• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #21 - Diplomatic Plays

16_9.jpg

It’s Thursday again and you know what that means - another Diplomacy dev diary! Today’s dev diary is one I’ve been looking forward to writing for some time, as it covers Diplomatic Plays, which we consider to be more or less the signature feature for Diplomacy in Victoria 3.

So what are Diplomatic Plays? Well, to answer that question, I’m going to reach all the way back to Dev Diary #0 and one of the four game design pillars, namely Diplomatic Eminence. That pillar reads as follows: War is a continuation of diplomacy, and everything that is achievable by war should also be achievable through diplomacy (even if that diplomacy sometimes comes at the point of a gun).

Well, diplomacy at the point of a gun is exactly what Diplomatic Plays are, as they allow you to try to achieve any objective normally achievable by war by diplomatically maneuvering to force the other side to give it to you without a fight. To fully explain what I mean by that, we’ll go over the mechanics of Diplomatic Plays in sequence - how they start, how they play out, and finally how they are resolved.

The way Diplomatic Plays start is the way you would normally start a war in another Paradox Grand Strategy Game - by demanding something from another country, for example that they cede a particular state to you. In fact, unlike other GSGs, Victoria 3 has no ‘declare war’ button to get what you demand - instead you start a Diplomatic Play, and wars are always preceded by Diplomatic Plays.

The fourteen opening moves currently available as Diplomatic Plays, each corresponding with a war goal. As usual, the number in green indicates the number of possible valid targets that exist for that Play.
DD21 1v2.png

Once a Diplomatic Play is started, there’s a number of things that happen immediately. First, the country that is being targeted is of course notified, along with any countries that are considered Potential Participants in the play. Who is considered a potential participant depends on the exact nature of the play, but usually it includes any country with an Interest in the Strategic Region where the Play is taking place as well as countries that have a strong diplomatic reason to get involved (such as allies or the overlord of the defender). At this point it’s important to note that only the Initiator (the country starting the play) and Target (the country targeted) are active participants, all others just have the potential to take part.

Next, the primary active participants on each side (the Initiator and the Target initially, though this can change if the overlord of either side steps into the play) are given a number of Maneuvers. This is a currency that primarily depends on Rank, with higher Rank countries having more maneuvers, and determines how many actions such as Swaying and adding Demands (more on these below) that said primary participant can take during the course of the play to try and gain the advantage over their enemy.

There are three distinct phases over which a Diplomatic Play plays, based on the level of Escalation, which is a value that increases each day after the play is started. The first of these is Opening Moves, during which participating countries take stock of the situation, set their initial stances (more on that below) and the Target has time to set their Main Demand (the Main Demand of the Initiator has already been set, as it depends on what type of Play was started). During the Opening Moves phase, it isn’t possible for other countries to fully commit to one side or another, with the sole exception of overlords of the primary participants. It also isn’t possible for either side to back down.

Cape Colony’s bid for independence and open British markets turned out to be a step too far. Britain demands nothing less than total annexation of the colonial upstarts, whose only hope now is either suffering partial annexation for its insolence, or having to get in real close with France and hope for the best.
DD21 2v1.png

Once Escalation reaches a certain point, the Opening Moves phase ends and the Diplomatic Maneuvering phase starts. If by this point the Target has not set their Main Demand, they are automatically given one (usually War Reparations). This is the ‘main’ phase of the Diplomatic Play, which occupies the majority of the escalation scale and during which most of the ‘action’ takes place.

During this phase, potential participants can now set any stance towards each side, from full support without requiring anything in return (something most AIs won’t be keen to do as they’re not big on having their troops die for charity, at least not in an offensive war), to leaning towards a particular side (which will signal to that side that they’re likely willing to be swayed), to simply being on the fence with no particular preference for either side. It’s also possible for countries that have not committed to one side or the other to simply Declare Neutrality and exit the play altogether, though this might have diplomatic consequences depending on the circumstances.

