I suspected raiding villages would be the best way to prevent recruitment, but I just don’t like raiding in general (role play). Does that mean an honourable play through is basically condemned to be a grind? Granted, it would make sense and would explain the many genocide playthroughs posted everywhere.
Actually forced recruitment is a good option for not loosing relations. You can even save and re-load the game and do it again and again to strip all of a villages recruits. They will respawn but it does slow it down overall and removes all the advanced troops and nobles. Plus there's no relation penalties and
does not require extra campaign time like raiding..
I use this to stock up on (future) khan's guards and although it doesn't
really hurt the khuzait, it does make them spend a little more time recruiting. It probably could effect other factions more.
At 27:50 minute mark, does anyone remember Lust's responses to defeating even SINGLE lords. Nothing as natural or strategical as his explanation in-game really exists. If a clan has one village raided, it really doesn't matter because they can (and WILL) just travel to the next village and recruit troops, you know, without consequence. Would the clan of that village not be upset that another clan is relying on THEIR men, which could cause quarrels within the kingd... why do I even bother.
Yeah it's sad. The threshold of damage you have to do to make 'observable' difference (let alone useful) in the enemy AI faction is so much that nothing except just beating down thier parties and holding them as long as possible has any real effect.
Last time I mentioned the AI's 'resilient' behavior I was corrected that the AI doesn't have any 'cheats'. I have come to think of it more like the entire way the AI factions behave and function is like a cheat, in the sense that nothing they do lines up with what the player must do in the game.
The player doesn't just get 20 recruits and go "okay now I'll go raid a village", this is absurd, 1 raiding gives hardly any money 2 raiding doesn't level troops. The player instead must Spend campaign time earning money and exp for troops by beating bandits and doing other tasks. The enemy may incidentally fight some looters or solve an issue, but it's not nearly the amount of campaign time the player would spend in preparation so it seems like a cheat how soon they are raiding a village or joining an army.
TBF I do make20 khuzait tribes men early and start forced recruiting ASAP, but I seriously never read another person say they do this to start the game.
Likewise the AI's approach to garrisons and finances is basically "whatever dude", they just keep going n going and if they loose some garrison units or some troops desert (from low moral cuz no money) or no food in town.... "whatever dude". This has a double edged sword( stupid metaphor) as it does make thier parties somewhat weaker and it does cause rebellion to be more likely... but it makes them seem relentless and on a different cycle them the player! The player is compelled to solve issues, provide food, preserve garrison and plan for the the future.... the player is not okay with "whatever dude". This means the player consumes massively more campaign time with domestic and maintenance activities and again, by contrast it seems like the enemy is cheating by not spending time doing all these things.
Anyways I'm stoking out thinking about it now,
TLDR The AI doesn't spend enough campaign time doing other activities so it seems like it cheats, even though it totally doesn't actually cheat.
