100% War Score should mean unconditional surrender

[zodium]

well, you could certainly argue that sieges should be made more difficult so that 100% is harder to achieve, as I suggested more nationalist stacks to stop your advances and jump you little siege stacks would help.
I think I am promoting realism. Instead of having to completely carpet siege every inch of russia to get three provinces on your border, that should require like 15% war score or what ever scaling is determined, but make that 15% much harder to achieve. In this way, if you do manage to annihilate the odds and overcome all of the obstacles in your path, and totally siege your opponent, bringing their ruler to his knees, you can make proportional demands. I think this is fair and will improve gameplay and realism at the same time.

I'm with you all the way in saying that the war score cost equation ought to be changed, but a 1:1 relation is a bridge too far. The trick lies in finding out what exactly the scaling equation should be, in terms of math. I'm favorable to an X = Y, X2 = Y4, etc. scaling (where X is provinces taken and Y is the war score cost), but there's also X = Y, X2 = Y^2 as a possibility, plus different tunings of these.

 

[semaphore]

well, you could certainly argue that sieges should be made more difficult so that 100% is harder to achieve, as I suggested more nationalist stacks to stop your advances and jump you little siege stacks would help.

Well, I would go with making AI give up before it is completely overran in wars. Sieges are already ahistorically difficult. If an enemy with superior forces have defeated your army and besieging you, making peace shouldn't wait until the inevitable happens.

Nationalist stacks do exist however; they will liberate the country from your occupation if you refuse to make reasonable peace.

 

[StatikShocker]

I'm with you all the way in saying that the war score cost equation ought to be changed, but a 1:1 relation is a bridge too far. The trick lies in finding out what exactly the scaling equation should be, in terms of math. I'm favorable to an X = Y, X2 = Y4, etc. scaling, but there's also X = Y, X2 = Y^2 as a possibility, plus different tunings of these.

I do agree... because following a 1:1 model you could make some huge demands by just blockading, winning a few battles and taking like 2 provinces from lets say the mamluks. I think we agree that the current model is far too off of what is fun or realistic. doesn't even make sense sometimes. it is that frustration with strange game mechanics stopping your aspirations in a sandbox game when you have done all you can do that I bring this up for.

 

[General Baker]

Quite simply: Until the combat and occupation mechanics are revised to the point that antihistorical modes of total war are not viable, the peace treaty system will have to take up the slack.

This.

OP is right that 100% should let you do anything.

But reaching 100% warscore should be next to impossible without completely draining yourself as a nation, if fighting a similar state.

 

[grommile]

Napoleonic France would like to have a word with you, as the above statement (conquer large country, annex, release as vassal) is pretty much how Napoleon rolled until he finally bit off more than he could chew in Russia.

The largest European countries he actually annexed were the Netherlands and Switzerland, which within the limits of the game engine are annexable in principle if you're using a CB with a sizeable WS discount for annexation.

I repeat: The combat mechanics allow modes of total war that were not viable in most of the period; unless and until that is addressed, the diplomacy system is going to have to take up the slack.

 

[semaphore]

I mean right now people are making personal unions by using luck and clicking a button at the right time, feeding them provinces for sums of gold and then integrating them with another button click. Is that better?

Better than annexing France in one war. I won't rain on your echo chamber parade any longer (since you've apparently decline to directly engage anyone disagreeing), but suffice to say that if your efforts are better spent refining the system through CBs (as I have suggested), than hoping for the impossible (retarded unconditional surrender being implemented 150 years too early) to happen.

 

[EUTony]

How hard is it to beat all the troops of similar sized nation and then press detach siege until they are carpeted?

 

[zodium]

How hard is it to beat all the troops of similar sized nation and then press detach siege until they are carpeted?

Not hard at all, which is a part of the problem all its own.

I won't rain on your echo chamber parade any longer (since you've apparently decline to directly engage anyone disagreeing)

He's engaging with me just fine. Maybe you should stop being so hostile if you want to actually discuss this with him?

I repeat: The combat mechanics allow modes of total war that were not viable in most of the period; unless and until that is addressed, the diplomacy system is going to have to take up the slack.

