-1000 reasons to accept peace nonsense plus AI cheating on peace offers.

[Sharples88]

Think I've found a new exploit, at least I think this is the first case I've discovered of it.

You cannot stab hit an AI out of a war, that's the cheat, but at the same time you're not supposed to be stab hitting the AI in peace offers.

Look at these three screenshots.

I am Byzantium, attacked Albania, brought in Venice. Attacked Venice's troops near the Albanian border, they lose and retreat to Corfu, I use my navy to blockade that strait. Now notice how they are at -3 stability.

Look at the warscore compared to what I'm asking for, Corfu. Now, you can use this to your own advantage (in theory). You can consistently keep asking for the -1000 province if you have enough war score to request peace offers that give them stab hits. You can make sense that I've put them at -3 stability by requesting peace offers that cause stab hits. At -3 stabilty, they should be forced to accept the peace deal right?

Wrong.

Another unintended but interesting cheat. They don't peace out for the province, now look at the land I actually occupy and the warscore I have. Do you see how broken 'without occupying forts in the area' is? Unfortunately you can't peace them out without actually controlling it, but you can screw them up in a such a way to cause stab hits to -3, then let the WE and unrest tick up, would be interesting to see on bigger nations.

Yes, I've already reported this, but to get around this annoyance, you can sorta use it to your advantage by forcing them to take stab hits, kinda an eye for an eye?

 

[ChloePech]

At what warscore do they start taking stab hits?

 

[Sharples88]

At what warscore do they start taking stab hits?

I think it's -51% for a white peace. I could be wrong though.

 

[Nobak]

Hmm... and this also resets your call for peace.

"Oh, you wanted to build a lv8 fort on an island in the middle of nowhere? No, I won't siege it down. Now suffer."

 

[Badesumofu]

Seems a little odd that you even can stabhit an AI with a peace deal. I mean they're AI, they can't decide to simply not accept your peace offer because screw you why not?

 

[Sharples88]

Seems a little odd that you even can stabhit an AI with a peace deal. I mean they're AI, they can't decide to simply not accept your peace offer because screw you why not?

I mean you're not really supposed to because the AI is supposed to accept deals that you make that cause stab hits, however if a condition prevents them from doing this (in this case the fort province is not occupied) you can do it. I believe they left it like this because nobody knew about it. A simple fix would be to remove AI stab hits on peace offers, but that also wouldn't fix the -1000 fort province is not occupied even when at -90% warscore.

 

[iquabakaner]

I'm pretty sure this is a bug. The AI is supposed to accept any offer that could give a stab hit to a human player.

 

[Coffer]

I'm pretty sure this is a bug. The AI is supposed to accept any offer that could give a stab hit to a human player.

Probably just a missed special case, which should be easy to fix through making it so that an AI declining an offer that has the -1000 no-fort-occupied modifier does not give them a stab hit.

A fort is a fort at the end of the day though, even if it's on bloody Rhodes. At the absolute least, taking provinces that have unoccupied forts should give you significantly higher unrest (I'm talking 20+ with more rebels than normal), but that's too little for me and too pointlessly complex. Keeping the -1000 modifier is a much better approach.

 

[frolix42]

Yes, bug/exploit.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think it's -51% for a white peace. I could be wrong though.

Years ago, it was altered from a base value - WE to a travesty concept "what the AI would accept in this situation". Obviously, this scenario presented does not represent that.

It's a shame too, the original stabhit threshold rules, while equally poorly documented as the current ones, were straightforward and once you knew them you could anticipate outcomes. The rationale for why the game was made worse in this regard was never actually stated .

 

[Howl]

This is excellent, didn't occur to me to use it this way. In my current game Ottomans went from "they are soundly defeated" to completely out of the game due to the -1000 modifier. And that while still being number 3 great power. And the most beautiful thing is AI Persia did it. I had nothing to do with it. Well except for taking all their forts, of course...
I'll post some screenshots tonight to better explain.

 

[Ironside121]

They can just remove the Fort BS. So many players are against it it's not even funny.

 

[Twoflower]

They can just remove the Fort BS. So many players are against it it's not even funny.

"I don't like it, therefore it must be a majority opinion" (also, is there a compelling need to be profane?)

 

[Zephyrum]

Hmm... and this also resets your call for peace.

"Oh, you wanted to build a lv8 fort on an island in the middle of nowhere? No, I won't siege it down. Now suffer."

Well, not much use in lowering AI stab - bu resetting Call for Peace? That's insane. Going to use this one so much.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"I don't like it, therefore it must be a majority opinion" (also, is there a compelling need to be profane?)

