Suggestions for Stopping the Snowball Effect

正在查看此主题的用户

stevepine

Sergeant Knight at Arms
So, I have just upgraded from 1.05 to 1.06 and it seems snowballing is still this brlliant game's worst problem.

By about day 220, Vlandia was still absolutely sweeping across the map, taking out Battania completely and then all of the Aserai cities as well.

It just feels way too early in the game to see such utter domination. By day 220, youre really still quite new in the game. (I had just become a noble and got my first castle).

I think that having much longer times of peace would really help... and war being an occasional occurance rather than a pretty much constant state of being.

I mostly played warband with Floris and I think the way that war was handled was perfect. Border disputes leading to Casus Belli, and then sometimes (but not always) to war.

Do you guys agree ?
 
最后编辑:
I completely agree. It is hard though because I also want the world to feel dynamic and I do want certain factions to eventually gain the upper hand. I, eventually, want a kingdom to gain too much power so that it is a challenge that I meet the new kingdoms strength. A rapidly expanding kingdom looming over me creates drama and stress as I try to meet them in battle to stop their spread. But I want the ebb and flow to be relatively stable in that it takes a long time for any one kingdom to gain the upper hand. I also would like it to be harder for a kingdom to be eliminated so that they have a small chance to come back. I think peace negotiations getting more frequent and lasting longer would go a long way. Diplomacy and trade should become a way for kingdom's to negotiate peace if we want to roleplay as a (relatively) peaceful trader. Diplomacy should be a huge part of the game. But that is admittedly hard to implement without it being tedious.

I'd also love to see a dynamic where if the kingdom's armies are too far away for too long, more bandits appear and severely harm the regions income and prosperity (including food). Historically, war is a time for banditry and crime. If a kingdom spends all its time conquesting then I want the bandits to flourish and bankrupt the nobles. It could also result in a relation penalty since the nobles are not defending their villages and towns. Towns and villages could literally starve and stop producing money if things get extreme enough with lawlessness.

Overall, there is a lot of cool dynamics that can be added that makes the game take longer including kingdoms uniting against a rapidly expanding empire for self-preservation, nobles having a loyalty value to their liege, towns or villages rebelling if their needs are ignored, winter causing more army attrition which would slow campaigns and give kingdoms time for "house cleaning", diplomacy being as important as war, nobles getting disgruntled the longer a war goes on (putting pressure on calling for peace), peace leading to prosperity and feasts which boosts noble relations (making it have a purpose and be desirable), and even regions having loyalty (meaning that if it easier to take back your previously owned land and easier to defend it due to the populace being on your side). All in all, this game is amazing for early access and I hope we continue to get development! I am someone who wants this campaign to take as long as we want it to!

As a final thought, another option to give the player time to level up and get involved with politics would be to pause all battles for a year. If they introduce the dynamic where bandits get overly powerful and cause chaos during war, then perhaps a long war just took place resulting in just that. Banditry became rampant which is what lead to the main characters family being killed. The kingdom's might call for a year of peace to combat the bandits. This would give lots of opportunities for the player to take out small looting groups, get a massive relation bonus from other nobles when you killed bandit hide-outs, and give the player time to become an impacting force in the world. It would also make sense with the story.
 
my 1.05 game seems pretty static past 100 days. Can be outlyer, just saw several cities switch sides between Battanians and Western Empire but even that stabilized with only one imperial city still in Battanian hands, the rest returned to status quo. Could be a fluke, but I feel pretty relaxed right now...

I don't say it is final and super, but to me it seemed the first measures in 1.05 did something siginicant.
 
Just use the CWA mod until they've resolved the snowballing issue themselves. The mod literally deals with the majority of peoples concerns with snowballing.

 
My native game is 1.0.0 and currently, after 40+ hours of gameplay or so, the Khuzaits have snowballed everything (except the vlandians). I was thinking of starting a new game and I wonder if on a (native) 1.0.6 it will be the same case?
 
I completely agree. It is hard though because I also want the world to feel dynamic and I do want certain factions to eventually gain the upper hand. I, eventually, want a kingdom to gain too much power so that it is a challenge that I meet the new kingdoms strength. A rapidly expanding kingdom looming over me creates drama and stress as I try to meet them in battle to stop their spread. But I want the ebb and flow to be relatively stable in that it takes a long time for any one kingdom to gain the upper hand. I also would like it to be harder for a kingdom to be eliminated so that they have a small chance to come back. I think peace negotiations getting more frequent and lasting longer would go a long way. Diplomacy and trade should become a way for kingdom's to negotiate peace if we want to roleplay as a (relatively) peaceful trader. Diplomacy should be a huge part of the game. But that is admittedly hard to implement without it being tedious.

I'd also love to see a dynamic where if the kingdom's armies are too far away for too long, more bandits appear and severely harm the regions income and prosperity (including food). Historically, war is a time for banditry and crime. If a kingdom spends all its time conquesting then I want the bandits to flourish and bankrupt the nobles. It could also result in a relation penalty since the nobles are not defending their villages and towns. Towns and villages could literally starve and stop producing money if things get extreme enough with lawlessness.

Overall, there is a lot of cool dynamics that can be added that makes the game take longer including kingdoms uniting against a rapidly expanding empire for self-preservation, nobles having a loyalty value to their liege, towns or villages rebelling if their needs are ignored, winter causing more army attrition which would slow campaigns and give kingdoms time for "house cleaning", diplomacy being as important as war, nobles getting disgruntled the longer a war goes on (putting pressure on calling for peace), peace leading to prosperity and feasts which boosts noble relations (making it have a purpose and be desirable), and even regions having loyalty (meaning that if it easier to take back your previously owned land and easier to defend it due to the populace being on your side). All in all, this game is amazing for early access and I hope we continue to get development! I am someone who wants this campaign to take as long as we want it to!

As a final thought, another option to give the player time to level up and get involved with politics would be to pause all battles for a year. If they introduce the dynamic where bandits get overly powerful and cause chaos during war, then perhaps a long war just took place resulting in just that. Banditry became rampant which is what lead to the main characters family being killed. The kingdom's might call for a year of peace to combat the bandits. This would give lots of opportunities for the player to take out small looting groups, get a massive relation bonus from other nobles when you killed bandit hide-outs, and give the player time to become an impacting force in the world. It would also make sense with the story.
+1
 
I think rediucinig nocked unit can balance battles. In curent state half soldiers dies and half nocked, it's couse battle winner with even few remaining units get half of fallen units back and looser loose all fallen units, by rediucing nocked units after Battle winner and looser both brock, and winner can't follow conquering so fast and need to rebuild.
 
I think rediucinig nocked unit can balance battles. In curent state half soldiers dies and half nocked, it's couse battle winner with even few remaining units get half of fallen units back and looser loose all fallen units, by rediucing nocked units after Battle winner and looser both brock, and winner can't follow conquering so fast and need to rebuild.

Yes. Also, Lords seems to abuse current recruit system from towns and villages. They'll just recruit everything they can out of any place they visit, than go back to war with an army of peasants. I'm sided with Sturgians, we almost completely wiped out Battania from the map, i left our big army and i'm picking up small fights with single enemy lords, circa 50 unit per side, but their army fields tier 1 recruit (60-70% of the whole army).
 
后退
顶部 底部