• 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 #26 - Peace Deals


16_9.jpg


Hello and welcome back to another Victoria 3 development diary! Last week we wrapped up our dev diaries on War, and now we’ll be bringing both Diplomacy and War to a close (for the being, that is) by talking about (appropriately enough) how to negotiate an end to one of your wars. We’re of course not done talking about warfare and will return to the topic at a later point, but for now, let’s talk peace.

So, let’s say you launched that diplomatic play to get the Dutch colony you’ve been eyeing for years thinking that you’d have it in the bag, all the way up until the French decided to back them up and you found yourself dragged into a bloody and costly conflict that you now want nothing more than to get out of. What do you do?

There’s actually two different ways of making peace in Victoria 3: Capitulating and Negotiating Peace. However, before we explain how these work, we first need to explain a crucial mechanic to all forms of peace-making: War Support.

War Support is a measure of the political will in your country to continue fighting in a particular war, and goes from -100 to +100. Each country will start a war with a high degree of War Support (currently always 100, though we’re considering having it start on different levels based on how politically unified your country is), which declines over time. The factors that govern how quickly War Support drops include:
  • Having your territory occupied by the enemy
  • Pops dying and being wounded in battle and from attrition
  • Internal turmoil in your country, for example because your economy is worsening due to the war
  • Whether the enemy controls their War Goals

Siam is in a bad way in this war, losing more than 11 War Support every single week. Unless they can turn things around quickly, capitulation isn’t far away. As with the previous war dev diaries, please note that any numbers/interfaces/tooltips shown are very much not final!
DD26_1.png

When their War Support hits -100, a country is forced to Capitulate. A country that Capitulates cedes all War Goals that are targeting them and gives up on all unpressed War Goals they were still holding. It’s also possible for most countries part of a war to choose to Capitulate at any time, even right after the war has broken out. This will immediately let them exit the war at the same cost outlined above, but may also incur a diplomatic penalty if the country capitulates early, especially if they had nothing to lose by doing so (as it would be seen as a cowardly betrayal of your allies). War Leaders are also able to Capitulate, and this doesn’t usually end the war, as they are only conceding War Goals targeting themselves and their subjects, and a new War Leader will be chosen to continue the fight on their side of the struggle. The only circumstance under which a Capitulation will end a War is if there are no War Goals left to fight over, which always results in an immediate end to hostilities.

However, it isn’t possible to simply attack a far-away country and force them to cede you distant lands simply by waiting for their War Support to tick down by itself. This is because any country that has a war goal targeting it which isn’t considered to be controlled by the enemy and still retains control of its own capital cannot have its War Support drop below 0. For example, let’s say that while playing as Brazil, you attack the Netherlands and demand they cede both Curacao and Guyana. You easily occupy Guyana but find that your navy is outmatched and you can’t land armies to take either Curacao or Amsterdam. As a result, you will be unable to force the Netherlands to Capitulate unless you actively choose to drop your War Goal on Curacao.

It’s possible to capitulate at any time during a war, even when it’s just started and War Support is at maximum - that it’s possible definitely doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, though!
DD26_2.png

So what then, of negotiated peace? This is quite a bit more complex than Capitulation, and can involve a whole host of countries that are part of the war. When making peace, countries involved in a war are split into three different categories:

War Leaders: This is the main participant on each side. War Leaders can propose peace deals and must ratify any proposed peace from the other War Leader in order for it to take effect.
Negotiators: This is any country that either holds a War Goal or has a War Goal targeting them and who are not one of the War Leaders. Negotiators must ratify any proposed peace deal from both the enemy and their own side in order for it to take effect.
Non-Negotiators: This is any country that doesn’t fall into the above two categories. They don’t play any active role in peace negotiations. Subjects whose Overlord is part of the war are also considered Non-Negotiators, as their Overlord negotiates on their behalf.

For a negotiated peace to happen, the War Leader on either side must first construct and propose a peace deal out of pressed War Goals. Unlike in many of our other Grand Strategy Games, peace deals in Victoria 3 isn’t necessarily just one side making demands - the War Leader can propose a mixed peace deal, in which War Goals are ceded from both sides. Once the War Leader is satisfied with the deal they’re proposing, they then send it out to both sides of the war for ratification.

This rebellion against Britain has turned into something of a brush war between the European Great Powers, with limited fighting in the colonies between Britain and its enemy France. War Support remains high, but if things take a bloodier turn both sides may find their populations quickly growing weary of the fighting.
DD26_3.png

That’s right - in order to have your proposed peace deal take effect, you need not just the enemy War Leader or even the enemy War Leader and Negotiators agree to it - all Negotiators on your own side must agree as well. This means that while you can try to cut a deal with your Dutch enemy to give you everything you want from them in exchange for selling out your ally Prussia, the likely answer to that from Prussia is going to be a firm and resounding ‘No’, at least so long as they aren’t truly desperate for a peace. However, if you’re willing to be fair about the whole thing and give up something of your own as well, they’re going to be more receptive to your proposals.

