Make Superiority ticking warscore depend on balance of points, not number of battles

[grommile]

As it stands (unless I've missed a change in some patch notes somewhere), one misbehaving AI vassal deciding that because it currently has no army, it needs to immediately recruit a new one (even though the human overlord would rather the vassal just shut up and wait to be relieved) can render the Superiority wargoal's ticking warscore moot, by producing a cluster of small-army defeats that rack up the "number of battles won" count for the other side (every battle one side wins forces the other side to win four in order to get ticking warscore) without actually having any real strategic significance.

If the ticking warscore for superiority were moved over to be based on "have a certain net warscore from battles", then this problem would probably be mitigated, and the mechanics would produce a more authentic feeling of "side A has shown superiority over side B".

 

[marcsimus]

Absolutely agreed.

 

[Freudia]

This would be nice. It seems kind of dumb when I look at it and see 'Warscore from battles: 40' alongside 'One side has not won enough battles (need 80.00%).'

 

[agustinalarcon]

+1 on this, seems a good idea.

 

[Nucky]

+1

 

[Arizal]

+10
Good idea, counting by battle is silly. If you lost one little battle because they wiped your siege stack but then you wipe their army, they are winning...