Why Sturgia often grows weak, Khuzait often grows strong

[Blood Gryphon]

For last 3 days I tried to understand reasons of lords remaining with 0 gold situation which happens at 1.3.0. It is not common but when happens it is so disturbing, lords even cannot buy food and starving. I was also expecting to prove Sturgians are suffering mostly as economical because their towns has very low prosperity compared others. However I see that Aserai suffers more as economical compared to Sturgia even they have several towns with high prosperity. Also Battanians were in a good economical situation in most games even their total number of towns and total prosperity is less than others even from Sturgia and Aserai. Then it was obvious total income is not mainly come from taxes. I was expecting 80% of npc clan's income comes from taxes but this ratio was lower it seems. Then I collect data from battle loots too in addition to taxes. Made a table all together. In the table it was clearly seen battle loots are so important for Npc clans. Long peace times (identified as blue rectangles in table) damage kingdom's economy because lords cannot get loots, in opposite in war times kingdom clans get rich (red rectangles). As you see at table a kingdom's income source mainly comes from tax from towns / castles / villages but it is only 60% was not 80% like I expect. Remaining 35% come from battles. About 5% others (prisoners, etc).

In table there is only one game 10 year run data. In that game Sturgia was not isolated much and joined lots of battles thats why their economy did not go bad. However in some gameplays Sturgians can be so isolated and they can have long peace times. This also damage their economy. Then if they go in war when their economy is not good they lose settlements because of weak garrisons. Also yes second reason is their tax income per fortification is least among all kingdoms. (in table it is not so obvious because they captured 1-2 extra towns)

By the way empire column for poor clan leaders (last 6 columns) is for all 3 empire factions. You can divide it to 3 to compare with others.

As conclusion, with a patch we will decrease loot income from battles (for only npcs, they get this income as gold instead of items for now, however there was no trade penalty applied, we will add that) by 50% and we will increase all tax incomes from settlements by 25%. This will make economy of kingdoms more stable, they will not need battles to save their economical balance, also player will get 25% better tax too. Current bonuses for Sturgia and Aserai can change in future they are not effective and these two factions should get some important bonus because they suffer from geographical positions also Sturgia has lowest prosperity and they get 30-40% less tax income compared average of others.

One addition : while examining all prosperities I see 3 Aserai castles start game with 0 prosperity. This is weird we did not notice it for 1 month. It will be also fixed with patch.

There are some reports also 1.3x cavalry bonus also damage Sturgia parties in simulations. Will also examine its effects on Sturgia's weakness and give report to teams added that constant.

Awesome analysis Mexxico. Something to take a look at as well is some of the sturgian villages hearths. In my current playthrough i own Ustokol Castle and Ustokol village has 12 hearths and Zhemyan has 20, which seems odd considering they have not been raided much if at all (never seen it). My other castle Nevyansk has a minimum of 104 hearths at Dnin. No idea if hearths impact prosperity or just militia. Could just be a bug from playing 1.3 on an old save.

 

[Androme1]

Wrong. Look at their percentage of won battles. Ask yourself why. (The answer is the ability to only engage on favorable terms due to campaign movespeed and higher percentage of cavalry.)

This is without a doubt one major contributing factor, but hardly the only one. Something indeed needs to be done about the Cavalry autocalc bonus. It is perhaps the most realistic and easiest thing to fix. While many of us would also like to see geographical changes aswell, I think that is extremely unlikely.

 

[mexxico]

Awesome analysis Mexxico. Something to take a look at as well is some of the sturgian villages hearths. In my current playthrough i own Ustokol Castle and Ustokol village has 12 hearths and Zhemyan has 20, which seems odd considering they have not been raided much if at all (never seen it). My other castle Nevyansk has a minimum of 104 hearths at Dnin. No idea if hearths impact prosperity or just militia. Could just be a bug from playing 1.3 on an old save.

Hearth is important variable because if it is lower than 200 your village production is 50% less than normal. If it is above 500 your village production 50% increases. 200-500 is normal 1x. Village production directly effects your tax income from these villages. Because 50% of gold villagers earn from sold items is your tax. I checked initial hearth values for these two villages and they are 240 for Ustokol and 100 for Zhemyan. So it seems these villages are raided twice at least or your villagers are constantly killed by bandits, this also effects hearths badly (check if there is a nearby hideout). Also hearth level of your villages effects food income of connected fortification changes 4/8/12 (0-200 hearths, 200-500 hearths, 500+).

In table I shared you can see total tax Sturgia gets for each season in first 10 years (from both villages and fortifications) so all effects are added there.

