How to fix the warlike behavior of the AI.

Users who are viewing this thread

Sir Frederic

Recruit
I posted this in a forum thread but I think it deserves a post of its own for your consideration. It's what I think would fix the multiple wars, the bankrupt kingdoms from continual declarations of war, the pointless switching of sides, the boring hordes of armies of tier 1 troops. A game that becomes more balanced, challenging and enjoyable from for the player.

1- The monetary compensation for peace is temporary and not infinite, it will be a percentage of the wealth that the clan receives from its fiefdoms, it will prevent impoverishing kingdoms and clans without fiefdoms. In addition to creating ridiculously weak kingdoms militarily

2- The kingdoms and the balance of war power will be calculated based on the war power of the parties in the kingdom. When they start losing parties and in the end they only have parties of level 1 soldiers, they will already be like defeated, they will not continue insisting.

3-If a kingdom declares war, attack. If a kingdom has been declared at war, it must go 100% defensive. If the balance of power is reversed and the defender outmatches the attacker, then the war strategy is reversed.

4-If the attacker loses on the offensive and when he goes on the defensive, he loses fiefdoms and has a low attack power, he will seek peace.

5-If the defender fails to defend himself, he loses fiefdoms and loses power in the parties, he will seek peace.

6-The kingdoms can make defensive pacts. A weak kingdom that is attacked can receive help from other kingdoms. The kingdoms that help in the war, will act defensively in the territory of the attacked kingdom. If the defensive kingdom becomes aggressive, the helping kingdoms will act as support, they cannot take fiefs from this war. The attacking kingdom will not attack the territory of the auxiliary kingdom since its war objective is the kingdom to which it declared war, if the attacked kingdom loses all its fiefdoms, the attacking kingdom will attack the territory of the auxiliary kingdoms, one by one, forcing them to abandon the war. The defensive kingdom, losing all its fiefdoms, will focus its forces on conquering ONE SINGLE OBJECTIVE, no massive looting. If he manages to reconquer a fiefdom, he will go defensive until the attacker loses power, or seek peace if he does not have the military power to even defend himself. All kingdoms participating in the war will go into truce upon completion, a multi-kingdom war in long games could cause extended periods of peace. By applying the defensive pact mechanic, the player could be at war against all other kingdoms, but objectively, it's just a war and not a multi-front war, where it is impossible for the player to even participate.

7- The fiefs that a kingdom seeks to conquer when it is in attack mode will always be objectives that are on its border lines and not a weakened fief in the middle of the enemy map, or on the other side of its border. Village pillages will be done when the attacker has no power to conquer a target without reducing his strength by starvation. The attacking kingdoms will plunder villages of the kingdoms that help in a war when they conquer the fiefdoms of the enemy that declared war, in order to force them to abandon the defensive pact, reducing the war force of the attacked kingdom, forcing it to surrender.

8- change of sides. The clans that leave the kingdoms, will not do it for money, but affinity, with their King and clan leaders. If they have several fiefdoms scattered around the map, they will seek to keep the ones that are most united and will abandon the distant ones. If his fiefdoms border a kingdom he likes, he will switch sides, if his fiefdoms do not border a kingdom he likes, he will declare independence. Deserters cannot switch sides if there is a truce between the realm they are in with the realm they want to go to, nor can they switch sides to a realm that is at war with their current realm by defensive pact, or vice versa. They can switch sides to the kingdom they are currently at war with. They can take advantage of their current kingdom being in a war to leave the kingdom independently. The changes of kingdoms and independences will be automatic declarations of war, as long as the vassal takes fiefs. The clans that become independent will seek peace, the kingdoms at war that lose a vassal by independence will seek peace, with the kingdom that is at war or with the deserting vassal. Kingdoms that are assisting in a defensive pact will abandon the pact if they suffer an independence intent at that time. Independent clans can become vassals when they border a sympathetic kingdom. And the kingdom can declare war on an independent clan when it is on its border, the independent clan can receive help from a sympathetic kingdom following the defensive pact mechanic.

I don't know anything about programming, but this doesn't look like something impossible to program in the current game.
 
1- The monetary compensation for peace is temporary and not infinite, it will be a percentage of the wealth that the clan receives from its fiefdoms, it will prevent impoverishing kingdoms and clans without fiefdoms. In addition to creating ridiculously weak kingdoms militarily
Good suggestion. Demanding tribute more than they could afford would be more likely to just continue the war. Although at the same time, peace is annoying between large and small factions where the larger faction should just destroy the smaller faction. I would actually like to see vassalisation in these cases, granted affinity between the two rulers is sufficient and destruction when it is not. Otherwise, I feel like this could use an initial lump sum payment paid to the winner to really feel that immediate impact without crippling the kingdom long-term. Either way, lets get rid of homeless kingdoms with chihuahua syndrome.

