War Frequency - How to fix using just 4 simple logic questions the AI must ask itself before declaring war

Currently viewing this thread:

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I have mentioned this in a couple of thread but it was pretty deep in the thread and I doubt the devs even saw these suggestions. Anyway here is the solution:

Basically despite any Warscore or other war declaration calculation the AI should have to ask itself 4 simple questions before the AI gets a green light to go to the next step and consider if it should declare war or not.

Here are the questions:

1) Am I already at war?
If the answers is yes then no war declared....EVER!! No current war is a condition that has to be met period. No country should wanting to fight two factions, on two fronts simultaneously, that is just a recipe for self-destruction, look at Germany during WWII.

2) Is the Faction I want to fight weaker and/or disadvantaged such as being already at war with another faction?
If the answer is Yes and answer to Question 1 is no, then war can be declared. If the the answer is No, then no war declared. Disadvantaged could mean more than just being at war with another faction but I would say that even if the faction was stronger as long as that faction was fighting another faction then it would be considered as disadvantaged for the purposes of this condition.

3) Does the Faction I want to go to war against have territories bordering mine?
If the answer is No, then no war declared even if the other conditions are met. It is just silly that Vlandia would ever go to war with the Khuzaits as long as there were two or three other factions between them and Vlandia. In a real situation no country would let you march an Army through their territory to attack another country. This is like America wanting to go to war with China and deciding it would attack China's Northern border by marching its armies through Europe and Russia without asking either countries permission or opinion. It is just pure ridiculous.

4) Have you been in a war within the last 30 days.
If yes, no war is declared despite other conditions being met. This is an another common sense things. Soldiers need rest, the economy needs to recover. No country would willingly want to fight back to back to back wars non-stop without rest.

These 4 questions consisting of simple logical conclusions, solve 90% of the war issues frequency issues. No Kingdom should want to be at war with multiple factions, when it is disadvantaged, when they are recovering from a pervious war or if they don't have bordering territories....EVER!!! This doesn't mean another, more powerful faction which finds itself meeting all the conditions wouldn't declare war on your faction and you could very well find yourself fighting 2-3 other factions if 2 opposing factions met all their conditions to declare on you but it should be pretty rare to be fighting more than 1 faction at a time if these four question has to be answered correctly each and every time the AI decided it needed to check for a war declaration.

Also I know that there is some concern about the pace of things and thinking that if you weren't fighting as often the game might be boring however, having 15-20 days of peace here and there would resolve several issue. One, is player fatigue as it would ensure that got a break from the constant repetition of just fighting. Two, it ensures the player has time to allows them to do other things like work on Smithing, Trading, finding the right companion, getting married,etc. Three, it would help advance the game faster. This is critical for the game to be multi-generational. Having periods of peace guarantees that more time is spent on the campaign map operating under time compression. Having 30 minute of real time down time from fighting due to a period of peace, means that maybe as much as 3 months to a year in game time might progress between wars. This makes it more likely that a character would reach old age and pass his work on to his children. Constant fighting just ensures that the player will spend most of his time in a battle where game time is frozen.

Anyway, I really hope that the devs will take a look at these solutions because sometimes it really is the simplest answers that solve the hardest questions. To try to think like a programmer, I really do think that if upon the Warscore calculation reaching a critical point to declare war on a faction triggered and that trigger then prompted the AI to answer these four questions and pass these filters before actually declaring war that this would solve most of the issues we have with how, when and how frequent wars happen in game. I am not a programmer can't help but think adding 4 binary yes or no questions resulting in a 0 or 1 answer and requiring a specific sequence of 0s and 1s to actually trigger a declaration of war would not be all that hard to add as code. It is kind of simple IF THIS, THEN THAT type of processing.
 

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Click here to learn 4 tricks that will make you last longer in the game, TW managers hate him!

