AI parties do not run away to hide in the nearest friendly city/castle when being chased. When I was chasing an empire lord in his territory, I watched him run straight across Lageta's gates (he was literally TOUCHING the gate) and kept going well past, and eventually I was able to catch and defeat him. If this AI had any common sense or sense of self-preservation he would take shelter in Lageta and wait until I went far enough away from him. It's what anyone would try to do when chased by an overwhelming force that you can't defeat and can't outrun. For example, I remember running to neutral Epicrotea as a Sturgian mercenary since I was being chased by a whole horde of pissed off Battanians. I simply waited until the Battanians got bored and left.
This feature was implemented in Warband; lords would run away to take shelter in the nearest friendly city/castle when they see a stronger enemy, with a few exceptions for the most brave and foolhardy lords. Of course there's limits; lords in Warband couldn't take refuge in neutral cities/castles like the player, only of their faction. I'm not sure if people want 300 iq AI which can cheese them by running into neutral settlements, (even though I think it would be cool to see the AI use these cheesy tactics like the player does, I recognize it can be frustrating and unfun to be cheesed) so I put it to a poll.
Anyways, it was a very logical thing to do, made the AI seem very smart and interested in its self preservation, and had deep strategic implications. If I wanted to engage an enemy lord, I had to position myself in between him and the closest allied settlement of his faction to cut off his escape. It also gave defenders a strategic advantage, since they could more or less pick their fights by giving them the option to run away and take shelter in a nearby castle if outnumbered, an option which attackers don't have in enemy territory.
So, I suggest the (re)addition of this pretty basic logic into AI lords - something like, if I see an enemy force, say, 20% stronger than me (maybe changing to 10% or 30% depending on the lord's brave/cautious traits) and there is a friendly settlement which is closer to me than I am to this enemy force, OR I could reasonably reach the settlement's gates before the enemy catches up to me (maybe make them run anyways, in hopes of receiving reinforcements) then run like hell to the friendly settlement, and wait until the enemy moves away sufficiently OR they are engaged by my allies, and if I joined this battle, it would swing in our favor, at which point I leave and either return to normal or help my allies in that engagement.
As a possible extension to this idea, maybe if a lord who is on the run trying to take refuge in a settlement is unfriendly with the lord who owns that settlement, then that lord won't be allowed in and can't "select" that settlement when considering which settlement to run to. This is inspired by that Warband feature, where if you have bad relations with a castle's owner, you won't be allowed in, and "the guard sergeant informs you that his men will fire if you attempt to come any closer" even if you were both in the same faction. It fits right in with the more dark age setting of Bannerlord, which has even less centralization than Warband. Maybe this opens up a possibility for a kingdom policy that forces vassals to open their castle doors even to fellow lords they hate, at the cost of relations.
This feature was implemented in Warband; lords would run away to take shelter in the nearest friendly city/castle when they see a stronger enemy, with a few exceptions for the most brave and foolhardy lords. Of course there's limits; lords in Warband couldn't take refuge in neutral cities/castles like the player, only of their faction. I'm not sure if people want 300 iq AI which can cheese them by running into neutral settlements, (even though I think it would be cool to see the AI use these cheesy tactics like the player does, I recognize it can be frustrating and unfun to be cheesed) so I put it to a poll.
Anyways, it was a very logical thing to do, made the AI seem very smart and interested in its self preservation, and had deep strategic implications. If I wanted to engage an enemy lord, I had to position myself in between him and the closest allied settlement of his faction to cut off his escape. It also gave defenders a strategic advantage, since they could more or less pick their fights by giving them the option to run away and take shelter in a nearby castle if outnumbered, an option which attackers don't have in enemy territory.
So, I suggest the (re)addition of this pretty basic logic into AI lords - something like, if I see an enemy force, say, 20% stronger than me (maybe changing to 10% or 30% depending on the lord's brave/cautious traits) and there is a friendly settlement which is closer to me than I am to this enemy force, OR I could reasonably reach the settlement's gates before the enemy catches up to me (maybe make them run anyways, in hopes of receiving reinforcements) then run like hell to the friendly settlement, and wait until the enemy moves away sufficiently OR they are engaged by my allies, and if I joined this battle, it would swing in our favor, at which point I leave and either return to normal or help my allies in that engagement.
As a possible extension to this idea, maybe if a lord who is on the run trying to take refuge in a settlement is unfriendly with the lord who owns that settlement, then that lord won't be allowed in and can't "select" that settlement when considering which settlement to run to. This is inspired by that Warband feature, where if you have bad relations with a castle's owner, you won't be allowed in, and "the guard sergeant informs you that his men will fire if you attempt to come any closer" even if you were both in the same faction. It fits right in with the more dark age setting of Bannerlord, which has even less centralization than Warband. Maybe this opens up a possibility for a kingdom policy that forces vassals to open their castle doors even to fellow lords they hate, at the cost of relations.
