A few issues are happening when two kingdoms are at war that make no sense at all. I'll list the issues first and then discuss them one at a time.
1. Marching past enemy castles or towns to besiege a settlement.
2. Parking your huge army in a neutral city.
3. Declaring war on an enemy with whom no common border is shared (meaning you have to march across a neutral kingdom to fight)
4. Changing targets (still happens despite patch notes saying that was fixed)
Issue 1. Marching past settlements in war. I bring up this issue under the assumption that the castles and cities are strategic targets. You have to take them to win the game. You don't conquer Calradia by not taking them. The cities on the map are the equivalent of London, Paris, Vienna, Copenhagen, Mareille, Manchester, York, Bern, Bonn, Heidelberg, Madrid, etc. They are the capitals and major cities of the world upon which the economy is built. The castles are equivalent to Chateau D'Anger, Bamburg Castle, Neuschwanstein Castle, Windsor Castle, etc overlooking strategic points along avenues of approach or sea lanes. If you bypass a piece of key terrain like this, your lines of supply will be attacked. This will make owning a castle or city more meaningful.
SUGGESTION: Implement zones of control. If an enemy army bypasses a city or castle to march further into enemy territory they should take increased hits to their food, morale, and experience increasing desertion as simulated affects of having your supply lines harangued by the garrisons of those sites you bypassed. The further you go into enemy territory without securing your supply lines, the more those penalties should increase. So, if you want to march form Sargot to take Epicrotea, you better bring an obscene amount of food, which means obscene amounts of pack animals and a very slow moving army. Or... you have to raid villages along the way to sustain your troops. But with this, I also say allow the kingdom that owns the village to burn it as well. Make scorched earth a viable option to defend your kingdom. Of course you will take a hit to loyalty from the villagers whose homes you scuttled, but such is war. If it stops Derthert from marching from Sargot to take Epicrotea... so be it.
Issue 2. Parking your army in neutral cities. This shouldn't be a thing... unless you're allied to that kingdom. Alas, we aren't able to establish alliances in this game. So, during the crusades, armies of crusaders would march across Europe and they presumably camped somewhere on the way down into Italy or wherever in Southern Europe they were headed. So, it happened. But they were crusaders. The Pope decreed it so there was a level of tolerance for camping crusaders. But England ain't parking their army in Paris on the way to invading Switzerland. If an English Army parked outside Paris that would indicate England and France are at war.. or allied. But again, alliances aren't a thing.
SUGGESTION: Implement a diplomacy feature where you ask permission to cross someone's land to invade another kingdom. Also, increase prices for foreign armies that park in the neutral kingdom's cities. If the neutral lord does sell food to the foreign army, then loyalty of the local citizens should decrease as they will now experience a food shortage because their lord decided to get rich off selling their food. This will force any invading army to actually make preparations prior to invading.. like they would in real life. Stock up on supplies before you leave, which will slow you down. And as such reduce snow balling.
Issue 3. Warring against people with whom no common border is shared. This happened in Medieval Europe, so I can't say it's completely unrealistic. But again, generally it was the major powers marching across the lands of minor principalities. Again, France isn't going to allow England to trample through their lands to invade Switzerland or Italy. England would not allow France to sail up the Thames and then march up to invade Scotland. Spain won't allow France to march through their lands to invade Portugal. The disunited German and Italian Principalities. Yes. All day. Don't care if I hurt your feelings. I'm marching my army across your land to invade your neighbor. But we don't have minor "kingdoms" like those in this game. Again, all the Kingdoms are major power players. The other option for invading somebody with whom you don't share a border is naval landings. We don't have navies in this game, so that's not an option.
