this is a great idea, but instead of only considering forces, it should also consider the current situation and nationalism (country A is the attacker, country Z is the defender):
-is country 'Z' ready to attack country 'A'?
-does country 'Z' have any troops near country 'A's border?
-does country 'A' feel oppressed from country 'Z'?
-is the country 'Z' fighting multiple wars on fronts away from country 'A'?
-can country 'Z' pull troops away from another front to country 'A's front without losing any ground?
-are the other warring countries capable of pushing into country 'Z'?
-does country 'Z' have the will or capability of pushing on into country 'A' if country 'A's army is defeated?
-does country 'A' have the resources to carry on an offensive war, and to recruit guards for the newly captured cities?
-does country 'Z' have enough resources/tactical cities to justify a war?
-can country 'A' defeat country 'Z' on the seas?
-does either side have the ships required to blockade the other?
-does country 'Z' have good infrastructure/buildings comapred to country 'A'?
i think for now thats good, but they really should use these and not just:
"so, we neighbor you, and even though we're trading with you, we'll still attack you and then get our asses handed to us and be destroyed, when the only thing we could have gained in the first place was 2 backwater regions with few possible towns, no ports, and can only build governor buildings"
that was what georgia and dagestan did in my russian campaign. had they been smart like my list, than they might have waited until i had gotten all of my troops into sweden and Prussia. in fact, i had no intentions of attacking them. i was going to go arond the caspian sea, through the desert, and around to attack persia.
Bookmarks