100% War Score should mean unconditional surrender
- Thread starter StatikShocker
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
My problem with the system isn't that I can't force a total surrender from 100%, it's that I need 100% to get the 4 provinces I wanted on my border. Total war is already expected if I want to do a small bit of expansion.
I'd rather they create a system where it's possible to seize the war goal and a couple provinces without having to siege the entire flipping country (or countries, if dealing with a coalition).
With the desired effect of
I'd rather they create a system where it's possible to seize the war goal and a couple provinces without having to siege the entire flipping country (or countries, if dealing with a coalition).
- Ticking warscore cap should be higher, and tick faster.
- Players can only take provinces they occupy in a peace deal.
- Increase siege attrition.
- Increase attrition exponentially for every province an army moves into enemy territory away from an ally or military access territory.
- Warscore costs in a peace deal stay the same except...
- New special CB types created for specific low-tech rivalries (such as the Ottoman/Mamluk fight) that allow/encourage historical total war + full annexation, and tweaking of existing Nationalism/Revolutionary CBs in the late game for Napoleonic level conquests.
With the desired effect of
- The attrition changes, combined with the ticking warscore, will encourage and create an incentive for quick wars that occur almost exclusively along the skirmish borders.
- The ticking warscore and higher siege attrition will encourage players to seige and wait, taking only what they want, because it will be faster and more efficient than sieging the whole country.
- The attrition changes increase war exhaustion and make total war much less appealing unless you have surrounded the target with allies.
- Moves outlier war mechanics that involved total war and full annexation to special CB types.
Last edited:
You should really play against human opponents I gurantee that you start regulary use reduce WE button especially if its competative game and not co-op.
Also playing non major countries with game option on that makes AI nation more aggressive against human players force you to go over WE 10+ quite often. Thats when WE starts to be problem.
If you only play 200h normal difficalty and singleplayer games and major countries you hardle ever get problems with WE. This is how it is.
Your example is exceptional, and the relative isolation of Egypt is exactly the reason why you can take 5 provinces at once without your neighbours forming a coalition against you. (which means without AE concern) Try to get 5 provinces at once in the HRE, and see what kind of AE the neighbouring countries will have against you.
And in terms of OE, Egypt has a lot of dirt poor provinces with base tax 1-2. Taking 5 provinces with a major province like Alexandria will only give 12 base tax worth of OE, which is 48%. If the area that you want to conquer is of high base tax, then 3-4 provinces are enough to push the OE to 100%. (Kiev alone gives 60% OE, for example)
It becomes far out of balance with large nations in coalitions. I get the same yield from fighting England, France, Spain, and Switzerland as I get from...Switzerland. And I have to lay waste to the whole of western Europe to do so. The problem is that we're being required to perform total war for microscopic results. Lowered warscore costs would at least let you take your 4 provinces without occupying the planet, which is far better than the status quo. OE then becomes the limiter.
Siege attrition only encourages the "stackwipe and blanket siege" strategy, particularly in late game. Unless provinces adjacent to owned and controlled provinces give no siege attrition.
And one does not need 100% warscore to get a 100% peace deal. The 99% thing is not really necessary.
On ticking warscore: under current mechanics you can already get +65% from battles and ticking warscore. The ticking warscore increases by +0.4 per month, so it only requires 63 months to tick to the max, which is only a little more than 5 years. If you have the upper hand, getting a 75% peace deal without additional warscore should be possible. Looks good enough to me. Strengthening the ticking warscore will ruin any chance of counter attack, which I think is bad for the game.
Your intentions are good, but some of the solutions you have suggested will do the opposite of what you want, or unbalance the game in another way.
A funny thing is that since the AI loves so much to wait for stacks to merge, you can do 40K doomstack and assault every bloody level 2 fort. War goal is province? Assault, and let the ticking begin one month into the war.
Also for some odd reason the AI is taking quite long to upgrade those.
Some people said overextension is not relevant. Try going 100 OE as a trader nation...
Also for some odd reason the AI is taking quite long to upgrade those.
Some people said overextension is not relevant. Try going 100 OE as a trader nation...
There is a lot of improvements possible for war system and I'm PD is working on it 
besides this higher attrition and higher ticking warscore seems it could do the trick to prevent carpet sieging. Now the question is how would AI react to it, as any kind of gameplay must fit the AI as well, not only the human strategy... hence the very difficult balance to be reached. Maybe a tweaking of costs in peace deal to make full annex only available when you are much bigger than the other nation, and unjustified demands generally more expensive.
One of the main purpose of the war system is to create fun and challenge for the player, and while theyre is room for improvement I do not know if I have seen so many unrealistic things happen: sometimes Spain will blob into France, sometimes Burgundy will survive, sometimes Netherlands won't appear, sometimes the Emperor will go on a blob spree and will manage to form HRE again, but most of the time, it roughly follows history.
I must agree however that Ottomans need a special CB/Mission/Event that will allow them to crush Mamluks forever. In pretty much all of my games Mamluks survive and that is one ahistorical constant that I see, which imo is more important than Spain getting a few French provinces or some German minor blobbing another one.
besides this higher attrition and higher ticking warscore seems it could do the trick to prevent carpet sieging. Now the question is how would AI react to it, as any kind of gameplay must fit the AI as well, not only the human strategy... hence the very difficult balance to be reached. Maybe a tweaking of costs in peace deal to make full annex only available when you are much bigger than the other nation, and unjustified demands generally more expensive.One of the main purpose of the war system is to create fun and challenge for the player, and while theyre is room for improvement I do not know if I have seen so many unrealistic things happen: sometimes Spain will blob into France, sometimes Burgundy will survive, sometimes Netherlands won't appear, sometimes the Emperor will go on a blob spree and will manage to form HRE again, but most of the time, it roughly follows history.
