From Cuddlefission:
Thought with regard to Saxon Longbowmen - I know they have region based innovations, where if your culture is based in a geographical zone, you become eligible. Would it be technically possible / aesthetically desirable for you to make Longbows a regional tech for England + Wales, so that whichever culture gets established there can make use of them? That might be a different way of handling it. You'd then need to replace the English cultural longbow unit... maybe something about the English knighthood's penchant for fighting as armored infantry in the late medieval period? Heavy Infantry that counter Heavy Cavalry in addition to Spearmen?

How do you feel about the ticking warscore stuff? I just started playing your mod and my first encounter with it was this:

https://gyazo.com/5c4f87a41447ef79b18515b597cf0d53

I checked the numbers and that's not a depleted army on the left, it's close to levy cap. I don't know the full sequence of events but it seems the occupier lost a major battle at some point but has been able to keep the war goal occupied for some reason in spite of this. Seeing him win this conflict is a bit weird as his target is not embroiled in other wars. I can only imagine some wonky AI decsision-making was involved.

Yeah I'm not sure about it yet, but the intention is to prevent the long wars that drag on forever in faraway territories that the AI seems to love. I'd prefer conflicts to be a little more decisive and objective-based. There is now an 18 month delay before the ticking begins. My thinking is if the aggressor can't capture the war goal in like, 3ish years or apply a lot of pressure in some other way, then the war probably should end.

What I can do as well is start adding more modifiers for different war types. Great Holy Wars for example, are less affected by ticking war score (if I'm reading the file correctly).

I think I'm also going to take a look at the war AI and have them favour occupation of the war goal a little more.

Personally, I can tell you from experience - having ticking warscore as high as vanilla or higher really destroys any chance of revolts succeeding against big empires, making HRE and Byzantines extremely stable blobs. The civil wars do still happen, but almost never succeed because ticking warscore.

I might be overdoing it in Sane Warfare atm, but its better to be safe than sorry about AI having +50% heir captured, +10% capital, +70% occupation, +50% battles, twice as big an army, and still being forced to surrender because -280% ticking warscore haha.

Capturing the enemy leader is far too common in my humble opinion. I was migrating the Hungarians to Pannonia. I moved my armies to their capital which was undefended and won the siege which captured the Bulgarian ruler. So without a single battle, I defeated the Bulgarians and their allies. The percentage of wars ended by capture seems way too high, even peasant uprisings end when one person is captured which seems odd to me since I don't think the peasants would suddenly be content, and just disband to go back to what they were doing because they lost a leader - and forget all of the reasons that they revolted in the first place.

Agreed TheLoneWanderer chance of capturing leader from sieging capital or since AI leads their own army most of the time seems a bit high at the moment. I would say half the time I hit 100% warscore based on capturing enemy leader.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.... (Spock)

(sacrifice the leader and the heir for god and country)

As an aside, I am a history major with a focus on military history (not bragging), and I cannot remember a single instance of a war ending due to the King/Queen/Heir being captured.

The Hundred Years' War was a series of conflicts in Western Europe from 1337 to 1453. It involved five generations of kings from two rival dynasties fought for the throne of the largest kingdom in Western Europe. During that war, King David II of Scotland being captured in 1346 is the only instance that I can find of a king being captured, and it did not generate a war score where the Scots decided to surrender their freedom to the English.

Yeah I agree, the vanilla implementation of leader capture isn't great. I'm not sure if I'd want to reduce the frequency, or reduce the war score. On one hand, having the king being captured is a big deal, on the other hand, I'm not sure it should always be an "I win" button. I believe you can set a cap for how much score it gives for each CB, so maybe that would be a good solution.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Crunbum:

Personally, I can tell you from experience - having ticking warscore as high as vanilla or higher really destroys any chance of revolts succeeding against big empires, making HRE and Byzantines extremely stable blobs. The civil wars do still happen, but almost never succeed because ticking warscore.

I might be overdoing it in Sane Warfare atm, but its better to be safe than sorry about AI having +50% heir captured, +10% capital, +70% occupation, +50% battles, twice as big an army, and still being forced to surrender because -280% ticking warscore haha.

Appreciate your input man. You definitely know more about modding the AI than me, so I appreciate you stopping in here.

I agree it can become a problem. It does take longer for the defender's ticking to begin in the mod, which hopefully helps. Currently, the main purpose of the increased ticking is to make wars faster, more decisive. and less likely to result in AI realms that are super spread out and inefficient. The AI has a habit of sitting in distant wars forever, draining their money and manpower.

I think some of those other "easy" sources of warscore would be good targets to nerf. Also, while I haven't tested it yet, I believe you can set caps for how much certain warscore can actually count in a given war type. Might be able to fine tune that way.

Might I make a suggestion with the Norman culture group, they start without Arched saddles innovation, or heavy cavalry. Seeing as how many of the Norman victories in Sicily and at Hastings were attributed to their horses I find this odd.

Oprindeligt skrevet af williamp.sk.32:

Might I make a suggestion with the Norman culture group, they start without Arched saddles innovation, or heavy cavalry. Seeing as how many of the Norman victories in Sicily and at Hastings were attributed to their horses I find this odd.

Right, been meaning to address that, thanks. It's in the next build!

Perhaps you'd be willing to go after a bug introduced in the latest PDX patch? When asking for marriage rulers will hit you with a -200 penalty of "marriage would have low chance to produce offspring" even if the chance of offspring says high. I had it happen to my 57 year old character trying to marry people under the age of 30 but I saw a bug report of someone who was only 39 and tried to betrothe himself to someone that was almost 16.

Just asking on the off-chance you have any idea on what might be required to fix this bug since I consider it game-breaking enough that I've put my play on hold until it's fixed.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Gliese581:

Perhaps you'd be willing to go after a bug introduced in the latest PDX patch? When asking for marriage rulers will hit you with a -200 penalty of "marriage would have low chance to produce offspring" even if the chance of offspring says high. I had it happen to my 57 year old character trying to marry people under the age of 30 but I saw a bug report of someone who was only 39 and tried to betrothe himself to someone that was almost 16.

Just asking on the off-chance you have any idea on what might be required to fix this bug since I consider it game-breaking enough that I've put my play on hold until it's fixed.

Hm, I'm looking at the modifiers now and it says you get the -200 if the "actor" is below 0.1 Fertility. I wonder if it's more of a UI bug that's telling you the chances of children were high when they were actually quite low. At 57, fertility will be relatively low, and could be very low with certain traits.

It seems unlikely. Like I said I saw one person post a bug report about this where his 39 year old was denied on these grounds. Even if he has the lowest possible hidden fertility stat it should be enough to produce a child when he's 40 or 41 with a 16 year old and if not, how would the AI know? That seems like cheaty/meta knowledge it shouldn't have at that point.

My ruler also had the whole of body trait giving him +20% fertility with no other visible modifiers to his fertility stat and he had two sons already that were not generated at game start (from game rule) so he's not barren in case that can be hidden.

In any case what do the AI care if their daughter that wont continue their dynasty in a patrilineal marriage doesn't produce offspring? That seems like a complaint they would have if I were a female ruler or trying to marry off a female dynast to the AI. This marriage would have strictly been for the alliance on their end.

Yeah that's fair. In the future sometime I'll try to look into reworking it more around age for specific situations (though I think that already exists). I agree that it's a little weird that the people of 1200s France seem to have better obstetrics projections than we do now.