• 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.

Problems of Security Variable

Users who are viewing this thread

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
As you know we have 6 different variables at towns. These are prosperity, militia, loyalty, garrison, food and security. I think currently we have problems at security variable because it does not variate much and it is usually high. This creates other problems. To solve it first I made some calculations and created below table. In below table you can see what effects these 6 variables. Also you can see security and loyalty value distribution at first 10 years.

Problems are mentioned and some possible solutions are added. We can discuss further. Currently these changes are suggested internal. If accepted they or some can be added. Here you can also share your ideas about this issue.

Additional info : Because rebellions are increased too much at 1.5.10 (average 2-3 per year) starving effect on loyalty is reduced to -1 from -2. Average rebellions are reduced to 1-2 per year after this change. However without below suggestions same settlements at kingdom borders rebels again and again, this is another problem mentioned below.

ct2mV.png
 
Last edited:

Bloc

Archduke
WB
I'm not entirely how to interpret that table below but wouldn't it make sense to see that security is affected by Prosperity and Loyalty as well?
Although the definition of the Security variable might be unclear for me - if that's the case feel free to correct me.
For me, when I see security, it means security inside the city. Which also should be related to the prosperity of the town, the garrison in that town, food in town. Also notable/gang member power ratio should directly interact security variable too.
- If the city is starving, it means that people are more likely to commit crimes
- If the city is too prosperous, it means that security is high and people are less likely to commit crime and such
- If the city has powerful garrison, it means they can secure the every bits of the town easily
- If the city is not loyal to it's owner, it's more likely to look the other way when it comes to security which will lower the value
- If the gang members are too influential in the town, it also means that security isn't too high because criminals are leading the town
Although for this last bit, do we have a random power shift for each settlement in the daily or weekly tick that changes the power values for the notables/gang members in town? If that's the case, it can also add extra dynamic behavior to the Security variable which would make it less "fixed" and high.
 

madnessario

Knight
Starvation malus should not be removed in my opinion (Bloc gives a very good rundown) considering that the effects that affect security are too few (only one from the table above). That said it could be lowered if other effects like bandit lairs malus / influential gang members are added.

My only concern with the loyalty->security relation would be a feedback loop. If I understood the above correctly, security affects loyalty but not the other way around effectively breaking the cycle (currently).

If prosperity was made to affect security, perhaps it would be best to do so both positively and negatively (depending on the value) in order to reach a balance point. My argument here is the fact that security only diminishes by food right now, leading to the steep increase in the graph.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Problems are mentioned and some possible solutions are added. We can discuss further. Currently these changes are suggested internal. If accepted they or some can be added. Here you can also share your ideas about this issue.
Right now I think there are two or three gang quests that actually add security, which is probably making the problem a lot worse because they pop-up often. Maybe get rid of the benefit of those quests?
 
It may make sense to break out Security from Loyalty, or at least find a way to compare the negative values between Food and Security and go with whichever is greater to remove from Loyalty - as you point out it gets double counted. Right now, Security does not mean much to me except for increasing Loyalty slightly, maybe it should act as a counter for Low Loyalty such that every % point of Security higher than Loyalty reduces rebellion chances.

I like the idea of some of the debuffs to Security from raids, sieges and nearby bandit lairs - and if Security would have an affect on prosperity and rebellion chance it would be more of an incentive to fix it.

As @Apocal pointed out, there are Gang Leader quests that improve it - which doesn't make sense - it is likely better to remove those and give a player a Pro / Con of helping or hampering gang leaders. I think Security should decrease proportionate the Gang Leader influence and that you can have a way to totally remove them.

This brings up another larger issue - there is not a meaningful direct way to really increase any of these variables without very high level Governor Perks or dumping 1000s of units of food into a settlement (for Starvation) and nothing really seems to relate to Prosperity or Hearth Growth which I think High Loyalty + High Security should increase both dramatically (and the amount of Caravans attracted to a town)
 
My question would be: what do you want security to affect? It seems like you’re getting at wanting more variability in rebellions? Is there more than just rebellions you’d want it to affect?

Also curious as to what mechanisms are most useful to affect it. Just one of the other variables? Something that can be reversed by quests or buildings?

Like everyone above I think it’s very interesting. And definitely like more variation in what happens.
 

Kristjan108

Veteran
Higher prosperity should lower security a bit. It would make sense for larger populations to require more soldiers to police them efficiently.
On a side note, I think the starvation modifier should be changed from a flat status to a progressive one, going from minor penalties when you're producing less than +5 food, to the point where your town is forced to use its stockpile and finally the point where you can't even feed your citizens.
 

iRkshz

Regular
this problem (stability of security-loyalty) arises only with towns of a foreign culture, provided that there are frequent sieges and raiders of settlements (it causes starving)
if the town is protected from raiding, it will be stable
also this problem concerns the fact that if the town was captured by another culture, the AI of this clan usually does not have a noble of the same culture as the town and gets -3 loyalty (AI also maintains small garrisons in newly captured towns, this is not logical and leads to a fall in security)
so, problem only for AI -3 loyalty for another culture

IMHO, the problem is in the AI and in the absence of the noble in clans of the same culture as the towns (the player has no such problems, he can always hire the right traveler with the right culture), so maybe AI should get married more often? and only for the noble of another culture? accordingly, claim towns only if he has a noble of the needed culture?

in principle, if you adopt the right policy, then you can raise security and loyalty to high indicators, but AI very weakly accepts the desired policy

and again the problem with AI........
 

