... we have a +85 'length of war' modifier in our favor and our ally Mexico has high war enthusiasm so we must be winning this war. Rather than conceding defeat, starting to forge alliances and rebuilding army, we'll try to exhaust an aggressor by doing nothing for next 5 years. It's not like our neighbors will attack us while we are weak, right?"
I don't know what this relatively new addition of not getting full WS because of allies was aiming at but it's hurting the AI more than it hurts player.
Some examples (all screen shots are taken during the late game though):
I wiped an entire Russian army in 2 battles and they still they think they can win.
Danes are sitting at -3 stability, have rebels all over the country, WS is -83% and they still have high war enthusiasm.
Again, the late game is a bad example because I won it a long time ago but in early and mid game, I don't understand how sitting at 20 WE, not developing in any way while your enemy receives your production and trade income will help this nation rebuild itself.
Coalitions will protect this nation from your further agression, you say? Yes, coalitions can slow down player's expansion but there are tons of issues with them.
When I play next to say, Ottomans and they DoW on me with their godly troops, I usually try to stall the war and if it's not possible, give them what they want right away. I know that sitting 5 years at 20 WE won't do me good but I can certainly expand and gain more than I lost during the 15-year truce with AI.
I'm not very familiar with what happened historically when nations lost important battles, but I know that Napoleon destroyed several coalitions by winning battles only.
I don't know what this relatively new addition of not getting full WS because of allies was aiming at but it's hurting the AI more than it hurts player.
Some examples (all screen shots are taken during the late game though):
I wiped an entire Russian army in 2 battles and they still they think they can win.
Danes are sitting at -3 stability, have rebels all over the country, WS is -83% and they still have high war enthusiasm.
Again, the late game is a bad example because I won it a long time ago but in early and mid game, I don't understand how sitting at 20 WE, not developing in any way while your enemy receives your production and trade income will help this nation rebuild itself.
Coalitions will protect this nation from your further agression, you say? Yes, coalitions can slow down player's expansion but there are tons of issues with them.
When I play next to say, Ottomans and they DoW on me with their godly troops, I usually try to stall the war and if it's not possible, give them what they want right away. I know that sitting 5 years at 20 WE won't do me good but I can certainly expand and gain more than I lost during the 15-year truce with AI.
I'm not very familiar with what happened historically when nations lost important battles, but I know that Napoleon destroyed several coalitions by winning battles only.
- 54
- 4