Jokes aside i don't think it would be too complicated to implement these kind of checks and indeed they would improve things significantly to me, we want large scale action but also times of peace to do other things, when the game is the world-wars or PAX CALRADICA it gets boring and annoying pretty fast, really liked these suggestions :smile:
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Click here to learn 4 tricks that will make you last longer in the game, TW managers hate him!

Jokes aside i don't think it would be too complicated to implement these kind of checks and indeed they would improve things significantly to me, we want large scale action but also times of peace to do other things, when the game is the world-wars or PAX CALRADICA it gets boring and annoying pretty fast, really liked these suggestions :smile:
Thanks for the support. I do hope they do something about the War Frequency. I am pretty shocked they haven't resolved this problem a long time ago since it was an issue pretty much from day one. Then again, I do realize that there is quite a bit tied to this such as AI vs AI diplomacy, Kingdom diplomacy, snowballing, etc. It just seems like the key to many of these issues is to just slow things down.

For example, Snowballing. Honestly aside from a situation where one faction always dominates every playthrough, the ultimate conclusion to this game is a big giant snowball. I mean the whole point is that one faction is actually supposed to unify the continent eventually with the key being eventually. As long as the snowball takes a long time, the player can influence what happens by helping his faction be the snowball or working to counter the another factions snowball. The problem is when the character is just getting started and already one faction has dominated the map. So slow down the cycle of war and peace. Having there be less wars declared and longer periods of peace would go a long way to slowing this down and keeping things close to status quo giving the player time to build up and maybe even pass on his inheritance to his children before it happens. Besides the game would be pretty boring and static if no factions ever got the upper hand over another faction so I don't even think the EVENTUAL snowball should be attempted to be removed but that is kind of a whole other topic in itself.
 
Problem with all that is a faction that gets stronger than the others will get to pick all their wars and nobody else will declare on them. This is a recipe for snowballing.

Take Khuzaits, they will start the game and usually take a castle and maybe a town from the imperial faction that borders them. Even if that faction accepts a tributary peace, they are going to be weaker than their neighbors, which means they are likely to be picked as the next target for factions looking to declare. At the same time, Khuzaits just got stronger, stronger than their neighbors, and this means they will get to prepare in peace, building their economy and training troops, and pick the weakest to attack.

You can't just combine a bunch of boolean conditions and expect to have a good result, there isn't enough variation. I would say the way to do this is by assigning scores to a bunch of indicators, like amount of settlements (= recruit output, army replenishment), current army size, a bias for ongoing wars, a bias for potential threat (this would be targeted at stronger factions, to motivate weaker factions to band together and attack a stronger neighbor, kinda like the "great power" for Total War games) and in the end, measure it against a min score required to declare.

I don't really think constant wars are the real problem, the problem is that if there are no wars there isn't much else to do once you are established with plenty of money and troops. I usually abandon games after I start defeating lords and having to wait because towns no longer have money to buy the loot.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Sergeant
3) Does the Faction I want to go to war against have territories bordering mine?
In a real situation no country would let you march an Army through their territory to attack another country.
Look up the Crusades. The Byzantine emperor Alexios I specifically asked the Crusader armies to travel through their lands to attack the invading Turks. While this did turn out to be a bad idea, it definitely happened.
For example, Snowballing. Honestly aside from a situation where one faction always dominates every playthrough, the ultimate conclusion to this game is a big giant snowball. The problem is when the character is just getting started and already one faction has dominated the map.
Actually snowballing is basically solved now, for the time being at least. You can monitor the testing that has been done in this thread: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...opments-at-snowballing-problem.434547/page-58
 
My vassals continuously want to delcare war, even if we lost more territory at precedent one agains the same faction ... I can't have more than 3 consecutive days of peace and every war we are losing 1 or 2 fiefs ... I don't get it. This have to stop but there is no way because every decision ask around 5700 influence points to override all the vassals which is impossible to have in 3 days because as I've written earlier, they want to have a war 3 days after the last one "finished" ...
And it combines with an other problem : Impossibility to ask lords to defend fiefs. I'm slowly loosing all the fiefs from my Kingdom being eaten because there is no possibility to organize any defense, to ask lords to defend a region (a list of fiefs). So the only way to counter is only by sieging new fiefs ... No strategy, just who is the fastest to siege. Trying to catch the multiple armies is pointless ...
 
