Need More Info Endless Wars and AI decision to keep pursuing it

[Zorion_no]

I can't believe thats the case, since I've never won a game; assuming winning is having your kingdom control all the spots. With most games, I start at the easiest setting to learn the game, once I win, I up it to a tougher setting and keep making it tougher. I'll admit I didn't fully try winning at Easiest level because I felt like I was beating up on babies. But I've tried more than a dozen games on Easy (middle) level difficulty and haven't come close to winning. My best is about 3/4ths of the territories.

And yes, I no longer do 'kingdom business' unless I happen to be close to my territories, which doesn't happen much anymore. I have a lot of hideouts I'd like to get rid of, but don't have the time. I know I have at least 2 hideouts near one of my towns, but if I go take care of it my kingdom will probably lose at least 2 or 3 territories before I can get back to the front lines. Plus, I expect both remaining Empire clans to go full bore against me soon as the Neretzes quest penalty kicks in. Seeing the quest is still a waste, I likely will avoid doing it again for at least the next 6-12 months after this, but I wanted to see if there were any significant changes since the last time I had tried it. Silly me.

What part cant you belive? that its by design?

And I've conquered it all. Everything(note I play sandbox so I dont have that quest etc) On my starter character(he wasnt that old, but nearing the typical death age).

I spent millions on getting lords to join our faction who didnt even have land, just to get'em some and to be 1 less clan to face on teh field and one more for us.

Overall its still annoying, as you have at the very least kingdomes ruler clan, still declaring war, which at best they raid a village and thus towns get -1 loyalty.

 

[Zorion_no]

Yeah, I had a situation yesterday in my game where I made peace with the Sturgians while at Balgard, went and took Dunglanys from a rebel clan, and before I could get to Epicrotea afterwards they had already declared war on me again. I'm estimating about 10 days had passed. Rather than 30 days, maybe the programming resets the peace status at the start of each month (season) instead of after an actual 30 days. I'm at the point in my game where in any 10-day period I'm lucky if I don't have either 6 or all 7 factions at war with me.

I cant tell why its 10 days for you like it was for me, but I did send one of the devs a savegame where it happend, I'm sure they would be eager to see yours aswell if you have it, as the 30 days is "hardcoded" I was told so they cant bypass that.
And it was supposed to be 30 ingame days I was told(but that could be "the problem" as days are 2-3 due to the sped up time).

And imo, thats and issue that "you cant" do kingdome stuff, as the other factions will conquer too much in the short travel time.

Pretty sure that in reality in those days a huge siege didnt last for 1 day or less.. Pretty sure that building all the things, setting up barricades etc would take quite a few days.(and from my understanding alot of the sieges was more about starveing the defenders, then attack when they where broken and starveing with little to no will to fight back).(mostly)(aka not always).

 

[Doofus]

What I can't believe is that the game gets too hard to win because we are playing on settings too low for us when very few players can actually win the game, as it stands. Most players I've seen that say they've won the game have been using mods. Almost no one I know of can overcome the constant wars without mods. I'll grant you I haven't tried a full game on easiest setting because I find its too easy and there's no realism to it. But on middle difficulty, usually I can't get past owning about 1/2 the map, because its too spread out and when I'm fighting on one side of my kingdom I'm losing territory on the other side. I do try to recruit enemy lords, but since they won't discuss it in armies and I'm always always leading an army I don't get a lot of opportunities to recruit other lords. I can't take time out to visit neutral empires to recruit lords because I'll lose too much territory while on my recruiting trip (also there generally aren't many neutral empires). So the enemy lords I approach that aren't in armies outrun me while I'm leading an army.

