The new Garrison recruitment is pretty awful. Need a *NO* Option ASAP, suggestion or bug, not sure so it goes here...

[Death2Tyrants]

Not in my campaign where half of my territory hasn't been touched in years simply because they are too far away from the front lines. And no we don't need even longer sieges, they already take long enough.

Well that's fine then. It means you're doing a good job protecting your fiefs. Why should they now start to starve?

Are you suggesting that players ought to be punished for taking care of their fiefs? That's absurd.

I'll stand by this axiom - a prosperous city ought never to starve in peacetime. If not via orchards and villages then by increased grain shipments.

What is also true however, is that as a city approaches infinite prosperity, the ability to support the city's consumption purely from granaries must proportionally decrease i.e. making it far easier for a prosperous city to slip into starvation during wartime/sieges.

Now this would be a good time for TW to introduce grain related quests that would reward the player with City loyalty and alleviate starvation for a short period of time.

 

[RWBY]

Well that's fine then. It means you're doing a good job protecting your fiefs. Why should they now start to starve?

Are you suggesting that players ought to be punished for taking care of their fiefs? That's absurd.

I'll stand by this axiom - a prosperous city ought never to starve in peacetime. If not via orchards and villages then by increased grain shipments.

What is also true however, is that as a city approaches infinite prosperity, the ability to support the city's consumption purely from granaries must proportionally decrease i.e. making it far easier for a prosperous city to slip into starvation during wartime/sieges.

Now this would be a good time for TW to introduce grain related quests that would reward the player with City loyalty and alleviate starvation for a short period of time.

And where did you read that I want my cities to starve during peace times? A graceful flatting of a settlement's growth is what I want and without having to worry that I lose the majority of my stationed troops due to starvation. Reaching a point where food consumed and food produced are the same and where no more real growth is possible. With that you can have your mega-cities without the citizens or garrison starving.

 

[des.rafael]

Orchards need to produce food at dynamic rate instead of static. You can't have a negative modifier like Prosperity that keeps going up while the primary positive contributor is static.

And granaries are also static so at higher prosperity, it runs out of food faster.

agreed.

starvation is annoying af because there is literally nothing you can do about it.

players should have the option to counter this negative modifier. could be a mission? or send out a trade cargo to do this job?

 

[Gadheras]

agreed.

starvation is annoying af because there is literally nothing you can do about it.

players should have the option to counter this negative modifier. could be a mission? or send out a trade cargo to do this job?

You can drop endless amount of food into the market, and still starvation, which annoying af....

 

[Death2Tyrants]

And where did you read that I want my cities to starve during peace times?

probably mistook you for someone else...oops :p

A graceful flatting of a settlement's growth is what I want and without having to worry that I lose the majority of my stationed troops due to starvation. Reaching a point where food consumed and food produced are the same and where no more real growth is possible. With that you can have your mega-cities without the citizens or garrison starving.

Yeap. That should be the aim.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Also when a desertion happens if it is 100% lowest tier (at least for garrisons) then no problem remains again. We can make it maybe. I can suggest.

This would be a really great improvement!

About not knowing which wage amount correspond to which consumption you already do not know town’s food amount in market.

This is true, I usually go off of the villages supply+ orchards and keep tight garrison, however this is harder now and it could be that my idea of how food supply should be is not in line with TW. What is TW purpose of the towns in the game, are they intended to become a stable place for troops storage and some passive income? I assume this mostly from Warband, but that doesn't mean it's so in Bannerlord. Is TW idea more that towns should be changing hands and having rebellion often and a secure stable town is more rare? And really I mean for the player, how should the player view towns?

Yes this can be a passive solution. If this is implemented player will need to supply his town 100s of food in each 10-20-30 days if that town has daily -10 / -20 food change.

I think I would be a good option, but as you say not an ideal fix, or to expect the player to cart food forever. I already do a version of this where I put lots of extra food in storages so that if ever a food issue is close I have it ready to dump into the market. It's not "good" though because of caravans coming to buy food if I sell too much. Having a way to give food other then selling to market would be a good improvement.

One thing I suggested in another thread about the starvation problem is: Have the towns buying/selling prices for food depend more on thier food needs, as if they're trying plan ahead for season, not just day to day and also total food, not just each type separately. SO for example ATM if I sell 5k grain to a town with bad food problems, only say the 1st 1k gives me a good price, then the price is bad because it only considers how much grain it has, not how much food it badly needs. Further more, the cheap price of the grain can attract caravans to buy a lot of it. It would be good if the town would pay a good price for any food item until it's foods needs are met, plus a buffer, regardless of how many of each type it has.