Towards this end, what do you think about my proposed changes to siege mechanics on the last page?

 

[Novacat]

The largest European countries he actually annexed were the Netherlands and Switzerland, which within the limits of the game engine are annexable in principle if you're using a CB with a sizeable WS discount for annexation.

Re-read my statement. I said: Annexed and Released as Vassal. By the time the French invaded Russia, France had the Confederation of the Rhine (A french puppet state containing the remnants of the HRE), Italy, Naples, and Spain as vassals. They had also annexed the Netherlands and large chunks of northern Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System

Those kind of large-scale conquests in such short periods of time are simply impossible to replicate in EUIV.

 

[StatikShocker]

Better than annexing France in one war. I won't rain on your echo chamber parade any longer, but suffice to say that if your efforts are better spent refining the system through CBs (as I have suggested), than hoping for the impossible (retarded unconditional surrender being implemented 150 years too early) to happen.

look I am not suggesting one would annex france in one war. that is what, like 600% overextension. you would die to 90 stacks of 100 every month, I have done it before using the console. The option, the insane option, should exist. The french say "lol whatever you say" and the swiss occupier collapses in 3 days and france returns. I want this feature for the middle ground, for japan taking korea, for ottomans taking mamluks, for castille taking aragon. It would be risky, very risky, sometimes you will fail, but the option should be there as you have won, you decide your fate.

 

[Jay Esus]

I don't like situations, where i cant vassalize an enemy because it costs 110% WS.
Maybe a hybrid solution would be nice. Keep the WS system but as a soft limit rather than a hard limit. Consequences should increase exponentially for every percent over 100. Consequences would be obviously aggressive expansion, maybe revolt risk in those newly acquired provinces.

 

[semaphore]

He's engaging with me just fine. Maybe you should stop being so hostile if you want to actually discuss this with him?

Well he has literally replied to no one else. I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm advising him to keep things realistic after recognising there isn't a productive discussion to be had on proposals too drastic to happen.

 

[Esben_DRK]

Is it stupid because you think it's stupid or do you ahve something to back it up with?

Apart from history, I don't think he needs backing.
The problem as I see it isn't really the 100% warscore, but that it's regularly both possible and required.
I don't think 100% warscore should be something you regularly achieve in wars against medium or large enemies. As Burgundy, I had won a great victory over HRE Austria, and I began to get the ticking war exhaustion, but I had to get those last provinces to get 100% and revoke an imperial reform. What would be more likely as an outcome was that I had occupied Elsass (Austrian province) and defeated their armies a few times, and then these two European great powers would have made a treaty. A lot of wars in the period were essentially border skirmishes, and no power before 1800 found it feasible to wage war on the other side of Europe without allies and holdings in the area. Moving an army 3 or 4 provinces into enemy land should be a big deal.
A lot of this is being improved upon, but the possibility of a total war scenario (Which is what will result in an unconditional surrender on a wider scale) still means it's off the mark.

But please, for those who support the OP and other suggestions like it, name a single time where an unconditional surrender was demanded and given on a nation-scale in the timeframe. I invite you to look at the victories of Napoleon in the Holy Roman Empire, or at Byzantium in the years up to 1453.
I can come up with 2 examples that are at all near what you want: the Aztec and Inca conquests, but those weren't unconditional, those are also simulated ingame through CB's, and historically were MUCH more a "cut the head of the snake and the body will follow" than anything of the full occupation you imagine. So, do you have any idea of what unconditional surrender means, and how it was used in history?

 

[StatikShocker]

Well he has literally replied to no one else. I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm advising him to keep things realistic after recognizing there isn't a productive discussion to be had on proposals too drastic to happen.

I just replied to you. And I don't have the ability to reply to like 20 comments in 15 minutes I am not just sitting here hammering f5.

 

[semaphore]

look I am not suggesting one would annex france in one war.

You were arguing it should be possible, and the point is it shouldn't be. Replace annex with shatter into 10 countries, same issue.

 

[Novacat]

Well he has literally replied to no one else. I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm advising him to keep things realistic after recognising there isn't a productive discussion to be had on proposals too drastic to happen.