War Support plays a key role in determining what kind of peace deals the AI will agree to, with both their own and the enemy’s War Support factoring in: Even if their war support has dropped into the negative, the AI isn’t going to agree to a long list of demands from a country that is themselves a few weeks away from capitulating.

That’s all for today! Now that we’ve talked about Economy, Politics, Diplomacy and War, join us again next week as we cover a topic that touches on all of them - Technology!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 259Like
  • 136Love
  • 14
  • 10
  • 6
Reactions:
If you're in a war with an AI war leader that's negotiating, is there any way to tell the AI what negotiated peace deal you'd accept, or do you have to just keep cycling through peace deals until you get one you want?
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
I just hope the player can't simply escalate a diplomatic play into a war by joining one side and then, after everyone mobilized and spend money just capitulate with no or just minor downside.
The dev diary (or possibly a dev response?) explicitly says that capitulating early in a war at high War Support is going to annoy your pops and your allies.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
What about countries that enter the war after it starts? Italy for instance didn't enter the war until years later yet still got claims ceded in the peace. It wouldn't be part of the initial diplomatic play. Would bringing Italy into the war be another diplomatic play that if it succeeds adds their war goals in?
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
If the only goal we're trying to press against the other side is war reparations, would we be forced to occupy their capital for them to auto-capitulate?

Can you negotiate a white peace (no one gets any of their wargoals)?
 
The French could decide to capitulate even at positive war support, they just won't be forced to do so until they hit -100.
Should the ai surrender a war they aren’t really losing?
 
Huh, two-way peace deals? AND there's mechanisms in place preventing the war leader from accepting a peace deal that screws you over? Neat! This just might make up for the disappointing combat system.
 
  • 8
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Should the ai surrender a war they aren’t really losing?
If their demographics and economy are suffering more then yours are, then they are really losing the war (and yes, it'd make sense for them to surrender if the suffering got bad enough and they thought the situation was hopeless enough).

And if your demographics and economy are suffering more than theirs are, then what are you doing staying in this war? I don't think "massively hurting your country in order to hurt another country a little bit" should be called an exploit. And I hope they implement the auto-dropping war goals if you're just not achieving them - then your population would actually be able to force you to quit the war, making it so that you can't pursue this suicidal strategy.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The two things that I'm concerned about are:

-The floor on War Support when you control your capital and war goals might induce a strategy where the player intentionally avoids capturing these things to force the AI to stay in a disastrous war for longer so that they will totally collapse once the war ends. Will the AI be able to capitulate even when war support is 0?

-As a junior partner to an AI, it might be difficult or impossible to induce the AI to offer peace terms that you are willing to ratify. If the process is simply that the AI proposes something, you reject it, and then they pick something else, how many loops will it take for them to stumble upon terms you would accept? Will there be cases where the AI would happily accept the thing you want, but keeps trying to negotiate other terms that it thinks are just as good, but you find unacceptable?
 
Now that we have pretty much the entire picture here of war (from start to finish, minus battles of course), I think it would be helpful for the devs to go through the major wars of the period (Crimean, US Civil, Franco-Prussian, and WWI) and show how all of these mechanics would work together to recreate these wars (somewhat of course, no one is asking for a simulator but the game mechanics should be able to recreate the major events of the period). Maybe for dev diaries down the road of course, but it always helps to see the mechanics in action in a scenario we all can understand instantly.
I'm kind of doubtful they'll do this, since it seems, especially for WWI, the current system can't really simulate it properly. Overall I like what I see, but nations not being able to join or add wargoals mid-war really makes it impossible to model a global, long lasting war.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
If their demographics and economy are suffering more then yours are, then they are really losing the war (and yes, it'd make sense for them to surrender if the suffering got bad enough and they thought the situation was hopeless enough).

And if your demographics and economy are suffering more than theirs are, then what are you doing staying in this war? I don't think "massively hurting your country in order to hurt another country a little bit" should be called an exploit. And I hope they implement the auto-dropping war goals if you're just not achieving them - then your population would actually be able to force you to quit the war, making it so that you can't pursue this suicidal strategy.
Demographics and economy haven’t yet been reflected in a war score in any Paradox game and we haven’t seen any evidence they are yet. The war score will be a small positive in the UK’s favour from any naval battles and the blockade itself. Possibly enough after a bit of time to make France willing to accept a modest defeat but not nearly enough to force it to surrender (in traditional Paradox peace coding).

