Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

I‘m so annoyed of the AI stealing my settlements

ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,390Registered Users
Currently playing Belegar and my human Allies constantly stealing away my Dawi Karaks in the grey mountains. Instead of supporting me with troops against filthy Greenskins, they conquer these regions and keep them for themselves. The only way to get them back is declaring war now... This already happened with 4 settlements and I‘m honestly thinking about quitting this campaign, even if it is super fun so far...

Please CA bring back regional occupation, or make it at least optional for those who like to expand loreful. Another option would be region trading

Humans and Dwarfs should support each other and not stealing away settlements. Sandbox is one thing, but making any kind of diplomacy and alliances obsolete is just garbage.

Comments

  • BronzebeardBronzebeard Posts: 182Registered Users
    Get the region trading mod! It made my campaings alot more fun!
  • Aram_theheadAram_thehead Posts: 829Registered Users
    No regional occupation. Yes region trading.
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,390Registered Users
    @Bronzebeard
    What’s the name of that mod?
    I tried the “trade regions” mod but it didn’t work.
  • kondenadokondenado Posts: 382Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    @Bronzebeard
    What’s the name of that mod?
    I tried the “trade regions” mod but it didn’t work.

    Yo need another mod to have that mod working. Look at the description.
  • YakintonYakinton Posts: 256Registered Users
    I want a mod that change the AI rules, different for each faction. The evil faction counquer any and all provinces but lizzard, human, high/wood elves and dwarfs only counquer provinces they want
  • SephlockSephlock Posts: 1,563Registered Users
    And yes, the "Oh no you ****ing didn't!" problem in these type of games.
  • VildvargVildvarg Posts: 122Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    @Bronzebeard
    What’s the name of that mod?
    I tried the “trade regions” mod but it didn’t work.

    Here's a link to the one I use, there's an unrestricted one in the description. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1376337924
  • RikisRikis Posts: 1,145Registered Users
    3K region swapping in warhammer, make it happen for game 3!
  • SnapperaSnappera Senior Member Posts: 1,200Registered Users
    The penalties for 'uninhabitable' climates are good right now. But unpleasant should definitely be made a bit more unpleasant.

    The biggest issue though is the AI behaviour. As soon as they see a ruin, they are like, "Oh! I must colonise that, no matter what!"

    It makes them hilariously easy to kill. Raze their settlement, wait for their new army to occupy, kill the new army (as it's at half HP), repeat. I've even seen the idiots raze a settlement then occupy it right after. Making my counter attacks really simple.

    AI needs to tone down on colonising.
    New Culture Pack - Total War Forums

    Eternal Virginity: -2 provincial growth rate
    DLC Rage: 2x discontent from taxes
    PC Master Race Prices: -10% unit recruitment cost
    Inaccurate Historical Knowledge: Can recruit units from nearby factions
    Older Demographic: +25% Research Rate
  • MasariusMasarius Senior Member Posts: 612Registered Users
    edited November 10
    Snappera said:

    The penalties for 'uninhabitable' climates are good right now. But unpleasant should definitely be made a bit more unpleasant.

    The biggest issue though is the AI behaviour. As soon as they see a ruin, they are like, "Oh! I must colonise that, no matter what!"

    It makes them hilariously easy to kill. Raze their settlement, wait for their new army to occupy, kill the new army (as it's at half HP), repeat. I've even seen the idiots raze a settlement then occupy it right after. Making my counter attacks really simple.

    AI needs to tone down on colonising.

    Problem is, the AI has been criticized for not going often enough for ruins. One of the many fixes of "ai mods" is exactly that (before CA adressed the problem themselves).

    I for once barely use those kind of tactics, just because I don't witness it very often to happen.

    And for the TE, the AI is doing everything right and outsmarts you. People complain that the game is too easy and now the AI, for once, uses an opening and someone still complains. You have to step your game up.

    Or are you really going to tell me that you would not take an settlement which is originally one of the AI if it has good resources? I mean c'mon.
    Till shade is gone,
    till water is gone,
    into the Shadow with the teeth bared,
    screaming defiance with the last breath,
    to spit into Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,390Registered Users
    @Masarius
    I wouldn’t take that settlement if it’s not loreful. I also wouldn’t take it if it’s originally part of my ally’s territory. So as Dwarfs I would never conquer an empire settlement if GS occupying it. I would faze it or plunder it and let the Empire take it back. Trading regions would make that so much easier...

    It’s better to have strong allies for trade in my opinion. So I always support my allies and help them to get lost settlements back if I can. I mean that’s what allies are there for.

    Just imagine Rohan in LotR would’ve just conquer most parts of Gondor instead of helping their Allies under Siege.

    I personally care a lot about these immersion things.
  • MasariusMasarius Senior Member Posts: 612Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    @Masarius
    I wouldn’t take that settlement if it’s not loreful. I also wouldn’t take it if it’s originally part of my ally’s territory. So as Dwarfs I would never conquer an empire settlement if GS occupying it. I would faze it or plunder it and let the Empire take it back. Trading regions would make that so much easier...

    It’s better to have strong allies for trade in my opinion. So I always support my allies and help them to get lost settlements back if I can. I mean that’s what allies are there for.

    Just imagine Rohan in LotR would’ve just conquer most parts of Gondor instead of helping their Allies under Siege.

    I personally care a lot about these immersion things.

    That's quite honorable of you.

    But we are not in LotR. We are in Warhammer and the Warhammer world is a lot more darker and brutal than LotR will ever be. And in the end, the factions will support themselves before everyone else.

    "Human and dwarf should support each other". You probably mean the Empire, but the Empire is just one part of
    many "humans". Same thing with the "dwarfs".

