Enhanced War Diplomacy

[unmerged(77752)]

I know that gun-boat diplomacy has been announced and will be elaborated upon on a future dev diary, but I was thinking about what else could in included in war diplomacy which seemed pretty basic in Vic 1

Armistices: If im working over/getting worked, I should be able to negotiate a temporary armistice so that we can negotiate terms of peace. I shouldn't have to keep fighting a war when both countries are making offers and counter offers to one another. Being able get an armistice, of a limited period of time, and be able to negotiate peace terms would be a good feature. If terms couldn't be reach with one another, either due to stubbornness or greed, countries could reputiate armistances at say prestige loss and continue fighting to get better terms (ala Brest-Litovsk)

Peace Conferences: If im in a Great War or an important war, being able to bring your allies into a peace conference to divide and partition your war gotten gains would be an awesome idea. No longer should I have to make a peace that screws my allies over, or if I'm a junior partner in an alliance be screwed over by the alliance leader. You should be able to give your allies and yourself a proper peace settlement that's fair and keeps your alliance together. Competing interests within your alliance for lands and spheres of influence would be cool, and make it more realistic peaces. Making nations and forcing the liberation of countries would be an awesome addition

Occupation: If a country I've been to war at, being able to occupy parts of their nations to ensure that peace terms are fully implemented. I shouldn't make a peace, then have to evacuate my enemies territory ASAP or otherwise face bad attrition. My troubles should be able to chill out in enemy territory and make sure that they don't get any ideas of starting stuff up or not obeying peace treaties.

Disarmament and DMZ's: While disarmament was in Vic1, it seems like an utter useless demand of peace. Countries would ignore it and never decrease or eliminate elements of their armed forces. Being able to force military disarmament whether thru occupation of parts of their country or be able to re-start war without prestige loss to force them to disarm. As well DMZ's would be a key element to add. Having a border area next to your country that cannot be militarized unless they want more war would be a realitic element that was lacking in Vic1.

Specific Indemnities: While its always great to have money in indemnities, being able to get specific goods from a defeated country, either for free or significantly reduced prices would add another element of realism. I shouldn't HAVE to annex nations just to get their resources. Rather I should be able to demand either cheap goods or free goods at my demand as a condition of peace. While money is good and would allow you to buy goods, imports in effect were treated as an expense and moreless encouraged annexations rather than economic subjugation.

Anyways some ideas, I donno how war diplomacy will be implemented in this game, but I think those would be come cool ideas

 

[Red_Communist]

I know that gun-boat diplomacy has been announced and will be elaborated upon on a future dev diary, but I was thinking about what else could in included in war diplomacy which seemed pretty basic in Vic 1

Armistices: If im working over/getting worked, I should be able to negotiate a temporary armistice so that we can negotiate terms of peace. I shouldn't have to keep fighting a war when both countries are making offers and counter offers to one another. Being able get an armistice, of a limited period of time, and be able to negotiate peace terms would be a good feature. If terms couldn't be reach with one another, either due to stubbornness or greed, countries could reputiate armistances at say prestige loss and continue fighting to get better terms (ala Brest-Litovsk)

Peace Conferences: If im in a Great War or an important war, being able to bring your allies into a peace conference to divide and partition your war gotten gains would be an awesome idea. No longer should I have to make a peace that screws my allies over, or if I'm a junior partner in an alliance be screwed over by the alliance leader. You should be able to give your allies and yourself a proper peace settlement that's fair and keeps your alliance together. Competing interests within your alliance for lands and spheres of influence would be cool, and make it more realistic peaces. Making nations and forcing the liberation of countries would be an awesome addition

Occupation: If a country I've been to war at, being able to occupy parts of their nations to ensure that peace terms are fully implemented. I shouldn't make a peace, then have to evacuate my enemies territory ASAP or otherwise face bad attrition. My troubles should be able to chill out in enemy territory and make sure that they don't get any ideas of starting stuff up or not obeying peace treaties.

Disarmament and DMZ's: While disarmament was in Vic1, it seems like an utter useless demand of peace. Countries would ignore it and never decrease or eliminate elements of their armed forces. Being able to force military disarmament whether thru occupation of parts of their country or be able to re-start war without prestige loss to force them to disarm. As well DMZ's would be a key element to add. Having a border area next to your country that cannot be militarized unless they want more war would be a realitic element that was lacking in Vic1.

Specific Indemnities: While its always great to have money in indemnities, being able to get specific goods from a defeated country, either for free or significantly reduced prices would add another element of realism. I shouldn't HAVE to annex nations just to get their resources. Rather I should be able to demand either cheap goods or free goods at my demand as a condition of peace. While money is good and would allow you to buy goods, imports in effect were treated as an expense and moreless encouraged annexations rather than economic subjugation.

Anyways some ideas, I donno how war diplomacy will be implemented in this game, but I think those would be come cool ideas

+1.

HOPEFULLY they add these. It would make the game so much easier, instead of keeping on fighting.

It would also help me personally because I'm a new Vicky player. xD

 

[QQ01]

Personally I find all of these ideas interesting and certainly worth it for PI to give a good thought.