I must agree however that Ottomans need a special CB/Mission/Event that will allow them to crush Mamluks forever. In pretty much all of my games Mamluks survive and that is one ahistorical constant that I see, which imo is more important than Spain getting a few French provinces or some German minor blobbing another one.
I'm sorry but you must have misunderstood, I was making a point the OE doesn't come into play in 1.2.
I'm not sure I understand this. If I know that every single stack is going to create attrition as it sieges, and if territories farther away from my controlled or allied territory were going to give even more attrition, it seems to me it would disincentivize blanket sieging. Trying to siege everything at once would result in massive manpower losses and accompanying war exhaustion.
What am I not understanding about this? I'd love for you to elaborate more.
My problem with the 0.4 a month is that, at 63 months, it's often more efficient to simply siege down all their provinces than wait for the warscore tick. By speeding up the tick, it becomes faster and more optimal to hold and wait, as opposed to the currently optimal tactics of carpet siege. The combination of changes would 1) Make carpet siege more manpower expensive and 2) Make siege what you want and hold it a faster and manpower optimal strategy than carpet siege.
I'm not quite sure how my suggestions would do the opposite of what I want, but I'd love for you to explain your reasoning to me in more depth so I can understand where the solution would fall apart.
I like this a lot, but I didn't really understand the bold part, could you please elaborate?
Unconditional surrender at MERE 100% warscore? No freaking way. That will break the game.
I was thinking that Full annexation/vassalization would still need 100% (if it's possible at all), but perhaps religious conversion and HRE reform related wargoals that currently require 100% might be more accessible without a total war scenario.
Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, and I might be misinformed, since I don't have much familiarity with the HRE war goals and I only added that line on a whim because it was mentioned in this thread by someone earlier. It's probably the least important of the list, and now that you ask directly, probably the only one on the list I don't exactly understand myself, so I'm not going to argue for or against it.
Edit: In fact, now that I'm being asked to defend my suggestion, I'm just going to remove that line from my suggestion so it doesn't throw off the rest of it. It's quoted throughout the thread so noone can forget. Huzzah internet!
Last edited:
Sorry but ANY wargoal with 100% warscore is rubbish, no matter the angle you look at it.
Simply because vassals can´t break free on their own AND will help you in every following war. Besides, things like Britanny getting 100 warscore with allies and then vassalizing France is so brutally absurd, it´s the worst s*** that could happen to this game.
Simply because vassals can´t break free on their own AND will help you in every following war. Besides, things like Britanny getting 100 warscore with allies and then vassalizing France is so brutally absurd, it´s the worst s*** that could happen to this game.
U.S.A. is practically a vassal state of Israel, I don't see what's so absurd about a smaller nation dominating a larger one.
Modify the last event in flavorMAM.txt so that includes this flag-setting immediate effect:
Code:
country_event = {
id = flavor_mam.22
title = flavor_mam.22.t
desc = flavor_mam.22.d
picture = DIPLOMACY_eventPicture
is_triggered_only = yes
immediate = { set_country_flag = TUR_had_event_22 }
option = {
name = flavor_mam.22.a
add_casus_belli = {
target = MAM
type = cb_annex
months = 1200
}
MAM = {
every_owned_province = {
add_claim = TUR
}
}
add_manpower = 12
add_war_exhaustion = -5
}
}The add the following code to the events folder in any mod that you want.
Code:
country_event = {
id = flavor_tur.4001
title = flavor_tur.4001.t # Ottomans take Cairo
desc = flavor_tur.4001.d # Ottomans conquer Mamluks
picture = BATTLE_eventPicture
trigger = {
tag = TUR
exists = MAM
has_country_flag = TUR_had_event_22
controls = 361
war_score = 50
NOT = { is_year = 1520}
361 = { owned_by = MAM }
adm_power = 100
dip_power = 100
}
mean_time_to_happen = {
days = 1
}
option = {
name = flavor_tur.4001.a
ai_chance = {
factor = 100
}
hidden_effect = { clr_country_flag = TUR_had_event_22 }
add_adm_power = -100
add_dip_power = -100
MAM = {
any_owned = {
remove_claim = TUR
add_core = TUR
}
}
inherit = MAM
add_prestige = 10
add_war_exhaustion = -5
}
}There. Now you just need to fulfill the conditions for that flavorMAM event chain between 1500 and 1520, go to war with the Mamluks, occupy their capital, get a 50% or more warscore, have 100 ADM points and 100 DIP points to spare, then wait for the next month's first day. Voila! Mamluks annexed without OE or AE and with full cores on every province, just like IRL and just like how you'd find the Ottomans one day after the annexation in the bookmarks.
All of these changes would make sense if the way war worked was realistic. That is, enemy provinces always give attrition in the 5-10% range, sieging increases this by 5-10%, and you need to outnumber the fortress by 5 in order to siege, standing around in friendly provinces gives attrition of 1-3%, more when you're at war, and manpower increased at a faster rate. Listen to the complaints of war being impossible when you're taking 1% attrition in all provinces and you'll know this is impossible