Dear Paradox

[Jedadia959]

PLEASE FIX THE AI FOR PEACE TREATIES!!!
This is absolutely ridiculous! I can't demand hardly anything (if anything) when I have 9% warscore in a war, but the AI won't accept anything less than 4 provinces and the release of an OPM for 9% warscore!

 

[Seelmeister]

If you can prolong the war and keep the AI to 9% or less war score, they will accept less in my experience. The earlier in the war, the more the AI will expect to be able to turn it (more) in its favour. You'll need to keep fighting until their war enthusiasm falls.

 

[Wizzington]

If you want warscore to be the only factor in war, I assume you'd be fine with AI being able to enforce peace deals for their exact warscore on you at any given time then?

 

[Tacticus101]

PLEASE FIX THE AI FOR PEACE TREATIES!!!
This is absolutely ridiculous! I can't demand hardly anything (if anything) when I have 9% warscore in a war, but the AI won't accept anything less than 4 provinces and the release of an OPM for 9% warscore!

Of course you can demand it, the AI just wont accept it. Just like you wont accept that 4 provinces and release of an OPM when the AI sends it to you.

As Wiz says, if warscore were the only factor in a war then the player would be bound by the same rules as the AI and be forced to accept peace's.

 

[gamert71]

How realistic is it for you to start a war and the second a trend appears to be starting in the enemies favor you decide to just give up? You do not give up on the first battle obv.

 

[pphair]

Is automatic white peace still a thing?

 

[Searry]

You should check what factors in to their wishes to prolong the war.

 

[Andredie45]

Is automatic white peace still a thing?

Think so.

 

[Pyske]

If you want warscore to be the only factor in war, I assume you'd be fine with AI being able to enforce peace deals for their exact warscore on you at any given time then?

That's admittedly silly, but it might be interesting to try to build a something like bollinger bands for peace deals. For example, if I can keep warscore consistently above 20% for 1 year, AI becomes (more) willing to accept a peace deal at 20%. This would require tracking a rolling window of numbers, and you'd probably want to tweak the granularity to optimize performance (i.e. updating min & max into a monthly number which is retained, not tracking daily).

Anyway, just a semi-interesting idea that you inspired with your post.

 

[Tacticus101]

That's admittedly silly, but it might be interesting to try to build a something like bollinger bands for peace deals. For example, if I can keep warscore consistently above 20% for 1 year, AI becomes (more) willing to accept a peace deal at 20%. This would require tracking a rolling window of numbers, and you'd probably want to tweak the granularity to optimize performance (i.e. updating min & max into a monthly number which is retained, not tracking daily).

Anyway, just a semi-interesting idea that you inspired with your post.

The point is though that the OP wants to have the AI accept a 9% warscore peace whilst also having the option to refuse the AI's peace himself. Your suggestion is just a tweak to AI logic and doesn't really solve the OPs issue.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you want warscore to be the only factor in war, I assume you'd be fine with AI being able to enforce peace deals for their exact warscore on you at any given time then?

I feel that this kind of counter-question dodges the issue. Here is an example of the issue:



Even if I take away my 1% war score demand, the AI will refuse white peace. You'd think a nation that's been stackwiped multiple times might consider getting off scot free or with a very favorable deal (not that I'd allow that anyway, but still).

Just because length of war functions better than insta-peace doesn't mean that this mechanic is reasonable, and it definitely doesn't mean it's good. I think you can tune up the war goal as a stronger relative consideration, add factors like income/manpower as stronger considerations for the AI, and weight battles more (a nation losing lots of battles is not in good shape and should be looking for an out as war leader). So long as things work as now, the incentive for total war is overwhelming. It'd be nice for the player to actually weigh the pros and cons of extending the war for more gains as opposed to it being a false choice.

Asking obviously non-feasible counter questions isn't any more constructive than the opening post itself :/. At the end of the day, Portugal refusing to peace out for 1-5% war score even though it has a standing army of 2 regiments remaining suggests that the peace deals are due for at least some tuning...tuning we've seen way less often than AE changes or westernization changes despite that this particular mechanic is something a player will encounter in some form in nearly every game.

Edit: This also shows why the AI shouldn't be able to refuse stabhit offers, which are functionally designed as offers humans can't refuse for any real length of time. Rather than letting the AI get stabhit to high heck, it should just accept those.

 

[SolSys]

Is automatic white peace still a thing?

It happens after several years [see wiki for MTTH] when there was no development in the war in either side.
It is preceded by the 'people want peace' warning.

 

[radiatoren]

I feel that this kind of counter-question dodges the issue. Here is an example of the issue:



Even if I take away my 1% war score demand, the AI will refuse white peace. You'd think a nation that's been stackwiped multiple times might consider getting off scot free or with a very favorable deal (not that I'd allow that anyway, but still).

Just because length of war functions better than insta-peace doesn't mean that this mechanic is reasonable, and it definitely doesn't mean it's good. I think you can tune up the war goal as a stronger relative consideration, add factors like income/manpower as stronger considerations for the AI, and weight battles more (a nation losing lots of battles is not in good shape and should be looking for an out as war leader). So long as things work as now, the incentive for total war is overwhelming. It'd be nice for the player to actually weigh the pros and cons of extending the war for more gains as opposed to it being a false choice.

