• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • If you are posting SP feedback without an actual suggestion, please head over to The Keep - Singleplayer section.
  • 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.

Starting Clans imbalanced between Kingdoms (# of clans and # of members), need rebalancing

Users who are viewing this thread

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I have been pondering some of the reasons for the imbalances we see in the game and something I got curious about was the maximum number of parties a kingdom could field as that is an essential part of how strong a kingdom is. There are a few key mechanics to know about when looking at this subject.
  • The first is that the maximum number of parties a clan can have, regardless of clan level, is 4 parties. (Edit: Its actually 3)
  • Obviously a clan can only have as many parties out as members, so if a clan has under 4 (3) members it can't field the maximum possible.
  • Only children that are in the game from the start will join the world, newborn children of NPC's never join their clans as members (2 member clans will always stay 2 member clans, despite the amount of newborn children they have)
The following table shows the differences between kingdoms starter clans. Some major takeaways are:
  • Northern Empire only has a 25 max party potential, with Khuzait having 30 NE is severally disadvantaged
  • Northern Empire has 2 clans with 10 members (Argoros & Neretzes) but a tier 5 clan with only 3 members (Dolentoss), clearly needs to be balanced
  • Battania and Western empire have a low amount of members and only a few starter kids
  • Khuzait, Northern, and Vlandia have at most 1 starter kid, no lords for the second generation
  • Vlandia has a massive advantage with 10 clans and 36 potential parties

KingdomClansMembersStarter kidsTierMax Parties Potential
Aserai
8​
38​
9​
25​
29​
Battania
7​
34​
3​
26​
28​
Khuzaut
8​
38​
1​
26​
30​
Northern
7​
41​
0​
30​
25​
Southern
8​
38​
12​
27​
29​
Western
8​
33​
2​
31​
28​
Sturgia
8​
47​
3​
28​
30​
Vlandia
10​
46​
1​
32​
36​


I guess my suggestion would be to look at balancing clans to help balance out the power differences between kingdoms (NE [25] vs KH [30] and ST [30] v VL [36])

I realized after this that the maximum parties a clan can have is actually 3, not 4. Here is the revised table.

KingdomClansMembersStarterkidsTierMax Parties Fixed
Aserai83892523
Battania73432621
Khuzaut83812623
Northern74103020
Southern838122722
Western83323122
Sturgia84732823
Vlandia104613229

NE now only has 3 less parties instead of 5, but Sturgia remained at 6 less parties than Vlandia.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Squire
I'm all for balancing the factions in the sense of keeping them alive for long enough for the player to join one.

But I think perfect balance isn't desirable for Battania and the Empire subfactions in particular, since from a lore perspective they're meant to be weakened, "underdog" factions. So perhaps keeping their party potential lower while leveling out that of the other factions would be a good thing.
 

ElCrisp

Sergeant
Isnt an important part of this issue what clan levels these parties are at respectively.
Eg Nourthern empire can field ten tier 3 parties, seven tier 4 parties, four tier 4 parties, four tier 6 parties (numbers made up)
As this would play a key role in the size of armies they could field if at full party cap.

More clans could mean you would be able to have more armies acting independent of one another if influence permits.

In the pre early access development blogs, Vlandia was outlined to be a kingdom of internal strife, where barons vied for influence, more likely to fracture, and break away from their king. So that may be the basis for the difference we see, however that game system is entirely missing.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Isnt an important part of this issue what clan levels these parties are at respectively.
Eg Nourthern empire can field ten tier 3 parties, seven tier 4 parties, four tier 4 parties, four tier 6 parties (numbers made up)
As this would play a key role in the size of armies they could field if at full party cap.
It is but looking at the total tier level shows us that it isn't as important. Considering Aserai is rarely a losing faction, them having the lowest starting total tier doesn't seem to be a huge impact. Also clan tiers level will go up over time, so it is not a constant like the member size.

More clans could mean you would be able to have more armies acting independent of one another if influence permits.
This is the main issue I think. 5 to 6 extra parties is essentially a 500 to 1000 troop army.