1) Am I already at war?
If the answers is yes then no war declared....EVER!! No current war is a condition that has to be met period. No country should wanting to fight two factions, on two fronts simultaneously, that is just a recipe for self-destruction, look at Germany during WWII.

Only caveat I'd have to this is if a non player AI with no border declares war then it doesn't count. This is meant to be an independent idea of #3 simply to provide a fallback check so one kingdom doesn't stall another from doing anything. I.E. Battatian DoW on South Empire Kingdom doesn't stall South Empire Kingdom from on a neighbor assuming #2 and #3.

3) Does the Faction I want to go to war against have territories bordering mine?
If the answer is No, then no war declared even if the other conditions are met. It is just silly that Vlandia would ever go to war with the Khuzaits as long as there were two or three other factions between them and Vlandia. In a real situation no country would let you march an Army through their territory to attack another country. This is like America wanting to go to war with China and deciding it would attack China's Northern border by marching its armies through Europe and Russia without asking either countries permission or opinion. It is just pure ridiculous.
Another caveat I'd add is either border or target occupies settlements that at game start were of orginial faction, possibly having the AI logic of #2 giving target a buff to represent the likely increased difficulty. Just illustrate the idea if A wants war on B when comparing strength B gets a nominal 1.3x to strength in the calculating of if A thinks they have an edge (actual math is whatever just an illustration). They should be willing to leapfrog a bit to get it and assuming #2 with a significant oppertunity to make a play to get it back. Odds are they share a border but just in case they don't and war target is getting swamped by others
 

Offline

Sergeant
It's nice that you took the time to look into this issue and come up with possible solutions.

However, I definitely feel the four boolean conditions you suggest are far too restrictive. I certainly wouldn't want my own faction to be put under those limitations and I expect at least the same amount of freedom for the AI.



I think what some people misunderstand about this issue is that TW is building the AI to be smart about its war decisions (in a game-y way). This means a lot of weight is put on AI factions doing what will lead to them winning the game (conquering the map) - or at least hindering the other factions/the player.

So the AI takes into account all of these various factors to determine the relative strengths (in a strict meta game way) between factions and acts according to that - not according to what feels right/natural to the player. That's why you see factions being at war with 2-3 or even 4 other factions at the same time. Because the AI knows (or thinks) that it can pull it off. It's not a stupid decision in the eyes of the AI - not because the AI itself is stupid, but because the AI is a machine. It does not consider war weariness among citizens or the historical context of how warring on two fronts is usually a bad idea. All the AI knows is that the numbers tell it that it's the right decision.

And the AI is often right. When the player gets annoyed by a war declaration, it is often because it is a big inconvenience for the player. Well that is exactly why it was the right decision by the AI. It's hindering your progress - it's making it harder for you to win. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
And if you are a vassal of a faction that is declaring war left and right and never wants to consider peace, well that's because you're doing too good a job at conquering new lands. Your faction's AI is winning - so why would it stop?

So in short: the AI is not dumb. It's just currently doing a better job at simulating a difficulty mechanic than an actual human being.
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
1) Am I already at war?
If the answers is yes then no war declared....EVER!! No current war is a condition that has to be met period. No country should wanting to fight two factions, on two fronts simultaneously, that is just a recipe for self-destruction, look at Germany during WWII.

I don't think this would work. Imagine a very strong faction that has snowballed and there are 2 weak factions, whose combined strength is way below that of the strong faction.

It makes sense to go to war in that case.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
It's nice that you took the time to look into this issue and come up with possible solutions.

However, I definitely feel the four boolean conditions you suggest are far too restrictive. I certainly wouldn't want my own faction to be put under those limitations and I expect at least the same amount of freedom for the AI.