 

[Wheeler711]

Yeah would be so awesome if they do it will add so much more gameplay to the game. Rather than just annexing.

 

[unmerged(166653)]

i think if they do it it would be awesome and we can enjoy victoria even more

 

[unmerged(81228)]

disarmament and dmz's: While disarmament was in vic1, it seems like an utter useless demand of peace. Countries would ignore it and never decrease or eliminate elements of their armed forces. Being able to force military disarmament whether thru occupation of parts of their country or be able to re-start war without prestige loss to force them to disarm. As well dmz's would be a key element to add. Having a border area next to your country that cannot be militarized unless they want more war would be a realitic element that was lacking in vic1.

specific indemnities: While its always great to have money in indemnities, being able to get specific goods from a defeated country, either for free or significantly reduced prices would add another element of realism. I shouldn't have to annex nations just to get their resources. Rather i should be able to demand either cheap goods or free goods at my demand as a condition of peace. While money is good and would allow you to buy goods, imports in effect were treated as an expense and moreless encouraged annexations rather than economic subjugation.

Anyways some ideas, i donno how war diplomacy will be implemented in this game, but i think those would be come cool ideas

+1
I would add specific action demand (for example: 'suspend colonial expansion for five years', make your puppets independent etc.)

 

[unmerged(71032)]

All those options are very interesting, I just think they should be somehow supported by more types of war, so they will have different weights depending on the type of the conflict.

If we have great war (or total war, ideological, sort of WWII style), there should be much higher chance for players and AI being able (lower weight) to force radical changes, like ideological shift, large territory loss, disarmament and so on.

If the conflict is of lower scale, territory should be rarely traded (high weight of such option) but lesser diplomatic solutions (reparations, changes in policies, trade preferences) should have lower weight and be prefered by players and AI.

 

[unmerged(77752)]

All those options are very interesting, I just think they should be somehow supported by more types of war, so they will have different weights depending on the type of the conflict.

If we have great war (or total war, ideological, sort of WWII style), there should be much higher chance for players and AI being able (lower weight) to force radical changes, like ideological shift, large territory loss, disarmament and so on.

If the conflict is of lower scale, territory should be rarely traded (high weight of such option) but lesser diplomatic solutions (reparations, changes in policies, trade preferences) should have lower weight and be prefered by players and AI.

Good idea with the ideological forces in Great Wars! There's no doubt about it that Great Wars had profound shifts in ideology and society for the losers of wars and effects there people greatly.

WWI being the greatest example of that, Germany wanting to make Eastern Europe into a system of economically dependent territories, which Monarchs that were related to the German Emperor and Princes.

As well the collapse of the German Empire led to the rise of democracy and great civil rights in the Germany after the war.

I think having something like occupation to ensure changes like these are implemented is important. In the last game you couldn't even force disarmament, let alone fundamental ideological changes. Something like that needs to be done, to affect other countries political situations during and after a war

 

[Evans]

Excellent stuff Another nice addition would be some handling of demobilisation - those people don't just go back to work the day after the war ends, integrating masses of ex-soldiers into the workforce should be problematic for the economy. Also, will gender politics be looked at at all? Towards the end of the game women should be entering the workforce, e.g. in WW1, and politics (e.g. suffrage movements). I'd also love to see a better handling of political movements in general - from Chartism to the formation of the Labour Party! Oh and for other countries too...

 

[crusaderking]

another addition could be the change in POP's attitude towards war after the great war...i mean, the countries which win will become pacifist while the countries which lose or are not satisfied by the peace terms even after winning the war will become jingoistic/fascist....eg. germany wins the great war, then it will become pacifist while a violently nationalistic party will rise in france to take revenge and will go on the warpath like hitler by conquering belgium, netherlands, luxembourg etc to challenge germany...

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Excellent stuff Another nice addition would be some handling of demobilisation - those people don't just go back to work the day after the war ends, integrating masses of ex-soldiers into the workforce should be problematic for the economy.

This is actually a bit of a problem if Vicky economical system remains as it is (or close to it), as there is no really such thing as unemployment in it. There might be some temporary shortage of the work, but almost 100% of the time you are short of workers, not other way around.

So unless something changes radically there, I don't think problems with reintegrating demobilized soldiers are going to occur - unless some mechanics that artifically not allows demobilized POPs to start work gets implemented.

What you might easily get with old Vicky 1 system is shift in crime rate after the demobilization - rised cost of the crime fighting and negative crime effects on provinces happening more offen.

 

[Ignudo]

+1

 

[Valentin the II]

I aprove the OP.

 

[Orinsul]

cease-fires followed by lengthy peace-conferences would be nice.
Somewhere else this was being discussed too and not so long ago.

 

[unmerged(94363)]

Concert of Europe/League of Nations type structures?

How about the ability for the identified 'Great Powers' in the aftermath of Great Wars, to make demands on others, such a the formation of something approaching a formalized 'Concert of Europe' with regular or irregular meetings (as was the case in some form until the Crimean War) , or a proto-'League of Nations', to arbitrate disputes later on? I would suggest that any such systems should emerge in the aftermath of Great Wars only and be very much shaped by the outcome of those wars.

That way whole new diplomatic options would be opened up, I am thinking of it as operating rather like a much-expanded version of the Holy Roman Empire options in other paradox games - appropriate to the times of course. International votes on action to be taken against countries, vetoes at the peace conference tables, sending threats to your allies of making separate peaces (and taking the prestige hit if you do) etc ... etc ...

Any responses to such a formalized structure? Of course, as a sovereign nation you must be able to opt out and ignore the international grouping - but doing so should be a potential disaster - say another Great War.

 

[lizardo]

More practically, everything should always be on the table. War is simply, well, a bargaining tool.

All tangible and intangible things should be there for the swapping. Many times war was just a means to get to the table and talk seriously or get a favorable bargaining position. The UI should be the same for all negotiations, war or no, just that in the case of war peace is an option. In fact a successful negotiation need not include peace.

A cease fire could be an option too. Which could just on its own evolve to peace or flare up. Many nations have existed in this limbo for years or decades.

So on each side should be displayed the various tradable items and their values (so I don't waste time guessing) and a bar that moves from no (red) to reluctant (gray) to yes (green). Value to you, value to them and absolute value may be distinct. It should be easy and comfortable to use. The present Vicky negotiation UI is a pain. Very sloppy programming compared to HoI.

If there are states and regions it should be obvious what the provinces belong to and the list shouldn't reset every time you select something. In fact one option is to select items graphically from the map.

It would save a lot of effort saving the game if the negotiation is resolved in one effort. We're simulating the horse trading by moving stuff around and getting the green light, that's enough.

Exceeding 'yes' could bestow some positive 'feelings' on the recipient towards you or think you gullible. Or be angry if less than optimal but acceptable. I'm saying these things in human terms but the AI leaders should have a response according to their 'goals' and 'personality'.

Another option in a negotiation is, for example, to do something like take disputed territories and form a neutral state. Thus removing a contested area from conflict.

AI negotiators should have a keen appreciation of their goals and make a deal that promotes those goal no matter the status of the trade partner. This is the silly thing of the BB system in that you could offer your entire nation on a platter and have the deal refused. Not much game play when the only option is annex.

Commodities, money, ships and brigades should also be available to trade along with tech.

 

[DarkLight]

Just how many "Great Wars" were there during this period?

 

[byzantium43]

I like.

I doubt half of those will be implemented by paradox though. They will probably decide its too complex and unnecessary.

 

[unmerged(94363)]

Just how many "Great Wars" were there during this period?

"Great War" was a designation in the original Victoria that was added if more than a certain number (I forget) of Great Powers went to war with each other. There may also have been a trigger if more than x number of countries were to get involved in a single conflict. So in any individual game, you could have no Great Wars to numerous ones (suspect you know that, but since you asked ...).

On another note, I am very much in favour of being able to create a neutral (not a 'puppet') buffer state as an option at the peace table: it could be an effective way of denying your enemies crucial pieces of territory while appearing relatively generous at the negotiations and limiting the BB hit. (Think of the possibility of a neutral 'Rhenish Republic' say, between France and Germany, like 'another (metro) Belgium').

Similarly, demanding the expansion of a neutral power, at the expense of a defeated enemy should also - ideally - be possible. It would be a great way to create animosity between nations too, and drawing neutrals into future alliances.

In the original Victoria, after defeating Germany for example in a Great War (as France or Russia normally): I would often find myself demanding the German's disputed borderlands with Denmark, and then just gifting it to the Danes later. Such transfers of land should be possible directly at the peace table; and should reward players who want to make such move with some form of international goodwill, excluding the defeated powers and their allies, of course.

 

[unmerged(77752)]

On another note, I am very much in favour of being able to create a neutral (not a 'puppet') buffer state as an option at the peace table: it could be an effective way of denying your enemies crucial pieces of territory while appearing relatively generous at the negotiations and limiting the BB hit. (Think of the possibility of a neutral 'Rhenish Republic' say, between France and Germany, like 'another (metro) Belgium').

Similarly, demanding the expansion of a neutral power, at the expense of a defeated enemy should also - ideally - be possible. It would be a great way to create animosity between nations too, and drawing neutrals into future alliances.

In the original Victoria, after defeating Germany for example in a Great War (as France or Russia normally): I would often find myself demanding the German's disputed borderlands with Denmark, and then just gifting it to the Danes later. Such transfers of land should be possible directly at the peace table; and should reward players who want to make such move with some form of international goodwill, excluding the defeated powers and their allies, of course.

Things like that should be included in a Peace Conference of a Great War. The Vic1 system of negotiating with the defeated power just didn't make sense. A defeated power doesn't really have the ability to reject a peace treaty (ala Versailles) unless they want the resumption of war. The thing is in Vic1 you could occupy an entire power, have them totally and utterly defeated, and they would reject you offers.

There needs to be some type of a mechanism to, like a peace conference to impose the will of your alliance on the defeated powers, while balancing the differences within your own alliance. Being able to create buffer states and re-drawing the maps of the world are something that was seriously lacking in the Vic1. Buffer states like the Saarland or Rhenish Republic should be created flat out from peace talks.