I will give some more subjective experience regarding this:
I'm playing on 1.3.0, new game, with a mod that just straight up removes the Cavalry 1.3x autocalc bonus. No other mods that affects balance. My observations over multiple games without Cavalry autocalc bonus is that without player intervention, the factions are much more balanced in a constant back-and-forth as opposed to with the Cavalry autocalc bonus. For the first time ever I observed Sturgia successfully battling against Vlandia, Battania and Khuzaits in autocalculated battles almost 50% win and 50% loss, as opposed to with the Cavalry autocalc bonus when they would lose an overwhelming majority of the time, leading to an early demise for the faction within the first few months of the campaign.

Even without the Cavalry autocalc bonus, Khuzaits still seem like the strongest faction in the game, although not absurdly overpowered as before.

Honestly, I think two things should be considered regarding the Cavalry autocalc bonus:
1) Remove it. The game will be more balanced (in the present), but it may become more unbalanced again in the future when more features are implemented or more balancing is done.
2) Rework the autocalculation formula. I think this should be the primary goal, perhaps the long-term goal while in the short-term you just remove the Cavalry autocalc bonus temporarily. Some obvious suggestions as put forth by many people in other discussion boards is that Cavalry autocalc multiplier should be different depending on the terrain. It would have an advantage in open fields (1.3x still), but lower multiplier in forests, snow and marshes? In any case, it needs to have its bonus removed entirely during sieges, and Cavalry should obviously count as infantry or archers (if horse archer).

My five cents on the issue.

Thanks for data provided. Probably 1.3 is very much. I will examine its effects.

 

[bm01]

There are some reports also 1.3x cavalry bonus also damage Sturgia parties in simulations. Will also examine its effects on Sturgia's weakness and give report to teams added that constant.

A bonus for cavalry isn't necessarily a bad thing, but what if they costed more (either in wages or food)? Currently the player has to "consume" horses to upgrade cavalry, but the AI doesn't, right? Also this bonus is also applied during sieges apparently.

 

[Pejot]

A bonus for cavalry isn't necessarily a bad thing, but what if they costed more (either in wages or food)? Currently the player has to "consume" horses to upgrade cavalry, but the AI doesn't, right?

It's about this bonus. In autocalc T3 cav have 65% chances to kill T3 inf while T3 inf have only 38% to kill T3 cav. So inf in autocalc are at big disadvantage against cav focused armies. I'm comparing T3 cause they are most common in armies after fixes in 1.3+ hotfixes.
The odds are the same when we compare same tier cav with same tier inf.
Also T4 cav have 100% killing chance against any T1, T2 unit and 84% chance against T3.

 

[bm01]

It's about this bonus. In autocalc T3 cav have 65% chances to kill T3 inf while T3 inf have only 38% to kill T3 cav. So inf in autocalc are at big disadvantage against cav focused armies. I'm comparing T3 cause they are most common in armies after fixes in 1.3+ hotfixes.
The odds are the same when we compare same tier cav with same tier inf.
Also T4 cav have 100% killing chance against any T1, T2 unit and 84% chance against T3.

My point is, this could make sense if cavalry was more expensive.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Hearth is important variable because if it is lower than 200 your village production is 50% less than normal. If it is above 500 your village production 50% increases. 200-500 is normal 1x. Village production directly effects your tax income from these villages. Because 50% of gold villagers earn from sold items is your tax. I checked initial hearth values for these two villages and they are 240 for Ustokol and 100 for Zhemyan. So it seems these villages are raided twice at least or your villagers are constantly killed by bandits, this also effects hearths badly (check if there is a nearby hideout). Also hearth level of your villages effects food income of connected fortification changes 4/8/12 (0-200 hearths, 200-500 hearths, 500+).

In table I shared you can see total tax Sturgia gets for each season in first 10 years (from both villages and fortifications) so all effects are added there.



Thanks for data provided. Probably 1.3 is very much. I will examine its effects.

That would make sense, there was a plethora of sea raiders and a seasonal hideout right next to them, im positive the hearth loss was due to villagers being picked off constantly. It was ignored because we were at war for quite some time and i spent little time in that area as i had fully upgraded the castle already. This might be one of the issues in sturgia given the terrain leaves very little room to avoid things with its narrow pathways, both those villages have a single exit to the rest of the map and can be easily bottlenecked by sea raiders. This of course wouldnt be a problem if i would stay there, but I think a better solution is a patrol that i can pay for (another needed money sink) at the castle that will stick around my lands. Are patrols something that will come eventually? I think they could also be a solution for the massive amounts of small looter/bandits/sea raider parties that are hard to catch for lords with large parties.

 

[Go0lden_Archer]

There are some reports also 1.3x cavalry bonus also damage Sturgia parties in simulations. Will also examine its effects on Sturgia's weakness and give report to teams added that constant.

Thank you for all your hard work mexxico!

Indeed without cavalry bonus Sturgia survives much better. Thus far I've ran 3 saves each for 10 years just to see how AI plays out without horse bonus in autocalc, and each time Sturgia either didn't get wiped or got wiped not by Khuzaits, beforehand id Sturgia got rolled over it was almost always by Khuzaits.

