What do you think about current influence costs at proposals ?

Currently viewing this thread:

vito397

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Personally, I don't like the idea of this method. Not only is it an immersion killer, but the many fears that you mention seem like interesting fresh gameplay to me.

I mean, if the lords of the realm are incapable of meeting at the capital to discuss kingdom matters due to them being occupied defending their borders, it gives the impression of "we will discuss who gets x fief or y policy once we subdue our enemies" which could lead to instability if much time occurs between meetings. The catch, of course, is if they still decide to hold this meeting while at war, there could be consequences since the most powerful figureheads of the faction are indisposed while their enemies loot and siege their lands. Apply this to every faction, and this mechanic can give more power and responsibility as a ruler, as you/they would decide if the risk of holding a council mid-war would be worth it to figure out fief distribution/policy management/international diplomacy. This would also heavily benefit non-warring factions as their free agendas would allow for them to arrive at the council, discussing the many needs of the realm and overall allowing the ruler to appease his vassals and prosper the people (feast?).
Agreed. What he mentioned was very similar to the messenger mod that someone made for BL. You basically "sent a message", and after three days after the "message arrived" you spoke to the lord telepathically. It is unfortunately immersion breaking
 

Ling*

Knight at Arms
Personally, I don't like the idea of this method. Not only is it an immersion killer, but the many fears that you mention seem like interesting fresh gameplay to me.
I agree as well but I think as vito expressed it appears the dev team has some reservations about implementing this type of system for whatever reason. The best we can hope for in my opinion is to make some form of compromise that fulfills the functionality that we desire while at the same time making sure it falls within what the devs deem appropriate for their game design.

If it were up to me personally, council meetings and holding court would be a major feature and key element to the gameplay as I agree with both of you that it is immersive and creates interesting gameplay scenarios.
 

Ulfhedinn

Sergeant
Agreed. What he mentioned was very similar to the messenger mod that someone made for BL. You basically "sent a message", and after three days after the "message arrived" you spoke to the lord telepathically. It is unfortunately immersion breaking
+1
 

SOku

Veteran
Agreed. What he mentioned was very similar to the messenger mod that someone made for BL. You basically "sent a message", and after three days after the "message arrived" you spoke to the lord telepathically. It is unfortunately immersion breaking

To add a little bit of interactivity I've written this very message months ago, I believe we are talking about the same mod so I guess this is relevant.

To ignore that potential exploit, I would rather make a " Messenger " waiting there for the sake of his/her Lord , just like you would send your Companions to Caravans or to do some quests.
That way you can't possibly exploit or imprison Lords themselves, they can walk around freely but send a small party or a wanderer to your Capital.
But that would require the Lords to get any sort of Companions linked to them to begin with, I'm not sure if it's remotely available in the codebase or already modded.

Feel free to browse the thread since we got few responses from Duh on that subject.
 

LDominating

Recruit
Yeah, it was 300 max at the the start of EA and for some reason was reduced to 100. Change it back or even bring in the hammer of 500 or 1000 influence power votes. With that said, we need more methods of burning down vassal's influence as the ruler. Right now AI vassal influence just accumulates unless you go out of your way to do weird stuff to make them spend it.

I have to keep calling for totally unpopular policies to get my vassals to vote away their influence. It works but it isn't really meant to be used that way...
Influence should fade away aswell as renown if you don't do stuff.
Or.you lose them if you "RETREAT",lose battles,lose own fiefs(already in).
This renown lost will be high and will increase for each retreat party and sacrifice troops.
Also clan lvl will play a big role in this,lower clans won't have to worry that much about it.

Best part...no more send 100 fians in,retreat,attack,reatreat and rinse and repeat.
 
I agree with higher costs towards voting to prevent a swarm of 10 influence votes overriding decisions.

but the true issue with influence is that there is no way to burn it for NPCS. Even with policies that lower the amount of influence they gain,
Clans will hoard hundreds and thousand of influence.

I heavily advocate increasing army costs and cohesion boosts to prevent the AI from always forming large armies

Example: Influence cost of inviting member to army increases by 12% per member in Army.

Influence might be better suited for AIs to manage settlements.

Example: Using influence as a project booster towards maintaining loyalty in a settlement. AI dumps 100 influence to increase
Settlement loyalty by 0.5 daily and it will consume 10 influence per day.

Example: Settlement owners could use influence to project boost the power of notables in their fiefs.

or maybe Kingdom Clans could use influence to reduce the influence of other Clans that are perceived threats or rival.

Example: Using 50 influence to reduce the influence gains of another Clan by 10% for week. Incurs -5 relation with that Clan.
 

mexxico

Developer
I heavily advocate increasing army costs and cohesion boosts to prevent the AI from always forming large armies

Example: Influence cost of inviting member to army increases by 12% per member in Army.

