K/D and win/loss ratio should affect intimidation chances and getting protectorates etc.?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

One feature I really don't like about AI is how they always look at numbers...but the wrong kind of numbers. It really isn't about the number of troops one side has, it's how many he kills and loses in the process. I plan out my attacks and invasion plans carefully, I win battles killing thousands and only losing a few hundred if that sometimes. I want the enemy to realise the shocking results of that battle. I want the enemy to know that he lost thousands and I lost so few. If the enemy could see this factor and realise how good you are at fighting, then they will realise that it is almost certain doom if they continue to fight you. So if I were to deal a big blow like this to an army, I could send a diplomat, maybe threaten them to become protectorate, give me a region, pay me money etc. Sometimes you have to flex to really show the enemy you mean business and that he stands now chance against you, but if you can inflict these kind of numbers on the enemy, you should be able to use it to your advantage in diplomacy. Now I know this idea will spark an interesting debate amongst you guys so start dumping your ideas here, really curious to see what you guys have to say about this. To be honest, I can't see anyone disagreeing with this idea. It's perfectly logical. In history, factions have submitted to another without a war because they have heard what faction did to faction b not too long ago. It's realistic.

[Sharpe]

Don't post blocks of text, format it for clarity.

And yes it should.

[Romans]

One feature I really don't like about AI is how they always look at numbers.........

I'd totally read that if you knew how to use paragraphs.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Well...I've tried to do paragraphs but it doesn't do it when I press 'Enter'. I'm new to these forums, but as soon as you let me know how to do them on here, I will. I'm well aware of how paragraphs work.

[Cheap]

change keyboard.

jk.

I like your idea but then it would be very hard to get satisfying results because you could also add the type of ground on which you won your famous bzttle:
If you win against a bunch of barbarians running away in terror in plains with a small amount of men, good point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aquae_Sextiae
But it's not a proof that you can also win in the dark forests of Teutoburg.

Time would also be an important factor: Rulers and tactics, doctrines and technologies evolve through ages and a minor italic city losing against gaul tribes and other minor regional cities can begin to build ships and ruin the global power of its time while the latter has the best sailors, navies and economy of the "western" world.

Some civilizations collapsed in few weeks after ruling during centuries just because of a stupid random volcano + tsunami http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization

And even though your armies are strong, beware that they don't turn against their master https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praeto...Political_role

You have a point, but turning a scripted bot into an AI is just too hard, even more a CAI than a BAI regarding to the complexity of a 300 turns long game with so much mechanics and playability than a TW

The best you can do to enjoy the campaign possibilities is to find friends with whom to play, as long as you're able to discern game and friendship. Because game betrayal can be a true friendship killer. Board games fans, you know what I mean.

[Darth_Revan]

I would love for the AI to realize when they have been brutally beaten. I noticed in fall of the samurai, after I dealt a major defeat to the enemy they would usually sue for peace afterward.

[August]

One of the most memorable experiences I had from playing HoMM2 was a mission in the "evil" campaign, where prior to it I had destroyed some dwarven holds. After that mission the next dwarf army I met responded with a little message saying they were terrified of you as they recognize you as a destroyer of dwarves.
I can still recall how amazing that felt. I know, it was a scripted event, but it gave me feeling that I have impact on the world, and the world lived, and responded to my actions...

So, this a long, winded way of saying, yes, definitely want to see it. I mean, always in the back of my head gnawed a thought how demoralizing it must be to face on the field a general who won 300 out of 300 battles? I mean, how do you even begin motivating soldiers to take the field against such a man?

[Cheap]

So, this a long, winded way of saying, yes, definitely want to see it. I mean, always in the back of my head gnawed a thought how demoralizing it must be to face on the field a general who won 300 out of 300 battles? I mean, how do you even begin motivating soldiers to take the field against such a man?

then it focuses more on general/army traits and BAI, and it exists in some mods and will probably be in R2TW (fear impact on opponent's morale)

[DogSoldierSPQR]

This could be most useful for you if you are playing as a smaller faction and you inflict heavy losses on a major faction. They can leave you in piece for a pretty long time. If you're playing as a major faction, this could help you expand by making a lot of factions your protectorates.