SUGGESTION: Implement the recommendations in Issue 2 for starters. But also make the AI more likely to declare war on it's neighbors rather than going expeditionary. Also, if we're not adding actual navies, at least add a feature where you can march your army to a port city and select any of a few pre-established landing zones. Once you select "Launch Naval Expedition", you wait however many days it would take your ships to sail there and your Army shows up on that foreign soil. Once your Army is landed, you go and attack wherever you want in that kingdom. The enemy should be able to capture the landing site though. If they capture your beachhead then your lines of supply are jacked (see issue 1). You also cannot retreat back to your kingdom if the available naval landing zones are under enemy control. Which means you have to march through neutral territory to get home. So you have to ask permission (See Issue 2) to retreat through neutral territory. If the neutral lord says no, but you do it anyway, you risk war.
Issue 4. Changing Targets. I don't know about anybody else, but the AI is still frequently changing targets. I know the patch notes said this was addressed and should be reduced. Maybe it is reduced. But it still happens often enough... both in 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.
SUGGESTION: Implement penalties to morale and army cohesion if the Army leader veers off the path towards the designated target or takes too long to seize the target. Once you form an army there should be another pop up for "select your target". You then click on the castle or city you want to attack. After that, you can do whatever you want. If you select Danustica as your target, but then decide you want to go besiege Vostrum. So be it. But you take a morale and Cohesion penalty. This will dramatically reduce snowballing I think. If the AI decides to change targets, they lose time because their army will fall apart if they don't take the most expeditious route to their initially designated target. Also, to simulate some aspects of campaign preparation like scouting and spying etc., you should get small performance boosts for actually attacking the target you designated at the beginning. 5% damage inflicted for all troops or increased movement speed or something like that. And you should face performance penalties for attacking a castle for which you did not prepare. -5% damage inflicted along with morale penalties. This of course should only be if you're going off your target's path. For example, if I'm in Marunath and I designate Epicrotea as my target, I'm not penalized if I besiege Seonon because Seonon is on the way from Marunath to Epicrotea. But these penalties do take affect if I decide to make a left turn and go besiege Varcheg, or Flintolg Castle or Revyl.
Obviously if you remain unaffiliated and just want to go prancing around all of Calradia you can. I get my recommendations take away from the open world aspect of this. Maybe they can be implemented as campaign options rather than hard-wired.
1. Marching past enemy castles or towns to besiege a settlement.
2. Parking your huge army in a neutral city.
3. Declaring war on an enemy with whom no common border is shared (meaning you have to march across a neutral kingdom to fight)
4. Changing targets (still happens despite patch notes saying that was fixed)
Issue 1. Marching past settlements in war. I bring up this issue under the assumption that the castles and cities are strategic targets. You have to take them to win the game. You don't conquer Calradia by not taking them. The cities on the map are the equivalent of London, Paris, Vienna, Copenhagen, Mareille, Manchester, York, Bern, Bonn, Heidelberg, Madrid, etc. They are the capitals and major cities of the world upon which the economy is built. The castles are equivalent to Chateau D'Anger, Bamburg Castle, Neuschwanstein Castle, Windsor Castle, etc overlooking strategic points along avenues of approach or sea lanes. If you bypass a piece of key terrain like this, your lines of supply will be attacked. This will make owning a castle or city more meaningful.
SUGGESTION: Implement zones of control. If an enemy army bypasses a city or castle to march further into enemy territory they should take increased hits to their food, morale, and experience increasing desertion as simulated affects of having your supply lines harangued by the garrisons of those sites you bypassed. The further you go into enemy territory without securing your supply lines, the more those penalties should increase. So, if you want to march form Sargot to take Epicrotea, you better bring an obscene amount of food, which means obscene amounts of pack animals and a very slow moving army. Or... you have to raid villages along the way to sustain your troops. But with this, I also say allow the kingdom that owns the village to burn it as well. Make scorched earth a viable option to defend your kingdom. Of course you will take a hit to loyalty from the villagers whose homes you scuttled, but such is war. If it stops Derthert from marching from Sargot to take Epicrotea... so be it.
