If you're going to be patronizing douchebags, you could at least read the goddamn thread.
First of all, I've read the thread and posted at two different point, indicating that felt invested in the discussion. I know you considered colonization, but I can confirm that that would be an easy solution. Secondly, I'd prefer if you did not quote me in the same box as another person (confuses who said what), although I don't disagree with simon. Thirdly, no one (?) is patronizing you. You opened up a thread and most people didn't agree that this should be patched -- but rather suggested that it could be fixed by a few button clicks. Though I take little offense at being called a vaginal irrigation device, I don't really see your replies as very constructive.
---------------
As you point out, the developers made a concious choice, but to use the rule of 'presumption' in your favor is in fact a retreat from debate. Although I am no scholar, I must recognise that the Mongols did not act in accordance with the western rules of war. Moreover, one may point out that 'stalemates' or 'white peace' has been exceptionally rare even in the western community. Almost always, an signing of Status quo ante bellum can be considered a prestigeous failure to the country who began hostility. To take an example from modern history:
Austria-Hungery declared war on Serbia, beginning WWI. The days before the declarations of war by the Entente, Austria-Hungery could have disengaged it's mobilisation, returning to Status Que and signed a white peace. It was a distinct possibility. However, by such an act, Austria-Hungery and the Habsburgs would have indicated their own inability to assert itself in the Balkens and would have lost prestige, finally ending it's status as a Great Power and thusly reduced it to a second rate country diplomatically. Considering what a WP would mean, they chose to persue a war against the odds.
More historically, the Austrian-Prussian confrontation of the 7 year war ended in a formal WP (return state before the war -- no winners). However, it was Austria that had failed to reconquer Silesia and it was thus a loss of prestige. In essence, the concept of a WP in EU3 isn't really very historical. It's a game device. There can be war without territorial change, but there is almost always a person who gains the most prestige from the engagement (most often the defender).
Concerning the Mongols, one may point out that the tribute system of foreign policy was the most common way of dealing diplomatically between countries in East-Asia. Almost to the western tip of Indonesia, people gave tribute to China without becoming vassals per se. The simply bowed and recognized superiority, although not supremacy. This system was probably already established in Mongol society (can't tell for certain), but Gengis Khan and the Yuan Dynsty certainly had adopted the system. Futhermore, the reason why the Mongols were called a Horde was simple, the were travelling bands of soldiers and armies, not interested in territorial conquest or even settlement, but in sacking cities and creating a tribute zone (see for example the Mongol Yoke). Not all campaigns ended in victory, but peace treaties by western standards was seldom made. [Did pirates in the Carrabbian WP?] For this purpose the Horde war in EU3 are not signalled by "The Timurids have declared war on us" but by "The Mongols are Restless." It's an indication that the Horde is readying an offensive campaign of raids, not a war. The Horde cannot raise war taxes because there is no clear distinction between war and peace, its a question of a state of leading the army into none-tributary land, not a formal dynastic militery operation by western or even general standards. As I said in my previous post, Conceding defeat is simply a surrender to Mongol superiority, while forcing Cede Defeat is an indication of the Horde being momentarily too beaten to wage offensive campaigns.
THERE, I've given you arguments for the current system. Presumtion broken. For the sake of debate, now make you counter-argument proving the fallacy of the EU3DW system.