As a Medieval themed sandbox game, I guess there's no way to deny that the best of 'predecessors' this game can look up to, and gain inspiration from, is none other than Paradox's Crusader Kings 2. I apologize if this may hurt the pride of any dev who might be reading this, but it's just the truth. CK2 has set up the best representation of the Medieval world to be seen in any game so far, up to date, and its sophistication in the portrayal of how war and peace works between a landscape of multiple different realms and how it balances itself out, IMO, is something the devs need to analyze and BENCHMARK as much as possible.
Yes, everyone realizes the genre of the game is indeed, different, and therefore, the overall strategic aspect of this game would be much more simplified than the level of sophistication CK2 is at. However, I strongly feel certain concepts that exist in CK2, could play a significant role to enrich the experience that is Bannerlord, by PROVIDING A BETTER INTERNAL LOGIC in relations to why the kingdoms fight, and how and when they fight.
Particularly, IMO, more than anything, the decision making process in the current game needs to identify a goal. A realistic goal as to what the AI wants to do,
when it declares war:
* Is it to gain respect and humiliate the other?
* Is it to receive tribute and reparations for immediate economic profit?
* Is it a war to gain more land, fiefs to expand the realm?
* Is it to gain a diplomatic recognition of your dominion?
* Or, is it a war to obliterate the opponent in its totality?
All of the above, are different goals with distinctly different method of waging war, with different consequences. When the "WHY DOES THIS KINGDOM DECLARE WAR ON ME?" is explained, that alone can remove a LOT of the frustration from the players, because it offers a narrative that they can understand.
When the "WHY" behind the war is set, and the corresponding goals behind it are determined, then it becomes much easier to DEPICT THE WAR in a manner that the player can feel immersed in. For example, if the purpose is to humiliate the other, the war goals will be something like "X more victories" and "Y number of armies destroyed" within a certain set period. Naturally, on the defense, the war goal will be to NOT give out X amount of victories to the aggressor, and NOT have Y amount of armies destroyed, and keep your defenses strong until that time period.
On the other hand, for example, if the purpose of the war is to take land, then the aggressors would set the targets on which settlements to take. The defenders will naturally, defend that point, and if the point is taken, will try to take it back and liberate it from enemy hands. What the AI army does on both sides, can be set and scripted in a more specific manner so there are less oddities, and overall portrayal of military action begins to resemble reality more closely.
Having the system set up the "WHY" the war is fought, and "HOW" the war is fought (=which war goals both sides will seek) helps with setting up more specified and detailed AI actions, and provides a logic which the players can understand better.
Once the concept of "War Goal" is in place within the system, then frankly, then expanding upon it should be much easier than the initial implementation. If there's a war goal, then a system of evaluating war goals would follow, which in turn, would result in a more shorter, but decisive set of wars between the kingdoms. Then, along with such a system, the next to follow would naturally be a MEANS for the kingdoms to set up such goals, make up claims and casus belli, use political influence and such resources to facilitate such events in motion... for example, a lot of new, exciting stuff like...
* putting large amounts of influence to a town/castle to manipulate a local rebellion
* organize a system of taxes and tolls for rival kingdoms' caravans to increase your profit, but at the same time, leading to tensions
* orchestrate border incidents to spark up tensions between kingdoms
* fund/equip bandits and looters at a neighboring town/castle areas
etc etc.. possibilities are limitless. If there's a system of war goals, then follows a system of rising tensions between kingdoms and those that lead to such wars.
And, with that in place, then it can follow, the system of internal political strife, for example, if a certain king+vassal that pushed an agenda of war, do not deliver good results, then their credibility/influence within the kingdom is hurt, and internal rivalries could spark. Perhaps, may bloom into political factions with different outlook on the wars... the ones that prefer military expansion, and the ones that prefer peace and trade.
Frankly, I don't expect any of these kind of ideas to be implemented within early access. This is undeniably DLC material, comparable to stuff like how CK2 continuously expanded its system with more elements added on after official release. What I do hope for, is that the devs start thinking of long-term plans after official release, and how to expand on the current simple and rudimentary mechanics of the game, to something that could be more well-crafted.
Yes, everyone realizes the genre of the game is indeed, different, and therefore, the overall strategic aspect of this game would be much more simplified than the level of sophistication CK2 is at. However, I strongly feel certain concepts that exist in CK2, could play a significant role to enrich the experience that is Bannerlord, by PROVIDING A BETTER INTERNAL LOGIC in relations to why the kingdoms fight, and how and when they fight.
Particularly, IMO, more than anything, the decision making process in the current game needs to identify a goal. A realistic goal as to what the AI wants to do,
when it declares war:
* Is it to gain respect and humiliate the other?
* Is it to receive tribute and reparations for immediate economic profit?
* Is it a war to gain more land, fiefs to expand the realm?
* Is it to gain a diplomatic recognition of your dominion?
* Or, is it a war to obliterate the opponent in its totality?
All of the above, are different goals with distinctly different method of waging war, with different consequences. When the "WHY DOES THIS KINGDOM DECLARE WAR ON ME?" is explained, that alone can remove a LOT of the frustration from the players, because it offers a narrative that they can understand.
When the "WHY" behind the war is set, and the corresponding goals behind it are determined, then it becomes much easier to DEPICT THE WAR in a manner that the player can feel immersed in. For example, if the purpose is to humiliate the other, the war goals will be something like "X more victories" and "Y number of armies destroyed" within a certain set period. Naturally, on the defense, the war goal will be to NOT give out X amount of victories to the aggressor, and NOT have Y amount of armies destroyed, and keep your defenses strong until that time period.
On the other hand, for example, if the purpose of the war is to take land, then the aggressors would set the targets on which settlements to take. The defenders will naturally, defend that point, and if the point is taken, will try to take it back and liberate it from enemy hands. What the AI army does on both sides, can be set and scripted in a more specific manner so there are less oddities, and overall portrayal of military action begins to resemble reality more closely.
Having the system set up the "WHY" the war is fought, and "HOW" the war is fought (=which war goals both sides will seek) helps with setting up more specified and detailed AI actions, and provides a logic which the players can understand better.
Once the concept of "War Goal" is in place within the system, then frankly, then expanding upon it should be much easier than the initial implementation. If there's a war goal, then a system of evaluating war goals would follow, which in turn, would result in a more shorter, but decisive set of wars between the kingdoms. Then, along with such a system, the next to follow would naturally be a MEANS for the kingdoms to set up such goals, make up claims and casus belli, use political influence and such resources to facilitate such events in motion... for example, a lot of new, exciting stuff like...
* putting large amounts of influence to a town/castle to manipulate a local rebellion
* organize a system of taxes and tolls for rival kingdoms' caravans to increase your profit, but at the same time, leading to tensions
* orchestrate border incidents to spark up tensions between kingdoms
* fund/equip bandits and looters at a neighboring town/castle areas
etc etc.. possibilities are limitless. If there's a system of war goals, then follows a system of rising tensions between kingdoms and those that lead to such wars.
And, with that in place, then it can follow, the system of internal political strife, for example, if a certain king+vassal that pushed an agenda of war, do not deliver good results, then their credibility/influence within the kingdom is hurt, and internal rivalries could spark. Perhaps, may bloom into political factions with different outlook on the wars... the ones that prefer military expansion, and the ones that prefer peace and trade.
Frankly, I don't expect any of these kind of ideas to be implemented within early access. This is undeniably DLC material, comparable to stuff like how CK2 continuously expanded its system with more elements added on after official release. What I do hope for, is that the devs start thinking of long-term plans after official release, and how to expand on the current simple and rudimentary mechanics of the game, to something that could be more well-crafted.