I think what some people misunderstand about this issue is that TW is building the AI to be smart about its war decisions (in a game-y way). This means a lot of weight is put on AI factions doing what will lead to them winning the game (conquering the map) - or at least hindering the other factions/the player.

So the AI takes into account all of these various factors to determine the relative strengths (in a strict meta game way) between factions and acts according to that - not according to what feels right/natural to the player. That's why you see factions being at war with 2-3 or even 4 other factions at the same time. Because the AI knows (or thinks) that it can pull it off. It's not a stupid decision in the eyes of the AI - not because the AI itself is stupid, but because the AI is a machine. It does not consider war weariness among citizens or the historical context of how warring on two fronts is usually a bad idea. All the AI knows is that the numbers tell it that it's the right decision.

And the AI is often right. When the player gets annoyed by a war declaration, it is often because it is a big inconvenience for the player. Well that is exactly why it was the right decision by the AI. It's hindering your progress - it's making it harder for you to win. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
And if you are a vassal of a faction that is declaring war left and right and never wants to consider peace, well that's because you're doing too good a job at conquering new lands. Your faction's AI is winning - so why would it stop?

So in short: the AI is not dumb. It's just currently doing a better job at simulating a difficulty mechanic than an actual human being.
I fully disagree with here. By your logic the AI is smarter than the player when in fact it has been proven time and time again this is not the case. There is no logic whatsoever in your faction being fully committed to another war with its resources drawn thin, for it to declare one or even two more wars simultaneously. Also A.I. stands for Artificial Intelligence which implies it should make intelligent decisions. Fighting two or three or fours wars cannot be called intelligent in any way.

See what I want out of the game and I think most people want is a simulation. I want it to feel real. A good A.I. operates in a fashion that makes it feel real. It acts with the same human logic we apply to ourselves and those 4 questions are something that I think ANYONE in a leadership position would ask before making a decision to go to war. Is it restrictive? Yes, that is the point. The entire point is to restrict the AI to making or at least simulating making intelligent and logical decisions that feel realistic with the end goal being reducing the amount constant warfare.

Finally, I don't want an AI that decides that it is going to throw up illogical and arbitrary roadblocks to my progress just because my strategies are too successful. Ultimately this game is a single player game that I am eventually supposed to win. I am going to do that by applying success strategies, that is the whole damn point. The A.I. doing stupid, unrealistic actions to make it more challenging is just lazy programing and also immersion breaking. It also create an amazing amount of frustration. I have literally quit playing and would have no desire to ever play Bannerlord again if things stay this way. That is not how you want your player to feel.

Don't get me wrong, challenging and even frustrating to a degree isn't necessarily a bad things but a good AI will do it in ways that make logical sense. For example, I mentioned that an "Advantageous" state would allow for war to be triggered. Having a faction declare war on me while I am otherwise engaged with war on another faction makes sense. Key words here "makes sense". If that was what was occurring I probably wouldn't be here complaining. It would suck, it would be frustrating, it would be challenging and it would restrict my progress but another faction taking advantage of the fact I was already at war would just be an example of a smart AI. Having my lords constantly clamor for war when it is 100% self destructive just pushes the wrong buttons because of how unrealistic, illogical and absurd it is. These sort of roadblocks to progress just cases rage inducing frustration. Regardless of what the AI is trying to accomplish, people will just look at these actions and say, "What a stupid AI, this game sucks" not look deep into themselves and say, "Oh I am just being too successful and the AI is punishing me for it" or even if they do, who the hell wants to be punished unfairly because your doing to well?

At the end of the day, the AI feeling real is the most important factor. The AI has to make decisions that follow some sort of logic that a human can understand. If it can't it is just broken even if it is working as intended.

I don't think this would work. Imagine a very strong faction that has snowballed and there are 2 weak factions, whose combined strength is way below that of the strong faction.

