beta: possible issues with peace system

[unmerged(15394)]

or possible issues with me.

I am using the Mar30 patch and playing as the OE.

Is it my imagination, or is the AI not able to distinguish a good peace deal any more.

I find if my war objective is to take two provinces worth 10% victory score, I have to achieve at least 30% to get the AI to accept the 10% I am asking for.

With a smaller nation like Georgia with 5 provinces, I had to achieve 100% victory score for the couple provinces I was looking for.

The dutchy of Athens (2provinces) kept demanding money from me, even though I controlled the capital. Until eventually I controlled both provinces and gained 100% could I ask for the second province.

I have not played as OE much, and dont know if that has something to do with it. (I have very low BB points, and a very good monarch). These examples do not have alliances on either side either involved in the war.

Should controlling the capital of a country not be worth much more victory points. It almost seems at the moment like the capital hardly enters the equation since you cannot annex or receive it anyway.

 

[L G]

The new alliance system is very bad I can peace out with the leaders for 25$ and end the whole war even though i and the alliance leader of the enemy had nothing to do with the war.

The ai doesnt seem to want to accept peace much lately i have noticed also, dont know why though.

 

[Nikolai]

This can explain something I've seen in my game as France... OE was crippled because Duchy of Athens got all of its European provinces except Bulgaria, who later revolted into the country Bulgaria.

Because of this, Byzantium survived, and from 1430 or something to roughly 1520 they overrun OE at least five times, only to get 30-40 ducats in peace, untill 1520, when they got Smyrna after yet an overrun! OE was also overrun by the other neightbours, but most of the wars was with the same result as above.

 

[Johan]

Going to enable the cheat and exploit again in singleplayer.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

The change that it matters what your alliance members do in the war is good and should be kept.

But in the recent beta patches the peace alliance leader is also the war alliance leader, also if war was declared between two non-alliancew leaders. As I like to be peace alliance leader this can become tricky as it is easy to make a white peace before the ai could have achieved anything.

I hope you are only talking about disabling the second change.

 

[DGuller]

There might be one realistic aspect to the new alliance system. If you get in the war and ask alliance for help, then you kinda relinquish control of the war. If you're attacked, then your first priority is to protect yourself and not capture enemy provinces. However, this would force AI to be more careful in calling allies for help, as of now they always call their allies for help except when fighting in America. I think the simplest solution that would take away most exploits while keeping the new system is to give back the power of giving away others' provinces to alliance leaders, and giving alliance members (including the ones whose provinces are given away) a choice in accepting peace. The penalty for refusing the leader's peace is debatable, but I would guess that relationship drops and CBs would be involved. Alliance leaders should also be given an AI to know when their peace deal would obviously piss off alliance members (for example, don't offer peace deal when one member's war score and peace settlement score differ by more than certain amount).

 

[DGuller]

Also, another thing that should be done is for AI players to watch who they ally to. More powerful countries should not accept invitations of the weaklings, and if they find themselves under the alliance leadership of weak countries, they should consider leaving. There may even be an alliance rebellion situation, where a powerful member assumes its leadership, though it will probably be hard to program.