Brainstorming a better war score system

[Beagá]

Basically, we need a way to improve how Agressive expansion works.

Example would be this:

Suppose you are at war and got 60% war score. You contributed with 40% (and your war goal is something that would give AE), France with 20%. When Peace is asked, France demands, say, one province Worth 15% warscore and indemnities Worth 5%. If you gave them their demands in Peace, you would get 0% AE with them (from your goal) in that Peace deal. If you gave the province but not the ducats, 25%.

Why is that important? Because ot´s obvious that if you are fighting a common foe AND your ally got something he wouldn´t be pissed with you, quite the opposite.

 

[hwoosh]

You need to explain your proposal better. The scenario you have laid out is garbled.

 

[Beagá]

If a country demands something in a peacedeal, and you give it, you get less AE with that allied country.

And what a country can request in a Peace deal should depend on their war contribution, I hate that war leader can get 100% warscore without doing anything.

 

[hwoosh]

So ... you want a system where, as the victor, you can make demands and concessions at the same time?

 

[Beagá]

Sigh do I have to draw?

You are allied with France.

You DOW, say Spain for conquest (and is warleader), and add two provinces which would give AE of 30.

France gets more warscore than you during the war, beats Spain badly and asks for Transfer Trade Power from SPAIN. Not you.

If you gave it on the Peace deal, they wouldn´t bother with your conquest. That is, 0 AE with your ally France. Similarly if they fared poorly and got like, 5% warscore, and only wanted ducats from Spain, if you accepted the request on the peacedeal you would also get 0% AE.

If you didn´t give it, you would get 100% AE, as usual.

 

[hwoosh]

OK then, you should have said France was your ally to begin with. That was very unclear in the OP.

Sure, that makes sense. But the cases when you’re actually allowed to grant your ally something that they want in a peace deal are rather marginal (depends on who sieges what, etc.).

 

[Facaltas]

But the cases when you’re actually allowed to grant your ally something that they want in a peace deal are rather marginal (depends on who sieges what, etc.).

What do you mean by marginal? Infrequent? I agree its not something that happens all the time, however I firgure about every third or fourth war I have an ally who has taken a few provences and have the option to cede them to them.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I think the only decent way to fix the current problems with peace offers is to add a completely new feature: Peace conferences.
Whenever a war has more than one (independened) participant on either side, the final results of a peace offers should be negotiated between all participants.

CK2 has shown that the game engine can keep track about how much each nation contributes to a war, so the final negotiations can be based on that. The more a nation contributed to a war, the more it should be allowed to benefit from the final peace talks. This could either be something like a discount on Aggressive Expansion, but it could also be used to influence relations between the nations involved in the war (e.g. an attacker that takes all the spoils for himself would greatly piss off his allies, an secondary attacker that does not make demands despite high contribution receives a relation boost with the defeated enemy, etc.) or even be used to determine who can actually demand what in a peace treaty.

In addition, it might be a good idea to allow each participant to pick a seperate wargoal that they will try to achieve when peace talks commence. So if an ally joins your war just to gain territory, his wargoal could become more important if he actually made a significant contribution to the war. Likewise, allies that try to preserve the Status Quo could make it harder for another nation to actually demand provinces in a peace treaty. This way it would also be more interesting to think about whom you actually Call to Arms for your war, because while the war might become less troublesome, you could also reduce your gains.

Tbh. I have no idea at this point about the details required to make the system work, but I think it wouldn't be impossible.
Maybe not something that can be added for EU4 at this point, but future addons or stuff like Vicky III could certainly benefit from a feature like this.

 

[LordofTurtles]

You already get next to no AE with allies that are at war with you...

 

[Tikinaattori]

Before EU IV was released, I was really enjoying playing Victoria II Heart of darkness expansion ( both vanilla and mods ), and I think Paradox really nailed peace negotiations right there. Like all countries participating in the war could add their own war goals, and finally when the peace was made, leader gets to choose who gets what, or you could try to negotiate your own separate peace deal before. In big wars, that really made the difference, because you could actually gain something from the war. With current EU mechanics, you can kill hundreds of thousands of yours and enemy troops, siege entire countries and gain absolutely nothing, because if AI alliance leader does not get what it wants, it just white peaces out or takes some money, but never gives anything to it's allies, no matter how much they invested in the war. Also huge Great Wars that had several great powers in arms had different peace rules and all kinds of nice stuff. I really love how they made that expansion, and really really hope they introduce those same mechanics here in EU IV.

 

[K.Kingen]

Before EU IV was released, I was really enjoying playing Victoria II Heart of darkness expansion ( both vanilla and mods ), and I think Paradox really nailed peace negotiations right there. Like all countries participating in the war could add their own war goals, and finally when the peace was made, leader gets to choose who gets what, or you could try to negotiate your own separate peace deal before. In big wars, that really made the difference, because you could actually gain something from the war. With current EU mechanics, you can kill hundreds of thousands of yours and enemy troops, siege entire countries and gain absolutely nothing, because if AI alliance leader does not get what it wants, it just white peaces out or takes some money, but never gives anything to it's allies, no matter how much they invested in the war. Also huge Great Wars that had several great powers in arms had different peace rules and all kinds of nice stuff. I really love how they made that expansion, and really really hope they introduce those same mechanics here in EU IV.

Agreed.

 

[Beagá]

You already get next to no AE with allies that are at war with you...

Aware, but my point is that, if na ally bled like hell in a war and got nothing in return because YOU didn´t want to, they should be VERY pissed. Think Italy after WW1. And the problem Tiki mentioned above is VERY real.

For the base game maybe such a feature would be too much for only a patch, but for an expansion...

 

[Jormarn]

A "peace conference" or a "war entitlement" system would be great for EU4.

I mean this is really one of the oldest systemic errors in Europa Universalis: One small country with a big ally attacks something, the big ally takes the brunt of the war and later he's left with nothing but a +25(fought to the end). It happens not only with player/ai, but also ai/player and ai/ai and makes the aftermath of a lot of EU wars quite awkward.