Why Sturgia often grows weak, Khuzait often grows strong

Users who are viewing this thread

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)

GYq5i.png


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.

_bcXF.png


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.

But i think player cheating with workshop, caravarn and quest advantage is still problem make player steamrolling against every NPC.
I hope dev should find some ways to buff NPC to make game challenge, they should have some passive income (like they have workshop and caravarn but actually not) and some exp daily bonus for troop (They are noble and have training life, not like player are random adventure).
The king and queen should have massive buff too, like special guard army and royal treasure.
 
Last edited:
Even their infantry, which is supposed to be their strength, suck until they get to top tier. There's no real progression; they just get slight armour upgrades (way less than other factions it seems) until BAM they're suddenly the best infantry in the game. Any non-top tier infantry gets absolutely trashed in battle so it's lots of grinding looters until you can get a core of high tier infantry.
Good point. When in reality, considering information about Sturgia in dev blog, Sturgia should in reality have very good equipped low and mid tier infantry units (best in the game), with their top tier infantry units being slightly worse equipped than top tier infantry units from for example the Empire or Vlandia. This is because they have access to alot of iron, but I imagine with a more temperate climate and "being more civilized", the Vlandians and Imperials would have access to better metallurgy, allowing them to craft the most exceptional pieces of equipment in Calradia.

Just a minor point not necessarily related to the most pressing balance issues.
 
Look at the log. I should make a mod that dumps it to a text file while I play but in my current playthrough I eradicated the Khuzait so now I can play a normal game.

The log doesn't seem to have any actual logging feature for battle results. Do you mean just manually watching and ticking off when Khuzaits capture a lord vs. having a lord captured?
 
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.

Nice info but still, AI lords have too many financial advantages against player
1. No risk/time waste using caravan/workshop/manual trading
2. Free troops after lost battle
3. No need to upgrade weapons/armor
4. No gold spent on peace treaty
5. They do a lot of raidings and are not affected by negative relation
6. Most likely they don't even pay for garrisons :smile:
 
Nice info but still, AI lords have too many financial advantages against player
1. No risk/time waste using caravan/workshop/manual trading
2. Free troops after lost battle
3. No need to upgrade weapons/armor
4. No gold spent on peace treaty
5. They do a lot of raidings and are not affected by negative relation
6. Most likely they don't even pay for garrisons :smile:

- Caravans, workshops and manual trading are actually advantages for player. You can get +2K daily just from workshops once you are able to have some of them and they are pretty safe. Having different options for income is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
- AI lords will receive 10% instead of 25% free troops soon. Anyway, AI lords are not able to choose their battles as effectively as player does. They do not abandon armies if they think they are go to lose, etc.
- Well, this game is about starting like a poor guy and try to get power and become stronger.
- Not sure about money for peace but I think negative relationship also affects AI lords.
- I am 90% sure that the AI lords pay for garrison.

You just have to see how tier 6 Clans are able to barely pay for 3 parties while the player is able to pay for 4 without any problem and still continue getting richer.

IMO, the AI could get some few extra cheats because currently is the player who has a huge advantage.
 
Last edited:
Interesting and detailed work, but I can't agree on your summary.

I played for nearly 300 hours now and I talked to my friends who either played for a long time or started a lot of save games as well.

  • It's not Sturgia with the biggest problems - it's more often the Empire (1 of 3 remains, sometimes none survives). In your theory Sturgia has too many connections on the map. With the same argumentation Battania should perform way less than it does usually
  • Vitnessed Aserai and Khuzait being in constant war
  • Sturgia very strong after some weaker phases. In my latest save game they have taken and until now never lost Epicrotea (a prosper, well defended town)
I don't say that your summary is wrong. But if you ask me, it's one out of many cases you showed. To make nearly scientific conclusions you should run hundreds of new games with cheat engine and see what happens if the player does not interact at all. Maybe there is some sort of probability that a certain scenario/development can be seen.
 
