• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Pillaging sucks, don't do it.

Users who are viewing this thread

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
tDCfjCg.png


This is using the Devastate option, which gives more rewards than Pillage. Yeah... this is pretty wack.

@Dejan were these super-low amounts intended? Or maybe the result of autocalcing the siege assaults with a max-size, max-tier party?
 

Monkey

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Isn't "raze" more intuitive than "devastate" and the term used in most games with a similar mechanic?
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Isn't "raze" more intuitive than "devastate" and the term used in most games with a similar mechanic?
They are close to synonymous but raze has a heavier implication of leaving nothing productive in the ashes but for reasons of continent-wide economic health, carrying that out would be a really bad thing for Bannerlord.
 

Monkey

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
While there are things I hate in Bannerlord, character development system among them, there are things I love and Bannerlord's economy is probably what I love the most. It's realistic enough that if you did that (neutralize a village or a settlement, economically speaking) the economy of the whole region is hurt (and of the whole world to a lesser extent).
 

**Iphicrates**

Sergeant
So you will get more money from a random pitch battle against moderately sized army, than you get after conquering and plundering prosperous city? LOL. Bannerlord logic at its prime.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
Yeah, that doesn't look like a good deal at all. Even if the rewards were good, I'd still probably never use those options, since any one-time shot of cash isn't worth losing relations with the town and all its notables. I'm eventually gonna want to own the place after all. But that cash reward is just a joke.

So effectively, all this feature really does is impose a morale penalty on your own troops for conquering towns
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
The gold gained is based on the prosperity lost (x15) The prosperity lost is based on the option as well as army size & the settlement's prosperity. Naturally, the exact values may be balanced going forward. Having said that, could it be that this fight was fairly small?

I will note that the phrasing of the topic isn't ideal for directly relaying it. I'm sure no ill intent is meant, but generally it makes it easier to work with feedback that is communicated constructively.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
Well, unless the reward was more than 10k, I'll take the morale hit with my men instead. The penalties are too high to make it worthwhile
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Notable powers -50% is huge, seems a little drastic especially if the option includes keeping the town. Loyalty -30 is pretty bad too, it makes sense but it basically would make a rebellion inevitable. Seems like an easy way to cheese and create new clans easily.

I think many of us only expected a devastate option with abandoning the fief as well. Like I may not want to waste men and money on a garrison but I may want to hit the economy of my enemy.
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
Well, unless the reward was more than 10k, I'll take the morale hit with my men instead. The penalties are too high to make it worthwhile
Imo the fundamental decision for the player is whether they intend to gain the settlement in a kingdom decision to defend & develop it thereafter. If yes, razing should not make sense. If not, it may.

I had a quick look around and it seems that the calculation is a bit bugged at the moment. This has a fix in the works. Once it goes out, the prosperity loss should be around 10-15 % with a small to average army (returns diminish as the army grows, 10% is reached with 200 men).

So with 9500 prosperity (roundabout the first example) and a 10% loss of prosperity, the besiegers should get ~14000 denars.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
Imo the fundamental decision for the player is whether they intend to gain the settlement in a kingdom decision to defend & develop it thereafter. If yes, razing should not make sense. If not, it may.

I had a quick look around and it seems that the calculation is a bit bugged at the moment. This has a fix in the works. Once it goes out, the prosperity loss should be around 10-15 % with a small to average army (returns diminish as the army grows, 10% is reached with 200 men).

So with 9500 prosperity (roundabout the first example) and a 10% loss of prosperity, the besiegers should get ~14000 denars.
That's a lot better
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
The gold gained is based on the prosperity lost (x15) The prosperity lost is based on the option as well as army size & the settlement's prosperity. Naturally, the exact values may be balanced going forward. Having said that, could it be that this fight was fairly small?
A little less than 250 men, all tier 5 or tier 6.
I will note that the phrasing of the topic isn't ideal for directly relaying it. I'm sure no ill intent is meant, but generally it makes it easier to work with feedback that is communicated constructively.
My bad.
I had a quick look around and it seems that the calculation is a bit bugged at the moment. This has a fix in the works. Once it goes out, the prosperity loss should be around 10-15 % with a small to average army (returns diminish as the army grows, 10% is reached with 200 men).
Great, that's more like what I'd expect.
 