Well, if you can visit your settlement, dump in enough food for the next 3-4 months in one go, it shouldn't be a big issue right? If they make it a chore out of it so you can only put in for so, so many days at a time. Then you get issues...

I have games where I have 15 or 20 towns lol. If I continued these games I would eventually have every town. I would appreciate the option to store food for the town very much, but it's certainly not plan A. But you're right it has to be unlimited storing of food or it's not very helpful. Of course, the player taking all the town is likely not what TW envisions the game to be, so they need to take thier vision into account.

I think a really fun idea is to have supply carvans you can make, that solely go out and buy food or other supplies for you towns.
.

 

[Stratigo]

Well if you look at real world sieges. There was some that took years. Even with the time progression in Bannerlord, its way to fast.

The sieges that took years are an outlier.

 

[Rybn47]

its way to fast.

do you want even more food issues? lol
might aswell make them stop at night to sleep

 

[Gadheras]

do you want even more food issues? lol
might aswell make them stop at night to sleep

A city or a castle after a siege, would have large issues. Unrest, starvation and other issues. It shouldn't be as easy to just roll them over, dump in some troops and onwards to the next one. Just as people been complaining about the "snowball effect". You the player shouldn't become the snowball either.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

A graceful flatting of a settlement's growth is what I want and without having to worry that I lose the majority of my stationed troops due to starvation. Reaching a point where food consumed and food produced are the same and where no more real growth is possible. With that you can have your mega-cities without the citizens or garrison starving.

This is exactly why I suggested dynamic values for orchards and villages. With static values, you can never achieve convergence. It will always overshoot and then starvation will occur until prosperity drops below food output whereupon the cycle repeats.

However, if you have dynamic values, i.e. food production is a function of prosperity (see Limits, mathematics) then you would not have that unpleasant boom/starve cycle.

@mexxico

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Also when a desertion happens if it is 100% lowest tier (at least for garrisons) then no problem remains again. We can make it maybe. I can suggest.

This is not ideal. This only means the town will be on a repetitive cycle of hiring and firing recruits. It's annoying. It needs to be able to achieve equilibrium.

About not knowing which wage amount correspond to which consumption you already do not know town’s food amount in market. It is related to caravans going in and out to town and items sold. These datas varies all the time so exact adjustments already do not work in Bannerlord. You can leave 200 men to garrison at day x there can be no starvation but at day x+10 starvation can start because town can sell 25% of its food to several caravans. This can be again solved by additional checkboxes (like do not sell food to caravans) but these kind of micromanagements are not welcomed.

I agree that additional checkboxes are not good but why can't you add a rule to towns that say towns must keep x% of its food stock as buffer and it cannot sell below that buffer. So by default, caravans cannot cause starvation in a city.

Also, as I've indicated in another post to you, the % that the city keeps should be a function of its prosperity and not a static value. Rich cities do not sell food, they buy food.

 

[CalarTheMerciless]

Buildings in general need more levels than they have, while some of them e.g walls are fine things like orchards need more levels so that you can actually feed your cities. That or instead of 5/ 10/ 15 they give bigger benefits like 15 /25/ 50

But a equilibrium state would be great where it recognizes that it has x remaining food, growing y prosperity will result in negative food ok done get anymore prosperous.

 

[Gadheras]

Buildings in general need more levels than they have, while some of them e.g walls are fine things like orchards need more levels so that you can actually feed your cities. That or instead of 5/ 10/ 15 they give bigger benefits like 15 /25/ 50

But a equilibrium state would be great where it recognizes that it has x remaining food, growing y prosperity will result in negative food ok done get anymore prosperous.

Actually the whole orchards thing should been more like "local farms". around the castle/towns that could been upgraded with several upgrades. If you want to look more at how it worked historical in the real world.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

@mexxico @Duh_TaleWorlds @SadShogun
Any news on when we can have a fix or change to this? No matter how I try to set it up, I occasionally get a "1 troops has disserted from X", I don't know if they upgraded some troops and so kicked one out, but having a wage limit just is not working in any useful way. And I really shouldn't have to constantly go around throwing dozens of recruits out every two weeks like I have to do if I don't limit the wage.
I create and store troops because I want them. Only them. Only that amount.
I build granaries because I want them to fill up.
This is being denied me by this feature.
I really must say I don't think this feature can go into the stable branch. It's not working and it will have big backlash. I feel it causes much more trouble then it could ever possible help. I mean typically you get a recruit a day, it just wastes food and money... I'd rather this feature just get deleted.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

Any news on when we can have a fix or change to this? No matter how I try to set it up, I occasionally get a "1 troops has disserted from X", I don't know if they upgraded some troops and so kicked one out, but having a wage limit just is not working in any useful way. And I really shouldn't have to constantly go around throwing dozens of recruits out every two weeks like I have to do if I don't limit the wage.