Nice info but still, AI lords have too many financial advantages against player
1. No risk/time waste using caravan/workshop/manual trading
2. Free troops after lost battle
3. No need to upgrade weapons/armor
4. No gold spent on peace treaty
5. They do a lot of raidings and are not affected by negative relation
6. Most likely they don't even pay for garrisons :smile:

1. this is advantage for player not npcs. If npcs can have caravans and workshops i have less problem in lords going bankrupt issue. Because these are very important income sources. Lords not having these assets is not my decision. I wanted some npc lords to have caravans workshops also. However it is not wanted.
2. they get only 25% of their party size as free troops when they respawn after escaping from captivity this will reduce 10% soon. this is very minor advantage. If party size is 100, currently they get 25 troops free soon it will be only 10. 10 x 100 (average troop cost) = 1000 after each spawn, this is very minor in all economy. You can examine tables I shared how important 1K is. If you ask "if it is not important why you give 25% troops at respawn" answer is to save lords at their first day otherwise they can catch by bandits on their first travels after respawn.
3. they have predetermined set of armor / weapon and it is stable, player do not have to spend huge amounts on his armor or weapons to get extra +2 +3 because he is only one troop, effect of this is not huge in battles. These are only money sinks. Also player can kill 20-30-40 people on a battle but ai lords cannot do this. I want to see they can also do but this is mission ai team's area I cannot make improvements at this.
4. this is not true, they also spend gold in peace treaties which is done between npc clans (for example if vlandia in a bad situation in a war vlandian king pay gold to make peace with another npc kingdom).
5. this is not true, they also get negatif relation.
6. this is not true, they pay garrisons.
 
Last edited:
1. this is advantage for player not npcs. If npcs can have caravans and workshops i have less problem in lords going bankrupt issue. Because these are very important income sources. Lords not having these assets is not my decision. I wanted some npc lords to have caravans workshops also. However it is not wanted.
2. they get only 25% of their party size as free troops when they respawn after escaping from captivity this will reduce 10% soon. this is very minor advantage. If party size is 100, currently they get 25 troops free soon it will be only 10. 10 x 100 (average troop cost) = 1000 after each spawn, this is very minor in all economy.
3. they have predetermined set of armor / weapon and it is stable, player do not have to spend huge amounts on his armor or weapons to get extra +2 +3 because he is only one troop, effect of this is not huge in battles. These are only money sinks. Also player can kill 20-30-40 people on a battle but ai lords cannot do this.
4. they also spend gold in peace treaties doing between themselves (for example if vlandia in a bad situation in a war vlandian king pay gold to make peace with another npc kingdom).
5. this is not true, they also get negatif relation.
6. this is not true, they pay garrisons.

Thanks for the clarification :smile:
 
1. this is advantage for player not npcs. If npcs can have caravans and workshops i have less problem in lords going bankrupt issue. Because these are very important income sources. Lords not having these assets is not my decision. I wanted some npc lords to have caravans workshops also. However it is not wanted.
2. they get only 25% of their party size as free troops when they respawn after escaping from captivity this will reduce 10% soon. this is very minor advantage. If party size is 100, currently they get 25 troops free soon it will be only 10. 10 x 100 (average troop cost) = 1000 after each spawn, this is very minor in all economy. You can examine tables I shared how important 1K is. If you ask "if it is not important why you give 25% troops at respawn" answer is to save lords at their first day otherwise they can catch by bandits on their first travels after respawn.
3. they have predetermined set of armor / weapon and it is stable, player do not have to spend huge amounts on his armor or weapons to get extra +2 +3 because he is only one troop, effect of this is not huge in battles. These are only money sinks. Also player can kill 20-30-40 people on a battle but ai lords cannot do this. I want to see they can also do but this is mission ai team's area I cannot make improvements at this.
4. this is not true, they also spend gold in peace treaties which is done between npc clans (for example if vlandia in a bad situation in a war vlandian king pay gold to make peace with another npc kingdom).
5. this is not true, they also get negatif relation.
6. this is not true, they pay garrisons.
Also, Thanks for the clarification!

off topic observation not requiring answer: when I read all your posts, I have a feeling that someone "above" you already predefined every economy and war mechanics in game , basically put you in a "frame" not allowing you to implement any new feature in game, restraining you from any creative freedom.
Now you can only do some "juggling" with stats and modifiers.
 