In the pre early access development blogs, Vlandia was outlined to be a kingdom of internal strife, where barons vied for influence, more likely to fracture, and break away from their king. So that may be the basis for the difference we see, however that game system is entirely missing.
Yeah overall i'm fine with imbalanced starts if there are mechanics to slow down snowballing, but right now these features don't exist. So it be nice if we could at least get some semblance of a semi balanced start. I don't want everything to be the exact same, but there are some clear major differences between some of the factions, that seem to always end up with the same result.

Another factor to think about is any clan that has 4 members or less has no one to replace a party leader if they get caught prisoner or die. Clans with 10 will likely always have 4 parties out.
 
Last edited:

CrazyElf

Sergeant
Keep in mind that numbers aren't everything. Propserity of holdings, quality of leadership, unit types, etc, are all critical.

Note that the kingdom that often people complain about snowballing, the Khuzaits, don't have the highest number of clans. Their units give them the advantage however - their horse archer centric culture.

In the pre early access development blogs, Vlandia was outlined to be a kingdom of internal strife, where barons vied for influence, more likely to fracture, and break away from their king. So that may be the basis for the difference we see, however that game system is entirely missing.

To be fair, it is often easier to ask Vlandian lords to defect from their kingdom than other kingdoms.
 

five bucks

Squire
Keep in mind that numbers aren't everything. Propserity of holdings, quality of leadership, unit types, etc, are all critical.
Agree.
Note that the kingdom that often people complain about snowballing, the Khuzaits, don't have the highest number of clans. Their units give them the advantage however - their horse archer centric culture.
Small correction. It isn't really the fact that they have lots of horse archers, it's the fact they have lots of horses full stop. Autocalc battles give horse riders a significant bonus (even in sieges) so every autocalc battle adds up in their favour, and the Khuzaits also have that insane cultural bonus to speed of parties on horseback which allows them to easily run away from unfavourable fights and pursue favourable ones. Real in-game battles and strength of army units have little impact on faction balance, what matters is autocalc and whether they have a horse or not.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Autocalc battles give horse riders a significant bonus (even in sieges) so every autocalc battle adds up in their favour, and the Khuzaits also have that insane cultural bonus to speed of parties on horseback which allows them to easily run away from unfavourable fights and pursue favourable ones.

Back when it was truly insane, it was a flat 10% buff to map speed. So a party of 100+ (only mounted troops) could still hit like 7.2 map speed or something in that ballpark. I remember with Khuzait bonus being able to run down steppe bandit like a cheetah does a gazelle with three times their numbers. Party of around fifty at map speed 8.0.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Keep in mind that numbers aren't everything. Propserity of holdings, quality of leadership, unit types, etc, are all critical.

Note that the kingdom that often people complain about snowballing, the Khuzaits, don't have the highest number of clans. Their units give them the advantage however - their horse archer centric culture.



To be fair, it is often easier to ask Vlandian lords to defect from their kingdom than other kingdoms.
Absolutely, I'm definitely not claiming this is the singular issue with balance but it definitely has an impact.

Honestly the fix for this is quite simple. Shuffle some of the members in the Northern clans that have 10 members (Argoros & Neretzes) into their clans that have less than 4 (Phalentes & Dolentoss).
KingdomClanMembersStarter KidsTierMax Parties
NorthernOsticos
8​
0​
6​
4​
NorthernPhalentes
2​
0​
1​
2​
NorthernDolentoss
3​
0​
5​
3​
NorthernArgoros
10​
0​
5​
4​
NorthernChonis
4​
0​
3​
4​
NorthernImpestores
4​
0​
5​
4​
NorthernNeretzes
10​
0​
5​
4​
Total
7​
41​
0​
30​
25​