 

[Zorion_no]

What I can't believe is that the game gets too hard to win because we are playing on settings too low for us when very few players can actually win the game, as it stands. Most players I've seen that say they've won the game have been using mods. Almost no one I know of can overcome the constant wars without mods. I'll grant you I haven't tried a full game on easiest setting because I find its too easy and there's no realism to it. But on middle difficulty, usually I can't get past owning about 1/2 the map, because its too spread out and when I'm fighting on one side of my kingdom I'm losing territory on the other side. I do try to recruit enemy lords, but since they won't discuss it in armies and I'm always always leading an army I don't get a lot of opportunities to recruit other lords. I can't take time out to visit neutral empires to recruit lords because I'll lose too much territory while on my recruiting trip (also there generally aren't many neutral empires). So the enemy lords I approach that aren't in armies outrun me while I'm leading an army.

I did it though, but again it took 30 close to 40 years (so still on the main starter character).
Unmodded, it was a "nitemare" to put it mildly and that is my issue, its "too frustrating".
Lords in some cases are too loyal imo(why they need to remove the "money in terms of them being loyal" even if they've been landless for years, while some very poor clans defect within days in long games.(Battania and Khuzait typically jump ships all the time, vs Empire clans or Vlandia which is typically loaded)(Since I'm Sturgia for life, the last to fall was Aserai).

But yah overall for me the biggest beef is that the endless/chain wars lead to "exhaustion" and or no cool down to do sandbox stuff if you join a kindgome(sure you can be neutral though, or take a city, but never form a kingdome(you wont be declared war upon, and can build the most prosprous city in Calradia).

The "point of legacy" imo is that you cant conquer it all with your main(unless you go full despot and behead all captured lords).
So that it should drag out for "generations", and the best way for this its to have more cool downs with peace.

Or that the kingdomes are quicker to jump for peace than they still is.

Ideally also let us choose if kingdomes can have mercclans at all(as its the root of the endless wars and lack of peace in my plays)
Just let the player have to work their way up to have enough clan rank, then they can join their desired kingdome.(dont take that long to do anyways)

Up until you hit that threshold of endless/chain wars the game is flawless, with peace here and there and its fun, then you get to the point of no return :/ just very frustrating and tanks the fun.

 

[Doofus]

Up until you hit that threshold of endless/chain wars the game is flawless, with peace here and there and its fun, then you get to the point of no return :/ just very frustrating and tanks the fun.

Wouldn't actually use the term flawless, but yeah very enjoyable. This statement basically gives the bottom line on the problem with the game.

 

[Gadheras]

I did it though, but again it took 30 close to 40 years (so still on the main starter character).
Unmodded, it was a "nitemare" to put it mildly and that is my issue, its "too frustrating".
Lords in some cases are too loyal imo(why they need to remove the "money in terms of them being loyal" even if they've been landless for years, while some very poor clans defect within days in long games.(Battania and Khuzait typically jump ships all the time, vs Empire clans or Vlandia which is typically loaded)(Since I'm Sturgia for life, the last to fall was Aserai).

But yah overall for me the biggest beef is that the endless/chain wars lead to "exhaustion" and or no cool down to do sandbox stuff if you join a kindgome(sure you can be neutral though, or take a city, but never form a kingdome(you wont be declared war upon, and can build the most prosprous city in Calradia).

The "point of legacy" imo is that you cant conquer it all with your main(unless you go full despot and behead all captured lords).
So that it should drag out for "generations", and the best way for this its to have more cool downs with peace.

Or that the kingdomes are quicker to jump for peace than they still is.

Ideally also let us choose if kingdomes can have mercclans at all(as its the root of the endless wars and lack of peace in my plays)
Just let the player have to work their way up to have enough clan rank, then they can join their desired kingdome.(dont take that long to do anyways)

Up until you hit that threshold of endless/chain wars the game is flawless, with peace here and there and its fun, then you get to the point of no return :/ just very frustrating and tanks the fun.

