeat in a reasonable amount of time is fairly important as well the autocalc going simply by numbers making sieges trivial. Most of the time in history the attackers needed 3-1 or better odds to even attempt a siege assault or a really large amount of time to starve out walled settlements. Some version of those should be implemented into Bannerlord. I always felt the capital city should be more important in M&B than it is (more notable people there, greater quests like Chief's Hideouts, higher prosperity from being the capital, better selection of equipment, and a larger garrison with more influence gained with the higher nobles of the kingdom at the cost of increased antipathy from their enemies as the court faction pays more attention to actions closer to them).

Also some calculation of how many days travel from the capital to the castle/city under siege and the siege taking a portion of that time based on engineering skill/party size vs the defenders to start so there is more of a chance for a relief army with the King to arrive. Timing sieges to when a King is captured or engaged in their own siege would then become key. Mercenary scouting missions to determine where the enemy King is at could be given for the player to set the start of the siege.

If the attacking party is not at least 3x the size of the defending garrison it takes much longer to invest the walls and build the siege engines with raids/counter attacks/logistics etc while engineering skill is applied to reducing that time not the way it currently works. The number of days to commence the siege assault then gets a multiplier based on days of travel from the Kingdom's capital whose settlement is under attack so if the target King is in residence or near the capital there is more often a chance for a relief army to arrive before the siege is over.

Ideally, the AI would prioritize defending towns over castles as losing a town affects the prosperity of the whole Kingdom immediately while losing a castle mostly discomforts the Lord of that castle and only gradually affects the strength of the Kingdom as many castles are lost. So if the King were attacking an enemy town they might not respond to defend their own town but in every other circumstances the King would rush with as much as an army as they could gather to the relief of the besieged town.

As it stands taking towns is too easy and quick for several reasons and the AI reactions feel implausible.
 
Last edited:
I like the recruitment system at the moment. At times I don't feel much difference from Warband. It's pretty same if you think about it.
I am not against the new recruitment system, I am categorically against the absence of the game, the transfer of the recruitment of new recruits for military generals to cities and castles, in the event of the ruin of villages, and since the villages have no respite, as lords with 20 soldiers begin to plunder their former village, immediately after the capture of the city or castle by the enemy, when all the villages move to another state. A chain reaction begins in the game, countries without warriors do not have the opportunity to recruit troops for defense, since the villages are all burning and ruining constantly until the faction is wiped off the face of the earth, this is further facilitated by a general escape from the country of lords or clans (it is not clear who who is standing now, because of these points of influence, the ruler essentially has no power). They have no money even to recruit troops over time. And they leave with possessions in another state as in Warband, and they do not get back to the country from the castles / cities that have left, so they also see a colored kaleidosk on the global map.

Now I’ve played further in the game, on the 350th game day I’m absolutely sure that the current single-player game has gross errors and is completely broken by Snowball, the more I play, the more I can’t see the logic in the actions of AI.
After playing a bit more I noticed that if some faction has a poorly manned city/castle, they often get a war declared on them and all armies then march on that fief, even if it is quite far away from their border. It's logical that would happen, but it would also stand to reason that reinforcing that fief would be the first priority of the lord. But a lot of conquered castles don't have any garrison, just the militia, which are quite poor soldiers and there is just like 100 of them. Maybe adding small number of higher tier militia would also help. Because right now they basically don't stop any army.
That's right, I also had a Sturgia war (where I went to prevent the faction from being destroyed in 20 days).
at first, only with Battania, now the Kuzaites and some of the Empires squatted on the war (I’m not good at imperial countries now, it’s highlighted on my map in red).
And you’re right, after the declaration of war, all the armies of the enemies passed near major cities, where there are still full garrisons from the start of the game, and went to capture only light garrisons (50-100 soldiers) inland, AI does not have an understanding of territories, they will only capture light garrisons across the country.
The Bannerlord game engine may be new, but the logic of the game has not changed from Warband, it was exactly the same there. On the Warband engine, it was just necessary to fill the garrison of the city of 2000 recruits in order to discourage the AI from attacking it, I believe that it works the same in Bannerlord, the AI will calculate the number of soldiers, and not their strength by levels, and quickly army misses past, in indecision to attack such a city.