Before anyone makes arguments against this, look at Battania clans. They have the same amount of clans, 7 less overall lords, but they are actually balanced between the clans which results in more Max parties.
KingdomClanMembersStarter KidsTierMax Parties
Battaniafen Eingal
5​
0​
2​
4​
Battaniafen Giall
4​
0​
2​
4​
Battaniafen Uvain
6​
0​
5​
4​
Battaniafen Morcar
5​
1​
1​
4​
Battaniafen Gruffendoc
5​
2​
6​
4​
Battaniafen Penraic
4​
0​
5​
4​
Battaniafen Derngil
5​
0​
5​
4​
Total
7​
34​
3​
26​
28​
Looking at the clan tiers is interesting as well. Northern definitely has an advantage of 5/7 being clan tier 5+ but I don't know if that truly outweighs the downside of lacking party leaders. Also it's odd how there is only 1 Tier 4 clan, not that it matters
KingdomTier 1Tier 2Tier 3Tier 4Tier 5Tier 6Sum of TiersTotal Clans
Aserai
2​
2​
1​
0​
2​
1​
25​
8​
Battania
1​
2​
0​
0​
3​
1​
26​
7​
Khuzaut
1​
3​
1​
0​
2​
1​
26​
8​
Northern
1​
0​
1​
0​
4​
1​
30​
7​
Southern
1​
2​
2​
0​
2​
1​
27​
8​
Western
1​
2​
0​
0​
4​
1​
31​
8​
Sturgia
1​
2​
1​
1​
2​
1​
28​
8​
Vlandia
2​
3​
1​
0​
3​
1​
32​
10​
Total
10​
16​
7​
1​
22​
8​
225​
64​
As I mentioned earlier though, tiers don't matter as much as they will eventually level up. Right now clans don't gain new members.
 
Last edited:

CrazyElf

Sergeant
I don't think that this is the fix that the game needs at this point - in the case of Vlandia, I'm actually worried this would leave the game in a worse state to be honest.


I guess my suggestion would be to look at balancing clans to help balance out the power differences between kingdoms (NE [25] vs KH [30] and ST [30] v VL [36])

Vlandia right now is a faction plagued by internal strife whose lords are easier to get to defect. If anything, this fix would worsen the balance by weakening Vlandia over the Western Empire and Battania. They need the extra lords to compensate.

Sometimes in my games, Vlandia gets destroyed by Battania or the Western Empire, whereas other times they dominate the Western half of the map and conquer parts of Aserai and (or) Sturgian territory. They seem to be fairly balanced as is. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.

With this change, my worry is that they may end up being closer to the next Sturgia - more easily destroyed. That's why I really want to emphasize - numbers are not everything.


I'm all for balancing the factions in the sense of keeping them alive for long enough for the player to join one.

But I think perfect balance isn't desirable for Battania and the Empire subfactions in particular, since from a lore perspective they're meant to be weakened, "underdog" factions. So perhaps keeping their party potential lower while leveling out that of the other factions would be a good thing.


I'm inclined to agree with "five bucks" on this.

I don't see in my games 1 of 3 Empire factions always coming out on top. It's not at all a situation like say, Khuzait vs the Eastern half of Sturgia or the Empire.

Historically, we do not see nations that perfectly divided into 2 with the exact same population, wealth, land area, etc. Often one side has the advantage. In the context of the game, the advantage is small enough that 1 of 3 of the empire's faction's doesn't consistently win.

Agree.

Small correction. It isn't really the fact that they have lots of horse archers, it's the fact they have lots of horses full stop. Autocalc battles give horse riders a significant bonus (even in sieges) so every autocalc battle adds up in their favour, and the Khuzaits also have that insane cultural bonus to speed of parties on horseback which allows them to easily run away from unfavourable fights and pursue favourable ones. Real in-game battles and strength of army units have little impact on faction balance, what matters is autocalc and whether they have a horse or not.

Correct - the game needs to apply a penalty IMO to horses in sieges and maybe even take some of the bonus away during forests (where
cavalry isn't as powerful as in the open). I think there was discussion of changing the bonus during a siege to a penalty for cavalry.

One other point is that we need the auto-resolve to take into account real in game strengths to make auto-resolve as close as possible to a real battle. That is something that needs to be changed.
 
Last edited:

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I don't think that this is the fix that the game needs at this point - in the case of Vlandia, I'm actually worried this would leave the game in a worse state to be honest.

