Wasn't there a Casus Belli in EU3 to make a declare war against a nation at war with one of your allies? If allowing unlimited joining of your allies' wars raises too many complications, could we bring back something like this?
1.4 - Diplomacy
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Wasn't there a Casus Belli in EU3 to make a declare war against a nation at war with one of your allies? If allowing unlimited joining of your allies' wars raises too many complications, could we bring back something like this?
Does this change to succession wars mean that the Potential Overlord now has to actually enforce a Peace Option in order to form a Union? Or does a Union form automatically and then the challengers have to fight to dissolve it? Can it be dissolved or are you always fighting to 'take' the Union?
Does the challenger always have the opportunity to take the Potential Junior as their own Junior partner? That's seems crazy if the challenger is 'just' a Rival with no connection to the Junior's throne.
Ideally, the Union would not form immediately, instead the potential Junior gets a ruler from their dynasty. If no one contests it, then it forms. If they do contest it, then the potential Overlord needs to enforce a war-goal to actually form the Union. The Defenders can prevent this by not letting the Senior enforce that war-goal, or if they have a Royal Marriage / Same Dynasty they can take the Junior Country for themselves. This would also mean that if neither country Enforces a Union you can have the dynasty of the country change but the old dynasty take a bunch of territory from the country in question.
Baring a dynastic system that makes sense that's probably the best representation of The War of Spanish Succession you could get in EUIV.
Does the challenger always have the opportunity to take the Potential Junior as their own Junior partner? That's seems crazy if the challenger is 'just' a Rival with no connection to the Junior's throne.
Ideally, the Union would not form immediately, instead the potential Junior gets a ruler from their dynasty. If no one contests it, then it forms. If they do contest it, then the potential Overlord needs to enforce a war-goal to actually form the Union. The Defenders can prevent this by not letting the Senior enforce that war-goal, or if they have a Royal Marriage / Same Dynasty they can take the Junior Country for themselves. This would also mean that if neither country Enforces a Union you can have the dynasty of the country change but the old dynasty take a bunch of territory from the country in question.
Baring a dynastic system that makes sense that's probably the best representation of The War of Spanish Succession you could get in EUIV.
Losing 3 or 4 provinces in one war was a lot for that period of history, even when states had been completely over-run. A state would just not cede all it's provinces. It would also make the game far, far too easy.
You are speaking about history? Really? Seriously? Where is that part of the history where nations were carpet sieging one another to get one or two provinces?
My dislike for this game and peace system is from very simple reason - in EU3 you could for much more in the peace treaties. I even made a simple comparison, Teutonic Order has over 220% annexation cost in EU4, in EU3 it has 190% cost... despite being twice as big as it's EU4 counterpart (year 1444 in both games).
Danzig - 54% in EU4, 38% in EU3. AND EU3 had LESS provinces so it would make sense for cost per province to be lower when there are more of them. Guess PD only cares about multiplayer, where you don't want other players to conquer to much in a war. Pity, Europa Universalis was such an interesting game, anyone knows any good similar games?
I think what does need to be improved though is how much of a country you need to siege before you get those provinces. Of course, this is a problem in all paradox games, what it really comes down to is that the AI should be able to recognise when it's fighting a lost cause and give up even if its enemy doesn't have sufficient warscore yet.
And this actually isn't just a point of making conquest easier, the AI is really weakened by its inability to cut its losses. For example if it has had its entire army annihilated it should sue for peace, not keep the war going and exhaust all its money and manpower making single regiments that get picked off one by one. I've seen AI nations go from a single failed war to a decade-long dead spiral due to this behaviour.
Also, on a related note, imo any province which is overseas to its owner should be able to be seized (like colonies) if occupied by a nation for which it is not overseas (with appropriate infamy ofc). It's annoying and unhistorical that you need to invade England proper whenever you want to take their continental holdings or similar in comparable situations.
You mean, like England not giving up it`s 4 provinces in France in one war, Ottomans never managing to take more than 4 provinces from Mamlukes, Manchu never taking more than 4 provinces from Ming, and so on?
You have a strange knowledge of time period. Most of the time people had to occupy the territories they wanted, and then pretty much nothing more. In game, to get 3 provinces you may need to occupation similar to what Hitler achieved during WW2. Which is madness.
Like occupy all Europe so you could vassalise some 3-province minor.
All it takes is a simple change to how warscore is calculated. Now provinces give you a random value in warscore, replace that with 50-75% of their value in a peace treaty and after 3-4 completed sieges and couple battles you can end the war with 90+ warscore peace treaty. No more carpet sieging, no more chasing armies all over the country.
I have encountered 3-province minors that are to expensive to vasalize or annex...
I like the changes, especially to succession wars. I would really like to finally experience one for myself.
IMO PI should really work on some treaties warscore requirements. Vassalisation especially. If I fight a coalition war to vassalise some minor, i will need 80-ish warscore, which i should not have to obtain. I should be able to vassalise them for 10-15 warscore if i had to fight half the Europe.
Also I can`t get why we can not have a subjugation CB on someone if we have claim and their size allows vassalisation.
Also the warscore requirements need to be decreased in later portions of the game, since it is stupid that you have to occupy GB or Russia to get you 3 provinces.
Also I can`t get why we can not have a subjugation CB on someone if we have claim and their size allows vassalisation.
Also the warscore requirements need to be decreased in later portions of the game, since it is stupid that you have to occupy GB or Russia to get you 3 provinces.
I think increasing the wargoal ticking warscore maximum, which I believe is currently capped at 25%, would do the trick nicely, otherwise you can just occupy the minor and sue for peace way before it's major allies have a chance to react which would be really gamey.
You have wars long enough to reach 25%? It's increasing by 0.4 per month, that's 5 years... I usually win after 2-3 years against opponents like Russia where I have to carpet siege a large area of land.
Good idea, I have heard about old people talking about 'good old days', never thought I will say the same before I'm sixty...
Hmm, is there an ignore function on this forum so you can choose not to see an indivudual persons posts?
Keep it up Paradox!
Noooo... How do I get out them now? I'm currently stuck with Royal Marriages to vassals of others, heck even with a junior PU member (which is odd since their family isn't even in control any more). OK, the PU marriage won't change one bit, but my experience is that aside from heavy costs royal marriages just don't end outside the regent deaths.
The rest I like. Particularly the succession war stuff. Oh man.
.png){kind=avatar}
Finishing Diplomatic ideas will remove the Stability hit for breaking RMs in 1.4.