And I also noticed that the best fighters are looters, I took part of them from captivity and they successfully throw imperial shrouded in armor, and what the Forest Bandit does on the battlefield is just wonders, in principle, like the Sea Raider, and Steppe raider. They are all the best and cheapest warriors, swing fast, stats are good, and the looters are generally excellent, it seems that before slipping into such a life, they were in the service of the imperial legions, throw one stone so that the warrior in a tin can immediately 1/3 of life is lost, knocks all thoughts out of their heads about the attack, and the warrior in armor is already thinking about whether I need to take my legs off the battlefield. And when a hail of stones, arrows, darts hits the infantry from several volleys, they have already piled on their pants, and rushing somewhere to the hilt, there remains only the cavalry on the battlefield, and the archers on foot, who then follow the example of comrades, run so that on horseback you won’t immediately catch up, I watched as the imperial archers ran through the snow faster than expected, at the level of the horse’s running.
Here is such an imbalance of troops, the game was created on the principle of greenhouse, i.e. incubator conditions for countries (there are no unique warriors, all with almost the same characteristics at each level for all kingdoms).
So I installed the tweaks mod and there has been no snowballing, it's currently 1089. There has been a few cities in that time that changed hands, but all of the factions are doing fine, and one faction just retook 2 of the cities they initially lost. So, the idea that it can't be done is false as it has already been unofficially done via modding, I think he simply buffed garrisons.
Please share the links of what and where to download and how to install, maybe it will save my 7 days of the game and attempts to save Sturgia, until the full snowball sets in, until the developers try to correct the situation in any way.
 
So imma just go ahead and say it. Not every game has a snowballing faction even before the small lord fix. I didn't have that issue at all and after the fix it has been pretty stable. Now my faction is eating the map but that's because I've been helping them out.
This is probably a case of "people without the problem don't talk about it on the forums"
 
I am not against the new recruitment system, I am categorically against the absence of the game, the transfer of the recruitment of new recruits for military generals to cities and castles, in the event of the ruin of villages, and since the villages have no respite, as lords with 20 soldiers begin to plunder their former village, immediately after the capture of the city or castle by the enemy, when all the villages move to another state. A chain reaction begins in the game, countries without warriors do not have the opportunity to recruit troops for defense, since the villages are all burning and ruining constantly until the faction is wiped off the face of the earth, this is further facilitated by a general escape from the country of lords or clans (it is not clear who who is standing now, because of these points of influence, the ruler essentially has no power). They have no money even to recruit troops over time. And they leave with possessions in another state as in Warband, and they do not get back to the country from the castles / cities that have left, so they also see a colored kaleidosk on the global map.

I think the AI is getting into a dilemma. If he doesn't destroy it the enemy lord will recruit and have more warriors. If he destroys the village, the enemy lord won't be getting any reinforcements. Maybe just maybe the AI is actually smart and doing Scorched Earth Tactics! They need to resolve the AI's dilemma I guess
 
Best fixes i see are:
-If one faction starts too get too big smaller should unite and counter said faction
-if war is longer lasting both sides should get tired witch should be shown with less raids/sieges
 
There's probably no magic solution which is why it taking them so long to work on it. I'd rather have a stable game with poor balance right now tbh. The main quest is basically pointless since I crash before ever completing it cause and it's an unavoidable crash.
 
So imma just go ahead and say it. Not every game has a snowballing faction even before the small lord fix. I didn't have that issue at all and after the fix it has been pretty stable. Now my faction is eating the map but that's because I've been helping them out.
This is probably a case of "people without the problem don't talk about it on the forums"
In some neighboring discussion threads, immediately after patch 1.05, they quickly checked what was happening on the global map on fast track, by the 800 game day (to save) the final snowball was coming, one kingdom completely dominated the global map.
The developers only delayed the end of the game in time.
I think the AI is getting into a dilemma. If he doesn't destroy it the enemy lord will recruit and have more warriors. If he destroys the village, the enemy lord won't be getting any reinforcements. Maybe just maybe the AI is actually smart and doing Scorched Earth Tactics! They need to resolve the AI's dilemma I guess
It’s also logical, but it breaks the game one way or another, and you need to work on these issues immediately, the crash or visual defect of the game is not so scary, as sooner or later the desire to play will disappear, since without the player’s participation the final is known on the global map.
 
It’s also logical, but it breaks the game one way or another, and you need to work on these issues immediately, the crash or visual defect of the game is not so scary, as sooner or later the desire to play will disappear, since without the player’s participation the final is known on the global map.

