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
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
What do you think about current influence costs at proposals ?
- Thread starter mexxico
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
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 at Arms
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.
Feel free to browse the thread since we got few responses from Duh on that subject.
LDominating
Regular
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.
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.
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 :
Also related forum post :
Last edited:
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 ?
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.
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
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.
Why not? And why would that be a bad thing?
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).
Sir_Smittih
Recruit
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.
