Enhanced War Diplomacy

[Snaggleooo]

There could perhaps be a mediation system with smaller wars. During the period (and before), an unalligned power would negotiate the terms of the agreement. Both sides would say what they wanted from the other (or what they deserved if they got beaten) and the mediator would decide what was fair. This was one of the problems with WWI (and other major ars); with everyone involved, there was noone unalligned, so it was so difficult to work out a fair deal. Perhaps both sides could put down what they wanted and get the AI to determine what is reasonable, though this would demand a pretty good AI.

By the way, I completely agree with all the OP's ideas. I hope Paradox listen.

 

[henryjai]

I especially like that idea that you'll have peace treaties about economies, this would certainly help the western powers to bully China in a more realistic way. (their treaties are a lot more than just money, land...) and bullying China is always something important in this timeframe. (and I should say really important!)

to have this system work maybe you'll have a diplomatic deal called "trade deals" that would make say country x import stuff S from country y without tariffs(not going through WM), you'll still need convoys to ship the things you buy.

oh! and of course trade deals can be integrated into peace talks that you can "force" trade deals upon the loser, being able to trade with China without tariffs should really boost your economy (while killing their economy)

 

[unmerged(77752)]

I especially like that idea that you'll have peace treaties about economies, this would certainly help the western powers to bully China in a more realistic way. (their treaties are a lot more than just money, land...) and bullying China is always something important in this timeframe. (and I should say really important!)

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I shouldn't have to annex large swathes of land to get the goods that I want. That's real expensive and costly having to own and paficy the locals that you've taken over. I'd rather just be able to economically exploit the area, at the expense of the loser!

oh! and of course trade deals can be integrated into peace talks that you can "force" trade deals upon the loser, being able to trade with China without tariffs should really boost your economy (while killing their economy)

Another awesome element that was missing big time from Vic1, economic warfare! You shouldn't HAVE to use military force to ruin a country, economics are a much easier and more devastating way to do so!

 

[Orinsul]

With the new wasname, sphere of influence system, surely a peace treaty to bring someone exclusive into yours would reflect powers struggles for sole trade control over china.

 

[Chinese Gordon]

I like all the ideas so far. I think the AI iteslf should not be wholy interested in territorial gain like it seems to be in vicky 1. I think bismarkian diplomacy which is concerned more with "the balance of power" umoungst the Great Powers should play a key role. It annoys me in Vicky when European nations get compltely screwed over (like fance always is by Germany) and no other nation raises an eyebrow. The Great Powers shouldnt want to destroy their neigbours compleley because they may needd them later, that is untill it becomes unsustainable like in 1914 when all hell brakes loose.

 

[Van Diemen]

I like most ideas, though I'm afraid that some do not seem very practical. However I completely agree with the Peace Conference proposal. I always hated the idiotic demands and offers which lead to silly/foolish after war borders or alliance leaders demanding all territory for themselves, thus often screwing the alliance minors. I do think that this will be hard to create though, as a new AI code for that would have to be written.

Maybe they could make it similar as in EUIII, you can see the map and demand provinces on the map, however the negotiations should be done in phases. In every phase the victor demands provinces (or others, like war indemnities, release nation), the defeated can respond by making a counter-proposal, however only if the victor hasn't achieved an unconditional surrender (e.g. total occupation alliance leader, or huge war exhaustion alliance leader).

First after the war has started and the alliance leader feel like its a good time to begin peace negotiation (both victor and defeated) you should for example activate the "peace talks" option in the diplomacy screen. Once both alliance leaders have activated this option, peace negotiations should begin (game pauses). However if one of the alliances has either a very high war exhaustion (>80%) or the war score is very much in favor of one side (>80%) the "defeated" alliance should be forced into peace negotiation.

Once peace negotiations begin the total demands should be based on a score system similar to EUIII. However as every member of the victorious alliance has contributed to the war, based on their individual score (which is determined upon occupied provinces, port blockades, battles fought etc.) they should be allowed to only make demands relative to their contributed share in the war (war score). This means that during the negotiation phase every alliance member sends its proposal to the alliance leader, who will then send the offer to be defeated alliance.

Demands like war indemnities should be distributed according to every member's share in the war score and should be payed by each defeated member also according to the relative to the size of the industry score by the defeated alliance. This would mean that more powerful countries (larger industry, will pay more than smaller industries) pay more.

 

[henryjai]

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I shouldn't have to annex large swathes of land to get the goods that I want. That's real expensive and costly having to own and paficy the locals that you've taken over. I'd rather just be able to economically exploit the area, at the expense of the loser!



Another awesome element that was missing big time from Vic1, economic warfare! You shouldn't HAVE to use military force to ruin a country, economics are a much easier and more devastating way to do so!

and force opium trade wouldn't need events any more MONEY!

 

[Talquin]

would there be a increase in Mil/Con or Revolt risk (if they keep these in game) if you were losing a war and declined to end a war you were winning?