Wars are very short and being declared often (1.8.0)

Users who are viewing this thread

I have been playing on the 1.8.0 and have been enjoying most of the changes, but after joining the Battanians (300 days in) I am encountering an issue where wars hardly last for more than a few days. Generally a castle or a town is taken and the losing side immediately surrenders, which makes for very little ability to counter the AI armies yourself.
The loop is: Declare war, take/lose objective, surrender. All within a few day period.

Anyone else experiencing this on the beta?


(I'm also experiencing the army bouncing between targets pretty commonly again, which i thought had been fixed?)
 
I have been playing on the 1.8.0 and have been enjoying most of the changes, but after joining the Battanians (300 days in) I am encountering an issue where wars hardly last for more than a few days. Generally a castle or a town is taken and the losing side immediately surrenders, which makes for very little ability to counter the AI armies yourself.
The loop is: Declare war, take/lose objective, surrender. All within a few day period.

Anyone else experiencing this on the beta?


(I'm also experiencing the army bouncing between targets pretty commonly again, which i thought had been fixed?)
This has been my experience as well.

Though the A.I. seems to get into longer wars? I'm not sure I've played enough to give a fair assessment.


Be nice, if we the player, had some kind of idea of why wars were being fought, the objectives, etc. Like maybe it's to weaken a rival, or reclaim/take a particular fief. I mean it makes sense to sue for peace when you're being tag-teamed by 2 opposing Kingdoms, by why do the attackers just always accept? It makes some sense if a Kingdom pays enough tribute, but what if the attacking Kingdom wants land? It just would bother me a lot less if we had some idea behind the A.I.'s decision making. The A.I. always seems too eager to make peace. Eh this is why we need actual Diplomacy so making Peace isn't instantaneous and there's a bit more to the game besides martial prowess.

I do wonder if it's possible now with the A.I. being able to join other Armies that conflicts are decided a lot faster, since it's much easier to overpower an opponent in a few battles.
 
It's because of the army team up change, they can more consistently finish a siege or btfo another army (or both), altering the war score making them want peace. The short wars can also be just so 1 side gets out of a higher payment payment.

I found as a ruler in 1.8 I could just attack a party after the vassals made peace and I did not get dinged influence for starting a war this way. Certainly a bug, not sure if it works every time but I like it!
 
It's because of the army team up change, they can more consistently finish a siege or btfo another army (or both), altering the war score making them want peace. The short wars can also be just so 1 side gets out of a higher payment payment.
It is painful allowing the AI to dictate when wars happen because of this, I guess. Joining a faction, then getting 3 tribute payments and only 3 days to beat up some lord parties before the war is ended. Feels worse to me now than it did a few patches ago, and the armies still bounce around :ROFLMAO:

And most lords are running around with less than 50 troops in my campaign....
I was thinking this was just from everyone getting their asses handed to them, but I also have noticed that even the ruler parties in my game are struggling to field more than 130 troops.
I wish the balance between instant regen 250 unit parties and lords walking around being useless could be figured out.
 
I am liking the current numbers. We were asking for fewer 3000 man doomstack battles weren't we? My army battles are in the mid hundreds in my campaign which is good imo.
 
And most lords are running around with less than 50 troops in my campaign....
Don't have proof for it but i think the problem stems from most clans starting with only 1 fief which isn't enough to actually bring profit when you have 3 parties out. So basically every clan, other than ruler clans who often have 2+ fiefs to start, starts at average wealth but quickly drops down to being poor because they can't actually sustain 3 parties off a single fief. So if you wanted to fix that they just need to increase the income you get from fiefs.

But that would likely lead to the world being much more stagnant, which a lot of people have seemingly disliked. Gotta have poor clans for a kingdom to lose in a timely manner.

I think a better solution is to add clan caravans, these would uphold clan's wealth but also provides their enemies ways to directly impact their wealth more directly without having to raid villages. Also it would allow fiefless clans to have some way to generate some wealth so they dont turn into 20 stacks. Could also give minor clans caravans as well so they would stop being very poor.
 