The problem is that the warscore costs are way too high at the moment, primarily for minor countries with less than 15 provinces. Get 100% warscore from a 10 province minor and at best you can only demand 3-4 provinces. Needing 3 100% warscore wars to fully annex or vassalize a small country is rediculous. I cannot even get above 50-60% OE unless I start breaking truces.

 

[bleakie]

Under current mechanics, you can get at least 25% of your enemy's territory (in terms of warscore) in a 1-vs-1 war without any CB. I think it is quite balanced.
The problem is when you are fighting a large coalition. The rich provinces of minors can cost 30%+ warscore each, which means you will need to occupy something like 100 provinces just to get the 2-3 you want. Some scaling needs to be done for the warscore cost calculation of large alliances and coalitions.
I suggest setting the grand total warscore to be 390% + 10% * number of members in alliance/coalition when both sides are negotiating for the whole alliance.

 

[StatikShocker]

Apart from history, I don't think he needs backing.
The problem as I see it isn't really the 100% warscore, but that it's regularly both possible and required.
I don't think 100% warscore should be something you regularly achieve in wars against medium or large enemies. As Burgundy, I had won a great victory over HRE Austria, and I began to get the ticking war exhaustion, but I had to get those last provinces to get 100% and revoke an imperial reform. What would be more likely as an outcome was that I had occupied Elsass (Austrian province) and defeated their armies a few times, and then these two European great powers would have made a treaty. A lot of wars in the period were essentially border skirmishes, and no power before 1800 found it feasible to wage war on the other side of Europe without allies and holdings in the area. Moving an army 3 or 4 provinces into enemy land should be a big deal.
A lot of this is being improved upon, but the possibility of a total war scenario (Which is what will result in an unconditional surrender on a wider scale) still means it's off the mark.

But please, for those who support the OP and other suggestions like it, name a single time where an unconditional surrender was demanded and given on a nation-scale in the timeframe. I invite you to look at the victories of Napoleon in the Holy Roman Empire, or at Byzantium in the years up to 1453.
I can come up with 2 examples that are at all near what you want: the Aztec and Inca conquests, but those weren't unconditional, those are also simulated ingame through CB's, and historically were MUCH more a "cut the head of the snake and the body will follow" than anything of the full occupation you imagine. So, do you have any idea of what unconditional surrender means, and how it was used in history?

I agree with your first statement, warscore should be scaled better. nations should except demands after less damage, like beating half their army and siegeing a province to demand that province, or annul a treaty and some gold. These ai's require you to completly annihilate them to take three provinces, so it doesn't make sense as is. I think 100% should be made into a rare, special occurrence, mainly by making nationalist rebels a credible, realistic threat. Even then, you may only want to make simple demands. No one is saying annex france, you can't, you WILL DIE. but when you want to annex malacca, instead of fighting a fifth war against them as majapahit, and you have ended their ability to conduct war, govern their people, do anything, I think they should submit.

 

[StatikShocker]

The problem is that the warscore costs are way too high at the moment, primarily for minor countries with less than 15 provinces. Get 100% warscore from a 10 province minor and at best you can only demand 3-4 provinces. Needing 3 100% warscore wars to fully annex or vassalize a small country is rediculous. I cannot even get above 50-60% OE unless I start breaking truces.

this exactly. The OE system never really hits hard because the game doesn't even let you take enough provinces. Let the OE be the ceiling instead of war score demands, they make no damn sense.

 

[Jactor]

It's not the 20th century. You CAN'T ask for an unconditional surrender: a big nation will simply tell "no", and it will be no, because you can't occupy it forever.

Our leaders figured it out long time ago that occupying is expensive as those who are occupied can always say NO until war goes forever. Even very small countries have won wars against big empires this way just saying NO until big country cannot pay cost of occupying anymore.

This is why we have modern economic and debt based money system you can take people properties and jobs peacefully just printing more money. Printing more money is quite a lot cheaper than sending armies. In debt based money system people actually help you free of charge as it is easy to blame that people who crash under defaults it is their own fault. Who ever invented modern economic system and central banking system is rich beyond any limits.