StaceMcGate

Recruit
I was just suggested in a thread I posted to add my two cents in here.

I suggested that bandit hideout's would only spawn in town vicinities, and would incur a daily security/loyalty penalty.

My values were at -5 security and -1 loyalty per day. But as town security is usually extremely high as long as a decent sized (700 denars/daily) garrison is posted, it could be increased to -10 security.

With that, if a bandit party raids a caravan or villager party in the vicinity of settlements, that could incur a security penalty as well.
 

Spinozart1

Knight
Regarding your possible solutions.

Removing raid -1 from loyality to -2 to loyality -> I find it logical. On the other side, raid will be even more powerful because it will impact security directly AND loyality indirectly (proportionnal with security)
As it is mentionned, a way to link security with in town gang power would be great approach as well.
But we need a way to control it as well (building option => In town patrol reducing gang power...)
 

ImperialDane

Regular
I think looking at it in general. The issue with Security is that it's not just that it's not affected by a lot of variables. But it doesn't actually play into any either.

Besides loyalty, what differences does it beyond that make that a city has high or low security ? As mentioned, food is a high priority, if you don't have a lot. Everything else is harshly affected. Prosperity plays into the Militia and affects food consumption plus a myriad of other things. Militia and Garrisons are more tangible defensive elements.

But meanwhile. Security really only affects Loyalty and that's it. So while i'd say giving raiding more of an influence on Security is a good way to have more effect on it. I do also think a bigger question needs to be asked which is.. What exactly is Security and how does it affect things beyond Loyalty.

Wouldn't low security also effect Prosperity as people feel less safe in trading or are just much more likely to get mugged for example ? And vice versa, wouldn't high security provide a bonus to prosperity because it's just safer to conduct business ?

Thus raiding having an influence of Security could obviously be explained by refugees flooding the city and a sense of despair and unease as they bring in rumours. .Which besides Loyalty could also then have other knock-on effects. Which would obviously mean raiding strategically makes a lot more sense as a method to maybe bring down an otherwise tough city.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
I was just suggested in a thread I posted to add my two cents in here.

I suggested that bandit hideout's would only spawn in town vicinities, and would incur a daily security/loyalty penalty.

My values were at -5 security and -1 loyalty per day. But as town security is usually extremely high as long as a decent sized (700 denars/daily) garrison is posted, it could be increased to -10 security.

With that, if a bandit party raids a caravan or villager party in the vicinity of settlements, that could incur a security penalty as well.
Nice suggestion and that could go hand in hand with making bandit parties spawn based on nearby security/prosperity levels instead of player level that doesn't make any sense at all.

This way bandits would be more numerous in poorer regions and you/ai would need to take care of them as part of improving security and prosperity in that region otherwise if you let them roam wild they would attack caravans/peasants and tank those even further.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Problems are mentioned and some possible solutions are added. We can discuss further. Currently these changes are suggested internal. If accepted they or some can be added. Here you can also share your ideas about this issue...
...However without below suggestions same settlements at kingdom borders rebels again and again, this is another problem mentioned below.
Just thinking about this, if the concern is stable security for towns away from the border, you could add a slight penalty for a lack of lords being in the area? Not too much though (to cause rebellions on their own) but enough to make it easier for security to drop low enough it is an issue long-term and maybe a bit of a vulnerability for very large factions.

That way permanent aggressive war is countered by the faction being somewhat weak internally.
 
Why is Security linked to Loyalty anyways? Like what does it mean in gameplay?
My opinion is that town management really boils down to food and garrison. Security, Loyalty, Prosperity are indicators that have abstract meaning and can't be influenced directly so it's not really engaging. Providing the town food, ok I understand. Filling up the garrison, yes makes sense. Gameplay-wise I don't understand most of the mechanics. They're useless for the player.

- The siege idea: why not, but in a siege you can interact with the town and it's like a 50/50 chance you'll lose the town anyway.
- The nearby hideout is great. It would give an incentive to clear them actually.
- removing starving is good, Food indeed affects too many variables
- the raided penalty is good, but if it stacks up with the Food penalty you have when the village does not produce anymore then it could be a bit too strong.

Why not calculate Security in terms of Garrison/Prosperity? (and remove Prosperity penalty to Food).
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
I think my biggest concern for these systems is that there's not enough player side options to effect them. I think to much focus on the AI simulation and not the player's experience is putting the horse before the carriage.

1 Issues : We need to be able delegate a clan member(S) to go around and do all the issues of our clan's property, on thier own, all of them, in real time, "not 15 days to buy a cow garbage". It's absurdly bad to think the player wants to do the quests over and over forever in such a long game. We don't. It's also bazar to expect the Ruler to personally go do all these fetch quests. It's like the whole thing was only considered for the very early game and nothing for advanced game situation.