Vlandia right now is a faction plagued by internal strife whose lords are easier to get to defect. If anything, this fix would worsen the balance by weakening Vlandia over the Western Empire and Battania. They need the extra lords to compensate.

Sometimes in my games, Vlandia gets destroyed by Battania or the Western Empire, whereas other times they dominate the Western half of the map and conquer parts of Aserai and (or) Sturgian territory. They seem to be fairly balanced as is. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.

With this change, my worry is that they may end up being closer to the next Sturgia - more easily destroyed. That's why I really want to emphasize - numbers are not everything.
I'm less worried about Vlandia then I am Northern Empire (post above)
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Well, with 1.5.4 they added new clans to the game. I was hopeful that they had seen this thread, but it appears not.

Here are the changes

KingdomClansMembersStarterkidsTierMax PartiesReinforcementsClans w/ 3+ reinforcements
Aserai
8​
38​
9​
25​
23​
15​
3​
Battania
7​
34​
3​
26​
21​
13​
1​
Khuzaut
8​
38​
1​
26​
23​
15​
2​
Northern
7​
41​
0​
30​
20​
21​
3​
Southern
8​
38​
12​
27​
22​
16​
3​
Western
8​
33​
2​
31​
22​
11​
2​
Sturgia
8​
47​
3​
28​
23​
24​
5​
Vlandia
10​
46​
1​
32​
29​
17​
3​

KingdomClansMembersStarterkidsTierMax PartiesReinforcementsClans w/ 3+ Reinforcements
Aserai
9​
45​
7​
29​
26​
19​
4​
Battania
8​
37​
4​
30​
24​
13​
2​
Khuzait
9​
42​
1​
30​
26​
16​
2​
Northern
8​
44​
2​
33​
23​
21​
3​
Southern
9​
43​
12​
31​
26​
17​
3​
Western
9​
36​
2​
35​
25​
11​
2​
Sturgia
9​
47​
5​
32​
26​
21​
5​
Vlandia
11​
49​
1​
36​
32​
17​
3​

KingdomClansMembersStarterkidsTierMax PartiesReinforcementsClans w/ 3+ Reinforcements
Aserai
1​
7​
-2​
4​
3​
4​
1​
Battania
1​
3​
1​
4​
3​
0​
1​
Khuzait
1​
4​
0​
4​
3​
1​
0​
Northern
1​
3​
2​
3​
3​
0​
0​
Southern
1​
5​
0​
4​
4​
1​
0​
Western
1​
3​
0​
4​
3​
0​
0​
Sturgia
1​
0​
2​
4​
3​
-3​
0​
Vlandia
1​
3​
0​
4​
3​
0​
0​

As you can see in the tables, ALL of the kingdoms got a new tier 4 clan with the exception of the Northern empire getting a tier 3 clan ( :facepalm: of course). The members column in the changes table is not representative of the new clan added and includes shifts from other clans, you'll notice sturgia removed some nobles to make room for the new clan, which also explains the -3 reinforcements.

There are no changes to the difference in max parties for Northern vs Khuzait (still +3 for Khu) and Vlandia vs Sturgia (still +6 for Vla) , so those issues weren't addressed with these new clans.
 
Last edited:

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I also wonder why they made them so old in some cases (sturgia, battania). They will die soon anyway
Yeah I included the "ancient" nobles (there was one that was 72 lol), I hesitated and even consider an old person column, but there aren't enough of them. Also found some missing family links, like two people are spouses and they have a child but the child is not connected to the mother just the father (ill be reporting these as bugs in the tech forum)
 

Fell

Recruit
M&BWBNWVC
'Balance' of clans isn't a good idea. Differences make things more interesting. However, more mechanics and elements are needed to enable INFINITE CAMPAIGN MODE ( clans aren't depleted as easily, children/marriage-arrangements/inheritance, faction resurgence/civil-war, and some sort of 'Fall of Rome' territory mechanic where if a faction's territory is far too scattered or extends too far away, it will cause some problems (over-extension)).
 
Top Bottom