It makes sense to go to war in that case.
The conditions can always be modified to achieve the desired result but the goal should be for wars making some sort of logical sense as much as possible.

Also to be honest, it still wouldn't make sense to go to war in the scenario you mention. It would suck for the smaller factions but I would think logic would dictate that going to war as the smaller factions would ONLY be as a last resort or if you absolutely couldn't win, surrender would probably be the best option.

Unfortunately, I realize that for the game purposes that doesn't make sense. However what would make sense is that if a war broke out between between one of the smaller factions and the big snowballing one, that the second smaller faction might also declare war against the big snowballing one as well to take advantage of them being distracted. Or they might declare war against the smaller faction with the hope of expanding their territory and countering the bigger faction after the dust settles. My conditions would absolutely allow for the second scenario, the one where the 2nd smaller faction goes to war against the smallest faction already at war with the biggest faction and the conditions could probably be modified a bit to allow for the other scenerio as well.

Also, to prevent snowballing, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch for the AI to have certain trigger conditions in place that would allow multiple factions to declare war simultaneously on a faction that has gained too much power while also ending their wars against other factions to simulate an alliance of sorts with the goal to keep a single factions power in check.
 

papi

Recruit
M&B
Problem with all that is a faction that gets stronger than the others will get to pick all their wars and nobody else will declare on them. This is a recipe for snowballing.

Take Khuzaits, they will start the game and usually take a castle and maybe a town from the imperial faction that borders them. Even if that faction accepts a tributary peace, they are going to be weaker than their neighbors, which means they are likely to be picked as the next target for factions looking to declare. At the same time, Khuzaits just got stronger, stronger than their neighbors, and this means they will get to prepare in peace, building their economy and training troops, and pick the weakest to attack.

You can't just combine a bunch of boolean conditions and expect to have a good result, there isn't enough variation. I would say the way to do this is by assigning scores to a bunch of indicators, like amount of settlements (= recruit output, army replenishment), current army size, a bias for ongoing wars, a bias for potential threat (this would be targeted at stronger factions, to motivate weaker factions to band together and attack a stronger neighbor, kinda like the "great power" for Total War games) and in the end, measure it against a min score required to declare.

I don't really think constant wars are the real problem, the problem is that if there are no wars there isn't much else to do once you are established with plenty of money and troops. I usually abandon games after I start defeating lords and having to wait because towns no longer have money to buy the loot.
Then there might have to be a fifth check. If I am weaker can I find allies to join the war...
 

Stromming

Sergeant
WBWF&SNWVC
I also have issues in my games where the AI just continues to declare war and it's ridiculous. Mexxico is looking into it though.
At one point in the past campaign, i was in all out war with every other faction, and obviously losing, and still no one wanted to peace out anything.
 

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Then there might have to be a fifth check. If I am weaker can I find allies to join the war...
that's more or less what happened in warband when one faction was getting too dominating where most other factions would declare war at the same time to "curb the other realm's power" and it worked kinda like an unofficial coalition against the big badie treatening too much the balance of the kingdoms.

It usually worked wonders if the player wasn't there to make his magic, they would take lots of land attacking from multiple sides and restore more or less a balanced state to the map cause the big faction wasn't able to defend everywhere
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
that's more or less what happened in warband when one faction was getting too dominating where most other factions would declare war at the same time to "curb the other realm's power" and it worked kinda like an unofficial coalition against the big badie treatening too much the balance of the kingdoms.

It usually worked wonders if the player wasn't there to make his magic, they would take lots of land attacking from multiple sides and restore more or less a balanced state to the map cause the big faction wasn't able to defend everywhere
And I think this is fine. It is logical and it is something that a human rule would actually do. If your enemy is too powerful, you would seek allies. This is quite a bit different than your own lords constantly advocating more and more wars to counter your their successes. I am not sure if the game actually works like that but if so, things need a major fix.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
See what I want out of the game and I think most people want is a simulation. I want it to feel real. A good A.I. operates in a fashion that makes it feel real. It acts with the same human logic we apply to ourselves and those 4 questions are something that I think ANYONE in a leadership position would ask before making a decision to go to war.
Real leaders in real life have
1: Gone to war when they were already at war,
2: Gone to war with both stronger and weaker enemies,
3: Gone to war with people who did not border their territory (and other leaders allowed them to move their armies through).