When i spoke with Mexxico, it sounded like the problem was with starvation - that is with wages being set to a level that leads to troop counts which are unsustainable by the town. He noted that there shouldn't be any hiring, upgrades, etc. in situations where such an action would put the wage above the set limit.

He will be checking things out.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

When i spoke with Mexxico, it sounded like the problem was with starvation - that is with wages being set to a level that leads to troop counts which are unsustainable by the town. He noted that there shouldn't be any hiring, upgrades, etc. in situations where such an action would put the wage above the set limit.

He will be checking things out.

There are 2 parts to the problem with it.
1 is the display of the wage limit doesn't seem to match the actual wage, or how the garrison UI displays the +or- of the garrison.

In this video it shows a -1 garrison, even though the wage limit is set significantly higher then the current wage. I then change the wage limit to close, but above the current wage and it shows now -5 garrison. It's unclear to me why this is but it makes very frustrating to try and set a wage to prevent more recruits but not lose an garrison units.

2 It seems that something will still cause a garrison unit to disband sometimes when a wage limit is set. It's not food or loyalty (because both are high in my fiefs) related but because I am only getting a message after the fact I have no idea what it is. Whenever I look at the UI stats of the town I don't see the - garrison, so I assume it went over it's wage with 1 unit and kicked one out. This means I may even miss the message of disbanding unit and lose wanted units over time unaware.

Anyways, thank you for your response. I am concerned about this feature going to stable branch without revision.

 

[stevehoos]

Anyways, thank you for your response. I am concerned about this feature going to stable branch without revision.

You don't say.... ?

 

[Apocal]

This can be a boring loop for player however it will be a new way for player to protect his starving town. I will suggest this even this is not a fun play style.

It is plenty of fun when I'm running my town like a pirate base, stealing all the food and livestock from nearby settlements.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

It is plenty of fun when I'm running my town like a pirate base, stealing all the food and livestock from nearby settlements.

But I AM the nearby settlements.....

 

[mexxico]

There are 2 parts to the problem with it.
1 is the display of the wage limit doesn't seem to match the actual wage, or how the garrison UI displays the +or- of the garrison.

In this video it shows a -1 garrison, even though the wage limit is set significantly higher then the current wage. I then change the wage limit to close, but above the current wage and it shows now -5 garrison. It's unclear to me why this is but it makes very frustrating to try and set a wage to prevent more recruits but not lose an garrison units.

2 It seems that something will still cause a garrison unit to disband sometimes when a wage limit is set. It's not food or loyalty (because both are high in my fiefs) related but because I am only getting a message after the fact I have no idea what it is. Whenever I look at the UI stats of the town I don't see the - garrison, so I assume it went over it's wage with 1 unit and kicked one out. This means I may even miss the message of disbanding unit and lose wanted units over time unaware.

Anyways, thank you for your response. I am concerned about this feature going to stable branch without revision.

Reason of losing garrison even wage limit is higher than current wage is probably your troops are mostly low tier and they can be upgraded in next days. So current algorithm leave space for upgrades. This is a general rule applied both garrison and clan parties. Garrisons are upgraded slower so in next patches we can make this rule only applied for mobile clan parties maybe.

It seems we could not tell system to player clear. Lets assume you set wage limit to 500 and your party has 150 troops then system first find expected troop count by dividing 500 to wage of tier-3 (3 is average tier) troop which is 5 denars. So it finds expected party size as 500 denars / 5 denars = 100. If your party has more than 100 troops that party disbands troops until it’s party size reaches 100 even current wage is lower than limit. So low tier troops can continue upgrading. Otherwise upgrade stops if wage limit is reached. Assume you have 150 tier-2 troops current wage is 150x3=450 so after several troops are upgraded all upgrades will stop. To avoid this system first finds expected party size then disbands even limit is higher than current wage.

Maybe we should show this expected party size limit somehow to player. So when player changes limit at wage slider he can see how expected party size limit effected.

About other problems @Dejan already added “yes/no auto recruitment” to suggestions list by the way. I hope it will be accepted. We can also stop auto recruitment when there is no extra food production at that town.