.png){kind=avatar}
It has been evident for a while that you are not succeeding at this. I advise you to take a step back and assess how you're communicating this message to StatikShocker.
100% War Score should mean unconditional surrender
- Thread starter StatikShocker
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It has been evident for a while that you are not succeeding at this. I advise you to take a step back and assess how you're communicating this message to StatikShocker.
I think you have exaggerated. AE is predominant in 1.2, OE can still be a potential problem.
Warscore is not really the limiting factor of expansion for me.
I disagree. Warscore costs are good, 3-4 provinces in only 1 war is a lot for the timeframe in Europe. That warscores are too hard to raise and too dependent on sieges, is a much more valid complaint. Trashing a country should let you take a border province without also occupying half the undefended country.
Pretty easy for me to hit dangerous OE levels, so I guess you must be attacking limited targets or poor provinces. And now I must go though.
If 100% WS happened less often this would be less of an issue. But once you've defeated the enemy armies and started occupying things, getting to 100% is incredibly easy and there's no reason not to do it. (This is true for the AI as well).
Short wars over a small wargoal should be possible and encouraged (defeating the whole enemy stack and occupying a province should be enough to get said province for example), and long total wars shouldn't be worth the cost (losses, war exhaustion, etc.) in most cases.
Short wars over a small wargoal should be possible and encouraged (defeating the whole enemy stack and occupying a province should be enough to get said province for example), and long total wars shouldn't be worth the cost (losses, war exhaustion, etc.) in most cases.
I suggested this in another thread:
# War
- Base siege attrition has been removed.
- Can now garrison armies within forts, adding up to 1+Fort Level in regiments.
- Can now station generals within forts.
- Artillery stationed inside forts now add 1% (1.5?) siege attrition to enemy armies for every two regiments.
- Added Sally button to defensive province siege screen, allowing garrisoned armies to engage siege camps.
- Siege progress bonuses are now uncapped: given long enough, any army can siege any province to 100%.
- Occupation now requires an Assault, with the defenders gaining (100-Siege Progress)% defensive bonuses, similar to what artillery cover confers.
- Fort Assault now observes normal battle mechanics after 50% siege progress, with no possibility of retreat.
Coupling this with war score cost mechanics that scale more like X = Y, X2 = Y^2 would encourage shorter wars instead of total war, I think.
I have a proposal that may cause outrage but should work.
Currently, there is a war exhaustion penalty for achieving 65%+ warscore 6 years after the start of the war.
How about starting this penalty earlier, in perhaps 2 years after the start of the war?
This will discourage players from totally occupying the enemies.
Currently, there is a war exhaustion penalty for achieving 65%+ warscore 6 years after the start of the war.
How about starting this penalty earlier, in perhaps 2 years after the start of the war?
This will discourage players from totally occupying the enemies.
You should have tell this to Austria-Hungary when their crown price was murdered in Serbia they wanted to have short punishing war against small serbia. What they got 5 long years of world wide war and 17 million people dead as result at WW1. They also got their country breaking up and all they wanted small short punishing war against Serbia but this is what they got.
I could see this work in a way, but it would not be well-received by the 'Full Annex' crowd: First, a rework of some CB's and all ticking warscores, so that having won the war by fulfilling the CB should more often than not enable you to end the war with the wargoal. In other words, demanding only the wargoal (If a province, for example) should in time net you 100% effective warscore as long as you fulfill it.
Second, taking provinces apart from the wargoal gives Aggressive Expansion according to the province base tax (Modified, maybe a x0.7 or whatever).
Third, patriot revolters etc should make occupying far-off provinces more than regularly hard. I could imagine that positioning armies would make the revolts stop (To avoid micromanagement), but you would commit ridiculously many troops if you are waging too much war.
Fourth, allowing you to disintegrate nations. A new peace demand that would create (a) new nation(s) from the old and falling. These new nations would be threatened or outraged, and you'd gain AE as if you had annexed the original (Maybe with a modifier, so you gain 2/3 of the AE). It would enable you to take capitals and other uniquely rich / strategic provinces and say "to heck with the rest". This would be ahistorical to a large point, but alongside the enormous AE you gain from first occupying and then disintegrating the nation in question, you have shown that you really don't care what any other known nation in the world thinks.