With only a fraction of the military strength of Great Qing, Kokand’s future independence looks highly questionable. But this Play still has the potential to become pretty complex if Kokand can convince the Sikh and Russian empires to support their case against Qing. Perhaps gaining another subject is not worth the risk of a protracted war that might well cost upwards of half a million lives.
DD21 3v1.png

The Diplomatic Maneuvering phase is also when the primary participants are expected to use up their available Maneuvers on adding Demands and Swaying potential participants to their side. It is also possible to spend your Maneuvers during the Opening Moves phase on adding Demands for yourself, burning through most of them early might leave you at a significant disadvantage late.

Demands are essentially Wargoals (and will turn into such if the Play escalates into war, but more on that later) and includes a wide variety of requests-under-duress such as ceding land, giving up claims or becoming a subject. Only the primary participants can add Demands, but in addition to demanding things on their own behalf they can also demand things on behalf of other countries backing them, if said country agrees that the Demand is something they want.

While this may make it sound like it’s a good idea to spend your maneuvers piling on as many Demands for yourself as possible, there’s a couple reasons not to. First, adding certain aggressive Demands (such as demanding land) always results in a Diplomatic Incident, which will immediately give you Infamy and may degrade relations with countries you need to support you in the Play. Second, being seen as greedy and unreasonable in your Demands will in itself make it harder to get countries to back you up, and may in fact make it so undecided participants side against you just to put a stop to your mad dreams of conquest. It’s worth noting though, that the Infamy from any Demands or Wargoals that end up not being pressed (for any reason) is partially or fully refunded, though their negative impact on relations remain.

Swaying, on the other hand, is the main way in which the primary participants get undecided participants over to their side, by making them a promise. This promise may be in the form of owing them an Obligation (more on this in a later dev diary) or promising them a Wargoal if the Play escalates into war. There’s a few more such types of promises planned for release (promising to become their Protectorate or giving them a piece of land or a subject of yours, for example) but these are not yet implemented. If the country agrees, they will be set as backing the Swaying side in the Diplomatic Play, and will fight on their side if war breaks out, just as if they voluntarily set their stance to backing that side.

Offering Prussia the Austrian states of West Galicia, Moravia, or Bohemia would be most appreciated, as they are populous border states. States which do not already border Prussian land are less attractive to them as they would be much harder to manage.
DD21 4v1.png

However, if you think the Play is over just because France threw their weight behind the Initiator and there isn’t anyone strong enough to oppose them, you’d be wrong! It’s possible for countries that have promised to back a side to betray that promise and go back to being undecided, or even switch sides entirely, perhaps because the other side made an even juicier offer. Doing this of course makes them lose out on anything that was promised to them and negatively impacts on relations with the betrayed side, but otherwise there is no limit to how many times a single country can switch sides in a Diplomatic Play (the AI will be rather reluctant to offer something to a country that has already forsaken them once unless they desperately need their support, though).

This also means that trying to ‘play it smart’ by burning through your maneuvers immediately to sway all the countries you think you need early in the Play can backfire, as the other side is then free to try and ‘bid over’ on your supporters while you’re unable to do anything. Furthermore, it can also make it risky to not be upfront about your own territorial demands - doing the swaying first and then saying ‘oh, and by the way, I want London’ might result in your side of the Play looking very empty all of a sudden as your former supporters scramble to distance themselves from you. Swaying and adding Demands during Diplomatic Maneuvering will also both pause Escalation for some time when carried out, to make it possible for the other side to react even if those actions are taken right at the end of the phase.

[Bolivia will remember this]
DD21 5v1.png

The final phase of the Diplomatic Play is Countdown to War, which is exactly what it says on the tin. During Countdown to War, both sides are locked down and it’s no longer possible for countries to declare or abandon support for either side, nor is it possible to add new Demands or do any Swaying. In fact, the only thing that is possible during this phase is Backing Down, and this is usually the phase when you will see one of the sides give in (though it is also possible to back down during Diplomatic Maneuvering).