I like the mechanic (and I like it more with some of the decisions mentioned by @Duh_TaleWorlds ) and I hope it gets developed further. I want to be able to economically devastate another kingdom and it would be great if the "Devastate" option had a scale that I can spend more influence (and lose more relationship) to wreck it at 50% or more.

Would like need a hefty code change, but the option to do that only and not take over the town would be great. No way I want the kingdom stupid AI voting on it and some lord has to sit on the smoking crater of where the town was.
 
Imo the fundamental decision for the player is whether they intend to gain the settlement in a kingdom decision to defend & develop it thereafter. If yes, razing should not make sense. If not, it may.

I had a quick look around and it seems that the calculation is a bit bugged at the moment. This has a fix in the works. Once it goes out, the prosperity loss should be around 10-15 % with a small to average army (returns diminish as the army grows, 10% is reached with 200 men).

So with 9500 prosperity (roundabout the first example) and a 10% loss of prosperity, the besiegers should get ~14000 denars.
That's awesome! Though I also like the earlier comment in here about literally razing a settlement: absolute decimation with no transfer of ownership. I would do that. So. Often. (Though I guess maybe other lords might as well which would be terrifying... hmm...)
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Some feedback on pillaging:
  • Currently, when the game calculates the chances for the AI to pillage a settlement, one thing it compares is the besieging faction's culture to the culture of the owner of the settlement. I think what it should be doing instead is comparing the besieging faction's culture to the culture of the settlement itself. What's happening now is that, for example, Khuzait capture's Amprela, sees it is owned by an Empire lord, and likely pillages it. Then, the N. E. comes back and retakes the settlement, and since a Khuzait lord owns it the game thinks it's now a Khuzait cultured settlement, so it likely pillages it again. The empire should not be pillaging Amprela when they recapture it, since it's their own culture.
vtlZq.png

  • Next, the game treats a rebelling town like any other settlement for the purposes of calculating pillaging chances, and if the town is a different culture than the new owner, then the faction will likely pillage it again after it crushes the rebellion, since the rebellion will be the same culture as the settlement. So for instance, if Khuzait captures Amprela and pillages it, there's a good chance of a rebellion happening, and Khuzait will come back and put down the empire cultured rebellion and pillage it again. Factions are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they do this. Pillaging shouldn't be considered for rebelling settlements. This can perpetuate a cycle of: pillage => reduced loyalty causes rebellion => crush rebellion => pillage.
  • Like Blood Gryphon said, the 50% reduction to notable power is really harsh (25% is pretty bad too), and that, coupled with the huge project destruction, is almost unrecoverable for a town in a reasonable timeframe after multiple pillages. Certain towns that are on the border between warring factions get passed back and forth fairly often (with some rebellions here and there), and the AI seems to be really aggressive with pillaging. This mean that both the notables in these towns are losing 25-50% of their power each time, and the projects are getting destroyed at a relatively rapid pace, especially when you consider that it happens in both directions because of what I stated in the first bulletpoint. Here's Phycaon after 8 years of getting juggled back and forth (and it's not the only town like this):
s7L1W.png

It's lost more than 19 years worth of projects (49,000 constructions points / 30 points per day), and the notables are almost down to the single digits in power. The notables will also never have a chance of disappearing, since they all own workshops/caravans/common areas. If the formula is changed so that a large amount of prosperity is also lost, then certain towns may end up in the mid to low 100's for prosperity as well. That's reminiscent of the 1.3's or 1.4's when settlements in high traffic areas would be almost perpetually under siege and prosperity would bottom out at 0.

There might need to be a cooldown on pillaging settlements, so they don't get caught up in a downward spiral.
 
Last edited:
This has a fix in the works. Once it goes out, the prosperity loss should be around 10-15 % with a small to average army (returns diminish as the army grows, 10% is reached with 200 men).
If I understand you aright, a town loses less prosperity when sacked by a larger army? Shouldn't a larger army do more damage than a smaller army?
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
If I understand you aright, a town loses less prosperity when sacked by a larger army? Shouldn't a larger army do more damage than a smaller army?
No, the more healthy troops in your party at the end of the siege, the higher the prosperity loss. It's a log function that looks like this, which is why Duh says there are diminishing returns with a larger party. It's actually based on heathy troops only, but it stands to reason that a larger army will usually have more healthy troops left after a successful siege.

