BS stab hit from war that is being won

[londoner247]

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.

Does the UI differentiate in any way between an unopened peace offer that won't cause a stab hit and an unopened peace offer that will cause one? If not, can you change this so that it does because, particularly in the OP's circumstances, there's nothing obvious on screen to warn you that you will lose stab if you ignore the offer.

 

[grommile]

Does the UI differentiate in any way between an unopened peace offer that won't cause a stab hit and an unopened peace offer that will cause one?

No.

If not, can you change this so that it does because, particularly in the OP's circumstances, there's nothing obvious on screen to warn you that you will lose stab if you ignore the offer.

Agreed.

 

[Shaaaq]

Well realistically you would want to leave the war for such simple demands; refusing it would make the nobility question you and less willing to support your war because at the end of the day they care more about themselves/their country than they do for an allies war.
Hence the stability loss.

 

[gall]

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?

You need 30+% WS that is full blockade plus few occupied forts. I mind you you can only issue one stabhit per month. I saw this applied by alliance with superior (by wide margin) navy, but it seems to not be so effective besides ADM/DIP (stab hit + WE generated by blockades) expenditure. You need entire year to suck full pool of ADM/DIP plus 6 months to bring him from +3 to -3 stab. After that target have no choice and is out of the loop for some time (can't be brought back by call to arms). If he is less experienced or just mad, you could force him to sit on -3 stab 20 WE for whole war. He will be out of manpower and cash without numerous, bloody battles with you. After one year and half war is already won loosed in most cases (if you won you probably wreck your opponent), so it is rarely really worth doing so.

 

[alpaca]

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.

You have a strange definition of being locked out of something. Think about it this way: when the AI receives a peace offer that would cause a stab hit, it follows a simple heuristic and considers accepting the deal a better alternative than eating the stab hit (which it probably is in most cases). Humans are better at judging when a stab hit might be worth it, and therefore sometimes consider it the better deal. Humans also have the option to play like the AI and simply accept the deal. So if anything, it's the AI that is locked out of something.

Anyways, I agree that the UI should display a stab-hitting peace offer more prominently (probably unfolding it automatically as a pop-up)

 

[hashinshin]

Perhaps you shouldn't be able to stab hit someone with a mere 34 war score?

 

[SolSys]

Does the UI differentiate in any way between an unopened peace offer that won't cause a stab hit and an unopened peace offer that will cause one? If not, can you change this so that it does because, particularly in the OP's circumstances, there's nothing obvious on screen to warn you that you will lose stab if you ignore the offer.

From what I've seen from the last dev MP, peace offers with stab hits appeared with a red** dove [instead the regular white].

**unless its because it came from a human player?

 

[chrnno]

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

As long as you allowed us to put priorities the same way AI does sure that would be a curious game to play. Not sure I would like it forever but it would be interesting how differently one would have to wage wars especially the ones you are winning to ensure you can actually get the things you want.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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

That would be far preferable to the current model, if AI had to accept stabhit offers. The player would have to actually plan around war score more than now, temporary bad positions would be more meaningful.

 

[Sharples88]

I feel like the AI should only be able to send your peace offerings every 6 months, to prevent every single stability hit possible every single month, had this happen to me actually, all my land was seiged apart from my capital provience, was unseiging the 100% ones and seiging opponent provience, took three stability hits in just under three months for that.

 

[Noel84]

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

not relevant. The ai has a system to choose wheather or not to leave a war (which due to length of war makes it completely suicidal)
So, why does the ai just refuse stabhit peace offers with no penalties?

 

[grommile]

I feel like the AI should only be able to send your peace offerings every 6 months, to prevent every single stability hit possible every single month, had this happen to me actually, all my land was seiged apart from my capital provience, was unseiging the 100% ones and seiging opponent provience, took three stability hits in just under three months for that.

The whole point of stab hits from peace deals is to force you to make peace.

 

[Winston_Churchill]

My question is how did you let Verden completely siege down one of your forts? Either all of your enemies blitzed you to get you out of the war quickly like a human player does, or you left your forts mothballed during war. Either way this seems completely reasonable to me.

 

[Zander]

That would be far preferable to the current model, if AI had to accept stabhit offers. The player would have to actually plan around war score more than now, temporary bad positions would be more meaningful.

No fair responding to one of Wiz's snarky comments seriously. He just uses them to deflect criticism of the AI cheats!

In all seriousness, I do think forcing either side to accept a "stabhit offer" in AI-player interaction would be a good thing. Probably still want to keep the stabhit mechanic for player-player, though, in case someone really wants to tough it out for a few months.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No fair responding to one of Wiz's snarky comments seriously. He just uses them to deflect criticism of the AI cheats!

In all seriousness, I do think forcing either side to accept a "stabhit offer" in AI-player interaction would be a good thing. Probably still want to keep the stabhit mechanic for player-player, though, in case someone really wants to tough it out for a few months.

It's unusual that a snarky proposal from anybody is something that could theoretically add useful strategic consideration to the game.

 

[Peachrocks]

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

Sure, if war score was changed so that if I had 40% warscore over an AI on a war going on over 3-4 years and they would have to take anything under 20 war score rather than them refusing even white peace. If you think sometimes the AI shouldn't accept an offer that it does accept, doesn't that suggest something else is wrong? In all honesty, the whole war system is sort of wrong partly because of situations like these, but you'd need a massive overhaul to fix that one, but if we are stuck with a given system, we can still make the best of it.

Please don't be snarky and defensive about your AI when we are ultimately trying to better the game for the human by giving you honest feedback. It might win the hearts of the simple minded, but for those who truly like a challenging and fair strategy game it comes off as arrogant.

I realize the AI does a whole lot of work in the game, playing for every nation and it still keeps a good speed considering all of that. That's impressive and obviously it does need a cheat here and there in consequence but as Zander said, it looks like you are deflecting fair and constructive criticism and at the end of the day, the AI exists so the human can have fun. Forcing total war situations which is actively harmful to the future of the AI's nation and tedious to the human going through the motions is not fun.

 

[Soranya]

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.

Sadly doesn't work perfectly - still see occasional 30year wars with no results (but ocoasional 1stack aldnigs ort seabattles or what ever it takes to not make trigger a forced white peace.

 

[KaiserCREB]

they only sieged one of my forts i had just finished eating Novgorod in a separate war. none of them were mothballed.

 

[grommile]

they only sieged one of my forts i had just finished eating Novgorod in a separate war. none of them were mothballed.

One fort can be a lot of war score.

 

[Viperswhip]

One fort can be a lot of war score.

I take one fort and generally, timing is also a bit of an issue, and how many forts they have overall, but that's often enough to white peace or even get war reps out of a deal. When an enemy has allies I don't want to deal with I beeline for their forts. It's incredibly important to at least be matching them fort for fort in the war.