MlordJack
Recruit
I want to start out that this game is amazing and I love every second of it! I know many people are up in arms about the bugs and balancing issues, but I trust the devs to polish it up soon. I do of course have my own issues but only one really stands out for me.
I'm quite surprised that this isn't brought up more on this forum. But it really baffles me how an enemy army can waltz past a fairly strategically placed castle (Lavenia) and a city of closer proximity (Danustica). All the while ignoring the fact that one of their cities is also under siege (Husn Fulq). For me this has been a glaring issue. Thankfully though there isn't too much I have to gripe about, this has just been on my nerves for quite some time. The only way I can think of having this fixed other than improved AI lord priorities (though I still doubt that would instill borders) is to give nations a planned route for when they attack each faction.
For example Aserai attacking Southern Empire: Danustica > Lavenia Castle > Vostrum > Morenia Castle etc. But overall the AI should Prioritize defense
Though I am sure that this would get pretty messy in the late game.
I just don't see the point of castles if an enemy army can march right past them. Of course in the game it is possible but realistically it's a strategical nightmare (for obvious reasons). I feel like instilling borders and strategical castles would also help the snowballing effect and make field battles mean something more. With Armies prioritizing the borders and defending their borders, it keeps AI armies in roughly the same area, making field battles more frequent and more important, as the initiative of the war would be decided by the victor on the field. After a major field battle the loser wouldn't have the men needed for an offensive campaign (in theory) and would focus on keeping the settlements they have instead of vain attempts on capturing opposing cities or castles. That is of course until the initiative turns after another field battle.
Yes this would make the gains of war smaller (most likely) but it would make the game drag on rather than 3 factions left standing after 1000 days.
This does however really only apply to single front wars. Which I believe is the only way to go, because for most factions in the game (unless it is late game and they have far superior strength) a two front war is the end of that nation and they rarely recover from it.
Though I'm certain it is much more complicated then I'm making it out to be and is probably much more so for the devs. But I feel that this is a large issue with the campaign and the pace of the game.
Let me know what you all think!
I'm quite surprised that this isn't brought up more on this forum. But it really baffles me how an enemy army can waltz past a fairly strategically placed castle (Lavenia) and a city of closer proximity (Danustica). All the while ignoring the fact that one of their cities is also under siege (Husn Fulq). For me this has been a glaring issue. Thankfully though there isn't too much I have to gripe about, this has just been on my nerves for quite some time. The only way I can think of having this fixed other than improved AI lord priorities (though I still doubt that would instill borders) is to give nations a planned route for when they attack each faction.
For example Aserai attacking Southern Empire: Danustica > Lavenia Castle > Vostrum > Morenia Castle etc. But overall the AI should Prioritize defense
Though I am sure that this would get pretty messy in the late game.
I just don't see the point of castles if an enemy army can march right past them. Of course in the game it is possible but realistically it's a strategical nightmare (for obvious reasons). I feel like instilling borders and strategical castles would also help the snowballing effect and make field battles mean something more. With Armies prioritizing the borders and defending their borders, it keeps AI armies in roughly the same area, making field battles more frequent and more important, as the initiative of the war would be decided by the victor on the field. After a major field battle the loser wouldn't have the men needed for an offensive campaign (in theory) and would focus on keeping the settlements they have instead of vain attempts on capturing opposing cities or castles. That is of course until the initiative turns after another field battle.
Yes this would make the gains of war smaller (most likely) but it would make the game drag on rather than 3 factions left standing after 1000 days.
This does however really only apply to single front wars. Which I believe is the only way to go, because for most factions in the game (unless it is late game and they have far superior strength) a two front war is the end of that nation and they rarely recover from it.
Though I'm certain it is much more complicated then I'm making it out to be and is probably much more so for the devs. But I feel that this is a large issue with the campaign and the pace of the game.
Let me know what you all think!