If you choose devastate, then the prosperity loss is multiplied by 1.5, and if you choose mercy, the number is multiplied by 0.5.
 

Phwoar

Recruit
Some feedback on pillaging:
  • Currently, when the game calculates the chances for the AI to pillage a settlement, one thing it compares is the besieging faction's culture to the culture of the owner of the settlement. I think what it should be doing instead is comparing the besieging faction's culture to the culture of the settlement itself. What's happening now is that, for example, Khuzait capture's Amprela, sees it is owned by an Empire lord, and likely pillages it. Then, the N. E. comes back and retakes the settlement, and since a Khuzait lord owns it the game thinks it's now a Khuzait cultured settlement, so it likely pillages it again. The empire should not be pillaging Amprela when they recapture it, since it's their own culture.
vtlZq.png

  • Next, the game treats a rebelling town like any other settlement for the purposes of calculating pillaging chances, and if the town is a different culture than the new owner, then the faction will likely pillage it again after it crushes the rebellion, since the rebellion will be the same culture as the settlement. So for instance, if Khuzait captures Amprela and pillages it, there's a good chance of a rebellion happening, and Khuzait will come back and put down the empire cultured rebellion and pillage it again. Factions are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they do this. Pillaging shouldn't be considered for rebelling settlements. This can perpetuate a cycle of: pillage => reduced loyalty causes rebellion => crush rebellion => pillage.
  • Like Blood Gryphon said, the 50% reduction to notable power is really harsh (25% is pretty bad too), and that, coupled with the huge project destruction, is almost unrecoverable for a town in a reasonable timeframe after multiple pillages. Certain towns that are on the border between warring factions get passed back and forth fairly often (with some rebellions here and there), and the AI seems to be really aggressive with pillaging. This mean that both the notables in these towns are losing 25-50% of their power each time, and the projects are getting destroyed at a relatively rapid pace, especially when you consider that it happens in both directions because of what I stated in the first bulletpoint. Here's Phycaon after 8 years of getting juggled back and forth (and it's not the only town like this):
s7L1W.png

It's lost more than 19 years worth of projects (49,000 constructions points / 30 points per day), and the notables are almost down to the single digits in power. The notables will also never have a chance of disappearing, since they all own workshops/caravans/common areas. If the formula is changed so that a large amount of prosperity is also lost, then certain towns may end up in the mid to low 100's for prosperity as well. That's reminiscent of the 1.3's or 1.4's when settlements in high traffic areas would be almost perpetually under siege and prosperity would bottom out at 0.

There might need to be a cooldown on pillaging settlements, so they don't get caught up in a downward spiral.

I really liked this analysis, thankyou.
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
So with 9500 prosperity (roundabout the first example) and a 10% loss of prosperity, the besiegers should get ~14000 denars.
14k doesn't even cover the price of a workshop (it was 14.5k last time i bought one).

i think you need to reevaluate the gold we get out of pillaging and devestating. if it was 100k it might be worth it.

raiding a village in warband was super profitable and low effort. we got ~2k for it and relations hit.

Typically, there will be about 2000-2500 denars/thalers of goods, and a large amount of food, in addition to the village's cattle.

2k is almost half the wages of an elite end-game party (150 nord huscarls cost 38x150= 5700 denars per week and with 4 points in leadership you'll get 20% discount that'll be 4560 denars). if you raid 2 villages, you're set for the weekly wage.


while in bannerlord, taking a town guarded by 300-600 troops will net you 14k gold. tier 5 costs 12 gold per day 150 troops (not even end game party because clan parties) cost 12x150= 1800 gold daily. so the 14k you got from sacking a town will cover your wages for a week.

so sacking a town (i didn't calculate the losses costs in the siege) in bannerlord is the equivalent of sacking 5 villages (relatively safe action if you wait for the kingdom to go on a campaign and chose a village at the edge of the map) in warband.

tldr: 14k for sacking a town is peanuts. just like owning a town in the first place in bannerlord.
 
Top Bottom