Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #26 - Peace Deals

[$ilent_$trider]

This would still be a massive mismanagement of the war on your part since you've somehow managed to advance the British Isles front, which would already be receiving the same amount of supplies from India that are now still going to the front in London, but now are unable to defeat an enemy army which has *less* supply than it had before since it's no longer receiving supply from the goods production on the rest of the British Isles.

Okay, let's go with a concrete example then. Italy has a war goal for Malta who is under British Rule.
GB is allied to Mexico And Austria who joins in support for GB to get California, New Mexico, and Venice, etc. back.
Italy is allied to the USA.
Gibraltar belongs to Spain in this scenario, so no one has controls to the doors of the Mediterranean Sea.
War breaks out. Somehow the Italian armies aren't strong enough to defeat the Austrians and they have a stalemate but Italy has a spare army that they order to attack.
The Americans and British are on a stalemate with their navies and somehow the British AI/player decides to not leave any fleets defending the homeland.
The Italians have 2 navies ordered to support a naval invasion. 1 to the node where Malta belongs, 1 where one of the British Coast belongs to.
AI does a calculation and realizes that, for some reason, it's easier to invade GB homeland (even if conquering its totality will be another matter) than it is to conquer Malta.
Given what we know so far of how the system works. Such scenario is in fact, not implausible, and hardly the player's fault. (Except maybe for assigning a fleet to invade the UK without actually thinking that would happen).

That is the whole point that I am trying to make. Silly scenarios can and will in fact happen because for a tick, the AI decided something was easier than something else and pushed for that without any player's input.

Edit: Skycroft made me realize that you assign a general to a front and then you give him an order, so in the scenario above, you would actually need two armies assigned to "fronts" in Malta and the GB homeland. How does assigning to a front that doesn't exist yet actually works? You assign a general to attack or defend a sea node? That doesn't seem right.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

The 'there are only two buttons for war' meme has become so pervasive people are actually forgetting the additional buttons that are there, I see. I agree that the war system could use some more specificity in the orders you give your generals (mostly to handle very long continuous fronts like the ACW), but it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think.

You assign generals to Attack or Defend a Front. A Naval Invasion creates a new Front - two simultaneous Naval Invasions will create two new Fronts, and you decide which Generals go to which Invasion.

Well, yeah, so how is that Naval invasion front actually happens? You are right though, you assign a general to a front and then give him an order. The admirals, on the other hand, have an order to support a naval invasion on a given node. You are correct that you would have to somehow assign a general to a "front" that doesn't exist yet across the sea on that node, so how does that work? I don't think this has been fully explained yet, or if it was, it wasn't clear to me.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Okay, let's go with a concrete example then. Italy has a war goal for Malta who is under British Rule.
GB is allied to Mexico And Austria who joins in support for GB to get California, New Mexico, and Venice, etc. back.
Italy is allied to the USA.
Gibraltar belongs to Spain in this scenario, so no one has controls to the doors of the Mediterranean Sea.
War breaks out. Somehow the Italian armies aren't strong enough to defeat the Austrians and they have a stalemate but Italy has a spare army that they order to attack.
The Americans and British are on a stalemate with their navies and somehow the British AI/player decides to not leave any fleets defending the homeland.
The Italians have 2 navies ordered to support a naval invasion. 1 to the node where Malta belongs, 1 where one of the British Coast belongs to.
AI does a calculation and realizes that, for some reason, it's easier to invade GB homeland (even if conquering its totality will be another matter) than it is to conquer Malta.
Given what we know so far of how the system works. Such scenario is in fact, not implausible, and hardly the player's fault. (Except maybe for assigning a fleet to invade the UK without actually thinking that would happen).