1. this is advantage for player not npcs. If npcs can have caravans and workshops i have less problem in lords going bankrupt issue. Because these are very important income sources. Lords not having these assets is not my decision. I wanted some npc lords to have caravans workshops also. However it is not wanted.
2. they get only 25% of their party size as free troops when they respawn after escaping from captivity this will reduce 10% soon. this is very minor advantage. If party size is 100, currently they get 25 troops free soon it will be only 10. 10 x 100 (average troop cost) = 1000 after each spawn, this is very minor in all economy. You can examine tables I shared how important 1K is. If you ask "if it is not important why you give 25% troops at respawn" answer is to save lords at their first day otherwise they can catch by bandits on their first travels after respawn.
3. they have predetermined set of armor / weapon and it is stable, player do not have to spend huge amounts on his armor or weapons to get extra +2 +3 because he is only one troop, effect of this is not huge in battles. These are only money sinks. Also player can kill 20-30-40 people on a battle but ai lords cannot do this. I want to see they can also do but this is mission ai team's area I cannot make improvements at this.
4. this is not true, they also spend gold in peace treaties which is done between npc clans (for example if vlandia in a bad situation in a war vlandian king pay gold to make peace with another npc kingdom).
5. this is not true, they also get negatif relation.
6. this is not true, they pay garrisons.

Thanks. Interesting to know that there is the possibility to give workshops and caravans to lords but the design decision is do not allow them to have these things.

Not sure if possible but please, reconsider this decision or at least give some kind of compensation for AI. Lords going to bankrupt is a huge issue which has made me to stop playing the game for the moment (this is not a complain, I know that I could play public version but I really like changes introduced in 1.3.0 and I prefer to wait). Otherwise, restricting lords to the same player rules wont work if they just have partial access to income sources. The result will be one of this: lords going to bankrupt as It is happening now or the player being able to get money too easy.

If I would have to choose, I would give all Clans 1000-1500 daily as compensation for caravans and workshops, rather to continue seeing Settlements with small garrison and lords with all troops wounded. Anyway, I trust you will find a good solution for this.

Really thanks for taking time to write on this topic, It makes the waiting for the new patch more pleasent.
 
Last edited:
I decided to try a little experiment just for fun. So I went into spnpccharacters.xml and swapped the IDs for Sturgian Recruits and Khuzait Nomads.

pxsdBb2.png


This has the effect of replacing all Sturgian recruits from villages and towns (including higher tier ones) with Khuzait ones, and vice versa. The noble recruits were unaffected but all the regular troops were swapped.

TtfVhsc.jpg


The armies still start with a lot of their faction's troops that are cheated in. This also happens when they respawn when escaping from prison. But after that all the recruits are swapped. This is Raganvad's party on day one:

W1rZC4S.png


So the first thing that happened was that Sturgia immediately lost Nevyansk Castle and Varcheg to the Vlandians, within the first week. After a while peace was declared, and Sturgia immediately declared war on Khuzait, without waiting to recover or anything. So the Khuzaits smashed Raganvad's army of recruits that came to beseige Baltakhand, and immediately took Uriksala and Tyal.

Here is Mesui's army of Sturgian Warriors assaulting Tyal, with Raganvad as prisoner.
BTfdqx3.jpg


The rest of the game went about as you would expect. Sturgians never regained their lost ground and slowly retreated back into the snow. Occasionaly they would retake a castle but could never keep one for long. They held on to Revyl and the three northen towns mostly because nobody seems to ever be bothered to go and siege them. Their armies were small, and of the other factions could have taken those last few towns easily if they had tried.

The situation after about six years:
WdocEKi.jpg


Just in case it was a fluke, I did the same experiment again. Pretty similar result after six years. Main difference is that Southern Empire got creamed instead of Aserai. But the Stugia/Khuzait situation is the same as it always is, despite having swapped troops.
kPdrwQE.jpg



Even with a veteran Khuzait army, Ragnavad could not hold onto Omor, or any other fief for that matter.
D0WbbXA.jpg


Monchug's army had more Ulfednars than I've ever seen in a sturgian army
ls2LJUb.png


It was business as usual for the Khuzaits. They seemed perfectly happy using a bunch of northerners to conquer the empire.
WbBYHi3.jpg
 
Just remove workshops and caravans for the player if the AI is never allowed to have them due to a design decision. There needs to be one economy, and workshops and caravans are non-interactive anyway.
 