Yes, currently it is easy and cheap to form armies. We can make a study to lower average army count at map, so this can be done by increasing influence expense of army creating by 20-30%. It should be done especially for large armies. However there is a cost per calling a member. So we cannot change that formula according to army size. Means that if cost of calling lord A to army is x and calling lord B is y, calling both cost become x+y. So most times it become more logical to call as much as lords possible, because cost is not increasing exponential. Only disadvantage of having large armies is daily cohesion cost increases 1 per army member but this is not enough it seems.

If we change system and increase costs when one new lord is called we should refresh interface after each checkbox click which is not a good solution. Maybe cohesion can drop faster for bigger armies like 1.5 extra cost per member. Or to save simplfy of formula we can make each starving, weak, low morale party reduce cohesion by 1 not 0.5. (will be less effective)

Current Daily Cohesion Change Formula :
2oEDE.png

Also related forum post :
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Master Knight
Only disadvantage of having large armies is daily cohesion cost increases 1 per army member but this is not enough it seems.
I wouldn't say that is the only disadvantage. Your army moves a lot slower (unless your party brings 900+ horses) and eats a very high amount of food (AI lords never take enough food). If you get an army of 2700, it is like pushing molasses while everyone eats 100+ units of food daily. It isn't an exponential effect but army sizes above around 1200-1500 feel less effective than 900-1200. If you watch really big AI armies, they mostly spend their time between friendly settlements buying food before starving and breaking up. Sometimes they'll reach their siege target but starve so badly they wind up breaking off the attack in the middle because everyone is hungry.

I don't know if that is just me though. Maybe @Blood Gryphon @Bannerman Man ?
 

murtega

Knight
It isn't an exponential effect but army sizes above around 1200-1500 feel less effective than 900-1200. If you watch really big AI armies, they mostly spend their time between friendly settlements buying food before starving and breaking up.
This is definitely the case. I barely see any army larger than 1500 capable of doing anything useful unless they form very close to their target. They can't handle the journey because apparently they didn't buy enough food and if they start starving far from a city, they lose so many soldiers until they reach a city that they start doing weird stuff like changing location targets repeatedly. I either force them to disband or join them with heaps of food to avoid disaster.
 

Tercero

Sergeant Knight
WBM&B
I like the idea of increasing things because: i) if it is more costly to the AI I think that is good and ii) it will feel as more rewarding to be a bigger clan with more influence vs. now which doesnt really mean anything
 

bonerstorm

Veteran
We can make a study to lower average army count at map, so this can be done by increasing influence expense of army creating by 20-30%.
Sorry if I'm missing context from just dropping into the thread:

Is it possible that increasing army inf costs wouldn't help because AI clans tend to hoard influence a lot more than the player? Maybe increasing the degree to which they use the stuff in other ways could have an impact that lowers army spam?
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Sorry if I'm missing context from just dropping into the thread:

Is it possible that increasing army inf costs wouldn't help because AI clans tend to hoard influence a lot more than the player? Maybe increasing the degree to which they use the stuff in other ways could have an impact that lowers army spam?
When I tested raising the influence costs fivefold, the result was about two-thirds fewer armies. I'm not sure a 20-30% increase in influence cost will create a big change in the numbers and sizes of armies but I assume mexxico has run way more tests than I did.

If not, my current playthrough is on hold while 1.5.10 is MIA, so I can just run a bunch of tests to help narrow down a better number.
 

Sir_Smittih

Recruit
If we change system and increase costs when one new lord is called we should refresh interface after each checkbox click which is not a good solution. Maybe cohesion can drop faster for bigger armies like 1.5 extra cost per member. Or to save simplfy of formula we can make each starving, weak, low morale party reduce cohesion by 1 not 0.5. (will be less effective)
Sounds like increasing cohesion cost would be a step in the right direction. Particuarly if it were non-linearly proportional to army size. It's logical to me that a larger army would be exponentially more difficult to organize/maintain than a smaller one.
But I also like the idea of having influence "expire" relatively quickly. For instance, after being held prisoner for some time, it would make sense that a lord would return to court with less influence as they were "out of the game" while imprisoned and would be less aware of current affairs of state. I'm assuming, however, that this wouldn't result in a "use it or lose it" behavior.
 
When voting you can see who is voting for what. What about not only spending influence on the subject but also paying influence or gold directly to another clan to make them change there vote?
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
When voting you can see who is voting for what. What about not only spending influence on the subject but also paying influence or gold directly to another clan to make them change there vote?
Seems interesting but only if it takes into account the traits of other clan leader (mainly "Honor" maybe).
 

Apocal

Master Knight
You mentioned that the AI sending never-ending armies was bad... if the changes proposed created such a condition it would exacerbate that behavior.
It is but they already keep as many armies as practical in the field. The limit is on available parties instead of their willingness to spend influence. If influence constantly decreased though, they wouldn't have an endless dragon horde of it to spend from -- and you can see this in the effect of Sturgia having the Lawspeakers policy, which is (somewhat) of a influence debuff on clans.
 
Top Bottom