AI still shouldn't be able to take over warleadership from a player, right?

[Alblaka]

Wiz once said that one of the player-only advantages, next to his brain, are minor things, f.e. that player nations cannot be instantly inherited (only, at worst, PUd) and that a player warleader will never lose warleadership.

I'm not sure whether this was just wrong info, whether it's a bug or it was recently changed, but after being stuck in a coalition as Emperor Brandenburg for decades, Denmark finally triggered a defensive CTA. Finally a chance to make some progress, let's just call in France and suddenly France takes the warleader, assuring that I wont get any good peace deal even if I were to clobber the Scandinavia blob.


Input?

 

[Thrake]

I think you misunderstood it. You can't loose warleadership as the attacker; as defender, you can effectively loose it. It can be irritating at times, but it can also save your game and is a powerful way to protect yourself when you're small and weak (a powerful Austria and its countless alliances can easily bring in half of Europe if it takes over leadership for ex.).

 

[Alblaka]

I was quite certain that Wiz said players never give up warleader status, even as defenders. But if noone else remembers it like that, I'm probably mistaken.
(Damn forum search is completely useless for finding that source)

(And on an unrelated note, it feels just wrong if the Emperor is reduced to some 'war assistant' >.>)

 

[londoner247]

I was quite certain that Wiz said players never give up warleader status, even as defenders. But if noone else remembers it like that, I'm probably mistaken.
(Damn forum search is completely useless for finding that source)

(And on an unrelated note, it feels just wrong if the Emperor is reduced to some 'war assistant' >.>)

You mean in this post, which is stickied in the FAQ section?

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?713930-AI-Cheats-Facts-and-misunderstandings

 

[AurochsAway]

Wiz once said that one of the player-only advantages, next to his brain, are minor things, f.e. that player nations cannot be instantly inherited (only, at worst, PUd) and that a player warleader will never lose warleadership.

I'm not sure whether this was just wrong info, whether it's a bug or it was recently changed, but after being stuck in a coalition as Emperor Brandenburg for decades, Denmark finally triggered a defensive CTA. Finally a chance to make some progress, let's just call in France and suddenly France takes the warleader, assuring that I wont get any good peace deal even if I were to clobber the Scandinavia blob.


Input?

He said it, but it's been wrong for many patches. I've lost warleader even outside the HRE.

 

[Thrake]

I was quite certain that Wiz said players never give up warleader status, even as defenders. But if noone else remembers it like that, I'm probably mistaken.
(Damn forum search is completely useless for finding that source)

(And on an unrelated note, it feels just wrong if the Emperor is reduced to some 'war assistant' >.>)

France or the Ottomans does the trick as well, but they don't tend to have the Emperor's alliance web. Any major allied to an OPM is boud to be a war assistant anyway.

 

[DDRJake]

Wiz was correct at the time he said it, but patches since then have changed the rules. The player now gets treated no differently when it comes to war leader.

 

[Alblaka]

Doesn't help that the search cant find stickies either But yes, I meant this passage:

- Humans cannot be replaced as warleader in a war unless they are a vassal.

Wiz was correct at the time he said it, but patches since then have changed the rules. The player now gets treated no differently when it comes to war leader.

That clears it up though. Thanks.
Afaik I should still be able to make deals with the enemy warleader if I'm not the war TARGET, right? Gonna try that once I'm back on my desktop.

 

[brifbates]

That clears it up though. Thanks.
Afaik I should still be able to make deals with the enemy warleader if I'm not the war TARGET, right? Gonna try that once I'm back on my desktop.

Unless you and the war leader are both in a coalition against the enemy attacker this is correct. Also, the war target part only applies if the CB has a specific target, if the war goal is superiority any nation can peace out separately.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Unless you and the war leader are both in a coalition against the enemy attacker this is correct. Also, the war target part only applies if the CB has a specific target, if the war goal is superiority any nation can peace out separately.

I find the target restriction extremely obnoxious if you're the defender. In order to prevent AI abuse, by all means make it refuse in that situation if it can't accept terms strategically, but a player who is willing to give up the AI demands so that he doesn't spend 10 years in an idiot AI war where neither side will make peace and the player's WE sits at 20 with prestige tank from accepting rebel demands is just asinine.

Especially given that superiority wars let you bypass the "oh but separate peacing out the little guy before the war leader helps is UNFAIR" anyway, I see no reason to deny separate peace wrt target of war goal anyway. If the big guy wants to protect them that much, he can force release them if he wins, or prevent their destruction in the first place.