 

[TheChewieShow]

Its because shield wall doesn't really work and Sturgia units need some defensive buffs while Kazuits Horse Archers just run circles around and not many factions have a counter to them.

 

[Maahes]

Honestly, the entire map needs a rework for areas like Sturgia (the worst offender), but not even just for balancing purposes. Many of the cities aren't in a logical position, so you're left scratching your head as to why someone would build a city there.

 

[Gambles]

So it turns out that loot from battles not only makes players rich but also NPCs, I believe many of us have been saying this for a while now. My snowballing begins when I start fighting and winning massive battles and getting ridiculous amounts of loot. Glad to see they figured this out somewhat, I wasn't aware if it worked exactly the same for npc lords...

 

[Pedanticus]

Hearth is important variable because if it is lower than 200 your village production is 50% less than normal. If it is above 500 your village production 50% increases. 200-500 is normal 1x. Village production directly effects your tax income from these villages. Because 50% of gold villagers earn from sold items is your tax. I checked initial hearth values for these two villages and they are 240 for Ustokol and 100 for Zhemyan. So it seems these villages are raided twice at least or your villagers are constantly killed by bandits, this also effects hearths badly (check if there is a nearby hideout). Also hearth level of your villages effects food income of connected fortification changes 4/8/12 (0-200 hearths, 200-500 hearths, 500+).

In table I shared you can see total tax Sturgia gets for each season in first 10 years (from both villages and fortifications) so all effects are added there.



Thanks for data provided. Probably 1.3 is very much. I will examine its effects.

If I could make a radical suggestion, gear should be worth a lot less, and taxes should be worth a lot more. It seems that the whole economy has been driven insane by a desire to prevent the player from buying high-end armor. But if I'm the lord of a rich city, why can't I afford armor that's equal to the armor of the 50 cataphracts I recruited when I was still a landless mercenary?

And if taxes give a larger and more dependable income source, soldiers can be more expensive. Realistically, most of my money should be spent on my army, not on outfitting myself and a few companions with armor that costs 1,000,000 denars...

 

[durbal]

It's not just the cav autocalc bonus. Campaign movement speed is by far the absolute most important stat because it allows you to level your troops, recruit faster, muster armies faster, respond the siege faster, and most of all because it is a constant: if you are 0.1 faster than an enemy, they cannot ever engage you in battle and you can always engage them. Stamina and resting for armies needs to be implemented or this will always be a problem.

Fix the Sturgian feat and then revisit this issue. I have a good feeling Sturgia will be a good deal stronger when their feat actually works, because as it's implemented right now it basically makes them 20% faster than everyone else in many conditions. It just doesn't work because of a different issue (snow terrain not actually existing on the map).

 

[Dabos37]

I do agree with increasing fiefs income, even if all other money sources should be nerfed. Having fiefs should be one of the most profitable source of money and this could also help AI lords with economy issues.

 

[durbal]

I do agree with increasing fiefs income, even if all other money sources should be nerfed. Having fiefs should be one of the most profitable source of money and this could also help AI lords with economy issues.

Fiefs already generate too much income on the whole. Sturgia's fiefs are what I'd consider to be a balanced amount of income where money needs to be actually managed somewhat, and even then it's probably too high -- but other fiefs are way over the top. Imperial cities should lose the prosperity bonus (this is dumb anyway) at a bare minimum.

Nerf plunder and loot gold to oblivion and back to make the income source disparity shrink -- please do not buff fief income any more. When fiefs are earning 2-3x more than their garrisons and a stacked army cost it's already way too much.

 

[Dabos37]

For last 3 days I tried to understand reasons of lords remaining with 0 gold situation which happens at 1.3.0. It is not common but when happens it is so disturbing, lords even cannot buy food and starving. I was also expecting to prove Sturgians are suffering mostly as economical because their towns has very low prosperity compared others. However I see that Aserai suffers more as economical compared to Sturgia even they have several towns with high prosperity. Also Battanians were in a good economical situation in most games even their total number of towns and total prosperity is less than others even from Sturgia and Aserai. Then it was obvious total income is not mainly come from taxes. I was expecting 80% of npc clan's income comes from taxes but this ratio was lower it seems. Then I collect data from battle loots too in addition to taxes. Made a table all together. In the table it was clearly seen battle loots are so important for Npc clans. Long peace times (identified as blue rectangles in table) damage kingdom's economy because lords cannot get loots, in opposite in war times kingdom clans get rich (red rectangles). As you see at table a kingdom's income source mainly comes from tax from towns / castles / villages but it is only 60% was not 80% like I expect. Remaining 35% come from battles. About 5% others (prisoners, etc).

