AI should accept peace deals that it cannot contest.

[Eruth]

After taking 26 months of call for peace in the hope that the AI would eventually get enough war exhaustion & length of war to concede I was forced to allow them to keep Maine. This is patently ridiculous; England has absolutely no way of preventing me from just saying, "You may not be willing to sign it into a legal document but all of this land is part of France now." I have conquered the land; that is uncontestable because England hasn't tried to land on the continent since I stackwiped their entire army for the fourth time 3 years ago. Just because I don't have enough fleet to cross the channel and siege down London doesn't mean I haven't obviously won.

 

[Guibou]

Just because I don't have enough fleet to cross the channel and siege down London doesn't mean I haven't obviously won.

England is probably thinking, just because I don't have the troops to cross the channel and siege down Paris doesn't mean I obviously lost.

 

[Ruian]

England is probably thinking, just because I don't have the troops to cross the channel and siege down Paris doesn't mean I obviously lost.

Cue Churchill's famous speech about fighting to the end in WW2


I agree with OP, but I'm not sure how to fix such a thing and it really doesn't happen that often.

 

[BadOrc]

The british AI in a nutshell

 

[Republic of Mercury]

The issue is, where do you draw the line? If you had fully sieged down all of England, and they had no troops left, you could argue that you should be able to annex them. And that makes sense, but the game just isn't balanced around that.

 

[tioperete]

Dynamic provinces feature from MEIOU would solve this

 

[swagmeister]

This is why the correct strategy for a France start is to attack England with the reconquest CB on 11 December. You can easily get enough war score for your cores and more if you also occupy Portugal. In recent patches it has also been much easier to sneak a fleet to the channel and get your troops onto the isles to get 100 war score since the AI is so afraid to engage on both land and sea even if they could win.

 

[gianlucad]

I agree with OP, but I'm not sure how to fix such a thing and it really doesn't happen that often.

You mean not being able to end a war unless you siege down a nation half way across the globe because theyre allied to your enemy due to having the same religion or a shared rival doesn't happen often?

 

[Katsue]

England is probably thinking, just because I don't have the troops to cross the channel and siege down Paris doesn't mean I obviously lost.

Right, England can obviously just continue blockading nigh-indefinitely, wrecking the economy of France's allies. There's no big reason for them to stop the war if they don't get to keep any land.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

There's a balance to be had here.

In this case here, England must still feel they are capable of doing some damage.

On the other hand, it's seriously ridiculous when you have to march to the other side of the continent to siege down a level 2 fort of an OPM that has maybe 4k men at most. It's clear you're going to crush them, they'd be better off accepting a peace deal at that point.

 

[Methuen of Melnibone]

Right, England can obviously just continue blockading nigh-indefinitely, wrecking the economy of France's allies. There's no big reason for them to stop the war if they don't get to keep any land.

Exactly my strategy early in my dealings with the game - Operation: No Trade For Thee Frenchie - only way to keep myself in the conflict long enough to whip up some troops & so on. Maybe a better way to make this work would be to increase the impact of blockade ? Historically it was a strategy in maaany wars - mess with shipping, mess with your opponent, keep yourself at the peace table to a degree.

There's a balance to be had here.

In this case here, England must still feel they are capable of doing some damage.

On the other hand, it's seriously ridiculous when you have to march to the other side of the continent to siege down a level 2 fort of an OPM that has maybe 4k men at most. It's clear you're going to crush them, they'd be better off accepting a peace deal at that point.

Are you always after 100% warscore & therefore needing to do that ? I'm trying to think of a scenario that would stop a peace deal being in your favour, based on some tiny ally halfway around the globe ? (honest question)

 

[Eruth]

England is probably thinking, just because I don't have the troops to cross the channel and siege down Paris doesn't mean I obviously lost.

Except they aren't losing anything from the peace deal they haven't already lost, and are in fact gaining Calais back, as well as stop accumulating war exhaustion.

Right, England can obviously just continue blockading nigh-indefinitely, wrecking the economy of France's allies. There's no big reason for them to stop the war if they don't get to keep any land.

A: They get to keep calais because that's more than 100% warscore. B: They get to stop having war exhaustion (up to 13 when I finally peaced).

The issue is, where do you draw the line? If you had fully sieged down all of England, and they had no troops left, you could argue that you should be able to annex them. And that makes sense, but the game just isn't balanced around that.

A: I think that provinces should cost the same amount of warscore as they give you
B: This is not about going over 100% warscore even when they would accept, that's a whole different issue. This is that England is refusing to acknowledge that I have conquered this land. They have nothing to gain by continuing this war and, in fact, are gaining significant war exhaustion and don't have access to calais.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

@Eruth It's because CB's are too rigid. I think even though they attacked you, you taking their provinces should still fall under your reconquest CB. That seems fair. Meaning you'd only need 71% warscore to get your cores back.

 

[RobbieAB]

Actually, I suspect England gains less from the peace treaty than you lose from protracting the war indefinitely.

As a player England, in that position, there is zero chance I would accept your offer, because you are far more ham-strung by the war than England is, as England can simply get on with gobbling up Ireland and possibly Scotland, while you can... OK, can't, integrate any of your vassals. You get "call for peace", England doesn't. You have potentially hostile neighbours who could be a threat, England doesn't.

Protracting that war makes a lot of sense for England. Afterall, if you want to force a peace deal with stab-hit offers, you are getting a lot less.

 

[holyvigil]

So any war on a OPM by a great power the OPM should immediately surrender?

 

[Travis_Bickle]

So any war on a OPM by a great power the OPM should immediately surrender?

No, but let's just for argument's sake say I am Milan and I am fighting Venice. I've thoroughly defeated Venice, but notice they are allied to Utrecht and need to occupy their one fort for 100% warscore. It really makes no sense that I have to march all the way over to Utrecht when they would never be able to put up a realistic fight. At that point, white peacing Utrecht should be an option.

 

[EarlKonrad]

So any war on a OPM by a great power the OPM should immediately surrender?

If you stackwipe their forces and start sieging them, yes. By that point there is no reason why you should have to finish the siege as they have already lost. This is an issue that extend to non-OPMs too, specifically the AI not surrendering when it would be more beneficial than to prolongue a war because siege is king.

Now, if they have allies and the allies can help, what I said don't really apply.

 

[holyvigil]

If you stackwipe their forces and start sieging them, yes. By that point there is no reason why you should have to finish the siege as they have already lost. This is an issue that extend to non-OPMs too, specifically the AI not surrendering when it would be more beneficial than to prolongue a war because siege is king.

Now, if they have allies and the allies can help, what I said don't really apply.

That's kind of different than ops description.

This situation is more like if England was fully occupied except for forts which were being sieged down.

I'd agree wit you in that example. AI should get a "fully occupied" modifier for being unable to put up a fight. Even if there's a little bit of men left in the castle.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

A: I think that provinces should cost the same amount of warscore as they give you

Yeah, how about not. Being able to full annex anybody in one peace deal would get ridiculous.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Yeah, how about not. Being able to full annex anybody in one peace deal would get ridiculous.

What's the problem with that? It should give you game-breaking AE, revolts and whatever but if you've fully occupied all their land, all their forts, and they have 0 men, what's stopping a full annexation other than administrative problems?