2- The kingdoms and the balance of war power will be calculated based on the war power of the parties in the kingdom. When they start losing parties and in the end they only have parties of level 1 soldiers, they will already be like defeated, they will not continue insisting.
Agree, although I'd like some RNG based on ruler's traits. Would be cool if lords who suffered the most and had appropriate traits (-honour, -valor?) to sue for peace were more likely to rebel/defect when their more hard-headed leader wants to continue.

3-If a kingdom declares war, attack. If a kingdom has been declared at war, it must go 100% defensive. If the balance of power is reversed and the defender outmatches the attacker, then the war strategy is reversed.
Strong agree. It's frustrating to watch the AI just besiege each other's castles, both besiegers win, then both armies immediately turn around to retake their own settlements.
4-If the attacker loses on the offensive and when he goes on the defensive, he loses fiefdoms and has a low attack power, he will seek peace.

5-If the defender fails to defend himself, he loses fiefdoms and loses power in the parties, he will seek peace.
Sure but again I would like some RNG and consideration of the ruler's traits, as it'd be annoying to have wars always stop very shortly after starting. Also the peace shouldn't always be accepted, especially if the opposing faction hates them and has much to gain by continuing (e.g. like retaking fiefs of their culture). On that note, it irritates me that the Imperial factions are meant to be in a civil war but don't stay at war with each other... they just act like de facto states.

The kingdoms can make defensive pacts. A weak kingdom that is attacked can receive help from other kingdoms. The kingdoms that help in the war, will act defensively in the territory of the attacked kingdom. If the defensive kingdom becomes aggressive, the helping kingdoms will act as support, they cannot take fiefs from this war. The attacking kingdom will not attack the territory of the auxiliary kingdom since its war objective is the kingdom to which it declared war, if the attacked kingdom loses all its fiefdoms, the attacking kingdom will attack the territory of the auxiliary kingdoms, one by one, forcing them to abandon the war. The defensive kingdom, losing all its fiefdoms, will focus its forces on conquering ONE SINGLE OBJECTIVE, no massive looting. If he manages to reconquer a fiefdom, he will go defensive until the attacker loses power, or seek peace if he does not have the military power to even defend himself. All kingdoms participating in the war will go into truce upon completion, a multi-kingdom war in long games could cause extended periods of peace. By applying the defensive pact mechanic, the player could be at war against all other kingdoms, but objectively, it's just a war and not a multi-front war, where it is impossible for the player to even participate.
You kinda lost me a bit here... seems a little too rigid and complicated imo. Defensive pacts would be nice but feel like they could be simpler than this. i.e. Kingdom A declares war on Kingdom B, who is in a defensive pact with Kingdom C. A is attacking while B is defending, but now C declares war on A and so C becomes an attacker and A a defender, reducing the manpower they can send to attack kingdom B. Perhaps Kingdom A might decide whether to focus on offensive or defensive strategy based on which Kingdom has the higher strength between B and C. The version you suggested sounds overly restrictive for the attackers and also would sometimes not make sense with the faction's borders (e.g. say Vlandia is in a defensive pact with the western empire and either one gets attacked by Battania - why would they go through or under Battania to get to each other's territory when they could just attack from the other side).

There's also the issue of how to forge and break defensive pacts in a fair, balanced way, as well as the issue of which factions are involved in the peace negotiations and whether peace is made individually or as a whole. For example Kingdom A might successfully sue for peace from Kingdom B, but Kingdom C is actually taking a few fiefs and doesn't want to hear about peace - is Kingdom B going to accept peace on Kingdom C's behalf or is Kingdom C going to continue the war on its own steam or even keep Kingdom B in the war despite its wishes just because 'no you can't quit on me now bro'?

I'd personally be in favour of the second option, as it better represents soveriegn kingdoms rather than client states imo, and gives incentive for the assisting Kingdom to actually participate in the war (oooh imagine there being a chance an allied kingdom won't respond to the triggering of the defensive pact, based on traits, relations and military strength, that'd be a cool AND immersive).

The fiefs that a kingdom seeks to conquer when it is in attack mode will always be objectives that are on its border lines and not a weakened fief in the middle of the enemy map, or on the other side of its border. Village pillages will be done when the attacker has no power to conquer a target without reducing his strength by starvation. The attacking kingdoms will plunder villages of the kingdoms that help in a war when they conquer the fiefdoms of the enemy that declared war, in order to force them to abandon the defensive pact, reducing the war force of the attacked kingdom, forcing it to surrender.
Tbf this seems a fair bit better in the latest game versions. In my playthroughs, settlements on the border are constantly being besieged or changing hands (Epicrotea in particular), which is particularly chaotic when combined with the seperatism mod :grin:

I disagree with excluding raiding from the get go though, especially because it's also a viable distraction tactic by parties who aren't part of an army, although it would be nice to see the frequency of raiding in war to be tied to hero traits and also perhaps culture. For example, I'd expect frequent raiding and less large-scale besieging while fighting against Battanians but the inverse when fighting the Imperial factions.

