As we all know, the Khuzaits always seem to be one of if not always the strongest faction in the game and I think I know why.
You see it comes down to how fast the AI army can move on the campaign map. AI armies always fight in simulation so theoretically the individual skills or types of troops shouldn't dictate which side wins. From a balancing standpoint all the devs have to do is tweak a few number here and there in the simulation calculations and an equal number and tier of troops on both sides regardless of the faction should results in nearly each faction having a roughly 50/50 chance of winning, thus balance is achieved. Obviously though that is not what appears to happen. Instead the Khuzait's seem to always dominate. I personally think this has nothing to do with the simulated battles at all but rather because of a factor that only happen on the campaign map and that factor is run speed.
You see, the Khuzait AI armies always have a disproportionate number of horse mounted troops compared to a any other factions AI armies. This means they always have a run speed advantage. The way the AI apparently works is very simple, if a force is stronger you run away from it and if your stronger you chase it. These leads to situations where any time another factions AI army approaches a weaker Khuzait army, the Khuzait army will just run away leaving the other factions army in the dust. Consequently if the Khuzait army is stronger, there is a much higher probability they will actually catch the fleeing weaker army due to their speed advantage. This leads the Khuzaits to having a disproportional amount of victorious engagement compared to the other factions.
Also, this run speed advantage means that they have an advantage reacting to a siege of their territory and running off the enemy army before the siege is complete. Further because of the speed advantage, unlike other factions, a larger Khuzait army can at times catch a smaller army from any other faction. I have for example seen a Khuzait army of 800 run down a Aserai army of 500 before, just last night in fact. They also have an advantage in sieges of their own as they can reach enemy castles and towns faster than the other factions. Further, once there to siege and enemy castle or town, if a larger army shows up, the only thing that army can do is run them off, not actually catch them again due to the speed advantage.
Basically the Khuzaits are dictating the engagement. They are always at an advantage on the campaign map due to their speed.
I also think this might be a factor in why Battania seems to always struggle. They are primarily a foot based culture while Vlandia tends to have a fairly high percentage of their armies being cavalry and the Western Empire though not as heavily horse based still tends to have more cavalry than Battania. This would lead to the same issues in reverse with Battania armies being rather easy to catch by strong forces while not being able to catch as many weaker armies from their opponents. Sturgia I think tends to be more infantry based as well so this might actually be part of the reason why Sturgia tends to be a bit weaker also.
Note: Wanted to add a possible way to balance. To put is simply, make Infantry worth more than cavalry in simulated battles. That way even if a faster cavalry (and horse archer) based army catches a slower infantry based army, chances are that given equal numbers and quantity of troops, the infantry based army would win in simulation. Balance so that the infantry based army would only win maybe 60% of the time so it wasn't always a case where the infantry based army won but enough to offset being unable to run away from potential larger and/or more powerful but faster cavalry based armies.
You see it comes down to how fast the AI army can move on the campaign map. AI armies always fight in simulation so theoretically the individual skills or types of troops shouldn't dictate which side wins. From a balancing standpoint all the devs have to do is tweak a few number here and there in the simulation calculations and an equal number and tier of troops on both sides regardless of the faction should results in nearly each faction having a roughly 50/50 chance of winning, thus balance is achieved. Obviously though that is not what appears to happen. Instead the Khuzait's seem to always dominate. I personally think this has nothing to do with the simulated battles at all but rather because of a factor that only happen on the campaign map and that factor is run speed.
You see, the Khuzait AI armies always have a disproportionate number of horse mounted troops compared to a any other factions AI armies. This means they always have a run speed advantage. The way the AI apparently works is very simple, if a force is stronger you run away from it and if your stronger you chase it. These leads to situations where any time another factions AI army approaches a weaker Khuzait army, the Khuzait army will just run away leaving the other factions army in the dust. Consequently if the Khuzait army is stronger, there is a much higher probability they will actually catch the fleeing weaker army due to their speed advantage. This leads the Khuzaits to having a disproportional amount of victorious engagement compared to the other factions.
Also, this run speed advantage means that they have an advantage reacting to a siege of their territory and running off the enemy army before the siege is complete. Further because of the speed advantage, unlike other factions, a larger Khuzait army can at times catch a smaller army from any other faction. I have for example seen a Khuzait army of 800 run down a Aserai army of 500 before, just last night in fact. They also have an advantage in sieges of their own as they can reach enemy castles and towns faster than the other factions. Further, once there to siege and enemy castle or town, if a larger army shows up, the only thing that army can do is run them off, not actually catch them again due to the speed advantage.
Basically the Khuzaits are dictating the engagement. They are always at an advantage on the campaign map due to their speed.
I also think this might be a factor in why Battania seems to always struggle. They are primarily a foot based culture while Vlandia tends to have a fairly high percentage of their armies being cavalry and the Western Empire though not as heavily horse based still tends to have more cavalry than Battania. This would lead to the same issues in reverse with Battania armies being rather easy to catch by strong forces while not being able to catch as many weaker armies from their opponents. Sturgia I think tends to be more infantry based as well so this might actually be part of the reason why Sturgia tends to be a bit weaker also.
Note: Wanted to add a possible way to balance. To put is simply, make Infantry worth more than cavalry in simulated battles. That way even if a faster cavalry (and horse archer) based army catches a slower infantry based army, chances are that given equal numbers and quantity of troops, the infantry based army would win in simulation. Balance so that the infantry based army would only win maybe 60% of the time so it wasn't always a case where the infantry based army won but enough to offset being unable to run away from potential larger and/or more powerful but faster cavalry based armies.
Last edited: