Militery Non-Access Requested

[unmerged(25476)]

as an opposing view...

it is kind of satifying as the king of Denmark go on a "Crusade" to eject the muslims from Germany. Of course taking over the whole region without having to get claims has it's good points too , only "con", and I use the term liberaly is does kinda ruin the fun of the EU2 conversion as after 400 years you tend to end up playing a european superpower with no peer or equal in EU2 and subsequently Victoria.

so don't stifle the Muslims roaming ability completely, just temper it back some is all that is needed really, I don't think majic force fields are the ticket... perhaps some adjustment to attrition might help but I don't think is the ultimate solution. but here are a couple suggestions that would improve the situation.

SUGGESTION 1. an easier fix might be to improve the of AI slightly having how it chooses provinces to attack prioritized based on existing titles. Have the AI piroitize attacking counties and provinces held by the enemy or their lieges where they themselves have titles or leiges or claims first, rather than blindly focusing on those red counties.

Suggestion 2. buidling on Grells suggestion - For traveling across neutral or enemy territory introduce a series of MYTH events that would trigger wars with the county, duchy or kingdom who's territory your crossing. (I'm not a scripting genius so I'm assuming you could make the script general enough without having to create thousands of events for each county). Attrition would increase automaticly, as every time you cross a religious enemies province you would have to fight a battle and possible even siege. It would also end the crossing of entire continents by religious enemies to take out 1 province, as the already existing "declare war on enemy of liege or vassel" events would lead to an immedite dogpile on anyone who entered a religious enemies territory. It would make crusades certainly more difficult as you'd likely not only have to fight the shiek and his king but you would have to take every province on your path and have every vassal and ally in the region trying to eject you. The king of Zirid would certainly get trashed if he tried to take out a county in the middle of Bavaria and had the entire HRE come down on him as soon as he lands in Nice.

i.e. If the seljuk turks want to attack Paris, they have to cross most of France to do that. If every time they cross into a Catholic territory there is an MYTH event that creates a strong chance that war will be triggered with the local count or his duke leige then that army now has to wade through each counties garrison before they can reach Isle de France. The attacker has the choice in each case whether to pursue the war or back down in which case his army is automaticly disbanded back to thier home provinces.
The hierarchy of the myth chance of war could easily be based on things like religion, loyatly of the count, alliances etc...
couple examples
1. Crossing path of count who is loyal to his leige lord who you are at war with and are religious enemies - 95% chance of war triggering.
2. Crossing path of count who is religious enemy but is not loyal to leige - 80% chance of triggering war.
3. crossing path of count who it totally neutral but is religious enemy - 75% chance of war.
4. crossing path of count who is same religion and loyal to leige - 50% chance of war.
5. crossing path of count who is same religion and not loyal to leige - 10% chance of war.

something like that anyway..

 

[Grell74]

To add to you suggestion 1: now that there are region tags, could it be possible for the AI to recognise for example: I am AI and my culture = Frankish, Province Ilde France = Frankish culture, owner Ile de France = Muslim DECALRE WAR.

Suggestion 2, I agree crusades are far too easy in the April 15th patch for players and other Christian lords. Similarly Mulisms advancing into the heart or NW Europe and the AI doing bugger all is a real blow to the "suspension of disbelief" which makes this game fun. Both of these problems with the game could be addressed by placing some constraints on movement. As it has been stated that military access diplomatic options will not be considered for 1.05 how about incorporating the chance for religions enemies to decalre war when you march across their lands? Requiring a decalartion of war to march through is a bit much - but there should be some sort of chance that the province that is being marched through will rise up in arms (i.e. decalre war and mobilise).

Of course these concerns will probably be rendered moot by Johan's (no doubt) excellent improvements to the AI (eg. stopping the AI making a bee-line straight for the enemies capital regardless of the fact its on the otherside of the map).

 

[bgibbard]

SUGGESTION 1. an easier fix might be to improve the of AI slightly having how it chooses provinces to attack prioritized based on existing titles. Have the AI piroitize attacking counties and provinces held by the enemy or their lieges where they themselves have titles or leiges or claims first, rather than blindly focusing on those red counties.

I've been wondering about something of this type myself. In particular I was thinking that if the AI could prioritize attacking provinces first within "natural Dutchies" containing provinces it already owns, followed by "natural kingdoms" containing such provinces this would help to avoid the situation where countries armies pass each other in the dark on the way to the other's capital to conquer each other's countries on the other side of the world, while allowing their own to be conquered. Within each level I might want to give priority to one's own capital and its surrounding dutchy and kingdom. I do not know how practical the coding for such a thing would be though.

Suggestion 2. buidling on Grells suggestion - For traveling across neutral or enemy territory introduce a series of MYTH events that would trigger wars with the county, duchy or kingdom who's territory your crossing

I heartily agree with this suggestion! (Provided the AI for the potentially trespassing country is able to take into account the consequences of making the decision to trespass before actually doing so: I don't want the AI to foolishly commit suicide by taking on something way too big for it to handle)

 

[unmerged(31117)]

The chance of a zealous ruler (whatever his religion) declaring war should be higher than that of a normal or sceptical ruler, beacause those rulers tend to be more fanatical and abhor the whole idea of evil heathens/monotheists trespassing on their estate.