For the record, I'd actually like point #1 and #2 here, since they would work well to limit the total war style unless you're at the point where you don't have to care about coalitions.
With just the basic Conquest CB and a nice bushel of claims, you can take more than 25 base tax in a single (thoroughly victorious) war (apart from that inconvenient little "the OE will make the next few years a very rough ride" issue).
To see this in action, play the Ottomans and take the "Conquer Levant" mission once you've mopped up the rebellious beyliks.
Taking unrelated examples from another time doesn't improve your EU4-timeframe arguments.
I do not support such a thing as this, my reason being that once you annex something like France, the game becomes total war against all other nations because they'll hate your life and form a massive coalition against you. That being said, that would probably be a reason for Paradox not to do that, and instead work a bit more on diplomacy and trade.
Besides that, everybody seems to complain that you can only take 2-4 provinces at a time, when they're sitting there and trying to take god-like provinces, in terms of base tax, manpower, etc., and not taking the provinces with less base tax (because if you build buildings, you can make those provinces better than they are). I've taken about 5 or 6 provinces from Serbia in a war, and that was with only one claim. When you see "I can only take 2-4 provinces," I see "I'm trying to annex Milan when it still has Lombard," etc. To me, 5 or 6 provinces felt a little extreme, especially for the time period. I feel that 4 provinces per war is fine. I'm sure that those of you who like war have realized, with the massive coalitions against you, that if you declare war on one nation that's in a coalition against you, you can take what you want, hope that someone else joins the coalition against you, and declare war on that nation and take more land? There are so many different ways to exploit the system, and you still complain, when it shouldn't even be that way in the first place.
So, to summarize, I would think that diplomacy needs more work than war (other than fixing things like the coalition exploits. Those should definitely be worked on. Maybe have a cool-down on when you can fight a coalition against you).
Besides that, everybody seems to complain that you can only take 2-4 provinces at a time, when they're sitting there and trying to take god-like provinces, in terms of base tax, manpower, etc., and not taking the provinces with less base tax (because if you build buildings, you can make those provinces better than they are). I've taken about 5 or 6 provinces from Serbia in a war, and that was with only one claim. When you see "I can only take 2-4 provinces," I see "I'm trying to annex Milan when it still has Lombard," etc. To me, 5 or 6 provinces felt a little extreme, especially for the time period. I feel that 4 provinces per war is fine. I'm sure that those of you who like war have realized, with the massive coalitions against you, that if you declare war on one nation that's in a coalition against you, you can take what you want, hope that someone else joins the coalition against you, and declare war on that nation and take more land? There are so many different ways to exploit the system, and you still complain, when it shouldn't even be that way in the first place.
So, to summarize, I would think that diplomacy needs more work than war (other than fixing things like the coalition exploits. Those should definitely be worked on. Maybe have a cool-down on when you can fight a coalition against you).
Yes. They wanted a short war against Serbia. In EU4 there's no reason to ever want a short war rather than 100%, that's the problem.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard for many of the reasons already posted.
Losing war is not suppose to be game over for losing side in EU IV. This is why I dont like lobbying wars more easy especially against major countries. You can annex small countries very easily actually more easily than in any previous EU series game unless they have some major country helping them in war.
Historically all major powers lost countless wars France and Spain lost more dozen wars still both countries are the even today. Those countries did not disappear just becouse they lost war.
I dont agree with the OP. It would make the game extremely easy, and it is out of reality. Unconditional surrenders have been very rare along history
The most I've been able to claim in a peace deal was playing as The Ottomans, I claimed 5 provinces from The Mamelukes during the Conquer Egypt mission, because I practically didn't get any AE malus with my neighbours. And even with 5 provinces I didn't suffer from OE at all, I don't know how you can even begin to say that OE might be a problem in 1.2...
That's because these wars weren't at 100% warscore in EU4 terms. How many times in history did France and Spain have their armies completely killed and the entirety of their territory occupied?
100% should sometimes make countries disappear, but 100% should be way less frequent than it is now.