Yeah, once you reach the endless loop of wars and you are caught in the ever lasting grind of fight after fight after fight. All other content in the game get void and out of reach because you have no time for it. This is the biggest flaw of the game imho. Look at your empire bro! It's overrun with bandits and looters, and still you decide to war me? what gives.. sigh. Looking up nobles around and they all poor as well.. :/

 

[Zorion_no]

Yeah, once you reach the endless loop of wars and you are caught in the ever lasting grind of fight after fight after fight. All other content in the game get void and out of reach because you have no time for it. This is the biggest flaw of the game imho. Look at your empire bro! It's overrun with bandits and looters, and still you decide to war me? what gives.. sigh. Looking up nobles around and they all poor as well.. :/

I hadnt played for some time now, so there had been a patch in between.

When I loaded it up to play today, oddly enough the enemy was quick to want peace even if it was a 1v1 war.
We where like power rating 14k.

I wonder if they adjusted something or its just a random "change for me" (which is most welcome).

I get that war is a critical part of the game, but since travel times are quite big vs Warband, it may need abit of adjusting, so its not constant, and that kingdomes would want peace much more when they are "poweful" but yet in reality isnt.

I mean 14k power vs starting 6-7k roughly.. but we still have the same amount of clans in the empire so in terms of mobile armies on the field we are the same as before.
Thus defacto we arent all that more powerful than the other factions, since they have the same or more lords to field armies with(since they 90% of the time will have 4-5++ merc clans aswell)

I think the AI needs to put more emphasis on "actual parties" it can form, and not look that much at the garrisions which counts toward.
While the garrisons can be depleted to recruit faster etc after defeats, it should take into "consideration" how much weaker can our town/castles defense get before the other enemy will see this weakness and declare war.

 

[Zorion_no]

Note in 1.72Beta the AI is much more intrested in peace than its been before, at times "too keen on peace".
You still get the "endless wars"/chain wars though once you reach that bump high power threshold, but seems to be bit higher instead of 12k now its 18k, once you reach that you will be at war with 1-3 at times, you can have peace with 1 you where at war, then another declares etc.
Specially frustrating when you have "pestlords" basically defeated kingdomes with nothing besides the King's clan and mercs running around with their 30-50 man party raiding(They need to up the minimum amount of troops needed to do raids to 100 perhaps to counter this).
Ideally the kings would follow in the step of Warband - and go into Exile when they are defeated after a certain amount of time(100-500 ingame days maybe) or make those AI abit more keen on trying to actually take a fief to start again(but oh yah, they are so poor that they cant 40%+ in their parties so they cant even form armies..(that requirment is poor decision, and makes the weaker faction even weaker as they cant even form armies..for an arbitrary reason)

In todays "intresting observation" I've gone to lengths to make sure that the fiefs that we've taken from Khuzait this time around was spread out between the clans.
Instead of typically the AI still are too keen on pushing out the fiefs to 1-2 clans all the time.

The intresting part about it is that since I did that, the desire for peace is now 33%, whereas when I then redid this and instead let the AI decide who got the fiefs - meaning 1 lord. Then the % desire for peace is 0%.

Dont get me wrong this may be a false positive but I think it could be something to look at.

But overall the system in 1.72 Beta is pretty solid in terms of war/peace, just need to "fix the pestlords" (more frustrating but not a priority and it kind of have its purpose I can see, as the security will decline leading to revolts which will perhaps halt the kingdome the player is in abit).

 

[Doofus]

Yeah, I would be in favor of an 'exile' type thing. Also, for that first 100 days or so, it would reasonable that the defeated kings could have fairly large armies of fanatics that they don't have to pay for (other than food) who want to see this person reinstated as king. There should, of course, be limits to the army size(s) though..

 

[Zorion_no]

Yeah, I would be in favor of an 'exile' type thing. Also, for that first 100 days or so, it would reasonable that the defeated kings could have fairly large armies of fanatics that they don't have to pay for (other than food) who want to see this person reinstated as king. There should, of course, be limits to the army size(s) though..

Thats the thing though, "they do" have that. but they just cant summon those to the army..
The below 40% is not a good designdecision to put it bluntly just for this alone, where it means that suffering kingdomes just cant form armies to defend of well enough, or actually go on conquest.
Specially since they have 0 time to recover, not to mention the crazy tributes they end up paying to all other kingdomes.

I joined the failing Battania, and turned it around, we liberated all the castles etc that was taken from them, and ended up with a few castles taken from others.
Then I left them(I had so good relations with all the lords so the -40 penalty didnt really matter if one cares about such stuff).

I dont really know how far into the development they are with the game as they arent really very informative imo about this, and thats "ok" - still looking for a decent and regularly updated roadmap/flowchart though(they could learn from Larian Studios cough cough).

So that "theese concerns" about theese things will be "adressed" easier for us, and we know that they "are working on it etc" or what to expect in terms of "late-end game" or is this what we'll get and let the modders fix it(read modders have already I see on Nexus, I just dont use mods during Early access to avoid uneccesary sources that can cause bugs etc).

Dont get me wrong I see that they have fixed alot of stuff, so much easier to not be at war constant even when in late game.
I did at 1 time almost have 1 full year with peace now so..(I'll admit it was abit boring sure, but it also did let me do other parts of the sandbox and not just war war(I could always go skirmish mode if I want just that cant I?)

So yah the 1.72 Beta fixes the issue of endless/chain wars though alot, but once you hit that threshold though there is no turning back unless all progress is lost. Or that the same war drags out and on forever flipping the same 2 fiefs typically back and forth and no progress(Ww1 trench wars.)

 

[Doofus]

To a certain extent, the player is too important. I think the player should be the hero, but its hard when the player has to do everything on a huge map. For example, my current play-through is with the Khuzaits. With my work, we've taken all the Battanian areas north of the sea. We've taken the Northern Empire areas bordering the sea on the south all the way around to Epicrotea. We've taken the most of the lands bordering the Eastern Sea. We've taken the Aserai areas over, just past Hubyar. Of all that, I think me leading armies have taken all but 2 castles of that area. That wouldn't even be a problem, except...

I've been given holdings, including towns, around the Northern sea. I think all but one of these someone else was favored but my vote pushed it substantially in my favor. Most of the territories that weren't given to me Monchug claimed for himself. In any case, most recently we've warred with both Northern Kingdoms and the Aserai at the same time. Since I hold nothing in the South, I've pretty much said screw the South, I'll defend my own lands. So we've now lost a castle who's name I don't remember, Hubyar, Sachel Castle, Razih, and I think Tamnuh castle. If I was hogging all the troops in my armies I could understand, but I basically only use 1/3rd of our available troops. The rest of the lords, including Monchug, are worthless as leaders. They put together armies of 2200 troops that have to travel days to get to their destination and then they fall apart because of either starvation, finances, or lack of influence for cohesion. The one time I fought in the South I lost Diathma. No one even tried to defend it for me and before I could get there with troops they declared peace with the faction that took it (Western Empire). Since then we haven't been at war with the Western Empire again (that was our only war with them) so I can't get it back. I want to be the hero that unites the whole continent, but I also want them to hold on to what I get for them.

 

[Zorion_no]

To a certain extent, the player is too important. I think the player should be the hero, but its hard when the player has to do everything on a huge map. For example, my current play-through is with the Khuzaits. With my work, we've taken all the Battanian areas north of the sea. We've taken the Northern Empire areas bordering the sea on the south all the way around to Epicrotea. We've taken the most of the lands bordering the Eastern Sea. We've taken the Aserai areas over, just past Hubyar. Of all that, I think me leading armies have taken all but 2 castles of that area. That wouldn't even be a problem, except...