    You are argue from a lore point of view, which is fine, but don't mix it up with gameplay mechanics. Your initial complain was, that the AI steals settlements which you consider to be rightfully yours (which they are not). And I simply replied that you have adjust your style of play if that happens.

    It is true that the mechanic in itself is partly not true to the lore but no one ever said, that humans would not conquer a dwarf settlement in order to rip more treasure out of it.
    Till shade is gone,
    till water is gone,
    into the Shadow with the teeth bared,
    screaming defiance with the last breath,
    to spit into Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day
  • Sir_GodspeedSir_Godspeed Posts: 1,569Registered Users
    Rikis said:

    3K region swapping in warhammer, make it happen for game 3!

    Yes.

    This game desperately needs expanded diplomatic options. Settlement trading, settlement gifting, settlement buying, ultimatums.
  • arghozarghoz Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    Yep, a trade-region diplomacy options is really needed. Personally i just declare war whent his happens.
  • Jman5Jman5 Posts: 97Registered Users
    I think there should also be a "historically part of our empire" modifier attached to settlements that impacts diplomatic relationships. Basically, the longer you control a settlement, the bigger this modifier gets. The longer you don't have control over the settlement, the lower it gets.

    This way when the player snipes a settlement from the AI after some horde faction torches the place, you will **** off the original inhabitants if you don't immediately trade it back.
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,390Registered Users
    @Jman5
    It was like that in ToB. A settlement that was part of Wessex for years had huge public order penalties when conquered by another faction. Was also the same in Rome 2, where you had to spread your culture into the newly conquered settlement.
    That pretty much represented the “national identity” of the local population.

    That mechanic could be extended like you perfectly described. It’s just immersion breaking that foreign factions sneak away a settlement just because it was razed by a horde. It’s even more immersion breaking that the original faction doesn’t give a s*** about that.

    But to make it work we still need a region trade mechanic in the first place. 😂
  • SniperBob177SniperBob177 Posts: 293Registered Users
    edited November 11
    AI only colonises ruins on hard difficulty or above.

    If you want the Ai to take certain regions on normal difficulty make a military alliance with them, target the settlement, attack and sack it first to weaken the defence. AI should then attack and colonise.

    Currently reinstating dwarves against green skins as empire doing this.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,221Registered Users
    Jman5 said:

    I think there should also be a "historically part of our empire" modifier attached to settlements that impacts diplomatic relationships. Basically, the longer you control a settlement, the bigger this modifier gets. The longer you don't have control over the settlement, the lower it gets.

    This way when the player snipes a settlement from the AI after some horde faction torches the place, you will **** off the original inhabitants if you don't immediately trade it back.

    I don't think this would work. Because what if the settlement was destroyed by a corruption rebellion? It's just as wierd having a rebellious place because of a "well it wasn't yours" modifier, instead of a corruption modifier.

    Actually it's even worse because it sounds like the game is playing babysitter.

    Also, given how the game itself works, taking someone else's territory makes sense because you get slots and benefits. The only real benefit the AI gets from giving back to you is....nothing. They need slots and resources, and this settlement has it. They lose everything giving it back to you or else.

    Worse, if there are penalties to public order on the basis of "it's not yours" that's ON TOP of climate penalties, then you just have AI factions being weakened and exploited because the rebel army will sprout and cause the AI factions to camp settlements...which in turn prevents rebellions so it negates the entire idea anyways.

    On the subject of regional occupation, someone's tried making a mod but found it far too complicated and settled for varied climate penalties.

    And remember, this is just for races. Then the people who play Empire and get **** when Marienburg takes the ruins will make their own thread.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • SnapperaSnappera Senior Member Posts: 1,200Registered Users
    Masarius said:

    Snappera said:

    The penalties for 'uninhabitable' climates are good right now. But unpleasant should definitely be made a bit more unpleasant.

    The biggest issue though is the AI behaviour. As soon as they see a ruin, they are like, "Oh! I must colonise that, no matter what!"

    It makes them hilariously easy to kill. Raze their settlement, wait for their new army to occupy, kill the new army (as it's at half HP), repeat. I've even seen the idiots raze a settlement then occupy it right after. Making my counter attacks really simple.

    AI needs to tone down on colonising.

    Problem is, the AI has been criticized for not going often enough for ruins. One of the many fixes of "ai mods" is exactly that (before CA adressed the problem themselves).

    I for once barely use those kind of tactics, just because I don't witness it very often to happen.

    And for the TE, the AI is doing everything right and outsmarts you. People complain that the game is too easy and now the AI, for once, uses an opening and someone still complains. You have to step your game up.

    Or are you really going to tell me that you would not take an settlement which is originally one of the AI if it has good resources? I mean c'mon.
    I'm not referring to the AI making things too difficult by any stretch of the imagination. I'm referring to the AI making it too easy.

    With AI buffs, TE penalties favour the AI. I want to it be harder to occupy unpleasant lands to slow down non-native factions from occupying. This will make it harder for the player than the AI though. And, besides, the guys here are referring to allies taking historic lands - not enemies. So everything you've said in that regard is rubbish.

    The AI razing then occupying settlements, rather than just sacking, razing or occupying is detrimental to them. So, you're effectively arguing for the game to be easier - which is against what you're going for.

    But you're just thinking 'bigger is better'. I promise, if you overexpand in total war, you'll lose.
    New Culture Pack - Total War Forums

    Eternal Virginity: -2 provincial growth rate
    DLC Rage: 2x discontent from taxes
    PC Master Race Prices: -10% unit recruitment cost
    Inaccurate Historical Knowledge: Can recruit units from nearby factions
    Older Demographic: +25% Research Rate
Sign In or Register to comment.