Pillaging sucks, don't do it.

Currently viewing this thread:

tldr: 14k for sacking a town is peanuts. just like owning a town in the first place in bannerlord.
A successful siege already provides you with a range of rewards (loot, experience, influence, renown, a bonus to the settlement selection, etc.). None of which resolve all financial woes by themselves. Pillaging is simply an additional choice to exchange penalties for a boost - and introduce a trait based AI dynamic to the world that will, ideally, help with things like snowballing and developmental stagnation (previously all towns would permanently max out their projects at some point).

As noted earlier, this may well see further balancing, but I personally doubt that you will see the numbers you indicated. They would likely break the game.

@Bannerman Man From what I can tell, it should indeed be the settlement culture. Added it to the ticket.
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant 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.

Interesting info. This new feature probably has a lot to do with the great snowballing results in 1.5.8.

I do agree with AI should not be pillaging same culture towns, but I am ok with AI pillaging rebel towns if have different culture. For example, Khuzaits take Amprela, a rebellion happens and Khuzaits likely pillage it after re-taking it. But yes, NE taking Amprela from Khuzaits and pillaging it looks wrong.

Everything which means difficulties for kingdoms keeping different culture towns is pretty welcome IMO. Same for everything which makes easier for original owners to re-take loss territory.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
A successful siege already provides you with a range of rewards (loot, experience, influence, renown, a bonus to the settlement selection, etc.). None of which resolve all financial woes by themselves. Pillaging is simply an additional choice to exchange penalties for a boost - and introduce a trait based AI dynamic to the world that will, ideally, help with things like snowballing and developmental stagnation (previously all towns would permanently max out their projects at some point).

As noted earlier, this may well see further balancing, but I personally doubt that you will see the numbers you indicated. They would likely break the game.

@Bannerman Man From what I can tell, it should indeed be the settlement culture. Added it to the ticket.
Loot: yes but not different then a small party or 2. Sometime it's mostly militia and b list units too.
Influence: This is a none issue if you're a solo clan, which is the optimal play strategy.
renown: Yes :smile:
bonus to the settlement selection: I don't know what this means :sad:

I was mostly just surprised at how low it was when I took a town, but I don't really mind. I do hope the pay off of devastating a un-lovable town is viable. I hope if I wreck Chaikand I really see monchung actually have diminished troops and such.
 
@Duh_TaleWorlds if the current calculation really is just Prosperity based, then I think buildings levels reduced should also be added to the calculation in some way.
Also are fortifications included in those lost building levels? Because it would be quite ridiculous to lose wall levels just from a bit of pillaging post-battle.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
@Duh_TaleWorlds if the current calculation really is just Prosperity based, then I think buildings levels reduced should also be added to the calculation in some way.
Also are fortifications included in those lost building levels? Because it would be quite ridiculous to lose wall levels just from a bit of pillaging post-battle.
It does seem to lower fortification levels. If you look at the spoiler image in Bannerman Man's post earlier in this thread, it shows Phycaon going from fortification level 3 to level 1 after 8 years.
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
Pillaging is simply an additional choice to exchange penalties for a boost
if one can successfully siege a town, 14k is pocket change. even 30k is super easy to get by simply selling 2-3 battles' loot.

30k gold isn't worth taking a relations hit and getting most likely banned from recruitment in that town.
 

Noschkov

Sergeant
I think there could also be a nice option in this to give different cultures exta Identity by chanching how they act in foreign lands. For example lets say the Empire Factions are used to more diverse empires and try to get good friends with their new townspeople while some semi-nomadic horese people have a very bad opinion of other countries and/or a more warrior-like culture so they prefer to get more money but risk more rebellions among the strange farmer people they don't unterstand
 

AJAJP_Juan

Knight at Arms
if one can successfully siege a town, 14k is pocket change. even 30k is super easy to get by simply selling 2-3 battles' loot.

30k gold isn't worth taking a relations hit and getting most likely banned from recruitment in that town.

We have emissaries now, which massively help with that.
 