I actually like the fact that war can be declared cross-map. It shouldn't happen often but it should be possible.
Also, to prevent snowballing, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch for the AI to have certain trigger conditions in place that would allow multiple factions to declare war simultaneously on a faction that has gained too much power while also ending their wars against other factions to simulate an alliance of sorts with the goal to keep a single factions power in check.
Actually snowballing is basically solved now, for the time being at least. You can monitor the testing that has been done in this thread: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...opments-at-snowballing-problem.434547/page-58
 

Offline

Sergeant
I fully disagree with here. By your logic the AI is smarter than the player when in fact it has been proven time and time again this is not the case. There is no logic whatsoever in your faction being fully committed to another war with its resources drawn thin, for it to declare one or even two more wars simultaneously. Also A.I. stands for Artificial Intelligence which implies it should make intelligent decisions. Fighting two or three or fours wars cannot be called intelligent in any way.

See what I want out of the game and I think most people want is a simulation. I want it to feel real. A good A.I. operates in a fashion that makes it feel real. It acts with the same human logic we apply to ourselves and those 4 questions are something that I think ANYONE in a leadership position would ask before making a decision to go to war. Is it restrictive? Yes, that is the point. The entire point is to restrict the AI to making or at least simulating making intelligent and logical decisions that feel realistic with the end goal being reducing the amount constant warfare.

Finally, I don't want an AI that decides that it is going to throw up illogical and arbitrary roadblocks to my progress just because my strategies are too successful. Ultimately this game is a single player game that I am eventually supposed to win. I am going to do that by applying success strategies, that is the whole damn point. The A.I. doing stupid, unrealistic actions to make it more challenging is just lazy programing and also immersion breaking. It also create an amazing amount of frustration. I have literally quit playing and would have no desire to ever play Bannerlord again if things stay this way. That is not how you want your player to feel.

Don't get me wrong, challenging and even frustrating to a degree isn't necessarily a bad things but a good AI will do it in ways that make logical sense. For example, I mentioned that an "Advantageous" state would allow for war to be triggered. Having a faction declare war on me while I am otherwise engaged with war on another faction makes sense. Key words here "makes sense". If that was what was occurring I probably wouldn't be here complaining. It would suck, it would be frustrating, it would be challenging and it would restrict my progress but another faction taking advantage of the fact I was already at war would just be an example of a smart AI. Having my lords constantly clamor for war when it is 100% self destructive just pushes the wrong buttons because of how unrealistic, illogical and absurd it is. These sort of roadblocks to progress just cases rage inducing frustration. Regardless of what the AI is trying to accomplish, people will just look at these actions and say, "What a stupid AI, this game sucks" not look deep into themselves and say, "Oh I am just being too successful and the AI is punishing me for it" or even if they do, who the hell wants to be punished unfairly because your doing to well?

At the end of the day, the AI feeling real is the most important factor. The AI has to make decisions that follow some sort of logic that a human can understand. If it can't it is just broken even if it is working as intended.
I know you say that you fully disagree, but I actually completely agree with everything you just wrote. I realise that I didn't actually include my own opinion in my original reply. So here it is from another thread (a comment I left right after my original post in this thread):
EDIT: Since I just wrote about it in another thread concerning war declarations, I will also note it here. I think this is also part of a bigger issue of the AI being too smart. It actually leads to less enjoyable gameplay and to much less intuitive/natural decisions by the AI that it's always trying to be so damn smart about everything. I would love to see TW focus less on making the AI try to always beat the player and instead focus on making it act in ways that improve the player's playthrough.
EDIT2: The AI will lose regardless, after all.