I've been given holdings, including towns, around the Northern sea. I think all but one of these someone else was favored but my vote pushed it substantially in my favor. Most of the territories that weren't given to me Monchug claimed for himself. In any case, most recently we've warred with both Northern Kingdoms and the Aserai at the same time. Since I hold nothing in the South, I've pretty much said screw the South, I'll defend my own lands. So we've now lost a castle who's name I don't remember, Hubyar, Sachel Castle, Razih, and I think Tamnuh castle. If I was hogging all the troops in my armies I could understand, but I basically only use 1/3rd of our available troops. The rest of the lords, including Monchug, are worthless as leaders. They put together armies of 2200 troops that have to travel days to get to their destination and then they fall apart because of either starvation, finances, or lack of influence for cohesion. The one time I fought in the South I lost Diathma. No one even tried to defend it for me and before I could get there with troops they declared peace with the faction that took it (Western Empire). Since then we haven't been at war with the Western Empire again (that was our only war with them) so I can't get it back. I want to be the hero that unites the whole continent, but I also want them to hold on to what I get for them.

The issue of armies travelling for "too long" and or without enough food I've raised before, I think overall food consumption in the game is "too much" (not the player we do fine, but the AI struggle with it)(how many times havent you seen a score of lords "been captured by looters" cause they had spent all food travelling so they have 0 active in the army..)

When the faction decide to do peace is also very counterproductive at times, you've assembled a mighty warhost, have defeated the other sides armies, reclaimed that one they took at the start of the war, and are now laying siege to a rich town.. peace proposal..(I just in those case build as much I can in the siege and go ahead with it, most cases its enough to get a victory).

the AI is "too agressive overall" though, not enough emphasis on defense ever(unless you are the king, cause then you can toggle that in the menu).
The AI always are agressive it seems.

I captured Argoron, Ataconia Castle and was laying siege to Diathama, while sieging Diathama the other army who was near Myzea - wanted to go siege instead of defending Argoron that I had captured, so it was lost.
When I went back to take it after capturing Diathama - peace..
So now they hold this odd one out in the middle of "our lands" so to speak, Northern Kingdome may disagree but they hold 0 lands(Southern Empire is the powerhouse of the Empires this time around(Garios died early on, Lucon is "too old imo" at the game start so within 1-5 years he dies in my play of natural causes, or in this one he died in battle).

I think in part the overhaul they did with the less income for lords from fiefs was "too much" so being at war is too profitable for them.
Unlike the players, lords dont own workshops to fund themselves either.

But yah the AI needs to put abit more empahsis on holding what you've got than always chaseing that gold "ecstasy d'oro"..

 

[Doofus]

Another food issue I ran across lately....I packed on food because parties were coming from far away. Then when they got there I visited a village that had cheap grain. None of them bought it. So I carried 650+ food and the other 7 or 8 parties had 70 food between them. Within a couple minutes after leaving that village I was 'feeding starving armies'. Once they get to a village that has reasonable food, particularly cheap food, they should be buying their own, not relying on me. I wanted to stop them starving when they got there and have enough food on hand in case there wasn't any recently available. But once I found cheap food for them, they should buy it so I can bring mine back down to reasonable levels.

 

[Zorion_no]

Another food issue I ran across lately....I packed on food because parties were coming from far away. Then when they got there I visited a village that had cheap grain. None of them bought it. So I carried 650+ food and the other 7 or 8 parties had 70 food between them. Within a couple minutes after leaving that village I was 'feeding starving armies'. Once they get to a village that has reasonable food, particularly cheap food, they should be buying their own, not relying on me. I wanted to stop them starving when they got there and have enough food on hand in case there wasn't any recently available. But once I found cheap food for them, they should buy it so I can bring mine back down to reasonable levels.

Yah this happends to me all the time.

Lords NEVER buy food from villages at all, not even in towns when part of the army.
I dont mind I'll just use it as a conversion from denars to Influence instead.

I'm not sure this is actually "designed" as if you do the "army need supply quest" you'll notice that the lords request something like 600 wheat + optional of livestock + wine.
So I wonder if its by design that while in army lords wont buy food themselves, but are to be provided for?
And when the armyleader is poor and or run out of fun for the army - cause you know the lords barley have any food on them themselves to travel to the armygathering point - so they arrive starved.

