-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
No because you dont raze you it, you still take over the town.
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.
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.
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
So effectively, all this feature really does is impose a morale penalty on your own troops for conquering towns
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
A little less than 250 men, all tier 5 or tier 6.
My bad.
Great, that's more like what I'd expect.
LuciusDomitiusAurelianus
Sergeant
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.
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.
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...)
Some feedback on pillaging:
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.
- 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.
- 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):
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:
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.
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.
- 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):
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
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.
Villages
For a full list of all villages, see List of villages. Villages can be found all over the Overland map, be it Calradia, Eastern Europe, or the Northlands. Each one is tied to a nearby fortification, both financially and politically. You can buy goods from the village or force them to give you...
mountandblade.fandom.com
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.