So yeah. I feel the same way you do. I don't like the way the AI works. I just don't fully agree with your originally proposed solution.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Real leaders in real life have
1: Gone to war when they were already at war,
2: Gone to war with both stronger and weaker enemies,
3: Gone to war with people who did not border their territory (and other leaders allowed them to move their armies through).

I actually like the fact that war can be declared cross-map. It shouldn't happen often but it should be possible.

Actually snowballing is basically solved now, for the time being at least. You can monitor the testing that has been done in this thread: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...opments-at-snowballing-problem.434547/page-58

I agree that all three of things have happened, I even mention Germany in WWII as a prime example of number 1 there but my goal is the try to put together a simplistic solutions that would make war making more realistic. Of course these 4 questions can be modified king of like say the way dialog options work. On many of the dialog options you have something that will say 79% chance success we have the questions I offered up work the same way. Example:

1: Are we currently at War? If Y then chance of going to war is 15%
2: Are we stronger than the enemy or advantaged? If yes and the answer to question 1 is also yes, chance to go to war goes up to 30%. If no than chance to go to war goes down to 5%.

And so on and so forth.

The goal is not for a kingdom to never go to war unless it feels it can win a war, rather just to reduce the amount of wars and make decisions leading to wars feel more realistic and logical.

Again to clarify my issue isn't so much we are at war or even war with multiple factions, rather it is the frequency we are at war with no peace in between and the fact my lords continually call for war even after we have just declared a war or even two wars. It is very frustrating when it is your own faction calling for its own self-destruction and it is frustrating to never have a minute of peace.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
I agree that all three of things have happened, I even mention Germany in WWII as a prime example of number 1 there but my goal is the try to put together a simplistic solutions that would make war making more realistic. Of course these 4 questions can be modified king of like say the way dialog options work. On many of the dialog options you have something that will say 79% chance success we have the questions I offered up work the same way. Example:

1: Are we currently at War? If Y then chance of going to war is 15%
2: Are we stronger than the enemy or advantaged? If yes and the answer to question 1 is also yes, chance to go to war goes up to 30%. If no than chance to go to war goes down to 5%.

And so on and so forth.

The goal is not for a kingdom to never go to war unless it feels it can win a war, rather just to reduce the amount of wars and make decisions leading to wars feel more realistic and logical.

Again to clarify my issue isn't so much we are at war or even war with multiple factions, rather it is the frequency we are at war with no peace in between and the fact my lords continually call for war even after we have just declared a war or even two wars. It is very frustrating when it is your own faction calling for its own self-destruction and it is frustrating to never have a minute of peace.
I like the percentages much better. Non-optimal war decisions should be less likely to be taken by the AI but still possible, that's good.
 

Zorion_no

Recruit
I really dont like that the game is "Warmonger-only-centric".

While the kingdome I'm with is vastly superior and stronger than any other soon as there is 3-4 warfronts its starting to hurt, alot of progress is washed away, yet what do they want to do? right thats go to war on another faction..

I wish they added back from Warband a causis belli to allow them to declare war.

I'm honestly on the verge of useing mods now that adress alot of theese issues cause its "frustrating" say the least that a 1 man team have fixed alot of theese issues alone in "no time" vs how long have the EA been going on roughly 1 year with 1 team.

Defection is part of the issue aswell, the lords dont defect fast enough if at all, thus the AI is stronger than they should be per se.
They do defect sometimes, but not enough 4 ingame years and 4 factions have had 0 land, 0 income.. and yet they are in the original faction..
Granted when I came waveing my denars they did flip over(I'm not the king mind you)

Overall I enjoy the game alot up until about 600-800 ingame days, then its Warmonger only, which gets boring stale(if ppl are that much into pure war - there is other modes in the game they can play to do it instead).

Really should dial down the warmongering a touch(I'm not saying they should remove the tension, it needs to be there of course, but the will for peace also got to be in the game, which it in general is not)
 
Top Bottom