[Mage de Taverne]

It would be good but you want the AI to run while it can barely walk. Even with all its armies destroyed, the AI in S2 would just propose or accept a white peace, refusing to give anything in exchange most of the time. And at this stage you'd just finish it off anyway. On hard difficulty, vassals would revolt against you just because you left a border unprotected, completely ignoring your overall power compared to them, blinded by an easily conquerable settlement without consideration of how they would keep it afterwards.

First they fix that. Then we see the rest.

[[N2]Kami]

completely ignoring your overall power compared to them, blinded by an easily conquerable settlement without consideration of how they would keep it afterwards.

I myself sometime dig my own hole because of that's reason

About the ratio, I think CA want each battle to be decisive so that's element might appear in the game.

[Splatterfox]

It would be good but you want the AI to run while it can barely walk. Even with all its armies destroyed, the AI in S2 would just propose or accept a white peace, refusing to give anything in exchange most of the time. And at this stage you'd just finish it off anyway. On hard difficulty, vassals would revolt against you just because you left a border unprotected, completely ignoring your overall power compared to them, blinded by an easily conquerable settlement without consideration of how they would keep it afterwards.

First they fix that. Then we see the rest.

I totally agree. The AI always makes ridiculous offers like "give me 200.000 denarii and settlement x, y and z" and we have peace, while I have 30 and they have 2 regions. Also they normally break the piece again after ~3 rounds, which was extremely annoying in previous titles (of course they can betray you, but these were KI problems, not planned proceeding).

But I also want what the threadstarter proposed. When I become an emperor I kind of want to "feel" my superiority towards other nations, making it needless to conquer every single small region. There were of course clans, cities and nation who paid tribute to the Romans for example so that they don't declare war (yet).

[SturmChurro]

I think it could be easily abused. Things like economic, military might, etc. should be what plays more of a factor.

[spartan_warrior]

I imagine that the faction's power rating, which controls the amount of armies it can field, will also likely have some effect on diplomacy. If factors such as the number of regions controlled, recent military victories, etc. all add to the power rating, then in diplomacy, it would make sense that factions with higher power should be able to intimidate other factions with a lower rating.

[Dan113112]

When I was playing Stainless Steel 6.4 with BGR-V with its manpower system I noticed that when you crushed an enemy army the enemy usually sued for peace. If the AI can constantly send out stacks and gets income and recruitment bonuses it sees no reason not to continue the fight.

[kamikazee786]

this feature is confirmed in the game, they said it would be in rally point 13

the diplomacy screen will have a section which will show the AIs reaction dependent upon your previous actions either for or against that nation

e.g. if you won a battle against your common enemies then this will be taken into account, im sure that they will also take into consideration the amount of battles you've won or lost

[SinerAthin]

The K/D would not be very a good option, mainly due to the fact that the value of a unit varies greatly.

Let's say 5 guys defeated 30 guys.

You might think WOW

Until you realize those 5 guys were heavily armed knights, and the 30 guys were poorly trained, ill-equipped levies

So, don't do any K/D, but instead, focus on the military value of the unit, such as cost, power, rarity etc. Individual lives mean nothing without context xD


Defeating a more powerful army with a weaker army should be what shatters the enemy's morale and self confidence.

[August]

The K/D would not be very a good option, mainly due to the fact that the value of a unit varies greatly.

Let's say 5 guys defeated 30 guys.

You might think WOW

Until you realize those 5 guys were heavily armed knights, and the 30 guys were poorly trained, ill-equipped levies

So, don't do any K/D, but instead, focus on the military value of the unit, such as cost, power, rarity etc. Individual lives mean nothing without context xD


Defeating a more powerful army with a weaker army should be what shatters the enemy's morale and self confidence.

On the other hand numbers are what most often create fame and legends. Not specifics. History shows this again and again. Battle at Thermopylae is a good example of that.

[SinerAthin]

On the other hand numbers are what most often create fame and legends. Not specifics. History shows this again and again. Battle at Thermopylae is a good example of that.

The numbers weren't the only imbalance at the battle of Thermopylae, there was also a massive army power difference.

It doesn't really matter if you have soldiers whom are each worth 4 of the enemy, if the enemy brings 8 times as many, as then you'll still be 1vs2 on the overral army power.