Make AI a little bit smarter with building holdings

[Matihood1]

Currently, when the AI has empty holding slots in their provinces, they almost always build holdings they themselves can hold. Which, in case of feudal lords, is usually a castle. And because of that, in the second half of a campaign, you often find provinces with 3-4 castle holdings, with only the main one being somewhat upgraded because AI has no money (I wonder why?). I suggest this behavior was tweaked a little so that the AI tried to keep a balance in which types of holdings it builds. I'd say 2 castles per province should be the maximum the AI should build in most cases.

 

[fodazd]

My personal opinion: In a lot of cases, building only castles is the correct choice, so it is fine if the AI does this. The real problem is that you can't change the holding composition of a county afterwards if you don't like what the AI has built there.

 

[Blk82]

Castle holdings make the most sense, as it increases the number of holdings that will be passed on to the primary heir in partitioned inheritance.

 

[Matihood1]

Castle holdings make the most sense, as it increases the number of holdings that will be passed on to the primary heir in partitioned inheritance.

Especially in the late game when everyone uses primogeniture. Sure...

 

[Matihood1]

My personal opinion: In a lot of cases, building only castles is the correct choice, so it is fine if the AI does this. The real problem is that you can't change the holding composition of a county afterwards if you don't like what the AI has built there.

Especially when those castles are all completely unupgraded because the AI is broke since it only ever builds castles? I don't know if it's the correct choice...

 

[fodazd]

Especially when those castles are all completely unupgraded because the AI is broke since it only ever builds castles? I don't know if it's the correct choice...

"The AI does not upgrade holdings" and is a separate issue. If the AI does build a holding, then a lot of the time it's a good idea for that holding to be a castle.

Think about it this way: The only other two options are temples and cities. Building any more cities than you have to is always a mistake, and temples are only better than castles if you are already at your domain limit and your bishop really likes you, or if you have lay clergy. I don't think the AI is equipped to make good use of temples most of the time, so building castles makes the most sense.

 

[Matihood1]

"The AI does not upgrade holdings" and is a separate issue. If the AI does build a holding, then a lot of the time it's a good idea for that holding to be a castle.

No, it is not. The AI does not upgrade holdings because it has no money. And spending whatever money they have on building holdings that hardly give them any money is just a bad strategy.

Think about it this way: The only other two options are temples and cities. Building any more cities than you have to is always a mistake

How so? If you don't have enough money to continuously improve all the holdings that you currently control then investing in holdings that focus on generating money is definitely something you should consider. It's not all about bigger levy count, especially not if you get yourself in gigantic debt raising them all for a couple-year war. No, building only castles is just bad.

 

[fodazd]

The amount of gold generated by a directly held castle is *higher* than the amount of gold generated by a temple leased to your bishop. The advantage of temples is that you don't need to spend your domain limit on them, and still get 50% of the gold if your bishop likes you. A mayor gives you a flat 20% of the cities gold income, which is less than you usually get from a temple, and *much* less than you get from a directly held castle.

 

[Blk82]

Especially in the late game when everyone uses primogeniture. Sure...

I fail to see the logic in the AI basing its decisions on the late game. Over the course of the game, the AI would be better off building multiple castles in its capital, to ensure that the primary heir starts with multiple direct holdings, rather than suffering through 300 years of one-holding kings to get slightly increased income/levies in the late game.

I also fail to see the argument why castles are bad for money. A baron vassal pays lower taxes on a lower base income than a mayor, but a directly barony held paying 100% income and taxes to the holder. Castle baronies in the capital basically allow the the AI to semi-cheese partition if they hold a 5 or 6 barony county, since the primary heir will receive all the capital baronies, regardless of the number of heirs. If you have a human brain, I could see an argument for long-term planning, but the AI is not anywhere near that smart to pull it off.

 

[Matihood1]

I fail to see the logic in the AI basing its decisions on the late game.

In my expierience, AI usually starts building additional holdings in the second half of the campaign, close to or around the time when Primogeniture is unlocked. Simple as that.

I also fail to see the argument why castles are bad for money. A baron vassal pays lower taxes on a lower base income than a mayor, but a directly barony held paying 100% income and taxes to the holder

...which is still less than they'd get from a mayor vassal, since mayors constantly upgrade their towns. And even if they didn't, you'd probably still be getting more money from a town than from a castle.

Castle baronies in the capital basically allow the the AI to semi-cheese partition if they hold a 5 or 6 barony county, since the primary heir will receive all the capital baronies, regardless of the number of heirs

Once again, highly irrelevant for the AI since they only ever start building additional baronies when primogeniture is either already unlocked or about to be unlocked.

 

[InsidiousMage]

...which is still less than they'd get from a mayor vassal, since mayors constantly upgrade their towns. And even if they didn't, you'd probably still be getting more money from a town than from a castle.

This is actually extremely wrong. In an England game I'm currently doing, a newly built castle in Middlesex in 1124 gets me .56 in taxes. The city of Southwark with three tier one buildings gets me .5 in taxes. A hundred years later and significantly more built up Southwark only generates 1.4 in taxes. Which is to say that a castle barony with a single farm generates more revenue for the holder than a significantly more built up town. I've attached the relevant screenshots.

 

[Matihood1]

This is actually extremely wrong. In an England game I'm currently doing, a newly built castle in Middlesex in 1124 gets me .56 in taxes. The city of Southwark with three tier one buildings gets me .5 in taxes. A hundred years later and significantly more built up Southwark only generates 1.4 in taxes. Which is to say that a castle barony with a single farm generates more revenue for the holder than a significantly more built up town. I've attached the relevant screenshots.

Wow. You're right... I was always under the impression that vassal-owned cities granted you much more money than your own castles did. I guess it's time to make a suggestion to rework cities to make them worthwile...

 

[InsidiousMage]

I guess it's time to make a suggestion to rework cities to make them worthwile...

The real issue is that feudal weather transfer is by definition inefficient so it always going to be more profitable to hold territory yourself rather than handing it out. I feel like an interesting way to handle holdings is to allow a ruler to hold each of type of holding but you get different things out of them so that castles give you more levies and buffs to MAAs while cities generate gold so you are trying to have the best mix of holdings rather than just using the same building combo over and over again in each of your holdings. This could also allow for some more granularity in buildings since you don't have to have both military and economic buildings in the same holding.