Çağtay

Veteran
I think there could also be a nice option in this to give different cultures exta Identity by chanching how they act in foreign lands. For example lets say the Empire Factions are used to more diverse empires and try to get good friends with their new townspeople while some semi-nomadic horese people have a very bad opinion of other countries and/or a more warrior-like culture so they prefer to get more money but risk more rebellions among the strange farmer people they don't unterstand
fits in with history too, there is no city mongols took but didnt devastate, also Huns after conquring eastern europe stuck with vast piece of land and settled people which resulted with less and less control over them over the years,beacuse they were constantly pillaging so one would conclude short term loot was more benafical over the headache of controlling settled farmers as nomads

instead of increasing loot amount gloabally,give it as unique bonus to only some factions might rely on it
 

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
A successful siege already provides you with a range of rewards (loot, experience, influence, renown, a bonus to the settlement selection, etc.). None of which resolve all financial woes by themselves. Pillaging is simply an additional choice to exchange penalties for a boost - and introduce a trait based AI dynamic to the world that will, ideally, help with things like snowballing and developmental stagnation (previously all towns would permanently max out their projects at some point).

As noted earlier, this may well see further balancing, but I personally doubt that you will see the numbers you indicated. They would likely break the game.

@Bannerman Man From what I can tell, it should indeed be the settlement culture. Added it to the ticket.
We can already earn up to 10k(which is capped) from a single battle but earning a maximum of 14k from a city pillaging is very... very low amount. Sieging a castle or a town is already rarer than battles so what is the point of making the amount this low. We can already earn more by just battling on the field. We should at least be able to get most of the money from the town and get additional money from the citizens as well. It will be never worth it in this situation. What breaks the game is smithing exploit and having no enough income from something else. This pillaging thing could have been perfect for a banditlord playthrough but will not be if the income will stay this low.
 

lukkyb

Sergeant
We can already earn up to 10k(which is capped) from a single battle but earning a maximum of 14k from a city pillaging is very... very low amount. Sieging a castle or a town is already rarer than battles so what is the point of making the amount this low. We can already earn more by just battling on the field. We should at least be able to get most of the money from the town and get additional money from the citizens as well. It will be never worth it in this situation. What breaks the game is smithing exploit and having no enough income from something else. This pillaging thing could have been perfect for a banditlord playthrough but will not be if the income will stay this low.
maybe the amount earned on the feild is too high rather than the sieges too low
 
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.
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?



lol only 300 gold?? if you attach a 20 man bandit looters group, you will probably get more than that
how's that even possible for a big city for 9000+ prosperity?

it;s like you kill a turkey, but you only reward with one turkey feather, no meat at all
 

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
maybe the amount earned on the feild is too high rather than the sieges too low
It is not enough if you don’t have a passive income like shops, towns etc. I don’t think it should be necessary to be a trader and own shops (Because why should I trade if I want to play a rogue, bloodthirsty character). One should be able to sustain their economy with the battle loot. If you don’t battle nonstop (which you can’t, because of getting wounded, gathering men etc) you can’t sustain economy just with battling.
 

lukkyb

Sergeant
It is not enough if you don’t have a passive income like shops, towns etc. I don’t think it should be necessary to be a trader and own shops (Because why should I trade if I want to play a rogue, bloodthirsty character). One should be able to sustain their economy with the battle loot. If you don’t battle nonstop (which you can’t, because of getting wounded, gathering men etc) you can’t sustain economy just with battling.
true but being able to not ahve to fight for years since you made 100k from looting one town dosnent seem right to me and usuually its not just you other lords are there too who each get loot
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
The entire system doesn't make sense. Why would you do anything to HARM a city you plan to occupy? All choosing pillage or devastate does it put the city into your factions hands in a much more weaken state than choosing "Show Mercy" would. Why would you shoot yourself in the foot like that?
 
The entire system doesn't make sense. Why would you do anything to HARM a city you plan to occupy? All choosing pillage or devastate does it put the city into your factions hands in a much more weaken state than choosing "Show Mercy" would. Why would you shoot yourself in the foot like that?
Because historical warlords do not always choose the most rational course of action.

That being said, I did wish there was an option to simply devastate and not take the city.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
The entire system doesn't make sense. Why would you do anything to HARM a city you plan to occupy? All choosing pillage or devastate does it put the city into your factions hands in a much more weaken state than choosing "Show Mercy" would. Why would you shoot yourself in the foot like that?
Historically? Because you didn't pay your troops a wage and so they expected to be rewarded with loot.
 
Historically? Because you didn't pay your troops a wage and so they expected to be rewarded with loot.
This. Why is the game setup in a way where you need to provide wages, food, and loot to your troops? Most of the early game I have less money, and less equipment than the troops I command.
 
Top Bottom