8- change of sides. The clans that leave the kingdoms, will not do it for money, but affinity, with their King and clan leaders. If they have several fiefdoms scattered around the map, they will seek to keep the ones that are most united and will abandon the distant ones. If his fiefdoms border a kingdom he likes, he will switch sides, if his fiefdoms do not border a kingdom he likes, he will declare independence. Deserters cannot switch sides if there is a truce between the realm they are in with the realm they want to go to, nor can they switch sides to a realm that is at war with their current realm by defensive pact, or vice versa. They can switch sides to the kingdom they are currently at war with. They can take advantage of their current kingdom being in a war to leave the kingdom independently. The changes of kingdoms and independences will be automatic declarations of war, as long as the vassal takes fiefs. The clans that become independent will seek peace, the kingdoms at war that lose a vassal by independence will seek peace, with the kingdom that is at war or with the deserting vassal. Kingdoms that are assisting in a defensive pact will abandon the pact if they suffer an independence intent at that time. Independent clans can become vassals when they border a sympathetic kingdom. And the kingdom can declare war on an independent clan when it is on its border, the independent clan can receive help from a sympathetic kingdom following the defensive pact mechanic.
Agree, but again RNG, traits and culture should also be considered to make it less robotic and more human/chaotic. Vlandians and Sturgians should be fairly rebellious, Imperial clans should be able to more freely switch between the Imperial factions, as should any clan with the same culture as the faction they're defecting to (e.g. a player kingdom trying to absorb the former kingdom of that culture).
 

Sir Frederic

Recruit
es decir, el Reino A declara la guerra al Reino B, que está en un pacto defensivo con el Reino C. A ataca mientras B defiende, pero ahora C le declara la guerra a A, por lo que C se convierte en atacante y A en defensor
This could not happen, because kingdom C is already in the war participating as support for the attacked.
For example Kingdom A might successfully sue for peace from Kingdom B, but Kingdom C is actually taking a few fiefs and doesn't want to hear about peace
This would not happen either, because the kingdoms that go to war by defensive pact cannot take fiefs from that war.

The idea comes from your kingdom's declarations of war. If you have ever noticed, a noble in your kingdom will want to declare war on another because they are very strong and must be stopped. And it seems that is what always happens to the player, at some point in the game, everyone begins to declare war on you incessantly because the kingdom you participate in became very strong, which is a lie, you are strong, your allies are only as pathetic and perishable as a horde of looters. Instead of trying to stop a nation for offensive acts, it should be stopped for defensive acts. Instead of harassing the player with one war after another, that an acceptable restriction be imposed, you want war, so prepare yourself that it will not be a walk in the park.

I discovered the defensive pact playing CK2, when you become very big and powerful, the other kingdoms make pacts, if you attack one, the others join defensively.

The version you suggested sounds overly restrictive for the attackers and also would sometimes not make sense with the faction's borders (e.g. say Vlandia is in a defensive pact with the western empire and either one gets attacked by Battania - why would they go through or under Battania to get to each other's territory when they could just attack from the other side).
For this to happen, vladia or the empire must be very weak and in a very unequal war against battania. Let's say that in this case the weak one is the empire. Vladia could attack from the other end, but they would not be able to defend the Battanian attack on the empire and after that they would have to face a furious Battany sacking all their villages. I mean, vladia could raid through battania to destroy his armies and stop the war, leaving battania weak against another enemy and after the truce is over, have the opportunity to declare war on battania and conquer some territories. A belligerent and greedy kingdom can quickly meet its end or its fortune.

Agree, although I'd like some RNG based on ruler's traits. Would be cool if lords who suffered the most and had appropriate traits (-honour, -valor?) to sue for peace were more likely to rebel/defect when their more hard-headed leader wants to continue.
It would be nice too, and not just traits, but his own lore. Monchug of the Kusait, according to his description, thirsts for conquest and less for justice. Derthert wants the Vladians to be more defensive instead of looking for wars to lose.

Something that has happened to me recently in my games and I think it was a coincidence, but it would be fine, Raghaea always quickly manages to get new clans to his cause. She fights for the right to permanence of the titles above the laws and that should captivate many nobles who think the same. There is a whole discussion behind how Raghaea is a complete hypocrite and in fact usurper of her own daughter's title, but it is beside the point.

In such a case, Monchug would be a belligerent Khan and Derthert a pacifist, although in the end the decision always falls on the total vote of all the nobles.cruel and belligerent nobles will always want wars and never stop them, merciful and calculating nobles will think more about compassion and numbers.
 
Top Bottom