Preach, brother, preach! I want to ask you something this is different from the topic. Do you think we should rely on mods? What do you think?
 
I bet Warband had an artificial way of getting the ai to peace out eventually all games with diplomacy have a back door script. Make it so the player and AI can recruit at castles and that could help the ai rebuild. It's likely multiple systems causing the issue
 
I bet Warband had an artificial way of getting the ai to peace out eventually all games with diplomacy have a back door script. Make it so the player and AI can recruit at castles and that could help the ai rebuild. It's likely multiple systems causing the issue
Someguy said on a different thread make castles train professional troops while villages are for cannon fodder. I liked this idea. Maybe we will see it.
 
I've seen the snow ball slow down but it hasn't stopped by any means but I'll take what I can get this early. Warband literally made it so the AI couldn't or at least wouldn't destroy a faction without player involvement. So a script like if ai takes 40% of an a faction settlements it peaces out or gets ganged up on by its neighbors could help
 
I am not against the new recruitment system, I am categorically against the absence of the game, the transfer of the recruitment of new recruits for military generals to cities and castles, in the event of the ruin of villages, and since the villages have no respite, as lords with 20 soldiers begin to plunder their former village, immediately after the capture of the city or castle by the enemy, when all the villages move to another state. A chain reaction begins in the game, countries without warriors do not have the opportunity to recruit troops for defense, since the villages are all burning and ruining constantly until the faction is wiped off the face of the earth, this is further facilitated by a general escape from the country of lords or clans (it is not clear who who is standing now, because of these points of influence, the ruler essentially has no power). They have no money even to recruit troops over time. And they leave with possessions in another state as in Warband, and they do not get back to the country from the castles / cities that have left, so they also see a colored kaleidosk on the global map.

Now I’ve played further in the game, on the 350th game day I’m absolutely sure that the current single-player game has gross errors and is completely broken by Snowball, the more I play, the more I can’t see the logic in the actions of AI.
That's right, I also had a Sturgia war (where I went to prevent the faction from being destroyed in 20 days).
at first, only with Battania, now the Kuzaites and some of the Empires squatted on the war (I’m not good at imperial countries now, it’s highlighted on my map in red).
And you’re right, after the declaration of war, all the armies of the enemies passed near major cities, where there are still full garrisons from the start of the game, and went to capture only light garrisons (50-100 soldiers) inland, AI does not have an understanding of territories, they will only capture light garrisons across the country.
The Bannerlord game engine may be new, but the logic of the game has not changed from Warband, it was exactly the same there. On the Warband engine, it was just necessary to fill the garrison of the city of 2000 recruits in order to discourage the AI from attacking it, I believe that it works the same in Bannerlord, the AI will calculate the number of soldiers, and not their strength by levels, and quickly army misses past, in indecision to attack such a city.

And I also noticed that the best fighters are looters, I took part of them from captivity and they successfully throw imperial shrouded in armor, and what the Forest Bandit does on the battlefield is just wonders, in principle, like the Sea Raider, and Steppe raider. They are all the best and cheapest warriors, swing fast, stats are good, and the looters are generally excellent, it seems that before slipping into such a life, they were in the service of the imperial legions, throw one stone so that the warrior in a tin can immediately 1/3 of life is lost, knocks all thoughts out of their heads about the attack, and the warrior in armor is already thinking about whether I need to take my legs off the battlefield. And when a hail of stones, arrows, darts hits the infantry from several volleys, they have already piled on their pants, and rushing somewhere to the hilt, there remains only the cavalry on the battlefield, and the archers on foot, who then follow the example of comrades, run so that on horseback you won’t immediately catch up, I watched as the imperial archers ran through the snow faster than expected, at the level of the horse’s running.
Here is such an imbalance of troops, the game was created on the principle of greenhouse, i.e. incubator conditions for countries (there are no unique warriors, all with almost the same characteristics at each level for all kingdoms).
Please share the links of what and where to download and how to install, maybe it will save my 7 days of the game and attempts to save Sturgia, until the full snowball sets in, until the developers try to correct the situation in any way.


Use the vortex mod manager. And don't forget to click 'elevate' after you install the mod, this prevents the very common 'crash on startup' bug with mods.

Also I've heard good things about this one:


But I have no first hand experience of it yet. Will report back when I do.
 
Back
Top Bottom