The costs for the U.K. will be minimal, either they have to replace their initial naval losses from the battles to get control of the seas, or if France adopts a fleet in being doctrine and stays in port then they have no losses at all to replace. ( and if France does this then the U.K. has enough ships left over to blockade the country and man mark their fleets in port). Then there is the cost of the fleet itself - this is the same for the U.K. whether at war or peace. Then there is the cost of the army. As the U.K. has naval supremacy and doesn’t want to attack it can keep its entire army demobilised and the costs are no higher than at peace. Then there’s the cost to trade, there might be some small scale commerce raiding till these are all sunk.

The costs for France will allegedly be high as “war is costly”. If their fleet sallies it is sunk and needs to be replaced. If it stays in port no further cost for being at war. (I assume that) the ai will look at U.K. military power and conclude that they need to mobilise their army, raising costs and tanking industrial output. The costs to trade will be losing access to all maritime trade.

The war score tells France that it’s a draw and they should carry on as their armies (and perhaps their fleet too) are undefeated. Their economic costs are large. It’s costing the U.K. nothing more than it pays in peacetime to sustain this state of affairs.

that’s the exploit.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm kind of doubtful they'll do this, since it seems, especially for WWI, the current system can't really simulate it properly
It probably can't.

If it can, they should talk about how; if it can't, they should admit it.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
From the dev diary, "It’s also possible for most countries part of a war to choose to Capitulate at any time, even right after the war has broken out." So, yes.
The question is better formulated as “Will the ai be programmed to capitulate from a war it isn’t losing?”

If so, just wait for the exploits!
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Demographics and economy haven’t yet been reflected in a war score in any Paradox game and we haven’t seen any evidence they are yet. The war score will be a small positive in the UK’s favour from any naval battles and the blockade itself. Possibly enough after a bit of time to make France willing to accept a modest defeat but not nearly enough to force it to surrender (in traditional Paradox peace coding).
What are your war goals?

Of those wargoals, what is your primary demand?

How much infamy did you incur from starting a war with that list of wargoals?

Why did France let the Diplomatic Play escalate all the way to war?

Is France the only meaningful defender? If so, why?

What is the opportunity cost of tying those ships up on a blockade of France compared to anything else you might do with then?

What is the geopolitical risk to your goals from upending the continental balance of power by weakening France and creating opportunities for the Germans?
 
  • 8
Reactions:
From the dev diary, "It’s also possible for most countries part of a war to choose to Capitulate at any time, even right after the war has broken out." So, yes.
Yeah, I saw that but I'm unclear whether that means it's possible in the sense that the human player can choose to do it, or possible in the sense that the AI will actually decide to do it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The war score tells France that it’s a draw
For some reason you don't seem to understand that the War Support (it's not called war score) is not what makes the AI decide "Am I losing this war?" and furthermore, absolutely doesn't wholly decide "is it worth it for me to continue on with this war?" If that were the case, they would *never* try to surrender in a war when at positive War Support - and that just seems like an absurd assumption when they're telling us about mechanics that specifically punish countries for doing just that. Notice how one of the key elements of "war score" calculations from all previous Paradox games is missing? There is no "they have a much bigger army than us" element. Because it's not a representation of "how likely are we to win this." It's "a measure of the political will in your country to continue fighting in a particular war," which is very different.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Should the ai surrender a war they aren’t really losing?
If, as you say, Britain is blockading France cutting off resources and causing economic devastation to the country, then that sure sounds like France is losing.
 
  • 13
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I hope these types of diplomatic features are used as a basis for future GSGs (specifically, EU5).

For that matter, add some peace options to HOI4 that aren't just complete captulation and annexation for crying out loud!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
What are your war goals?

Of those wargoals, what is your primary demand?

How much infamy did you incur from starting a war with that list of wargoals?

Why did France let the Diplomatic Play escalate all the way to war?

Is France the only meaningful defender? If so, why?

What is the opportunity cost of tying those ships up on a blockade of France compared to anything else you might do with then?

What is the geopolitical risk to your goals from upending the continental balance of power by weakening France and creating opportunities for the Germans?
1-5 a) something important enough that they weren’t willing to give it up, but small enough that it’s cheap and too unimportant for other countries to lead to a great power war - the French Caribbean say? I’m sure with a little playing around it will be able to find reliable targets for the major countries. And a few allies won’t really help, it’s not like many of them had a navy significant enough to tip the ballance


Of course you could do this as a defender too, imposing yourself into another’s war (Germany Denmark say) letting your “allies” capitulate but carrying on with the blockade plus opponent mobilised.

6. If the alternative is being at peace? None. Fleets have no operational value and cost the same during peacetime.
Now I’m sure there will be an opportunity cost to being at war vs being at peace - ticking war exhaustion, no passive bb burn etc. but will it be enough to not make imposing a “costly” war on your opponent (who will be suffering from all that too).

7. a) do it to the power rising to take their place next! b) Ceterum censeo Franciam esse delendam.