Either they need to dial down the foodconsumption by all by abit, or they need to make the lords carry abit more food with them.

Ideally they should also regardless keep on buying more food from villages over towns, as I see that my towns go from +41 or 47 food to -16 food after a big army have visited(neutral).

Was a nitemare when I had Car Banseth, and wasnt alligned to Sturgia, Battania and Vlandia and all of theese 3 where dukeing it out over Neveyansk + Dunglanys + the 2 battanian castles in that area.

each time an army came along, they would stop by Car Banseth to buy up all the food..
Even Battania who controlled Dunglanys and the other towns, but on the other hand all of them was starveing more or less(I didnt have +41 in Car Banseth if you wonder, only like +26 food)

But yah there is still some "improvements needed for the AI" imo, or tweaks for food consumption.

 

[Doofus]

A separate issue I should probably post a new thread on, but feeling lazy tonight...Kuzaits held Marunath. Vlandians declared war on us and besieged Marunath. Now I wanted a town in that area, so I decided to let the Vlandians have it, then retake it from them (In both previous votes for the town I was 2 point above Monchug for 'who to give it to', but he gave it to himself anyways. Thought I'd try again). Anyways, I waited in Seonon with a decent army until they took it (of course no one else went to defend it). Then I popped out and started to head that way. Before I could even reach it, rebels had taken it over. Here's the problem...they aren't considered a kingdom, so I can't propose war with them. I talked to one of their lords...there's no way to tell him we are declaring war, also, it doesn't give the option to talk to them about joining us, even though we had a rebel clan holding Hubyar join the Aserai after taking it from us previously. I could confront a rebel lord in the field and 'deliver my demands', but that is out of character with how I play and also out of character with my character, who is generous, honest, and merciful, especially since it wasn't even my fief previously.

If you don't want to consider them an empire, you should still be able to declare war on them in some way. What happens if the Vlandians don't take it back and we destroy the Vlandians? Why can they join another empire, but not be asked to join ours?

 

[Zorion_no]

A separate issue I should probably post a new thread on, but feeling lazy tonight...Kuzaits held Marunath. Vlandians declared war on us and besieged Marunath. Now I wanted a town in that area, so I decided to let the Vlandians have it, then retake it from them (In both previous votes for the town I was 2 point above Monchug for 'who to give it to', but he gave it to himself anyways. Thought I'd try again). Anyways, I waited in Seonon with a decent army until they took it (of course no one else went to defend it). Then I popped out and started to head that way. Before I could even reach it, rebels had taken it over. Here's the problem...they aren't considered a kingdom, so I can't propose war with them. I talked to one of their lords...there's no way to tell him we are declaring war, also, it doesn't give the option to talk to them about joining us, even though we had a rebel clan holding Hubyar join the Aserai after taking it from us previously. I could confront a rebel lord in the field and 'deliver my demands', but that is out of character with how I play and also out of character with my character, who is generous, honest, and merciful, especially since it wasn't even my fief previously.

If you don't want to consider them an empire, you should still be able to declare war on them in some way. What happens if the Vlandians don't take it back and we destroy the Vlandians? Why can they join another empire, but not be asked to join ours?

Well you can declare war on rebel clans if you are independent - thats how I typically get my starter city though.
And for the "immersive/rp" aspect of it "honest" well they are rebels, so um.. restoring order to the city is a just thing to do.. and you know you'll rule it better than them

But yah as a part of a kingdome atleast you cant declare war on them.
I've never had the option to try this as a King as I've never encountered a rebelling city like that as one tbh.

As for the King takeing lands by marginal wins in the vote, be sure when you join any kingdome to change their policies.
*Precurial land something should always removed
*T4 clans votes matter 2x should be put in place.
*Heritage something, which also makes it harder for the king to not give the lands and claim it for themselves.

