Bring back blocking allies for negotiating for us

[chrnno]

But you'll be fine letting you yourself do the same to the AI, right?

I wasn't going to comment but this right here is simply stupid.

I have played almost 600 hundred hours and in that time I have never ever made any AI country on my side give anything. Not even when I had to spend years using blockades, quick attacks, assaults and so on to prevent warscore from being low enough to give me stability hit upon decline of peace offer. The closest I ever came was offering annul treaties and that has as much to do with my country as the other. I also always try to give AI countries that actively contribute something if at all possible(and that is with me normally sending gifts/subsidies to my allies). Not to mention trying to aid offensive wars when I am not in a precarious position and avoiding breaking alliances if at all possible.

That said I think the actual problem to be fixed is making the AI capable of better understanding how the war is going so it avoids giving concessions now when it could get away with white peace by simply waiting a few months or agreeing to peace out early when it could easily get so much more and has no greater problems to worry about.

Aside from that AI give me provinces all the time in both this patch and before. Works really well for colonies and seems to require them actually wanting something from the other country(even money) otherwise they might just white peace out so perhaps there is something to be fixed there.

 

[heroforhirerob]

I've been given provinces by allies in several wars since getting the new expansion. It may not have been like that before, but it is now. I have zero problems with losing a province one in a while. If you're as large as you say you can easily get it back and you will have the "Reconquest" CB to boot.

 

[Atheana]

The point is that a player shouldn't be forced to sign peace by a tpm warleader. Especially when the warleader didnt lose anything.

 

[ChildeR]

The checkbox was a crutch that gave you a large advantage over the AI. I don't think it should be brought back (except only for whether you want to be given territory). If the problem is to be fixed, let it be fixed fairly.

For example, perhaps the war leader should not be able to give away others' recently occupied provinces unless they've been occupied for e.g. one year. That would give you time enough to lift the siege or turn the tide. This seems like a fair quick and dirty fix, but might work.

Better would be if you could never negotiate for allies' territory with the war leader, but had to make a separate peace for that. However, there are probably a lot of unintended consequences that would have... like non-leaders only being able to demand leader territory...

 

[Atheana]

No, please, don't bring back this. Your logic is flawed. If you're in a war, you should prioritize on defending your provinces.

Also remember. You could always chose to let the warleader negotiate for you before. If you think its great then you could click it on. For those of us that didn't like it we could take it off. Whats so bad about giving a CHOICE.

 

[misiceman]

I actually dont mind, but it happend with two sieges of Italian Minors where i litterally had no chance to switch it to france. They just went oh here you go the day after it clicked over. now maybe I could have been paying more attention to the first one but i tired to stop the second one. pause went off after france gave me stuff....

Cool feature but like something when they get new to the game, little tweak and it will be perfect (no claims of perfection, use at own risk )

 

[in heaven]

But allies dont always let you negotiate for them, i remember Spain joined my war when Portugal attacked my vassal, he got absolutely crushed by France and Portugal, and didnt let me give away anything which lead to all of us standing still for 20 years..

 

[ChildeR]

But allies dont always let you negotiate for them, i remember Spain joined my war when Portugal attacked my vassal, he got absolutely crushed by France and Portugal, and didnt let me give away anything which lead to all of us standing still for 20 years..

Huh? How did they not let you give anything away? I.e. how was this presented?

 

[1alexey]

Seriously I haven't given away land before. There should be an option to refuse to accept negotiations like that. It should pop up and ask you to accept it. IF you refuse then you should be able to fight on, perhaps with a stab or war exhaustion hit. No nation that thinks it can fight on should have to give up land because a two pronvince minor has one province taken.

There already is such option, don`t ally AI.

Bwaides, "realistically" your allies should have an option to put a dagger in your back for forcing their country to suffer more war, since you refuse to pay up your share of reparations, but you don`t want to get too historical here, right?

I mean I will keep fighting a war until I win, which is almost always possible except for some extreme situations. A.I.'s give up and hand away your land. I have never betrayed an A.I. like that.