Backing Down is, quite simply, one side deciding that the odds aren’t looking in their favor and deciding to concede the Main Demand of the other side to cut their losses. It’s important to note that only the Main Demand is ever conceded in this way, so any additional Demands that are either added or promised to supporters of the winning side are simply lost (with accrued Infamy fully refunded), along with of course all the Demands on the losing side. This means that there is actually in some cases a reason to want the Play to escalate into war (and hence, to not stack the odds in such a way that the other side sees no path to victory), as it is the only way in which you can simultaneously press multiple Demands/Wargoals, assuming you’re willing (or at least think you’re willing) to bear the heavy cost of the war. It’s possible to back down all the way up until the Escalation meter hits 100, at which point the Diplomatic Play is over and War breaks out.

Once all the cards are on the table you have to carefully weigh if this is really something you’re able to win, and what cost you’re willing to pay for the opportunity to try. Perhaps it’s better to cut your losses, gain a Truce, let the other side accrue some Infamy, score a Claim on the lost territory (if the Play was about land), and start making a plan to recover what you lost - and then some.
DD21 6v1.png

Whew, that was a lot of text, and I’m sure I’ve still missed some detail or another. As those of you who are familiar with Victoria 2 has noticed, Diplomatic Plays draws a lot of inspiration from the Crisis feature in Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness, a feature I’ve personally worked on and always thought was one of the most interesting things we’ve done in any expansion for a Paradox GSG. But with that said, our dev diaries on Diplomacy are drawing to a close (for now, we’ll certainly return to the subject later) as next week we’re going to talk about something you’ve been (rightfully) curious about since the announcement… War!
 
  • 315Love
  • 177Like
  • 14
  • 8
  • 8
Reactions:

Enska

Custom Title
17 Badges
May 28, 2015
358
1.066
  • Surviving Mars
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Prison Architect
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Magicka
I have a feeling this feature gonna make or break the game for many many fans. If its fun and logicly solid in majority of the situations people forget less polished stuff in other areas, but if this is lackluster, watered down or not feasible to modell for example ww1 with it, thats gonna give a bad outlook to the game even if other areas are perfect. I hope this feature turn out great, but i a little bit worried because a lot of interaction missing in my opinion.
I think that for release version people are willing to overlook crappy WW1 diplomacy, so long as the system works well most of the time. At this point I am more worried that the actual warfare is a micro hell or otherwise feels more of a chore than fun.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

Prince Ire

Colonel
76 Badges
Dec 22, 2011
911
1.831
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
No, the fact that the Diplomatic Play sets the hard boundaries of the possibility space in the resulting war is a critical feature of the system. The assumption is that every participant has already made all their possible claims ahead of time, to permit all the players to make a calculated decision on how critical this war is to them. I believe it's possible to add war goals via scripted effects though, so special events and the like could potentially introduce this where appropriate.

This is a fundamentally terrible idea. The inability to arrive at a different peace settlement Ryan the initial demands is one of the worst aspects of Crusader Kings. The effects of a war shouldn't be predictable, there should absolutely be a risk of things going worse for you if you go to war rather than accepting an enemy's demands beyond simply the loss of life. This also incentives making every war a total war since other than more soldiers dying there's no risk in continuing a war to the bitter end rather than accepting peace after an initial defeat.

Not to mention that having to rely on scripted events flies in the face of your stated desire to allow historical events to arise organically.

Please rethink this decision.
 
Last edited:
  • 12
  • 7Like
Reactions:

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.418
38.618
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
This also incentives making every war a total war since other than more soldiers dying there's no risk in continuing a war to the bitter end rather than accepting peace after an initial defeat.
You know what really incentivizes total war?

Every war being an existential threat, such that it is unbearable to ever lose.
 
  • 20
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

NilsFabian

What have the primitives ever done for us
152 Badges
Oct 24, 2015
1.058
2.396
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Impire
  • King Arthur II
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Magicka 2: Ice, Death and Fury
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Darkest Hour
  • Ancient Space
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Magicka 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
This is a fundamentally terrible idea. The inability to arrive at a different peace settlement Ryan the initial demands is one of the worst aspects of Crusader Kings. The effects of a war shouldn't be predictable, there should absolutely be a risk of things going worse for you if you go to war rather than accepting an enemy's demands beyond simply the loss of life. This also incentives making every war a total war since other than more soldiers dying there's no risk in continuing a war to the bitter end rather than accepting peace after an initial defeat.

Not to mention that having to rely on scripted events flies in the face of your stated desire to allow historical events to arise organically.