To overrule the popular vote a greedy king will this way find himself fast out of influence or enough of it if he keeps on hoarding.

Also haveing very good relations with other lords so they vote for you helps on top of that +20 to +100 in your favor from other lords helps wonder.
Cause suddenly the King needs to spend 500 influence to get the city(behind the scenes to override the popular vote).

The problem though in this case is unless you want to stick around in this land to get it back on topic, is that if judgeing by the size of your faction now - Aserai will go for land, Southern Empire will go for land(Native Khuzait lands + conquered NE).
Vlandia + Western Empire will want to grab the lands in Battania(and so will Battania sometime down the line(which is fair).
Sturgia will also want some of the Khuzait lands + NE conquered + Battania Conquered.

So the problem arise when Sturgia + Aserai + Western empire now declare war on you.
Aserai + Sturgia attack the motherlands of Khuzait and your on the other side and 0% intrested in peace.
So they will get like 1-2 things that will flip over and over, and there will be peace when you've lost 1 thing prolly.
The problem of course is as soon as you got peace with those 2 factions, WE + Battania now instant declare war, on the other side of the land.
So now the forces need to travel 5-7 days, and by that time 2-3 holdings have flipped side.
You take 1 back, then maybe peace.
Then Southern Empire declare war 5-7 travel time, now they took 2 things, you take 1 back, war back and forth, and when your siegeing the 2nd one there is peace.

Wrong.. now Aserai attack cause its gone 30 days. since peace with them.
War for a few, then Sturgia a couple days later rince repeate infintum.

This is the issue the lords when they get alot of lands, they dont get "enough" defecting factions to help them manage it.
And thus they are very vunerable to other nations wanting war all the time to reclaim it, while I do get that part about them wanting to reclaim land for sure.
The problem is that it tanks the fun when there is now in my case 20 yrs of constant warfare with 2-3 factions at once all the time.
I know that if I had lead the armies all the lands would be conquered by now, but it dont feel "right".

I think the problem is with the tribute system tbh.
Should only be paying tribute for 30 days, then the peace deal do like in Warband fall to a non-agression pact until they genuinely want war, and not to just get out of a bad tribute deal they had to get into at one point.
Cause if you declare war on a faction to get out of bad tribute, and they are alredy at war with 2-3 - they will stop war with the others unlike ai vs ai, and not go for peace on same day(normally, I've had it happend a few times).

 

[Zorion_no]

I've tried something different in 1.72 I joined Western Empire and they choose to go for peace much quicker.
I think as I've said before that the mercenary companies add more trouble than good.
When I'm in the faction I prefer Sturgia after a point we never hire mercs or maybe 1-2 at best.

While all the enemies will hire most of the other companies.
Meaning we got full amount of kingdome lords + all those mercs to deal with.

Which leads to longer than needed wars.
I also speculate but cant say if this is a false positive, that Sturgia is coded to be more warmongering than other factions, or if its a "necessity" out of the kingdomes overall poorness vs most other kingdomes.
This theory is based on when fighting "poor kingdomes" - Battania and Khuzait who rarely hire merc companies - we get peace faster.
While the Empire factions and Vlandia not so much.

I still think that there needs to be a better way with the merc-companies in the game, they heavily disfavor the faction the player joins, even worse so if you are king(cause we cant hire them magically like the other kings can).
Ideally a cap on them, or have them cost an arm & leg for the kingdome, so they deplete their coffins and need to go for peace instead of pushing endless wars.
The merc companies are too poor so they cant form big enough parties most of the time so they cant even join the armies.

 

[Zorion_no]

Speculation about the Merc and how they are the cause of the isssue of endless wars, instead of the AI pursueing peace in Ai vs faction the player is part of (in some cases meaning the "poor factions".)

