BS stab hit from war that is being won

[KaiserCREB]

i am in a war allied to poland joined with them against teutonic order. verden landed some troops and sieged 3 provinces after i killed their force i right clicked the peace offer since i didnt want to upset poland and peace early and to my surprise even though we are stomping in the war i get a stab hit. then after i siege all but the fort back i get another one forcing me to pay money or take a prestige hit. Why can i get stab hit for winning a war when we cant even stab hit the AI for losing?

 

[Ironside121]

The stability hit won't be related to the peace deal, will it? I didn't know you'd take a stability hit from refusing peace.

. Your alliance may be winning, but you aren't. They have a certain personal warscore against you, which is obviously high enough for them to demand some ducats, what exactly do you lose for refusing it?

 

[ragingrondo12]

You have High WE, , negative stab already, so it makes your nation more unstable, and allows stab hitting peace deals to be sent at lower amounts of WS against you. That's likely why.

Its a mechanic to help so the AI doesnt stay in stalemates/perma wars forever, as if you get to -3 stab, any other stabhitting peacedeal will force you to auto-accept.

 

[fleetothemoon]

i am in a war allied to poland joined with them against teutonic order. verden landed some troops and sieged 3 provinces after i killed their force i right clicked the peace offer since i didnt want to upset poland and peace early and to my surprise even though we are stomping in the war i get a stab hit. then after i siege all but the fort back i get another one forcing me to pay money or take a prestige hit. Why can i get stab hit for winning a war when we cant even stab hit the AI for losing?

You can't stab hit the AI for losing since you don't have a good personal war score against them. Poland probably can, but wants more than that.

The stability hit won't be related to the peace deal, will it? I didn't know you'd take a stability hit from refusing peace.

You can lose stab if you are war torn and get presented with what is considered to be a good peace deal. This rarely ever happens.

You used to encounter this frequently when fighting stubborn AI nations in EU3, and players would use this to their advantage and send amiable peace deals that they know will be rejected, causing stab hits in the AI... Of course, the player would never had done this if the AI indicated that they would accept the deal.

what exactly do you lose for refusing it?[

Relation hit with Poland, and (I suspect) diminished AI trust. The latter I'm not entirely sure of, but it seems so from personal anecdotes.

 

[ragingrondo12]

You can't stab hit the AI for losing since you don't have a good personal war score against them. Poland probably can, but wants more than that.

He also can't stab hit because he's a minor partner in the war and not the warleader.

 

[Ironside121]

Guess I've just never been in a situation that bad, since I'm usually war leader, so they won't try get me out of the war. Pretty sure I've rejected a few peace deals though, I guess it's just okay to reject pretty bad ones?

So the player can't stability hit the AI, because the AI will always accept, right?

 

[Peachrocks]

This is pretty ridiculous. Sure Sweden itself is losing but the war itself is being won.

Regardless of whether you see this as 'Swedish people just want an end to the war', I really do hate the whole 'my rules are not your rules' game the AI plays in numerous levels and how many aspects of it are concealed despite some aspects being 'revealed'.

Guess I've just never been in a situation that bad, since I'm usually war leader, so they won't try get me out of the war. Pretty sure I've rejected a few peace deals though, I guess it's just okay to reject pretty bad ones?

So the player can't stability hit the AI, because the AI will always accept, right?

No because the AI is a cheating bastard. See TV tropes, cheating bastard means cheating without really telling you. Just cheating means it does tell you. This AI most definitely falls under the heading of cheating bastard. I have no problem with AI bonuses, but please disclose them somewhere in their entirety @_@.

You used to be able to stab hit the AI but Wiz didn't like it when his poor baby AI couldn't figure out how to use it's so called greater 'power' to beat an enemy it wasn't able to beat.

So he stopped humans ending wars prematurely by forcing them to -3 stability. So now, if this happens we have to wait, and wait and wait and wait, until the AI will accept whatever terms when length of war has run long enough rather than just making the AI accept any offer that would stab hit it which y'know, would be fun for the human.

Sure Blitzkriegs were kind of possible in this fashion, beating the AI and gaining some 40 warscore before it could fight back but this was rare and a timer before stab hit offers were allowed to be placed would have resolved this. However this issue is more of a thing you encounter in Africa and Asia and thus a large amount of players don't run into it so its a problem that basically doesn't exist.