Rulers that are Suspicious or Valourous should also be more likely to be agressive than those of Trusting and Cowardly traits.

The attack change should be checked upon arrival in the province and at the end of every month afterwards, so the longer you hang in a province, the more likely you are to be attacked.

But I am a great supporter of red-forcefield lines like in every other Paradox game as it would regulate conquests in internercine struggles within each religion aswell.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

The problem with that though is some minor power could DoW and see its ass wiped by the muslims and now there is even more ahistoric muslim conquest.

 

[unmerged(25476)]

that's easy enought to solve Jinnai...

just add a criteria that examines the relative strength of the invading army vs. the garrison/national army that will change the chance of a war trigger to determine if the lord is going to cower behind his walls and let the violation of soviernty go or by come out fighting and asking for his king to help out...

also I'd add a trigger that forces an end to the war if the invader flees. i.e. "Victory!! the cowardly enemy has fled at the might of our holy hand grenades" option A ... pursue the war to the infidels homeland... or Option B there is no honor in slaugthering womanfolk or something along that line...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

it sounds easy on paper, but that's not so easy to impliment.

 

[unmerged(25476)]

yea... I totally get that part of it Jinnai...

I seriously wish I had the skill to script it myself so I certainly can't complain or criticize if it's too difficult to script... I'm just trying to offer ideas to enhance the game by making long distance invasions much more difficult to accomplish. for both sides!

I understand if it's too difficult to pull off. especially since making such a major change could have dramatic effects on game balance and the overall agressiveness of the AI. it could result in everyone sitting at home to afraid to do anything!!

 

[unmerged(31117)]

That's why, for simplicities sake they should forbid trespass into other countries without a Mil-Access treaty. However the relalive power of your country should determine how likely you are to get an access treaty.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

That's why, for simplicities sake they should forbid trespass into other countries without a Mil-Access treaty. However the relalive power of your country should determine how likely you are to get an access treaty.

From the FAQ:

Issues marked as "closed":

• ...
• Changes to military access rules. This is not feasible within the scope of the project.

Obviously in this thread MrT has qualified that a bit:

Actually, I'd think that attrition malus would probably be easier than forcefields -- or at very least it would be equally as easy. Either way, the AI will not be able to "plan" for it without coding a huge AI overhaul that is beyond the scope of the project.

We are looking at a variety of possible solutions - or partial solutions - that we think may help the situation though. Will probably not be this week but maybe next.

But what you want is out of the scope.

 

[unmerged(25476)]

right so we're left with an event based solution like I suggested.

advantages is that the existing AI should be able to recognize that declaring war on the HRE when your Zirid is stupid... they may ship troops to the continent but as soon as they get an event that offers whether or not to declare war I imagine the AI will back down and no-troops will be wasted. if they try a couple routes and can't get to the enemy capital the AI typically asked for a white peace and thats the end of it.

 

[Pal]

Suggestion 2. buidling on Grells suggestion - For traveling across neutral or enemy territory introduce a series of MYTH events that would trigger wars with the county, duchy or kingdom who's territory your crossing.

Excuse my stupidity, but what exactly is a "MYTH"-event? I searched the forum for an explaination but couldn´t find any.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

I don't get it, they've already dis-allowed access through Muslim realms for Christians? They are clearly capable of making changes to the militery access rules.

 

[unmerged(25476)]

Excuse my stupidity, but what exactly is a "MYTH"-event? I searched the forum for an explaination but couldn´t find any.

Sorry I mistyped there.. it's actaully MTTH not MYTH... it stands for "Mean Time To Happen".

Unlike the other paradox games events, CK events are not tied to a specific date or point in game time. Events in CK are triggered when a set of circumstances are met. The frequency or speed at which those events occur after the conditions are met is also not static but is dynamicly based on an "Average Time to Occur" that is modified based on a complex series of factors.

using the example here. You could theoreticlly set an event to trigger a war when the condition is met that when an Islamic rulers army is located in a province controled by a catholic ruler. The actual timing of the event could theoretically on average happen within 1 month. HOWEVER, If that catholic ruler is a crusader the it is more likely that the catholic ruler would declare war immediatly and therefore the MTTH would have a modifier that would increase the chance that the event would trigger in less than a month. if that Catholic ruller didn't like his king who is at war with the Islamic ruller he might be more willing to sit on the sidelines and allow the army to pass unimpeded.


Goblin - The reason Johan doesn't want to restrict Muslims from going across Christian lands is that it introduces an exploit allowing in some cases for Christian rulers to attack Islamic states while the Islamic states can't counterattack. Something he said he won't do or consider.

 

[Spruce]

look guys - if we really go all the way - we need to be creative and solve 2 issues at the same time.