As stated when I was part of the Western Empire in a play, the peace/war seems more balanced, and you never ended up in the endless war scenario until late late game(but by then it dont matter as much).
This is more in the early/middle part of the game.

So what I've observed is that the faction we fight vs who ends up hogging all the merc-clans - dont get declared war upon, and since imo the "need for a 2nd part in a war to get peace in general is poor choice"(too hard to get peace without a 3rd one declareing war)(no peace for peace sake so to speak)
So this faction never gets declared war upon by the other AI(we do though even if we are mor powerful).
But, I think its related to the merc clans hired by the faction, that haveing 10 of them employed means that the other AI puts that into the equation if they should declare war or not - and thus opt not to declare war.

The issue when you have 40 more lords on the other side, is that even if you like I have now 40+ lords in dungeons their overall strength have barlely moved, cause they have so many others to lead parties.
When you capture more, they spawn another lord in the field, you captured them, the others that was in dungeons have escaped or been ransomed etc.

And thus it ends with a pretty annoying gameplay where its just endless wars for some of us players and our playstyle(unless this is your intent that there isnt to be any peace if you are part of a kingdome or "not enough").
I mean when you play a game for 40 ingame years and have had peace less than 1 year since you joined a faction, I'm just thinking thats a good game design.

Like if you only want to wage constant war there is the option to do skirmish or to mp if thats your thing.

The gameplay feels "too different from Warband" that its imo a step in the wrong direction(dont get me wrong I could be a minority in how most ppl enjoy the game, but judgeing by the mods on Nexus already adressing this issue I feel like I'm not alone).

The tribute system needs to be reworked to being for a limited time, so factions "arent forced" to declare war to get out a bad one down the line.
Maybe bring back a Causis belli like it was in Warband, so it quells the warmongering(for declaration).
Lets give the option for kings to do like in CK and fabricate claims when needed if there isnt enough war(pay denars or use lots of influence to get the war you want)
Dont get me wrong its much better in 1.72 in most cases, but I see that vs some of the kingdomes "its too hard to get peace" cause you end up with that hopeless zerg-merc being hired by the opposition.
Cap merc companies to be hired to max 3-5 or let the kingdomes pay them higher amount so their coffers go empty regardless of their size etc, that way the kingdomes got to be much more strategic about hireing them, and not let it be on the back of the merc's results on the battlefield(that can be a bonuspay for them).

 

[Doofus]

I haven't played for a while, although I'll probably go back to it in a month or so, but....here's a thought that could help with the merc situation...

Part of the problem is that you can't recruit mercs when you want them and AI rulers get them when ever they want. The game could/should have a place where merc clans (that you are not currently warring) have a representative in the markets at the towns. That way, if you want to hire mercs its easier for you as player ruler rather than just wandering around looking for their leaders when you are supposed to be at war.

 

[Zorion_no]

I haven't played for a while, although I'll probably go back to it in a month or so, but....here's a thought that could help with the merc situation...

Part of the problem is that you can't recruit mercs when you want them and AI rulers get them when ever they want. The game could/should have a place where merc clans (that you are not currently warring) have a representative in the markets at the towns. That way, if you want to hire mercs its easier for you as player ruler rather than just wandering around looking for their leaders when you are supposed to be at war.

Definitive about hireing the mercs as a king.
As I said I dont recall what mod it was but in one of them you had in a "kingdome menu" an option to hire mercs, should be something along the lines.
Ideally they would also have a toggle option to play without them, as they now cause to much issues for my taste(read I'll mod it out or use those that do)

I like your idea though about a "recruiter" in towns, as it would be immersive that they had representatives out and about.
Maybe in the capital cities of the kingdome only though?

See if we had a final release modders would have added such things just on our suggestion, or pending how hard its to mod I'd do it myself.
I havent looked at the modding at all in Bannerlord so no clue.(generally speaking I can mod as a novice at best, so very simple things in various games(like Bethesdas games that uses creation engine, I did mod some stats etc in Warband)