Asking obviously non-feasible counter questions isn't any more constructive than the opening post itself :/. At the end of the day, Portugal refusing to peace out for 1-5% war score even though it has a standing army of 2 regiments remaining suggests that the peace deals are due for at least some tuning...tuning we've seen way less often than AE changes or westernization changes despite that this particular mechanic is something a player will encounter in some form in nearly every game.

Edit: This also shows why the AI shouldn't be able to refuse stabhit offers, which are functionally designed as offers humans can't refuse for any real length of time. Rather than letting the AI get stabhit to high heck, it should just accept those.

If you want a reasonable discussion, don't answer a thread with an unreasonable demand getting unreasonably answered by a developer...

But I can see some merit in what you are suggesting.

My primary problem is that we have two layers of warscore: The one shown on the shield and the "war enthusiasm". The problem is that the player cannot see if an enemy is willing to engage in negotiations by looking at the UI, which is why lenght of war is such a target for frustration. They don't understand that the information they get immediately from the game is irrelevant for their goal!
My suggestion would be to show an indication of both your and the enemys enthusiasm instead of warscore on the shield and make it easy for the player to understand when the opponents are softened enough to negotiate in good faith or when the player is getting in danger of a disaster from not getting out of a losing war! The warscore and by that I mean how much they are willing to give up or take in the deal would still require sending a diplomat, so my suggestion is mostly a UI-change. Now, the effect of this change might require some brain winds on how to show it in a clear way, but it seems like a logical progression towards improving playability without compromising the core design of the game and it makes it easier for the player to give feedback that doesn't conform with the Wiz-line.

 

[yerm]

Length of war needs to go. Just absolutely get rid of it. Done, dead, gone.

Then, when you start having AI making insta-peace, figure out why and fix what's ACTUALLY wrong. Maybe you'll end up having a modifier for not being in any danger. Maybe a modifier while under siege that's a fraction of the completed siege. Maybe a modifier for unbloodied that goes away after losing x% of standing armies.

And maybe, just maybe, the AI actually SHOULD make peace instantly in some cases. 500 development power attacking your 4pm nation, with a single claim and no allies helping you? Yes, actually, you SHOULD want to try instantly giving them that claim and some money; length of warring into a stackwiped dogpile is NOT optimal AI play here.

 

[FloatingOrb]

My only issue with ai peace deals is that you AI ally can drag you into a war, have it last until You get call for peace, then happily continue it for another few years.

 

[yerm]

My only issue with ai peace deals is that you AI ally can drag you into a war, have it last until You get call for peace, then happily continue it for another few years.

Right, the problem here is that call for peace should only ever target the warleaders. This one is just a glaring mistake in the implementation that I hoped would get fixed.

 

[RELee]

Of course you can demand it, the AI just wont accept it. Just like you wont accept that 4 provinces and release of an OPM when the AI sends it to you.

As Wiz says, if warscore were the only factor in a war then the player would be bound by the same rules as the AI and be forced to accept peace's.

This is pretty much what I was thinking, so I respectfully agree with you. I hope this doesn't offend you.

 

[SchwarzerKaiser]

In some forums, you get banned for meaningless, attention seeking thread titles.

 

[PandaL]

If you want a reasonable discussion, don't answer a thread with an unreasonable demand getting unreasonably answered by a developer...

But I can see some merit in what you are suggesting.

My primary problem is that we have two layers of warscore: The one shown on the shield and the "war enthusiasm". The problem is that the player cannot see if an enemy is willing to engage in negotiations by looking at the UI, which is why lenght of war is such a target for frustration. They don't understand that the information they get immediately from the game is irrelevant for their goal!
My suggestion would be to show an indication of both your and the enemys enthusiasm instead of warscore on the shield and make it easy for the player to understand when the opponents are softened enough to negotiate in good faith or when the player is getting in danger of a disaster from not getting out of a losing war! The warscore and by that I mean how much they are willing to give up or take in the deal would still require sending a diplomat, so my suggestion is mostly a UI-change. Now, the effect of this change might require some brain winds on how to show it in a clear way, but it seems like a logical progression towards improving playability without compromising the core design of the game and it makes it easier for the player to give feedback that doesn't conform with the Wiz-line.

I think the problem is deeper than just UI. Right now, a war will not end until one side is completely wrecked (depleting their manpower/money, losing significant amount of land), or both sides both reaching near wrecked state. In reality in a lot of wars, especially those over a particular region (can be big or small), when one side is clearly losing that region, they will start to negotiate peace to minimize loss, rather than let to war continue until complete victory/loss.

I think CK2's peace system is a bit too restrictive, since one can get nothing more than their wargoal in a war, but EU4's one is way too open, resulting in wars always seeking maximum gain rather than minimum loss. However, the problem is also half in the players, since that's the way most players playing the game.

 

[RELee]

In some forums, you get banned for meaningless, attention seeking thread titles.

I don't go there. Right there is one reason.