.png){kind=avatar}
Currently, the war system tends to encourage total war even for the most unimportant things, so here is what I'd suggest to allow for smaller wars:
At the beginning of each war, the attacker gets to set demands (basically the same as the peace offer screen). If he doesn't care enough about the demands, the defender might just choose to directly accept the demands (this will still give a truce and AE). If he does not, the defender also gets to set his demands (in case the war turns in his favor). The demands set will remain in the war screen for the entire war and both countries can, at any point, choose to surrender to those demands, instantly ending the war. Both sides are free to lower (or change) their demands at any point, how ever, increasing the demands, if nothing exceptional (like a new country joining the war) happens, will result in massive AE. Of course both countries can still send normal peace offers at any point, but they have to be in between both demands. The stability hit from refusing peace offers would be removed, since enforcing demands would already fulfill this purpose.
If one country manages to hold all demanded provinces and enough warscore for the other demands for sufficient time (maybe one or two years?) and the other country is not currently tied up in another war or rebellion, it may choose to enforce it demands, instantly ending the war on those terms, but causing slightly more AE, as well as giving the other country a CB to reclaim the territory.
To make the wars even smaller, allies can choose, if the demands are low enough (and only contain justified demands), to join the war as backup only (this will, how ever, cause a small relations penalty). That means that they will not directly join the war, but will get called in, if it starts to escalate (if there are high casualties on their side, the warscore is far higher then the demands, both countries are experiencing huge war exhaustion, new countries join the war, etc.) or the opposing party increases its demands.
To not require long lasting sieges, it might also be a good idea to have the warscore be more influenced by decisive victories as well as the military strength (if one side has huge forces and managed to crush the opponents army, the war should, warscore wise, already be almost won).
At the beginning of each war, the attacker gets to set demands (basically the same as the peace offer screen). If he doesn't care enough about the demands, the defender might just choose to directly accept the demands (this will still give a truce and AE). If he does not, the defender also gets to set his demands (in case the war turns in his favor). The demands set will remain in the war screen for the entire war and both countries can, at any point, choose to surrender to those demands, instantly ending the war. Both sides are free to lower (or change) their demands at any point, how ever, increasing the demands, if nothing exceptional (like a new country joining the war) happens, will result in massive AE. Of course both countries can still send normal peace offers at any point, but they have to be in between both demands. The stability hit from refusing peace offers would be removed, since enforcing demands would already fulfill this purpose.
If one country manages to hold all demanded provinces and enough warscore for the other demands for sufficient time (maybe one or two years?) and the other country is not currently tied up in another war or rebellion, it may choose to enforce it demands, instantly ending the war on those terms, but causing slightly more AE, as well as giving the other country a CB to reclaim the territory.
To make the wars even smaller, allies can choose, if the demands are low enough (and only contain justified demands), to join the war as backup only (this will, how ever, cause a small relations penalty). That means that they will not directly join the war, but will get called in, if it starts to escalate (if there are high casualties on their side, the warscore is far higher then the demands, both countries are experiencing huge war exhaustion, new countries join the war, etc.) or the opposing party increases its demands.
To not require long lasting sieges, it might also be a good idea to have the warscore be more influenced by decisive victories as well as the military strength (if one side has huge forces and managed to crush the opponents army, the war should, warscore wise, already be almost won).
Upvote
0