Last edited:
I’m experiencing the opposite (day 600), wars are during 75+ days, party’s have normal sizes, my kingdom (vlandia) was winning but now is getting absolutly rekt, army after army getting destroyed, 15+ armies destroyed and +8 fiefs lost and the brilliant king that had 70% of all the kingdom’s fiefs don’t want peace ???
 
Yeah, I’m not sure what’s going on with you guys on this one.

New game files are producing year long wars, versus the wars that were lucky to last for a month.

I’ve seen the biggest issue right now of dog-piling on weak factions already in a war.

As far as clan income goes, making fiefs make more is not the way to go. Those clans just need income sources similar to what the players get but they don’t have access to.

So if players get a workshop per clan tier plus one, then the AI clans should be getting stagnant income equal to having a workshop per clan level, that then is adjusted if they the perks that boost workshops. I thought there was something already like this in game
 
Yes I have this problem. I don't think I've seen a war that's lasted more than about 15 days. Most are literally 2 or 3 days.
 
Don't have proof for it but i think the problem stems from most clans starting with only 1 fief which isn't enough to actually bring profit when you have 3 parties out. So basically every clan, other than ruler clans who often have 2+ fiefs to start, starts at average wealth but quickly drops down to being poor because they can't actually sustain 3 parties off a single fief. So if you wanted to fix that they just need to increase the income you get from fiefs.

But that would likely lead to the world being much more stagnant, which a lot of people have seemingly disliked. Gotta have poor clans for a kingdom to lose in a timely manner.

I think a better solution is to add clan caravans, these would uphold clan's wealth but also provides their enemies ways to directly impact their wealth more directly without having to raid villages. Also it would allow fiefless clans to have some way to generate some wealth so they dont turn into 20 stacks. Could also give minor clans caravans as well so they would stop being very poor.
Plus as you say, clans who have one castle - who cost more than they earn denars… Think I’ll write a topic about that, there are many inconsistancies - Known I guess
 
My limited experience so far has been mixed. There was one instance where the Northern Empire declared war on the Khuzaits, then made peace in the exact same war pretty much instantly - I'm not even sure that the initial declaration had faded out from the log yet. Some other wars only last a couple of days, while there are also some that last a more reasonable amount of time, actually allowing for some battles and sieges to take place.
 
My limited experience so far has been mixed. There was one instance where the Northern Empire declared war on the Khuzaits, then made peace in the exact same war pretty much instantly - I'm not even sure that the initial declaration had faded out from the log yet. Some other wars only last a couple of days, while there are also some that last a more reasonable amount of time, actually allowing for some battles and sieges to take place.
Looks like the AI tries to limit the number of ennemies - while they are not strong enough - for example Khuzait declares war to Sturgia, in the following instant, Northern Empire declares war to Khuzait, I think I have seen it, and the Khuzait instantly decalre peace to Sturgia (that's an example that I have seen happen).
 
Looks like the AI tries to limit the number of ennemies - while they are not strong enough - for example Khuzait declares war to Sturgia, in the following instant, Northern Empire declares war to Khuzait, I think I have seen it, and the Khuzait instantly decalre peace to Sturgia (that's an example that I have seen happen).
Right, I've seen things like that happen, but in this case the Northern Empire declared war against the Khuzaits, then the Northern Empire also immediately made peace with the Khuzaits (both times with the support of Lucon's council). I took a screenshot: Lucon apparently couldn't make up his mind.

I don't remember if I had to hit enter in order to bring the log back up to see the war declaration, but either way the war lasted mere seconds of real-life time, even on the "normal" game speed.
 
Right, I've seen things like that happen, but in this case the Northern Empire declared war against the Khuzaits, then the Northern Empire also immediately made peace with the Khuzaits (both times with the support of Lucon's council). I took a screenshot: Lucon apparently couldn't make up his mind.

I don't remember if I had to hit enter in order to bring the log back up to see the war declaration, but either way the war lasted mere seconds of real-life time, even on the "normal" game speed.
I'm not sure it is always written in the right order, i.e. :
Lucon makes peace (but in reality it is Monchug), you see the idea? I have already had some doubts about that, without really taking care about it.