Which is not necessarily a good idea. Better come back later than run up war exhaustion and make yourself a better target.

People seem to treat losing a province or 2 like some sort of catastrophe. It is not, unless you`re a 2PM.

 

[StatikShocker]

Oirat gave me the two Ming colonies I wanted (no claims) and even that two province island of Ming's. And honestly A.I.s have given me provinces plenty of times. When they fight well I always award them.

But it is horrifying that the a.i. can hand off your land whenever they want, or even make you release countries/return cores without even being sieged!

They can call you into a war that has been raging for 10 years and then make you release all of your country with their magical war leader powers!

 

[Bragi]

I ask myself the probably bold question: Why should the warleader (your ally) in the current system negotiate for you (as secondary participant) in the first place?
Now warleader only changes when the defender is subject, and the secondary participant can always nagotiate with the warleader, and vice versa, wether it is AI or player.

 

[Atheana]

I ask myself the probably bold question: Why should the warleader (your ally) in the current system negotiate for you (as secondary participant) in the first place?
Now warleader only changes when the defender is subject, and the secondary participant can always nagotiate with the warleader, and vice versa, wether it is AI or player.

I wasn't ready to negotiate. I wanted to crush their armies and force them to pay for their crimes. The warleader who was attacked settled first though and instead of giving away their own lands, gave away other nations.

 

[Atheana]

One other thing I would like to add.

Previously this was a choice. For some reason paradox decided to remove that choice.

Why?

If players who didn't like blocking negotations want to let the ai negotiate for them, they always could. Those that did want to block it could.

Paradox, its always bad to take away a player option when its been there for a long time. This isn't a mmo. We are playing against AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But it is horrifying that the a.i. can hand off your land whenever they want, or even make you release countries/return cores without even being sieged!

This goes against Wiz's claim. Have you actually seen it happen yet?

 

[StatikShocker]

This goes against Wiz's claim. Have you actually seen it happen yet?

so what is the change, do all the provinces in question need to be sieged? if that is so I think that would be consistent with my observations. I haven't lost a war in AoW so I haven't seen it happen to me, but if I recall I couldn't make co-belligerents release nations in wars I won.

 

[yerm]

A peace deal needs the option to block this. Being given things you don't want is awful. Having things given away is usually worse.

From an ai-exploit standpoint, this needs to simply check if any affected power would accept their side of the deal in a directly-negotiated separate peace deal. If they would not, do not allow their losing ally to do it for them. If you have <10% WS against someone you should not be able to touch ANYTHING they own.

For the player, there are a few things to change this, but they'd all need to be coded in. The best solution is to allow players to thumb up and thumb down what they'd want in a peace deal, similar to how ai are picky about what they are willing to take if you try to surrender. I should be able to check provinces I want or don't want, and of course a broader option for those who don't care to micro (give anything, give claims/cores only, give nothing).

Abusing peace mechanics is a core mechanic of the game at this point, and making it harder to effectively steal in peace deals is going to considerably add to the difficulty, but I am ok with it. It could be balanced by heavily scaling back the hits and encouraging separate peace more often. Gameplay wise separate peace is a better tool. History wise, it was way more common than it seems in the game; usually only big wars, which eu4 basically simulates with coalitions, ended up with EVERYONE at a peace table.

 

[yerm]

This goes against Wiz's claim. Have you actually seen it happen yet?

I believe I was forced to release territory that wasn't specifically sieged. PART of the country I was forced to release had been sieged off me; the whole thing I want to say was not. I'd have to check, so don't take this as confirmation.

It's beside the point though. They shouldn't be able to take my crap with 7% WS vs me whether they sieged a province or not. I don't agree and my ally would never be able to make me at a negotiating table. Bad for gameplay AND bad for history; so bad in general as a mechanic.

 

[Korashy]

I had AI Otto give me 100% WS provinces from Mamluks because I controlled all the sieges, even though they initiated the wars.