Please rethink this decision.
I tend to agree here.
As far as I understand the answer, this would prevent a World War One style war, including the outcome.
In terms of demands, Austria wanted to puppet Serbia, Germany didn't had any imediate war goals during the diplomatic play phase.

During the course of the war the war goals changed. France, demanding Alsace Lorraine was a given, yes but anything else wasn't part of the Diplomatic play before.

There should be at least some sort of mechanic that would throw the doors wide open to a new kind of peace deal: Like when it turns into a big war or a war lasting longer than a certain amount of time or a war that creates a certain impact on the warring nations.
 
  • 6
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:

wilcoxchar

Field Marshal
98 Badges
Nov 15, 2004
5.111
17.588
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
This is a fundamentally terrible idea. The inability to arrive at a different peace settlement Ryan the initial demands is one of the worst aspects of Crusader Kings. The effects of a war shouldn't be predictable, there should absolutely be a risk of things going worse for you if you go to war rather than accepting an enemy's demands beyond simply the loss of life. This also incentives making every war a total war since other than more soldiers dying there's no risk in continuing a war to the bitter end rather than accepting peace after an initial defeat.

Not to mention that having to rely on scripted events flies in the face of your stated desire to allow historical events to arise organically.

Please rethink this decision.
The effects of war shouldn't be predictable, nor will they be. The effects of diplomacy and peace, however, should be, and the information should be available to the player and AI before full escalation occurs so they can properly evaluate the risk and reward of continuing to escalate the play actually knowing what's at stake. That makes for better gameplay, better strategic choices, and ultimately, a better game.
 
  • 13
  • 5
Reactions:

Prince Ire

Colonel
76 Badges
Dec 22, 2011
911
1.831
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
The effects of war shouldn't be predictable, nor will they be. The effects of diplomacy and peace, however, should be, and the information should be available to the player and AI before full escalation occurs so they can properly evaluate the risk and reward of continuing to escalate the play actually knowing what's at stake. That makes for better gameplay, better strategic choices, and ultimately, a better game.
Except they will be predictable. No matter how badly you lose, you'll know the exact amount of concessions you'll have to make so there's no real risk of continuing a war after suffering a setback due to fear of being forced to make additional concessions.

And I fundamentally disagree. Uncertainty, so long as it's not caused by silly amounts of RNG, is a good thing in a strategy game, especially one that attempts to model history. I shouldn't already know every possible peace treaty before a war even starts.
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions:

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.418
38.618
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
so there's no real risk of continuing a war
Apart from the cost in blood, treasure, social unrest, vulnerability to other attackers, ...

... OK, if you're going to give me a red X for this, you're going to have to explain why you think those risks aren't real.
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 2
Reactions:

BrytonJSwan

hatched from an egg from the bottom of the sea
57 Badges
Apr 2, 2015
432
2.724
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
This is a fundamentally terrible idea. The inability to arrive at a different peace settlement Ryan the initial demands is one of the worst aspects of Crusader Kings. The effects of a war shouldn't be predictable, there should absolutely be a risk of things going worse for you if you go to war rather than accepting an enemy's demands beyond simply the loss of life. This also incentives making every war a total war since other than more soldiers dying there's no risk in continuing a war to the bitter end rather than accepting peace after an initial defeat.

Not to mention that having to rely on scripted events flies in the face of your stated desire to allow historical events to arise organically.

Please rethink this decision.
I definitely get peoples reservations about this but I think it's a bit extreme calling it fundamentally terrible and I disagree with the idea that there isn't much risk to fighting prolonged wars since you're only risking soldiers. In Victoria 3 the loss of life doesn't just mean losing "manpower" like in EU4, it means losing pops (or like, individuals within pops I guess). Losing a ton of them will affect production, consumption, election results, political movements, and a bunch of other stuff. Soldiers dying in this game just logically has much greater consequences than in other paradox titles.