That is the whole point that I am trying to make. Silly scenarios can and will in fact happen because for a tick, the AI decided something was easier than something else and pushed for that without any player's input

I'm pretty sure that's not how naval invasions or assigning generals work. It was stated that a naval invasion is a joint operation and you assign Generals to specific fronts, so you wouldn't be giving a General a generic "invade wherever" order, you would be ordering them specifically which naval invasion to participate in.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

I'm pretty sure that's not how naval invasions or assigning generals work. It was stated that a naval invasion is a joint operation and you assign Generals to specific fronts, so you wouldn't be giving a General a generic "invade wherever" order, you would be ordering them specifically which naval invasion to participate in.

Yes, Skycroft made me realize that. I just fixed my post saying that it would need two armies then. One for Malta, one for GB homeland.
Still, what is not clear to me is how you tell a general to open a front that doesn't exist yet.

 

[Blastaz]

The question I asked last week and was told would be answered this week is:
If war & blockade is so expensive what stops the UK that has naval supremacy and control of all its war goals against France demobilising its troops, refusing to peace out and just wreck the French economy.

 

[WhatThatStandFor]

Holy shit, the first Paradox game with mixed peace deals, and wars aren't always TOTALEN KRIEEEEEEG as they are in every other game since... what, like Crusader Kings 1?All is forgiven for the previous dev diaries. Still a bit miffed that outside of diplomatic plays, there's no way to demand more land. It's a lot of fun to go to war over something tiny and after it ends up dragging on for a long time you decide to add more in order to make it worth your while. Its basic sunk cost fallacy. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems like if you go to war over some tiny piece of land, and the enemy drags it out for years and years, you arent allowed to add more demands?

 

[grommile]

refusing to peace out and just wreck the French economy.

Capitulation, whether voluntary or through hitting -100 War Support, appears to be a unilateral action. You say "Ok, I'm beat, here's what you demanded from me." and that's it, you lose the things of yours (if any) that were on the table and you leave the war.

 

[Blastaz]

Capitulation, whether voluntary or through hitting -100 War Support, appears to be a unilateral action. You say "Ok, I'm beat, here's what you demanded from me." and that's it, you lose the things of yours (if any) that were on the table and you leave the war.

So the uk adds a war goal of conquer X and then doesn't capture it, so French capitulation can't go below 0.

 

[grommile]

So the uk adds a war goal of conquer X and then doesn't capture it, so French capitulation can't go below 0.

Wiz is looking at this. (Show dev responses ia your friend. Use it. Love it.)

"3) I'm considering adding it so that a war goal that a country is unable to occupy eventually gets automatically dropped"

 

[Blastaz]

Wiz is looking at this. (Show dev responses ia your friend. Use it. Love it.)

"3) I'm considering adding it so that a war goal that a country is unable to occupy eventually gets automatically dropped"

so you fake a siege on that Caribbean island every four months to keep the timer ticking.

 

[Heir of the Void]

Is there any thought to add things like dismantling empires as a CB? HPM in Vic 2 has a version of this system, and it can be used after researching certain late game techs. Its implementation is a bit clunky, but in practice it divides almost all their colonies between the victors, along with returning many cores. Perhaps not this severe, but I'm wondering how this peace deal system will deal with late game Great Wars. Adding two dozen german african colonies to a peace deal seems like it might be rather a drag.

They've already mentioned Cut Down To Size, which forces a target to give up everything they acquired in the past 20-25 years.

 

[Caylon]

Still, what is not clear to me is how you tell a general to open a front that doesn't exist yet.

By telling him which state he should invade. He will open a new front there upon arrival.

Edit: As explained in this developer post:

When a naval force lands

Recent DD24 focused on navies and naval invasions left me with more questions then answers in regard to how is the game going to handle some specific aspects of naval invasions.

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Jamaican Castle]

so you fake a siege on that Caribbean island every four months to keep the timer ticking.

What do you mean by "fake a siege"? If you don't occupy it, you don't occupy it. If you do, then... congratulations, you accomplished your wargoal?

Also, if France isn't making any progress and it's costing them too much, they can always unilaterally cede your wargoal and leave.

 

[Skycroft]

So the uk adds a war goal of conquer X and then doesn't capture it, so French capitulation can't go below 0.