Issue 2. Parking your army in neutral cities. This shouldn't be a thing... unless you're allied to that kingdom. Alas, we aren't able to establish alliances in this game. So, during the crusades, armies of crusaders would march across Europe and they presumably camped somewhere on the way down into Italy or wherever in Southern Europe they were headed. So, it happened. But they were crusaders. The Pope decreed it so there was a level of tolerance for camping crusaders. But England ain't parking their army in Paris on the way to invading Switzerland. If an English Army parked outside Paris that would indicate England and France are at war.. or allied. But again, alliances aren't a thing.
SUGGESTION: Implement a diplomacy feature where you ask permission to cross someone's land to invade another kingdom. Also, increase prices for foreign armies that park in the neutral kingdom's cities. If the neutral lord does sell food to the foreign army, then loyalty of the local citizens should decrease as they will now experience a food shortage because their lord decided to get rich off selling their food. This will force any invading army to actually make preparations prior to invading.. like they would in real life. Stock up on supplies before you leave, which will slow you down. And as such reduce snow balling.
Issue 3. Warring against people with whom no common border is shared. This happened in Medieval Europe, so I can't say it's completely unrealistic. But again, generally it was the major powers marching across the lands of minor principalities. Again, France isn't going to allow England to trample through their lands to invade Switzerland or Italy. England would not allow France to sail up the Thames and then march up to invade Scotland. Spain won't allow France to march through their lands to invade Portugal. The disunited German and Italian Principalities. Yes. All day. Don't care if I hurt your feelings. I'm marching my army across your land to invade your neighbor. But we don't have minor "kingdoms" like those in this game. Again, all the Kingdoms are major power players. The other option for invading somebody with whom you don't share a border is naval landings. We don't have navies in this game, so that's not an option.
SUGGESTION: Implement the recommendations in Issue 2 for starters. But also make the AI more likely to declare war on it's neighbors rather than going expeditionary. Also, if we're not adding actual navies, at least add a feature where you can march your army to a port city and select any of a few pre-established landing zones. Once you select "Launch Naval Expedition", you wait however many days it would take your ships to sail there and your Army shows up on that foreign soil. Once your Army is landed, you go and attack wherever you want in that kingdom. The enemy should be able to capture the landing site though. If they capture your beachhead then your lines of supply are jacked (see issue 1). You also cannot retreat back to your kingdom if the available naval landing zones are under enemy control. Which means you have to march through neutral territory to get home. So you have to ask permission (See Issue 2) to retreat through neutral territory. If the neutral lord says no, but you do it anyway, you risk war.
Issue 4. Changing Targets. I don't know about anybody else, but the AI is still frequently changing targets. I know the patch notes said this was addressed and should be reduced. Maybe it is reduced. But it still happens often enough... both in 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.
SUGGESTION: Implement penalties to morale and army cohesion if the Army leader veers off the path towards the designated target or takes too long to seize the target. Once you form an army there should be another pop up for "select your target". You then click on the castle or city you want to attack. After that, you can do whatever you want. If you select Danustica as your target, but then decide you want to go besiege Vostrum. So be it. But you take a morale and Cohesion penalty. This will dramatically reduce snowballing I think. If the AI decides to change targets, they lose time because their army will fall apart if they don't take the most expeditious route to their initially designated target. Also, to simulate some aspects of campaign preparation like scouting and spying etc., you should get small performance boosts for actually attacking the target you designated at the beginning. 5% damage inflicted for all troops or increased movement speed or something like that. And you should face performance penalties for attacking a castle for which you did not prepare. -5% damage inflicted along with morale penalties. This of course should only be if you're going off your target's path. For example, if I'm in Marunath and I designate Epicrotea as my target, I'm not penalized if I besiege Seonon because Seonon is on the way from Marunath to Epicrotea. But these penalties do take affect if I decide to make a left turn and go besiege Varcheg, or Flintolg Castle or Revyl.
Obviously if you remain unaffiliated and just want to go prancing around all of Calradia you can. I get my recommendations take away from the open world aspect of this. Maybe they can be implemented as campaign options rather than hard-wired.