On the predictability of war... it definitely makes the results more predictable but I don't think it's to the extent you've implied. It was mentioned in a dev comment in this thread that wars could end in white peace. Another thing that was said in a dev comment was that the Primary Demand will be the one conceded if the target backs down, and must also be included in any peace deal you're offering. That definitely implies that when you offer terms of peace you don't have to enforce every war goal you had going in, nor do you have to offer every demand the enemy had if you lose. You could fight to the bitter end and accept that if you do the enemy could take everything they asked for going in OR you could cut your losses, offer just the primary war goal (or maybe the primary war goal plus one extra) and be in a better position to get that stuff back later. Yes, wars are still more predictable with this system since peace deals are always gonna be built from a set of war goals defined ahead of time, but it's not like there are two outcomes to every war in Victoria 3 which is sort of what it sounds like you're saying here. Your millage may vary on what counts as too much predictability, but I just wanted to clear some stuff up based on things devs have mentioned in this thread.

Also, it must be said, freeform peace deals can come with their own problems. Their open nature makes them extremely exploitable in EU4 which can definitely be gamier than the devs might want for Victoria 3. Definitely not saying freeform peace deals are worse than more predefined ones, just that they both have theirs issues and advantages.
 
  • 9
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

wilcoxchar

Field Marshal
98 Badges
Nov 15, 2004
5.111
17.588
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
Except they will be predictable. No matter how badly you lose, you'll know the exact amount of concessions you'll have to make so there's no real risk of continuing a war after suffering a setback due to fear of being forced to make additional concessions.

And I fundamentally disagree. Uncertainty, so long as it's not caused by silly amounts of RNG, is a good thing in a strategy game, especially one that attempts to model history. I shouldn't already know every possible peace treaty before a war even starts.
Except, you don't know any of what you claim. The fear of additional concessions is certainly there. You don't know if your enemy will accept only some of the demanded concessions now and you can cut your losses, or if you keep losing you might have to give all of the demanded concessions later. You don't know if other countries are going to launch diplomatic plays against you while they see you as weak. Or whether other countries will see a looming threat and launch diplomatic plays against your enemy to restore the balance of power. You don't know how long it might take to recover both diplomatically and militarily from continuing to fight the war to be able to take back whatever concessions you lost, and the longer you fight a losing battle the more of the demanded concessions you risk, and the more it will take to avenge them if you so choose. You don't know if continuing to fight the war will risk alienating your friends and allies for continuing pointless bloodshed when you've already lost. There's tons of variables involved even with pre-determined potential demands that escalate to a war.

Not to mention of course all the money, POPs, goods, influence capacity spent maintaining your relationships so more plays aren't made against you when you're weak, and the opportunity cost in capacity and goods spent elsewhere to add to the absolute cost.

So that uncertainty is absolutely still there. It's just a more strategic uncertainty where you know the potential outcomes but don't know their likelihood, rather than a random one as you seem to want with war outcomes being random and undefined at the beginning. The idea that the only uncertainty is determined by military strength and combat is just plain wrong, both historically and for what Victoria's core gameplay focus is. Victoria is at its core a game of economics, diplomacy, and politics, not a wargame or a map painter like some people seem so eager to turn it into and remove all innovation and uniqueness from the game.
 
  • 8
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:

Prince Ire

Colonel
76 Badges
Dec 22, 2011
911
1.831
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
I definitely get peoples reservations about this but I think it's a bit extreme calling it fundamentally terrible and I disagree with the idea that there isn't much risk to fighting prolonged wars since you're only risking soldiers. In Victoria 3 the loss of life doesn't just mean losing "manpower" like in EU4, it means losing pops (or like, individuals within pops I guess). Losing a ton of them will affect production, consumption, election results, political movements, and a bunch of other stuff. Soldiers dying in this game just logically has much greater consequences than in other paradox titles.

On the predictability of war... it definitely makes the results more predictable but I don't think it's to the extent you've implied. It was mentioned in a dev comment in this thread that wars could end in white peace. Another thing that was said in a dev comment was that the Primary Demand will be the one conceded if the target backs down, and must also be included in any peace deal you're offering. That definitely implies that when you offer terms of peace you don't have to enforce every war goal you had going in, nor do you have to offer every demand the enemy had if you lose. You could fight to the bitter end and accept that if you do the enemy could take everything they asked for going in OR you could cut your losses, offer just the primary war goal (or maybe the primary war goal plus one extra) and be in a better position to get that stuff back later. Yes, wars are still more predictable with this system since peace deals are always gonna be built from a set of war goals defined ahead of time, but it's not like there are two outcomes to every war in Victoria 3 which is sort of what it sounds like you're saying here. Your millage may vary on what counts as too much predictability, but I just wanted to clear some stuff up based on things devs have mentioned in this thread.