Makes me think, if you look on the map, on an army, there is written what they do, for ex. "Lucon's army is travelling to besiege Makeb", or "holding", and since 1.8.0, there is "thinking", and I am as glad as frigthened when I see that the AI is thinking !!! What catastrophe are they going to do hahaha - joking, it's a fun feature (with a bit focus on AI)
 
My limited experience so far has been mixed. There was one instance where the Northern Empire declared war on the Khuzaits, then made peace in the exact same war pretty much instantly - I'm not even sure that the initial declaration had faded out from the log yet. Some other wars only last a couple of days, while there are also some that last a more reasonable amount of time, actually allowing for some battles and sieges to take place.
I think there should be a hard minimum war duration (wars always last at least 10 days), as well as a soft maximum war duration (peace becomes more and more likely as too much time passes), a hard minimum peace duration (the AI will not begin a vote on their own initiative to declare any wars for 10 days if they have just declared peace) and a soft maximum peace duration (the AI becomes more and more likely to declare war on someone if they have been at peace for 40 days).

Finally, kingdoms should be slightly less enthusiastic to declare war on kingdoms they consider too weak or too strong.

This would fix every major issue with the pacing of war/peace.
 
I think there should be a hard minimum war duration (wars always last at least 10 days), as well as a soft maximum war duration (peace becomes more and more likely as too much time passes), a hard minimum peace duration (the AI will not begin a vote on their own initiative to declare any wars for 10 days if they have just declared peace) and a soft maximum peace duration (the AI becomes more and more likely to declare war on someone if they have been at peace for 40 days).

Finally, kingdoms should be slightly less enthusiastic to declare war on kingdoms they consider too weak or too strong.

This would fix every major issue with the pacing of war/peace.
Also, when you look at the kingdoms tab for %declaring war; it fluctuates way too often as it's just computing all the different factors instantly when there should be some delay/buffer against that.
 
Quand je suis vassal/mercenaire, j'ai souvent le cas d'une guerre déclarée puis d'une déclaration de paix peu de temps après...

Quand je suis roi, j'ai remarqué que le "problème" avait disparu (comme si le roi précédent faisait quelque chose ?).

Notez également que lorsque vous recevez un tribut d'une faction et que vous êtes en guerre contre une autre faction, si une deuxième faction vous déclare la guerre, celle qui vous a payé un tribut vous déclare la guerre à son tour et vous offre la paix dans la foulée. .

On peut noter que cette opération est "intelligente" puisqu'ils savent que nous sommes en difficulté et donc plus propice à signer une paix rapide... Et qu'ils arrêtent de rendre hommage...
 
I think there should be a hard minimum war duration (wars always last at least 10 days)
I disagree with this one for the possibility of what im about to talk about below, fine with the rest.

Right, I've seen things like that happen, but in this case the Northern Empire declared war against the Khuzaits, then the Northern Empire also immediately made peace with the Khuzaits (both times with the support of Lucon's council). I took a screenshot: Lucon apparently couldn't make up his mind.

I don't remember if I had to hit enter in order to bring the log back up to see the war declaration, but either way the war lasted mere seconds of real-life time, even on the "normal" game speed.
What happened here is essentially a renegotiation of tribute. Lucon likely saw the opportunity to declare on khuzait and lower the tribute they were paying or increase the amount of tribute they were receiving. You'll see this a lot actually with kingdoms getting declared on while already at war with another kingdom, they essentially take whatever is the better peace deal. Sometimes that better peace deal is with the person who just declared against them, likely because they were getting paid a bunch and now the kingdom who just declared will take peace for paying less. Meanwhile the first kingdom they were in war in wants a bunch of cash to get peace and them getting declared on by a second kingdom means they want even more money.

So it might seem like a bug or weird but its actually a bit of hidden diplomacy happening in the way of wars and tribute.

Real diplomacy would be dope too tho.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom