Defensive Wars and War Participation

[Alyosha]

If I as a larger power am called into a defensive war I should at a certain level of War Participation (say over 50%) be allowed to take the mantle as War Leader. To give an example I am currently playing as Venice, defending Montenegro from Serbia, Bosnia, and the Commonwealth. I have 97% War Participation and Montenegro is occupied, and yet they refuse to make peace with the likes of Bosnia and the Commonwealth, hoping to gain territory.

In no time in history would a much greater power allow an ally who relies almost entire on its good graces to set the terms at the peace table. So, if a participant on the defensive side of a war achieves over 50% War Participation it should become the new War Leader. This would allow the war to continue (and not leave a lesser power at the mercy of a separate peace) and perhaps incur a relations hit with the former War Leader. Additionally, the action could be voluntary (an alert that one has the ability to take over would display).

I would limit this to the defensive side as offensive wars are a bit more voluntary in their nature. Also, for sake of ease of implementation it should require the war to have been underway for at least a year and only be possible once (so the War Leader wouldn't constantly switch back and forth). At over 50% the requirement would be significant and a more balanced alliance would likely ensure that the number would not exceed that total.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

If I as a larger power am called into a defensive war I should at a certain level of War Participation (say over 50%) be allowed to take the mantle as War Leader. To give an example I am currently playing as Venice, defending Montenegro from Serbia, Bosnia, and the Commonwealth. I have 97% War Participation and Montenegro is occupied, and yet they refuse to make peace with the likes of Bosnia and the Commonwealth, hoping to gain territory.

In no time in history would a much greater power allow an ally who relies almost entire on its good graces to set the terms at the peace table. So, if a participant on the defensive side of a war achieves over 50% War Participation it should become the new War Leader. This would allow the war to continue (and not leave a lesser power at the mercy of a separate peace) and perhaps incur a relations hit with the former War Leader. Additionally, the action could be voluntary (an alert that one has the ability to take over would display).

I would limit this to the defensive side as offensive wars are a bit more voluntary in their nature. Also, for sake of ease of implementation it should require the war to have been underway for at least a year and only be possible once (so the War Leader wouldn't constantly switch back and forth). At over 50% the requirement would be significant and a more balanced alliance would likely ensure that the number would not exceed that total.

For defensive wars, if the OPM war leader loses war leadership they will surrender straight away as they are at -100% warscore and +10 WE already, leaving you as the sole war leader trying to protect yourself from conquest and having already lost the ally you came to defend. Also the war leader is allowed to call their allies in; this would very quickly lead to WW1 if Serbia calls in Venice, who then calls in France, Aragon and he Papal States (whereas Serbia originally only had you as an ally). This would be quite bad for the player on the flipside, when through your clever diplomacy you isolated Albania from any big alliances but suddenly their ally gets to call in their allies.

 

[Alyosha]

For defensive wars, if the OPM war leader loses war leadership they will surrender straight away as they are at -100% warscore and +10 WE already, leaving you as the sole war leader trying to protect yourself from conquest and having already lost the ally you came to defend. Also the war leader is allowed to call their allies in; this would very quickly lead to WW1 if Serbia calls in Venice, who then calls in France, Aragon and he Papal States (whereas Serbia originally only had you as an ally). This would be quite bad for the player on the flipside, when through your clever diplomacy you isolated Albania from any big alliances but suddenly their ally gets to call in their allies.

Good points. So push the timeline to 3 years (ensuring the -1000 modifier to calling allies is present). Alternatively maybe that’s not the worst case in the world, if indeed the new war leader is doing all the work

As to the original war leader making peace - perhaps they do it right away. However the war goal would be out of contention so a new war leader could pick and choose his/her battles.

There are other alternatives as well. Pushing for a “demand for peace” interaction has been something I and others have suggested in the past. Whether one views this game as a sandbox or historical simulator the notion that a tiny power has its benefactor by the nose b/c of who is “war leader” cannot be the correct answer.

 

[NiklasJ]

Good points. So push the timeline to 3 years (ensuring the -1000 modifier to calling allies is present). Alternatively maybe that’s not the worst case in the world, if indeed the new war leader is doing all the work

As to the original war leader making peace - perhaps they do it right away. However the war goal would be out of contention so a new war leader could pick and choose his/her battles.

There are other alternatives as well. Pushing for a “demand for peace” interaction has been something I and others have suggested in the past. Whether one views this game as a sandbox or historical simulator the notion that a tiny power has its benefactor by the nose b/c of who is “war leader” cannot be the correct answer.

The demand for piece seems most reasonable. There are also other suggestions for making demands when accepting a call to arms. Demanding provinces based on participation or becoming war leader seems reasonable. You could also demand that the OPM becomes your vassal, as it happens with Danzig and Crimea (though not at war with any external powers)