Also, it must be said, freeform peace deals can come with their own problems. Their open nature makes them extremely exploitable in EU4 which can definitely be gamier than the devs might want for Victoria 3. Definitely not saying freeform peace deals are worse than more predefined ones, just that they both have theirs issues and advantages.

I am well aware of the diffences between pops in Vicky 2 and manpower in EU4. Vicky 2 was the first Paradox game I ever played, the one I have played the most, and and remains my favorite to this day. I am not objecting to this because of some obsession with map painting.

I am aware of all the things mentioned by the devs in this thread, I did read through it. That's still far to much predictability for me. I don't want to know ahead of time the maximum number of confessions I could be forced to endure in a war.

I don't want completely freeform peace deals like in EU4. I do want something like Vicky 2 though, where demands can be added during a war.


Except, you don't know any of what you claim. The fear of additional concessions is certainly there. You don't know if your enemy will accept only some of the demanded concessions now and you can cut your losses, or if you keep losing you might have to give all of the demanded concessions later. You don't know if other countries are going to launch diplomatic plays against you while they see you as weak. Or whether other countries will see a looming threat and launch diplomatic plays against your enemy to restore the balance of power. You don't know how long it might take to recover both diplomatically and militarily from continuing to fight the war to be able to take back whatever concessions you lost, and the longer you fight a losing battle the more of the demanded concessions you risk, and the more it will take to avenge them if you so choose. You don't know if continuing to fight the war will risk alienating your friends and allies for continuing pointless bloodshed when you've already lost. There's tons of variables involved even with pre-determined potential demands that escalate to a war.

Not to mention of course all the money, POPs, goods, influence capacity spent maintaining your relationships so more plays aren't made against you when you're weak, and the opportunity cost in capacity and goods spent elsewhere to add to the absolute cost.

So that uncertainty is absolutely still there. It's just a more strategic uncertainty where you know the potential outcomes but don't know their likelihood, rather than a random one as you seem to want with war outcomes being random and undefined at the beginning. The idea that the only uncertainty is determined by military strength and combat is just plain wrong, both historically and for what Victoria's core gameplay focus is. Victoria is at its core a game of economics, diplomacy, and politics, not a wargame or a map painter like some people seem so eager to turn it into and remove all innovation and uniqueness from the game.
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions:

The Goldfinch

Colonel
1 Badges
Dec 11, 2018
875
9.082
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
The effects of war shouldn't be predictable, nor will they be. The effects of diplomacy and peace, however, should be, and the information should be available to the player and AI before full escalation occurs so they can properly evaluate the risk and reward of continuing to escalate the play actually knowing what's at stake. That makes for better gameplay, better strategic choices, and ultimately, a better game.
I am well aware of the diffences between pops in Vicky 2 and manpower in EU4. Vicky 2 was the first Paradox game I ever played, the one I have played the most, and and remains my favorite to this day. I am not objecting to this because of some obsession with map painting.

I am aware of all the things mentioned by the devs in this thread, I did read through it. That's still far to much predictability for me. I don't want to know ahead of time the maximum number of confessions I could be forced to endure in a war.

I don't want completely freeform peace deals like in EU4. I do want something like Vicky 2 though, where demands can be added during a war.

I completely agree with the latter here. It is really weird to read through comments arguing that its fine to lock the number of demands before the outbreak of war.

Like, come on people. Isn't it freaking obvious that amount of manpower and financial losses is going to be unpredictable. Jesus. This is so painfully clear it should not even be mentioned as a serious argument.

