The winning/lost war system

[Monthy]

Hi,

I plaing now SS 6.2 (which is much more requiring system than SS 6.1. A specialy war with Mongols! - now this faction is real bloody deadly - this is fun!).
During my many assasin actions I lost my reputation to "Untrustworthy" level and many factions start to attack me. I have win many battles with them (also with crushing defeat using mongol style warfare) but they still want to continous war! In my opinion it's completely unrealistic.

1) How do You want to present war and the ratio of the forces affecting diplomacy?
2) Do You want to increase list of possibilities for diplomats? (necessary request to withdrawal of troops from my site)

My suggestion is:
You should implement script that count winnings and lost battles. For example, if I win 4 battles and lost 3 the result is +1. When I will have score +5? my enemy should wants to make ceasefire. When my vantage is higher my kingdom should have the possibility of increasing demands (give region for a peace, huge demand of money, rgular tribut or even make vassalization).
This will be very logical system. Never more never ending wars.

I suggest also to make casefire after many turns with kingdom that I stop to fight with. For example there was no battle for 10-15 turn? then automaticly casefire should be done - but relations should be still very bad.

Hmmm... Is there possibility to give for my King an trait "Enemy duke, prince hostage". That will prevent my enemy to start next war with me! This was historicaly proceedings. Or "Enemy princes hostage" or ("kingdom name" princes hostage).

I also don't like money script for another computer factions. I always prepare well for war, send spies, make alliances, build armys and enemy port blockade. When I do this scripts give money for my enemy. It's stipid and deprive me to make also economic war which should be deadly for my enemys.

Rules for all should be equal. It's very confusing to see that Irleand or Portugal conquering all Western Europe.

Not offensive these countries and people.

[Achilla]

Not number but quality and decisiveness of the battles count (and should). If you destroy bulk of enemy army and take settlements and they are overally losing a war they are more than likely to sign a ceafire or even pay for it.

[OdinX]

These are good ideas guys; I shall present it to the team and see if we can some up with something similar.

[Tomato_Sandwich]

Sort of on the same subject: is it possible to increase the influence of the 'accept or we will attack' style diplomacy option? it just seems silly that the threat of a nation that controls most of western europe attacking another small nation doesnt seem to have any affect on there decision. it would represent the historical situation of powerfull nations bullying weaker ones to obeying them and sort of helps represent a field of influence. Given that often armies were and are used to force results before having to resort to bloodshed. though of course threatning to attack someone would somewhat damage your relations with them!