That just means they don't automatically capitulate at -100 War Support. They can still voluntarily capitulate, as I understand it. Presumably if the hit to French economy from the blockade becomes too high to sustain, that is what they will do.

 

[Blastaz]

What do you mean by "fake a siege"? If you don't occupy it, you don't occupy it. If you do, then... congratulations, you accomplished your wargoal?

Also, if France isn't making any progress and it's costing them too much, they can always unilaterally cede your wargoal and leave.

That just means they don't automatically capitulate at -100 War Support. They can still voluntarily capitulate, as I understand it. Presumably if the hit to French economy from the blockade becomes too high to sustain, that is what they will do.

I'm concerned about a player vs ai situation rather than multiplayer. Do we really think the ai will voluntarily unconditionally surrender in a war they aren't really losing on the battlefield? Because that just opens up even more room for exploits - by say adding a bunch of war goals on prime territory at the start of the war and then having France give them to you for free just because you've sunk their navy and forced them to mobilise because they are at war.

Fake a siege for EUIV is to let it tick for one month so there is progress then pull back, or hold some of the necessary provinces but not all. Obviously with no armies the exact method of duping the system will change, but there will probably still be one!

 

[andersxa]

I don't really understand the threshold system of being stuck at 0% if the capital or wargoals are not controlled and I think it should just reduce the rate it reduces with, e.g. if no wargoals are occupied/achieved it ticks at 10th the rate as before or something like that. To me this just seems to encourage never-ending wars - and I really don't understand how the wargoal of receiving war reparations can be achieved in order for it to begin ticking? Other than that I really like the radicalism, casualties and everything else that is taken into account. I just think it would make more sense for it to be ticking but maybe at different rates according to which wargoals are achieved. Also it would make a trade-war or something like that possible by blocking trade to a country totally which in turn radicalizes the country's population making it drastically decrease war support because the population is suffering - even though the war goals are maybe not occupied.

 

[Lordy's]

Can you please add this to CK3 asap?

 

[Heir of the Void]

Holy shit, the first Paradox game with mixed peace deals, and wars aren't always TOTALEN KRIEEEEEEG as they are in every other game since... what, like Crusader Kings 1?All is forgiven for the previous dev diaries. Still a bit miffed that outside of diplomatic plays, there's no way to demand more land. It's a lot of fun to go to war over something tiny and after it ends up dragging on for a long time you decide to add more in order to make it worth your while. Its basic sunk cost fallacy. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems like if you go to war over some tiny piece of land, and the enemy drags it out for years and years, you arent allowed to add more demands?

Also CKII. Invasion CBs to just seize everything were vanishingly rare.

 

[grommile]

by say adding a bunch of war goals on prime territory at the start of the war

You suddenly find that you are a total international pariah, because you have somewhere in the region of 300 Infamy from making those demands.

Or your enemy backs down before the war even starts, and all you get is your primary demand.

Remember:

You cannot unilaterally declare war in Victoria 3. Every war arises out of a Diplomatic Play.

 

[Skycroft]

I'm concerned about a player vs ai situation rather than multiplayer. Do we really think the ai will voluntarily unconditionally surrender in a war they aren't really losing on the battlefield?

Why not? If you are blockading France for years on end, sending their economy to the ground, they will surrender eventually without a battle being fought, that's reasonable.

Because that just opens up even more room for exploits - by say adding a bunch of war goals on prime territory at the start of the war and then having France give them to you for free just because you've sunk their navy and forced them to mobilise because they are at war.

Keep in mind that the difference between this and other PDS games is that the main limit on how many wargoals you can add is the Diplomatic Play system, not how well you do in war. If you can make all those demands without having the whole world join with France (or can fight the whole world and win) and you can maintain a Blockade against France for years on end (which is, itself, not free! There are still costs associated with the navy, and hopefully casualties too), then you deserve whatever you can get.

But both of those things should be very, very hard.