There are countless examples of wars during timeframe where demands were only made after decisive developments on the battlefield. Some countries rushed to war not even knowing what exactly do they want. Franco Prussian war. First Sino Japanese war. WW1. In numerous, numerous cases final demands were DEPENDING on what course the war is going to take. On how crushing the victory is going to be. On how far can we go, knowing the NEW balance of power, and indeed, knowing the consequences of it.

It should be obvious that when you decide to escalate and go to war, things might slip out of your grasp - and for the very reason of letting more people die, and more money sink, the winner might want to take more than he initially planned. After a devastating bloodshed, the winning coalition might decide that more severe measures need to be taken to preserve a lasting peace. Maybe they realise certain countries are more dangerous than they initially thought and need to be further contained. Maybe they decide some rebellious people deserve independence. Maybe winners decide that a country that committed to 60% of warscore deserves more land. Maybe some demands emerge during the war. Maybe some countries could switch the sides during the war - like when winners occupy a hostile country, install a puppet government and promise some land in exchange for war effort on their side.

So what happens when you add demands during a war? Diplomatic incident and infamy. And I would suggest a simple and lovely "intervene in war" button for countries that do not like it. And someone who supports you might be more willing to "peace out" sooner if he finds those new demands unreasonable
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.418
38.618
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
Like, come on people. Isn't it freaking obvious that amount of manpower and financial losses is going to be unpredictable. Jesus. This is so painfully clear it should not even be mentioned as a serious argument.
When people say there are no real risks if the possible peace treaties are known in advance, they should expect people to assume that they're disregarding the direct economic, and indirect geopolitical, consequences of wasting blood and treasure.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

DerGrößteRitter

Major
82 Badges
Apr 22, 2018
547
692
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
I completely agree with the latter here. It is really weird to read through comments arguing that its fine to lock the number of demands before the outbreak of war.

Like, come on people. Isn't it freaking obvious that amount of manpower and financial losses is going to be unpredictable. Jesus. This is so painfully clear it should not even be mentioned as a serious argument.

There are countless examples of wars during timeframe where demands were only made after decisive developments on the battlefield. Some countries rushed to war not even knowing what exactly do they want. Franco Prussian war. First Sino Japanese war. WW1. In numerous, numerous cases final demands were DEPENDING on what course the war is going to take. On how crushing the victory is going to be. On how far can we go, knowing the NEW balance of power, and indeed, knowing the consequences of it.

It should be obvious that when you decide to escalate and go to war, things might slip out of your grasp - and for the very reason of letting more people die, and more money sink, the winner might want to take more than he initially planned. After a devastating bloodshed, the winning coalition might decide that more severe measures need to be taken to preserve a lasting peace. Maybe they realise certain countries are more dangerous than they initially thought and need to be further contained. Maybe they decide some rebellious people deserve independence. Maybe winners decide that a country that committed to 60% of warscore deserves more land. Maybe some demands emerge during the war. Maybe some countries could switch the sides during the war - like when winners occupy a hostile country, install a puppet government and promise some land in exchange for war effort on their side.

So what happens when you add demands during a war? Diplomatic incident and infamy. And I would suggest a simple and lovely "intervene in war" button for countries that do not like it. And someone who supports you might be more willing to "peace out" sooner if he finds those new demands unreasonable
Agreed. EU4 (and Vic2) had the best peace deal systems out of all the Paradox games. I don't see why they did it like this...
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

NilsFabian

What have the primitives ever done for us
152 Badges
Oct 24, 2015
1.058
2.396
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Impire
  • King Arthur II
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Magicka 2: Ice, Death and Fury
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Darkest Hour
  • Ancient Space
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Magicka 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
I like the idea of a diplomatic play before war is going to happen.
But, at least in the mid and long term, this has to be changed.

There needs to be a way to go rogue as a nation, like Japan did to russia in 1904 and start a surpise attack.
Also at some point no matter the reason why you went to war there needs to be an additional outcome.

Yes I only wanted a small strip of land in Africa with france acqusing. But after 4 years and 3 Million dead this bit of land isn't enough anymore.
 
  • 9
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:

Deathknight15

Major
105 Badges
May 10, 2009
758
1.156
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Iron Cross
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • War of the Vikings
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Heir to the Throne
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
I like the idea of a diplomatic play before war is going to happen.
But, at least in the mid and long term, this has to be changed.