 

[ragingrondo12]

Guess I've just never been in a situation that bad, since I'm usually war leader, so they won't try get me out of the war. Pretty sure I've rejected a few peace deals though, I guess it's just okay to reject pretty bad ones?

So the player can't stability hit the AI, because the AI will always accept, right?

Pretty much. A player is better of full capping or white peacing dependding on circumstances. Not to mention the player should rarely be in those situations. Forcepeacing is more useful in MP.

 

[Ironside121]

Pretty much. A player is better of full capping or white peacing dependding on circumstances. Not to mention the player should rarely be in those situations. Forcepeacing is more useful in MP.

Yeah I prefer the diplomacy in MP, it's always better because the player can actually realize that they're not going to win in the long run, so it's best to just give up what the aggressor wants and save themselves the effort.

 

[KaiserCREB]

the reason im at negative stab is because i right clicked the peace treaty request because who would expect that while winning the war you could get stab hit because one fort got capped. the second screenshot is the peace they sent right away again. Having to give something to this country that is getting its face smashed by poland and at the same time pissing off my long time ally poland is bullshit.
When was the last time you could force an AI that was beating down your entire alliance to give up by taking one fort? never they are overly stubborn and want you to full cap. meanwhile they take one of my forts not even my capital and i lose automatically or eat stab hits.

 

[Wizzington]

It's because you're an ally in the war: The enemy has high individual warscore towards you, even though they have negative warscore in the war overall.

 

[KaiserCREB]

it was only 32% warscore against me at its highest

 

[Tacticus101]

An AI playing like a human? How terribly unfair.....

 

[Ironside121]

it was only 32% warscore against me at its highest

And they offered you a deal worth 1 warscore.

Hence why it was a better deal than you deserved, so you take a stability hit.

 

[Pigeoncount]

An AI playing like a human? How terribly unfair.....

Using a tactic the player literally was locked out of means that the AI is not playing like a human.

 

[Wizzington]

Using a tactic the player literally was locked out of means that the AI is not playing like a human.

Right, I assume you wouldn't mind being forced to accept a peace deal that the AI would accept then?

 

[Ironside121]

Could this be exploited in MP matches though?

Say you've got 10% warscore from sieges against another player whose armies are away from it's territory, and his armies are needed to win the war, could you just do it, then offer them a really cheap way out, forcing them to take the hit to stay in the war?

 

[Pigeoncount]

Right, I assume you wouldn't mind being forced to accept a peace deal that the AI would accept then?

No I wouldn't. To be absolutely clear, I'm fine with the current state of things over how they were, because it was absurdly gamey that I could both end my war quickly while completely destabilizing a nation, I was just stating that it's not a human tactic in single player.

Could this be exploited in MP matches though?

Say you've got 10% warscore from sieges against another player whose armies are away from it's territory, and his armies are needed to win the war, could you just do it, then offer them a really cheap way out, forcing them to take the hit in the war?

You can't stab hit until you have something like 30 percent positive, and ask for 30 percent less, or something like that (I don't remember the exact number since I haven't used it in a while), unless it was completely locked out from the player (don't play multiplayer). So you could NOT do that. You could white peace after a while, or take some minor concessions after a little while longer.

 

[Tacticus101]

Using a tactic the player literally was locked out of means that the AI is not playing like a human.

The human isn't locked out of it, they just cant use it on AIs because the AI is completely unable to deal with it and already has its very clear peace logic. As Wiz points out, they already have to follow peace rules that the Human doesn't that are worse than stab hitting.

Players on the other hand....stab hitting another player in MP an incredibly common thing and the fact that the AI did it to the player means the AI is playing like a Human, doing actions that would usually happen between human players. Which is good.

 

[Pigeoncount]

The human isn't locked out of it, they just cant use it on AIs because the AI is completely unable to deal with it and already has its very clear peace logic. As Wiz points out, they already have to follow peace rules that the Human doesn't that are worse than stab hitting.

So in this situation, they are locked out of it. I don't have a problem with the human being locked out of it as it was quite exploitative, but humans were locked out on using it against AI. The human really doesn't need this tool against the AI, considering the huge human bonus from simply being a human, but it is asymmetric, even if it cuts both ways (humans lose stability, AI has to accept if their logic says they should). I'm going to stop arguing this, as this is mostly semantics, I just wanted to explain what I was saying.