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.Isn't "raze" more intuitive than "devastate" and the term used in most games with a similar mechanic?
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.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
That's a lot betterImo 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.
A little less than 250 men, all tier 5 or tier 6.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?
My bad.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.
Great, that's more like what I'd expect.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).
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...)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.
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?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).
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 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?
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.
14k doesn't even cover the price of a workshop (it was 14.5k last time i bought one).So with 9500 prosperity (roundabout the first example) and a 10% loss of prosperity, the besiegers should get ~14000 denars.