In table there is only one game 10 year run data. In that game Sturgia was not isolated much and joined lots of battles thats why their economy did not go bad. However in some gameplays Sturgians can be so isolated and they can have long peace times. This also damage their economy. Then if they go in war when their economy is not good they lose settlements because of weak garrisons. Also yes second reason is their tax income per fortification is least among all kingdoms. (in table it is not so obvious because they captured 1-2 extra towns)

By the way empire column for poor clan leaders (last 6 columns) is for all 3 empire factions. You can divide it to 3 to compare with others.

As conclusion, with a patch we will decrease loot income from battles (for only npcs, they get this income as gold instead of items for now, however there was no trade penalty applied, we will add that) by 50% and we will increase all tax incomes from settlements by 25%. This will make economy of kingdoms more stable, they will not need battles to save their economical balance, also player will get 25% better tax too. Current bonuses for Sturgia and Aserai can change in future they are not effective and these two factions should get some important bonus because they suffer from geographical positions also Sturgia has lowest prosperity and they get 30-40% less tax income compared average of others.

One addition : while examining all prosperities I see 3 Aserai castles start game with 0 prosperity. This is weird we did not notice it for 1 month. It will be also fixed with patch.

There are some reports also 1.3x cavalry bonus also damage Sturgia parties in simulations. Will also examine its effects on Sturgia's weakness and give report to teams added that constant.

Oh, I have not read this post until now. Really nice reading, thank you very much for this. Glad to see that tax income will be increased. Would be possible to give clans income related to caravans? Even if It is a fixed number until a better mechanic gets added later? Thanks!

 

[Dabos37]

Fiefs already generate too much income on the whole. Sturgia's fiefs are what I'd consider to be a balanced amount of income where money needs to be actually managed somewhat, and even then it's probably too high -- but other fiefs are way over the top. Imperial cities should lose the prosperity bonus (this is dumb anyway) at a bare minimum.

Nerf plunder and loot gold to oblivion and back to make the income source disparity shrink -- please do not buff fief income any more. When fiefs are earning 2-3x more than their garrisons and a stacked army cost it's already way too much.

Uhmmm not my experience. I have had three of 5 Battania towns and I was getting 1-1.5k (2k sometimes) daily as much from each of these towns and villages.

Then you realize that there are some workshops which could give you 800 denars daily eventually and you can get them in the first 30 days as much.

Plus fiefs probably will be much harder to take if lords are able to manage their economy effectively. I am in favor to make fiefs really hard to take while more profitable.

How much money are you getting from your fiefs?

 

[black_bulldog]

why not make the simulation formula take into account the terrain?
cavalry can have their bonus on the steppes but maybe get a debuff on frost and forest terrains.

That's actually not a bad idea, they would be excellent in there own area but weaker in others. The only caveat I would add is that sand should have a slight negative effect on them too because Aserai is pretty open and mostly flat and they could easily get steam rolled.

 

[Woopzilla]

Hearth is important variable because if it is lower than 200 your village production is 50% less than normal. If it is above 500 your village production 50% increases. 200-500 is normal 1x. Village production directly effects your tax income from these villages. Because 50% of gold villagers earn from sold items is your tax. I checked initial hearth values for these two villages and they are 240 for Ustokol and 100 for Zhemyan. So it seems these villages are raided twice at least or your villagers are constantly killed by bandits, this also effects hearths badly (check if there is a nearby hideout). Also hearth level of your villages effects food income of connected fortification changes 4/8/12 (0-200 hearths, 200-500 hearths, 500+).

In table I shared you can see total tax Sturgia gets for each season in first 10 years (from both villages and fortifications) so all effects are added there.



Thanks for data provided. Probably 1.3 is very much. I will examine its effects.

I will start sounding like a broken record, but also please have a look at clan relationship with leaders. If a clan (and even a player) loses a fief, you get a HUGE relationship penalty with your leader. This probably causes clans to leave kingdoms very, very quickly. It's not unusual to be -100 relation with your liege. AI doesn't seem to care aboout the 'King's support' income bonus. I made a thread about it here: link.

I have to regularly spend 300+ influence on decisions, just to get back into positives, but I don't think AI is pro-active in repairing relationships. So, even if the economy is in a better shape, it won't help much for lords that are fiefless and ready to join the enemy.

 

[durbal]

Uhmmm not my experience. I have had three of 5 Battania towns and I was getting 1-1.5k (2k sometimes) daily as much from each of these towns and villages.

Then you realize that there are some workshops which could give you 800 denars daily eventually and you can get them in the first 30 days as much.

Plus fiefs probably will be much harder to take if lords are able to manage their economy effectively. I am in favor to make fiefs really hard to take while more profitable.

How much money are you getting from your fiefs?

Nerf workshops and caravans too. There's too much gold and it's caused by the dumb MMORPG ph4t l3wtz economy and makes no sense.