There are perfectly legit reasons that forts are a special kind of broken beyond just "I don't like it". They have opaque rules you can't discern in-game, exceptions and bugs in movement interaction that are non-intuitive, and can easily restrict armies that move and fight together from going to the same places.

The vast majority of people who defend these rules can't actually represent consistent knowledge of how they work. Compare this to something like war score or favors, which some people don't like but are not nearly so vague/obtuse/hidden in functionality.

Well, not much use in lowering AI stab - bu resetting Call for Peace? That's insane. Going to use this one so much.

Negative stab hikes up interest on loans (with no other modifiers they'd have 7% at -3) and can make rebels appear very fast. It also gives -15% caravan power and -3% trade power, but these are minor. 3% more interest and rebels occupying what would otherwise be a significant source of income is not so minor. When an AI is 5k - 10k in debt slamming it with this amount of extra interest is no joke.

 

[Twoflower]

There are perfectly legit reasons that forts are a special kind of broken beyond just "I don't like it". They have opaque rules you can't discern in-game, exceptions and bugs in movement interaction that are non-intuitive, and can easily restrict armies that move and fight together from going to the same places.

The vast majority of people who defend these rules can't actually represent consistent knowledge of how they work. Compare this to something like war score or favors, which some people don't like but are not nearly so vague/obtuse/hidden in functionality.

The rules are not perfect and they should be less opaque. There are also some bugs and quirks in the system that should/could be fixed or improved on.

Nonetheless, forts/zoc is a massive improvement over the way things were before.

Bad analogy: the democratic system of western countries is not perfect, and sometimes infuriatingly flawed. It is still preferable to a monarchy or a dictatorship.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The rules are not perfect and they should be less opaque. There are also some bugs and quirks in the system that should/could be fixed or improved on.

Nonetheless, forts/zoc is a massive improvement over the way things were before.

Bad analogy: the democratic system of western countries is not perfect, and sometimes infuriatingly flawed. It is still preferable to a monarchy or a dictatorship.

The problem with implementing mechanics before they're finished is that they tend not to get finished later either, something resoundingly obvious in the case of forts (It's been half the game's major patches now). The circumstances leading to this situation are not exactly useful to compare with "Democracy", that's nothing but signaling.

 

[Twoflower]

The problem with implementing mechanics before they're finished is that they tend not to get finished later either, something resoundingly obvious in the case of forts (It's been half the game's major patches now). The circumstances leading to this situation are not exactly useful to compare with "Democracy", that's nothing but signaling.

Ok, ignore the analogy, it was quite asinine
So your suggestion is that new mechanics should only be implemented if they are absolutely perfect and bug-free? (if you mean that by "finished")
Maybe we just have to agree to disagree here. I prefer things that are clear improvements to the game - as the fort system is even with all its flaws - being implemented even in an imperfect, improvable state (as long as that state is still a net improvement for the game, which it is in the case of the new fort system).

 

[Howl]

They can just remove the Fort BS. So many players are against it it's not even funny.

Oh, but it is. So very funny.

I present to you: The Demise of the Ottoman
In an attempt to conquer more Dev during truces than I take from them the Ottomans declare on Persia. Somehow they manage to lose. Badly.

But the Ottomans have only one fort in Sugla still connected to the Persian border. So no land for you Persia.
I don't know when they started this war, but seven years later finally they siege the fort.

Note how I borrowed some provinces for myself and Naples in the meantime. Very quickly, I did not do much to drag on that war.
Eleven years later, the Ottomans are still completely out of it while still theoretically being a great power. And our truce is up in December...
I find this extremely funny. A totally unforeseen consequence of me collecting all the forts.

 

[Zephyrum]

Negative stab hikes up interest on loans (with no other modifiers they'd have 7% at -3) and can make rebels appear very fast. It also gives -15% caravan power and -3% trade power, but these are minor. 3% more interest and rebels occupying what would otherwise be a significant source of income is not so minor. When an AI is 5k - 10k in debt slamming it with this amount of extra interest is no joke.

I realize that, but usually, if you beat up an AI to the point of a favorable peace deal, they are hardly a threat anymore. If you can beat an AI once, you can do it again, specially since said "again" includes you chipping off a good chunk of development away from them into you. Might be helpful to knock down a major power like Ottomans or Russia down a peg for an easier round 2, but given, round 2 isn't supposed to be too hard anyway.

As for removing call for peace, oh boi.