I decided to try a little experiment just for fun. So I went into spnpccharacters.xml and swapped the IDs for Sturgian Recruits and Khuzait Nomads.

pxsdBb2.png


This has the effect of replacing all Sturgian recruits from villages and towns (including higher tier ones) with Khuzait ones, and vice versa. The noble recruits were unaffected but all the regular troops were swapped.

TtfVhsc.jpg


The armies still start with a lot of their faction's troops that are cheated in. This also happens when they respawn when escaping from prison. But after that all the recruits are swapped. This is Raganvad's party on day one:

W1rZC4S.png


So the first thing that happened was that Sturgia immediately lost Nevyansk Castle and Varcheg to the Vlandians, within the first week. After a while peace was declared, and Sturgia immediately declared war on Khuzait, without waiting to recover or anything. So the Khuzaits smashed Raganvad's army of recruits that came to beseige Baltakhand, and immediately took Uriksala and Tyal.

Here is Mesui's army of Sturgian Warriors assaulting Tyal, with Raganvad as prisoner.
BTfdqx3.jpg


The rest of the game went about as you would expect. Sturgians never regained their lost ground and slowly retreated back into the snow. Occasionaly they would retake a castle but could never keep one for long. They held on to Revyl and the three northen towns mostly because nobody seems to ever be bothered to go and siege them. Their armies were small, and of the other factions could have taken those last few towns easily if they had tried.

The situation after about six years:
WdocEKi.jpg


Just in case it was a fluke, I did the same experiment again. Pretty similar result after six years. Main difference is that Southern Empire got creamed instead of Aserai. But the Stugia/Khuzait situation is the same as it always is, despite having swapped troops.
kPdrwQE.jpg



Even with a veteran Khuzait army, Ragnavad could not hold onto Omor, or any other fief for that matter.
D0WbbXA.jpg


Monchug's army had more Ulfednars than I've ever seen in a sturgian army
ls2LJUb.png


It was business as usual for the Khuzaits. They seemed perfectly happy using a bunch of northerners to conquer the empire.
WbBYHi3.jpg

You'd need to change their templates too.
 
1. this is advantage for player not npcs. If npcs can have caravans and workshops i have less problem in lords going bankrupt issue. Because these are very important income sources. Lords not having these assets is not my decision. I wanted some npc lords to have caravans workshops also. However it is not wanted.
2. they get only 25% of their party size as free troops when they respawn after escaping from captivity this will reduce 10% soon. this is very minor advantage. If party size is 100, currently they get 25 troops free soon it will be only 10. 10 x 100 (average troop cost) = 1000 after each spawn, this is very minor in all economy. You can examine tables I shared how important 1K is. If you ask "if it is not important why you give 25% troops at respawn" answer is to save lords at their first day otherwise they can catch by bandits on their first travels after respawn.
3. they have predetermined set of armor / weapon and it is stable, player do not have to spend huge amounts on his armor or weapons to get extra +2 +3 because he is only one troop, effect of this is not huge in battles. These are only money sinks. Also player can kill 20-30-40 people on a battle but ai lords cannot do this. I want to see they can also do but this is mission ai team's area I cannot make improvements at this.
4. this is not true, they also spend gold in peace treaties which is done between npc clans (for example if vlandia in a bad situation in a war vlandian king pay gold to make peace with another npc kingdom).
5. this is not true, they also get negatif relation.
6. this is not true, they pay garrisons.
For #2, In my opinion, the option to buy mercenaries should be available in every town (it could replenish like troops at settlements)... it should just be more expensive than the normal route of regular troops / training them yourself. The AI could just wait around in town buying mercenaries / regular troops until it has 15-25 troops and is stable enough to explore the map again. Have a clause that they only buy mercenaries if very low on troops.
 
For #2, In my opinion, the option to buy mercenaries should be available in every town (it could replenish like troops at settlements)... it should just be more expensive than the normal route of regular troops / training them yourself. The AI could just wait around in town buying mercenaries / regular troops until it has 15-25 troops and is stable enough to explore the map again. Have a clause that they only buy mercenaries if very low on troops.

Yes currently mercenary troops are less in numbers and only avaliable at towns and mostly (50%) level 11 watchmen. I was thinking similar solutions with what you offer. Mercenaries should be more important at game and especially rich kingdoms must easily increase their party sizes with them to recover after losses. Will think some improvements in these issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom