Every war is a total war

[maxirage]

Will EUIV still suffer from this problem? It's definitely one of the least fun and most frustrating parts of combat in paradox games. Even if all you want to do is settle a trade dispute, you have to completely annihilate the enemy's forces, and then occupy half the country before they even consider giving you a fair peace offer.

In real history, weren't total wars extremely rare during this time period? And even then, shouldn't destroying every single remaining regiment of the enemy's army and occupying the capital be enough to force a surrender?

 

[Featauril]

Hopefully they'll have learned something from CK II and Vicky II wars.

 

[unmerged(353072)]

I think its to stop the AI from being abused by the player. Otherwise the player could just blitz the capital and then get the nation to release some territory weakening it.

 

[DCyDe]

They could just change what part of a war gives warscore depending on the CB, for example destroying an enemys navy would give much more warscore in a trade dispute then sieging provinces.
I just hope that they don't turn this into another siege&win game (like vic2, ck2) again, battles should be the dominant factor in determining the winner, not avoiding the enemys armys and fleetdropping your own > blitzsieging > back to the ships tactics.

 

[Stadhouder]

This is something that bugs me too in EU3. I really hope that they can do something about it. The problem I think is that the AI looks at war capacity, so as long as that remains high, they are unwilling to even sign a white peace. You have to get their war capacity down. Although with DW since patch 5.1 IIRC you can bring it down by blockading their ports long enough until the war exhaustion start creeping for them. With it still bother me though that you have to destroy their entire navy first. Apparently they rather spent 500 ducats on rebuilding a navy, then lifting their embargo and giving you 50 ducats.

I think its to stop the AI from being abused by the player. Otherwise the player could just blitz the capital and then get the nation to release some territory weakening it.

That's another thing that bothers me, that's it so easy to balkanize countries. Two wrongs don't make a right though. I see the AI also quite often release countries. I do think however that is because the once the war is over the coffers are usually empty, the AI often releases countries just because wants to get something more for it's war score than just a concession of defeat. I think you should be able to demand ducats even if they have empty coffers, and then they just have to get loan to pay for them. Seeing a bit more countries go bankrupt after a war is a lot more realistic than seeing countries getting balkanized all the time.

They could just change what part of a war gives warscore depending on the CB, for example destroying an enemy's navy would give much more warscore in a trade dispute.

I agree, I also wouldn't mind if you can only demand the things where the CB is valid for. CB's are too easily abused in the current system.

I just hope that they don't turn this into another siege&win game (like vic2, ck2) again, battles should be the dominant factor in determining the winner, not avoiding the enemys armys and fleetdropping your own > blitzsieging > back to the ships tactics.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this part though. I agree a decisive loss in a battle should indeed make the AI very willing to make a reasonable peace offer, but sieging while avoiding the enemies armies is a valid tactic, it's how the Netherlands fought with Spain in the 80's year war.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

I think its to stop the AI from being abused by the player. Otherwise the player could just blitz the capital and then get the nation to release some territory weakening it.

Actualy it ussualy what happens in the game anyway. Player blitz the capital, and make swift demands.

IMO, if AI got no chances of defeating other country, it should agree on things that are war aims(IE reconquest), as long as it is not over 100%. Or at least more than 10% over warscore. In any case it should ussualy agree on country taking the provinces it occupies, if it think it cannot win, and it is over 100%.

 

[maxirage]

I liked how CK2 did it, where each war had one simple goal, and if you achieved it then you could sit and wait until you got 100% score. The only limitation of this system is it doesn't allow for several large changes to occur in a single war.

But then again, before the Napoleonic era, did large, nation-changing, multi-objective wars like this ever happen? Most warfare in the medieval era consisted of very little battle and mostly sieges, and they were never total wars. Did cascading alliances even play an important part in history before World War I, like they did in EuIII? I don't think they did.

Maybe there should be two types of wars, pre-Napoleonic and Napoleonic. So only during the late game could you achieve ambitious goals and get into arduous total wars.

 

[Stadhouder]

I liked how CK2 did it, where each war had one simple goal, and if you achieved it then you could sit and wait until you got 100% score. The only limitation of this system is it doesn't allow for several large changes to occur in a single war.

But then again, before the Napoleonic era, did large, nation-changing, multi-objective wars like this ever happen? Most warfare in the medieval era consisted of very little battle and mostly sieges, and they were never total wars. Did cascading alliances even play an important part in history before World War I, like they did in EuIII? I don't think they did.

Maybe there should be two types of wars, pre-Napoleonic and Napoleonic. So only during the late game could you achieve ambitious goals and get into arduous total wars.

Not a bad idea. I don't think you even need two separate types of war. The revolution CB is already in the game. Just tie war objectives to CB's.

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

I'm sure every ruler at any time would've loved to be able to use his whole army to win a war.... But there are several reasons as to why that couldn't happen in most wars. It would take a lot of work to put the prominent ones and I imagine it wont be fun.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

Total commitment to a war is, quite simply, the result of fear of being annexed if the war is lost. Basically, if losing the war equals game over. (This is true for real history.)

Now, the key is to make the AI correctly anticipate the resources required to fight a war (or the consequences of a war). If that is implemented correctly, it can weigh the two alternatives correctly, and give up fighting when the cost of fighting on exceeds the cost of signing the treaty right now.
Indeed, as far as I could see, the AI of EU3 was far too optimistic about the cost of defeating its opponent. Due to this, an otherwise right weighing-of-alternatives resulted in a faulty decision over and over.

 

[Featauril]

Well, in the EU3 timeframe, wars were often started with no clear goal in mind and the peace negotiations often involved the trading of lands which were conquered during the war but weren't involved in the original declaration.

For instance, when the British conquered Canada, it was not because they had a "Conquer Canada" CB.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

CK2 has the "ticking warscore" which might be useful here too. (Like maxirage said)

However CK2 is on general too restrictive with CBs... a game of opportunism like EU4 would do better with a slightly more flexible system. Maybe like in Victoria where you can add war goals on the fly, at some cost. If the AI can take your current war goals into account, then it could adapt its response somewhat, and might choose to cede to a demand after its army is beaten, without escalating to total war.

 

[Richard Dolder]

However CK2 is on general too restrictive with CBs... a game of opportunism like EU4 would do better with a slightly more flexible system. Maybe like in Victoria where you can add war goals on the fly, at some cost. If the AI can take your current war goals into account, then it could adapt its response somewhat, and might choose to cede to a demand after its army is beaten, without escalating to total war.

If i can add wargoals then every war is total war since the player will keep adding wargoals if they think they can win the war.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

EU IV : TOTAL WAR XD will be the title

 

[Col.HoganGer90]

If i can add wargoals then every war is total war since the player will keep adding wargoals if they think they can win the war.

Then Paradox should add some mechanics to make the player not wanting to add yet another and another wargoal - like severe punishments or a capped amount of wargoals (maybe increasing with time or technology).

 

[MilosM]

I think that ultimatums are what this game lacks.Too often I am being attacked for a core, and even if I am willing to concede defeat and cede one province, AI always wants more.So for example if strong nation like France demands something from small nation without allies or guarantees, small nation should strongly consider accepting their demands or they could face war and even annexation.So it would be cool if small disputes could be settled peacefuly or with less effort, I think AI could handle such system easily.

 

[unmerged(425486)]

i dont like total war. i prefer paradox games. i think you have the right idea that the two should not mix. well said

 

[unmerged(80402)]

I think that ultimatums are what this game lacks.Too often I am being attacked for a core, and even if I am willing to concede defeat and cede one province, AI always wants more.So for example if strong nation like France demands something from small nation without allies or guarantees, small nation should strongly consider accepting their demands or they could face war and even annexation.So it would be cool if small disputes could be settled peacefuly or with less effort, I think AI could handle such system easily.

Yeah, i think that ultimatums should be possible. Not so much needed in MP, as in MP players just make ultimatums themselves to other players, but w/e. Always wanted to demand : "Teutons, give us danzig or DIE!"

 

[MilosM]

Yeah, i think that ultimatums should be possible. Not so much needed in MP, as in MP players just make ultimatums themselves to other players, but w/e. Always wanted to demand : "Teutons, give us danzig or DIE!"

Well you could still use it with other AI countries.

 

[unmerged(425486)]

EU IV : TOTAL WAR XD will be the title

OMG I JUST LOLD OUT LOUD AT THIS FUNNY MESSAGE