Let Muslims take enemy provinces and perhaps they might even found a Muslim state there - why not (like Moorisch incursions).

But what we really want is that rebels taking the castle keep - with a province religion from a different faith then the controlling nation- should install an independent county or sheikdom depending on the rebels faith.

I know MrT has said it won't be done, but it ain't at the "closed" list (yet )- so I really hope they don't put there just after reading this post.

please - consider - it would solve many issues... take the example I got in my last game. German empire gets some Muslims incursions and after a few years, Christian rebels chase out the Muslim castle guard = result = new county founded. German empire has claim - either Germany goes to war - or county pledges allegiance somewhere...

oh - and also higher attrition will also be worthwhile to consider.

 

[Third Angel]

The reason Johan doesn't want to restrict Muslims from going across Christian lands is that it introduces an exploit allowing in some cases for Christian rulers to attack Islamic states while the Islamic states can't counterattack. Something he said he won't do or consider.

This is exactly what I don't get, how by not wanting to allow a christian exploit you manage to create a muslim one. Actually human player can easily handle counterattacks. One has only to keep a few regiments home waiting for the dispersed and attrition-crippled regiments of the target owner while the rest of his troops are taking his entire demesne. I guess it would be much harder for human crusaders if the muslims were forced to fight on their own lands.
On the other hand AI just can't manage the universal military access and I don't think we whould care much about AI exploiting anything. So the german King ends up in Egypt or the french one in Crimea (I have no idea how he got there), while their own vassals are taking back some of their land from the muslims. But once this first war is over, nobody seems to care anymore about muslims settled right in the middle of Christiandom.
This kind of situations creates some exploit possibilities too. After I helped the Scots in a counter-counter-crusade as a dutch count, I could easily have made myself Duke of Atholl, while still a german vassal, and the scottish King could not even have said anything about it (I didn't do it since I was about to inherit Lower Lorraine and I wanted it to be my first title, but still...).
Lastly it makes the EUII conversion meaningless, if only because many events won't fire with muslims in Germany, Bohemia, Scotland or Poland...

 

[unmerged(27106)]

If events can target regiments, couldn't we just craft a series of events that make it difficult for invaders attacking outside their region. I don't know how feasible it is, but you could consider events like "The desert claims some of your Crusaders" or "Christian bandits harry Muslim supply lines".

 

[unmerged(25476)]

you answered your own question

This is exactly what I don't get, how by not wanting to allow a christian exploit you manage to create a muslim one... ... AI just can't manage the universal military access and I don't think we whould care much about AI exploiting anything.

since human players can't play Islamic nations it doesn't matter that Islamic nations have an exploit.

This kind of situations creates some exploit possibilities too. After I helped the Scots in a counter-counter-crusade as a dutch count, I could easily have made myself Duke of Atholl, while still a german vassal, and the scottish King could not even have said anything about it (I didn't do it since I was about to inherit Lower Lorraine and I wanted it to be my first title, but still...).
Lastly it makes the EUII conversion meaningless, if only because many events won't fire with muslims in Germany, Bohemia, Scotland or Poland...

Exactly and I agree 150% hense why we're trying to find a solution to the problem with this thread... Unfortunately the rule has been set that the solution cannot be to limit muslim access to Chistian nations. And so we're trying to find an event based solution.

Spruce - your suggestion certainly has merit... maybe not as quite as historically accurate as what I suggested but definately a hell of alot easier to code, with the same final result in the end. I think there's already a similer set of events for the Baltic. It would force the Islamic nations, (and Crusaders for that matter) maintain a heavy military presence in conqered territory or risk it naturally defaulting back to the natural kingdom.

Rebels would have to be substantially beefed up though.. I don't think I've ever seen a rebel force actually take a castle in a siege.

 

[Spruce]

Sierra Falcon,

1) ok, rebels become stronger that's good in this situation. Perhaps bigger rebel armies - but I wouldn't increase the frequency of rebellion.

2) but religious conversion should be somewhat more difficult for Muslims to convert Christians to Muslims...

I've seen the Seljuks taking about 5 provinces in Croatia and after 50 years, 3 out of 5 where Muslim tough...

And again - this solution would also solve "exhaustive religious wars", that's the prime thing that buggers me with CK! You can grab 10 Muslim provinces, have them all rebelling and then the Muslims defeat your castle, and still they remain "good citizens" under Christian rule. And now with the super Martial guys - like the Norman dukes in 1066 - you can flasch all over the place.

About 75% of Naples conquests come from one gigantic exhaustive religious war with the super Martial duke (and leaving a debt of 3000 gold pieces )...

no - rebel yell !!!

 

[unmerged(31117)]

Why would it be harder for Muslims to convert Christians than the other way round? Make all provinces than are ruled by rulers of different religions (and to a lesser extent culture) have a loyalty penalty making them more likely to loose loyalty and rebel. I agree completely that rebels should be able to break free from their overlords and set up their own countries though.