2 Food: It's good to see the -loyalty from starving get reduced a little but I think the player needs proactive means to help thier property have food.
We need to be able to build more food supplies on our own, not via the town upgrade. The player is often very wealthy and it's sick to think that we're too stupid to just commission more farms or orchards to be built, or send a special armored convoy to buy food and put it in the granary (NOT TOWN STORE).

3: Bandits and looters: They kill villagers, they smash caravans, you can purge them but the game just spawns them all back for no reason. As with the issues problem, we need our clan members to wipe out all hide outs and destroy all bandit parties. We don't want to do this forever as a player. I think it's really fake and obnoxious that the game keeps spawning them in my areas which are at peace, have good security and food and well everything! It should be paradise but the game just makes bandit hideouts and parties constantly anyways! Even warband had a much more noticeable cool down after you cleared hideouts! The player, in the player's areas needs to be able to prevent bandits from spawning either by patrols stopping them form making a hideout or by some Eco process "life is so good here nobody wants to be a looter".

4 Security: It's pretty easy to manage IMO. Especially with the "no thanks auto recruit" option coming, it will be back to squeaky clean garrisons that give enough security without running out of food.

5 Rebels: Player needs a quest when the loyalty is low enough, to deal with the rebels before they rebel for a loyalty boost! This quest should refill the Granary too since when rebels spawn they refill the towns Granary, which is totally fake but whatever.

6 AI blues: Do the bots know to make a orchards and granary 1st? I think making the AI know to build these upgrades 1st would go a long way in preventing continuous rebel cycles.
 

StaceMcGate

Recruit
1 Issues : We need to be able delegate a clan member(S) to go around and do all the issues of our clan's property, on thier own, all of them, in real time, "not 15 days to buy a cow garbage". It's absurdly bad to think the player wants to do the quests over and over forever in such a long game. We don't. It's also bazar to expect the Ruler to personally go do all these fetch quests. It's like the whole thing was only considered for the very early game and nothing for advanced game situation.
Perhaps Governors could have a daily % chance of auto-resolving issues that occur in the fiefs they administer?
Possible formula could be a base 1% chance with an increase of 0.20% per x days the issue is in the settlement, possibly capped at 10 or 12% chance of resolving the issue.

If the Governor could also receive a relation bonus and SP for completing the quests, this could solve many issues we see in the base game.
 

Spinozart1

Knight
Perhaps Governors could have a daily % chance of auto-resolving issues that occur in the fiefs they administer?
Possible formula could be a base 1% chance with an increase of 0.20% per x days the issue is in the settlement, possibly capped at 10 or 12% chance of resolving the issue.

If the Governor could also receive a relation bonus and SP for completing the quests, this could solve many issues we see in the base game.
Neat idea, it is a nice behaviour to add for the governor.
I think I saw a mod with this feature, but it should be added in base game anyway.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I have always thought that gang leaders are "friends" with local nobles and are keeping the street safe for them for a fee. That's why they have affiliation. Is my assumption correct? But before going there, I think we should address these two questions first:

1. How do you want security to be played by the player?
2. How do you want security to affect the AI? The clearest answer would be to control the speed in which the AI expand their territory. That's why you guys made the rebellion feature right? If this is the case then the security system, in its passive form without player intervention, should be made in such a way that it limits expansion to a reasonable degree. Then what is this "reasonable degree"? For a sandbox game like this, the expansion rate is usually close to none, but not none. The factions should remain relatively stable until the player intervenes. This allows most types of playstyles (trader, bandit, etc) while still showing an illusion that the AI are doing some conquering.

Once we agree on how security should be in its passive form, then we can decide on how it should be in its active form, which is with player intervention. If you guys agree with my idea about the passive form, then giving the player options to add/remove security via quests and actions would suffice. For example, raiding villages, destroying bandit lairs, looting the city and leaving it instead of settling in it, political intrigue quests, etc.

I have an idea that might be fun enough without being too complex. You know how towns usually have two gang leaders? If there are two, then they will compete and lower security. The closer their influence levels are, the more it lowers security. Its effect on security is an inverse of the difference between their influence level. You can then expand on this by making gang war quests or spawning a new gang leader like a year after the last one dies.
 

RichardtheCat

Sergeant
WBWF&S
Perhaps Governors could have a daily % chance of auto-resolving issues that occur in the fiefs they administer?
Possible formula could be a base 1% chance with an increase of 0.20% per x days the issue is in the settlement, possibly capped at 10 or 12% chance of resolving the issue.

If the Governor could also receive a relation bonus and SP for completing the quests, this could solve many issues we see in the base game.
Neat idea, it is a nice behaviour to add for the governor.
I think I saw a mod with this feature, but it should be added in base game anyway.
Governors Handle Issues is the mod you've mentioned. I used to use this mod but it has a conflict. When you use this mod your governors sort out all quest for you with notables. However, there are quests that notables against each other and your governors handle these quests as well. So, your relation with notables increases for a while, but after a while, your relation with notables starts to decrease and even in your town you're not able to recruit. It'll be great to have an option to choose which type of quest can governors handle.
 
Top Bottom