There needs to be a way to go rogue as a nation, like Japan did to russia in 1904 and start a surpise attack.
Also at some point no matter the reason why you went to war there needs to be an additional outcome.

Yes I only wanted a small strip of land in Africa with france acqusing. But after 4 years and 3 Million dead this bit of land isn't enough anymore.
I don't really agree with your Japan example. Although Japan executed the initial attack as a surprise, there were extensive high-level talks ongoing for some time before the war broke out. It just so happens that Russia didn't take Japan seriously (neither did the rest of the western world to varying extents) and discounted any possibility that war would erupt on any terms other than Russia's. If Russia had had any kind of serious understanding of Japan they would have seen the war coming a mile away.

In Vic 3 terms It would be like if you were playing Russia, and Japan started a play against you and you just shrugged and paid no attention to it and then oops war actually broke out and they destroyed your fleet in the opening weeks.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:

DerGrößteRitter

Major
82 Badges
Apr 22, 2018
547
692
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
I don't really agree with your Japan example. Although Japan executed the initial attack as a surprise, there were extensive high-level talks ongoing for some time before the war broke out. It just so happens that Russia didn't take Japan seriously (neither did the rest of the western world to varying extents) and discounted any possibility that war would erupt on any terms other than Russia's. If Russia had had any kind of serious understanding of Japan they would have seen the war coming a mile away.

In Vic 3 terms It would be like if you were playing Russia, and Japan started a play against you and you just shrugged and paid no attention to it and then oops war actually broke out and they destroyed your fleet in the opening weeks.
His example was admittedly very poor, but his point is sound: there needs to be more freedom as a player. There should be a way to declare war without diplomatic maneuvering- make it so that one would incur large infamy penalties due to flagrantly disregarding the rules of international politics, but leave it as an option. Same also applies to post war treaties- there should be a way to add additional demands, even if this also incurs an infamy penalty. This would allow a player to decide whether or not they wish to risk such moves, and would also make it easier to implement a system to represent the Total War period. I personally think that Vic2 had the right idea- one could add additional demands in a peace treaty if the populace had high enough 'Jingoism'.
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:

NilsFabian

What have the primitives ever done for us
152 Badges
Oct 24, 2015
1.058
2.396
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Impire
  • King Arthur II
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Magicka 2: Ice, Death and Fury
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Darkest Hour
  • Ancient Space
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Magicka 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
I don't really agree with your Japan example. Although Japan executed the initial attack as a surprise, there were extensive high-level talks ongoing for some time before the war broke out. It just so happens that Russia didn't take Japan seriously (neither did the rest of the western world to varying extents) and discounted any possibility that war would erupt on any terms other than Russia's. If Russia had had any kind of serious understanding of Japan they would have seen the war coming a mile away.

In Vic 3 terms It would be like if you were playing Russia, and Japan started a play against you and you just shrugged and paid no attention to it and then oops war actually broke out and they destroyed your fleet in the opening weeks.
I agree that my Japan example wasn't a very good choice. I've reread the history and Japan did try to negotiate with russia and just did a sneak attack a mere 3 hours before the official declaration of war. So yes thats not going to be implentable.

But I will stick to my other statement. It seems wrong that even if the cause for the war was a dispute over a tiny worthless strip of land. After Millions of dead and billions of pounds wasted the sole outcome of the war over a tiny worthless strip of land shouldn't be just an exchange of a tiny worthless strip of land.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

BeauNiddle

Lt. General
78 Badges
Oct 5, 2011
1.392
2.939
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • 500k Club
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
But I will stick to my other statement. It seems wrong that even if the cause for the war was a dispute over a tiny worthless strip of land. After Millions of dead and billions of pounds wasted the sole outcome of the war over a tiny worthless strip of land shouldn't be just an exchange of a tiny worthless strip of land.

But on the plus side if the cause of the war is known then hopefully the AI will admit it's lost before having millions of dead and billions of pounds wasted.

By having a fixed target it is going to be MUCH easier for the AI to work out when to fold. Rather than surrendering and running the risk of the player than tacking on extra demands at the treaty table.
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: