Claim and counter CB?

[AKronblad]

1. Doesn't matter what the casus belli does, as my missed point was, YOU can get claims on other nations without YOU having any control over it, it happens both from events, and nation forming, and you cannot revoke those claims yourself.



2. The point is that someone fabricating a claim on you shouldn't be a free casus belli to start your own conquest on them, there's no justifiable arguement for starting a war other than insult, which already exists in the game, and gets granted for several event-triggered claims. And the risk of suffering aggressive expansion is a problem in a counter? That's what they had when they went through the trouble of making the claim, why should the other side get a conquest-based war out of it for free?

Another country considering a part of your country as their rightful property does not grant you the right to launch an invasion on them based on that, with the freedom to do any time from imidiately, to some 25 years in the future. That is why i say fabricating your own claims are counter-claims, not a counter as in something that stops it, but a counter as in somthing that you can do to them in return.

The ONLY thing i would consider something that could be justified, would be diplomatic insult, which in itself has a sensibly limited time duration as well, and is still more conquest-relaxed than i'd like it to be. I'd frankly prefer if all the "conflict" type of casus bellis either were restricted from freely taking land, or had an increased province warscore cost and aggressive expansion penalty on them. A casus belli not designed for conquest should not be lenient towards it.

Thanks for input!

1. The idea is that ANY claim (whether rightful, wrongful, forged, genuine, etc.) would result in this "Counter Conquest" CB.
2. Good points: CB's should be more restrictive in terms of peace offer types, so that more efforts and strategies are put towards producing the right CB in the game. Maybe this CB could have roughly the dame profile as Insult CB + Revoke Claim/Core if needed. Although I disagree that the natural reaction to another country having forged a claim SHOULD be forging you're own claim on them: the natural reaction SHOULD be to make them renounce that claim. I understand if the game mechanism currently makes that the natural reaction, but I think it SHOULDN'T be.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Really, rather than a counter-CB, what we need is the defender of a war to peace out at better than 'no-CB' as if he initiated the conflict. Someone declares on you and you punish their foolishness, and you should be able to take some things as fair reward for your pain without ticking off your neighbors.

Even something as simple as 'Defender gets 50% AE and no dip cost on claims taken in a peace' would let you punish aggressors more freely.

 

[AKronblad]

Really, rather than a counter-CB, what we need is the defender of a war to peace out at better than 'no-CB' as if he initiated the conflict. Someone declares on you and you punish their foolishness, and you should be able to take some things as fair reward for your pain without ticking off your neighbors.

Even something as simple as 'Defender gets 50% AE and no dip cost on claims taken in a peace' would let you punish aggressors more freely.

That's some interesting thoughts. So basically modifying the war goals, introducing defender specifics?

 

[BaZERGer]

That's some interesting thoughts. So basically modifying the war goals, introducing defender specifics?

Some cases already does that, although a basic conquest casus belli offers nothing to the defender, it's just 100% on everything with no exceptions. Could either have the effect mirrored, or have some defensive aids, like 50% power cost on revoking claims/cores, retaking and returning cores, and releasing nations. Although specificaly, it's not the war goal that's modified, as the war goal for conquest is the specific province the war was declared over, the rest are extras which the attacker can just take for free as well.

But the 50% aggressive expansion he mentioned is not the right way, the defender should not have a stronger version of the actual casus belli used against him, and the conquest casus belli is only 75%. I think the no diplomatic cost for claims should work for the defender too though... if the defender gained the same benefits as the attacker, it would also strengthen the possition of claims being counters for claims. Conquest is a dispute over land, so why shouldn't the defender have a say in that to his favor too? It's not like the truce incurred is one-way either.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Some cases already does that, although a basic conquest casus belli offers nothing to the defender, it's just 100% on everything with no exceptions. Could either have the effect mirrored, or have some defensive aids, like 50% power cost on revoking claims/cores, retaking and returning cores, and releasing nations. Although specificaly, it's not the war goal that's modified, as the war goal for conquest is the specific province the war was declared over, the rest are extras which the attacker can just take for free as well.

But the 50% aggressive expansion he mentioned is not the right way, the defender should not have a stronger version of the actual casus belli used against him, and the conquest casus belli is only 75%. I think the no diplomatic cost for claims should work for the defender too though... if the defender gained the same benefits as the attacker, it would also strengthen the possition of claims being counters for claims. Conquest is a dispute over land, so why shouldn't the defender have a say in that to his favor too? It's not like the truce incurred is one-way either.

It should be stronger for the defender. The attacker gets to choose the war, which means the presumption should be that the odds favor the attacker. Giving the defender superior (less) AE gain when they win adds risk to balance that.

Also, logically, provinces taken to punish an aggressor in a defensive war should have less of an impact on how neighboring states view your aggressive tendencies. You didn't choose the war, you didn't start it, all you did was penalize the aggressor.

 

[yerm]

The point is that someone fabricating a claim on you shouldn't be a free casus belli to start your own conquest on them, there's no justifiable arguement for starting a war other than insult, which already exists in the game, and gets granted for several event-triggered claims. And the risk of suffering aggressive expansion is a problem in a counter? That's what they had when they went through the trouble of making the claim, why should the other side get a conquest-based war out of it for free?

Another country considering a part of your country as their rightful property does not grant you the right to launch an invasion on them based on that, with the freedom to do any time from imidiately, to some 25 years in the future. That is why i say fabricating your own claims are counter-claims, not a counter as in something that stops it, but a counter as in somthing that you can do to them in return.

The ONLY thing i would consider something that could be justified, would be diplomatic insult, which in itself has a sensibly limited time duration as well, and is still more conquest-relaxed than i'd like it to be. I'd frankly prefer if all the "conflict" type of casus bellis either were restricted from freely taking land, or had an increased province warscore cost and aggressive expansion penalty on them. A casus belli not designed for conquest should not be lenient towards it.

There are two different things happening here: one is a claim on your territory, and the other is a claim FABRICATED on your territory.

If you catch someone fabricating a claim on your territory, the game very much should give you justification to go in and do something about it. This IS a justification for war.

Now, in the case of a normal, natural, even legitimate claim on your territory for good reason, this could still also be a valid reason to invade. War being started as a pre-emptive attack before they can raise the forces to attack you is a perfectly reasonable justification. The problem here is not the cause of the war, the problem is the outcome being territorial acquisition. The solution, therefore, is not to handicap a good mechanic like forcing someone to revoke their claims, fabricated or not. The solution is to limit the power of unjustified demands in war, or at least dramatically increase the diplomatic penalty of doing things like annexation without good cause.

To add - there could be a step process to this, whereby you don't have a CB just because they have a claim, but you do get a diplomatic action to demand they revoke their claim, and a CB if they refuse.

 

[slv]

You should have a "Captured Spy" CB just as in EU3.

 

[AKronblad]

There are two different things happening here: one is a claim on your territory, and the other is a claim FABRICATED on your territory.

If you catch someone fabricating a claim on your territory, the game very much should give you justification to go in and do something about it. This IS a justification for war.

Now, in the case of a normal, natural, even legitimate claim on your territory for good reason, this could still also be a valid reason to invade. War being started as a pre-emptive attack before they can raise the forces to attack you is a perfectly reasonable justification. The problem here is not the cause of the war, the problem is the outcome being territorial acquisition. The solution, therefore, is not to handicap a good mechanic like forcing someone to revoke their claims, fabricated or not. The solution is to limit the power of unjustified demands in war, or at least dramatically increase the diplomatic penalty of doing things like annexation without good cause.

To add - there could be a step process to this, whereby you don't have a CB just because they have a claim, but you do get a diplomatic action to demand they revoke their claim, and a CB if they refuse.

Really good points and good post!