Every war is a total war

[zdlugasz]

Searching for white peace spam on PDS gives almost 2000 results: it's annoying to a lot of of people. White peace should be used by the AI as a meaningful offer, let's say when the player gets embroiled in another war and is losing that or if the war has gone on for years without a single shot fired. Not a month after the DoW when nothing has been decided yet.

What is more annoying (IMO) is that some minor ally of my opponent (e.g. Nogai when I was fighting Ottomans) demanded 300+ ducats and releasing two nations when I was "winning" - I had positive warscore, smashed OE navy and was running rampant in Anatolia while all what Ottomans (and their vassals) were doing was sitting on the European bank of Bosphorus and looking at the smoke.

 

[e_quality]

No country went ever to war, just to see what the might eventually could get from it.

Sweden did exactly that at several times. For example, their war against Poland 1655-1660 and against Russia 1788-1790 were this kind of wars. Arguably the Swedish participation in the Thirty Years War could also be characterized as such.

 

[BBBD316]

I do think that wars should be more managable, if I only want to take one province once I get the warscore I should be able to force the peace. This means that both wars of aggression and defence would be easier to manage as the war score is the actual barometer of the war.

Also I would love additional options to bully/threaten other nations to meet our demands, especially low level demands. If I am England and France is embroiled in wars in Italy and Spain I should be able to get them to agree to not trade in the Dutch CoT for 5 years, rather than go to war to make it so.

Also revolt risk should spike up dramatically once war is declared and troops start leaving the nation, just to simulate that rebellious elements might seize their moment to attack. This would mean that the AI and player would be required to maintain some home forces or risk rebellions at home. Hopefully this would stop nations from emptying out all troops from their lands during wars.

 

[Swedish Steel!]

Also revolt risk should spike up dramatically once war is declared and troops start leaving the nation, just to simulate that rebellious elements might seize their moment to attack. This would mean that the AI and player would be required to maintain some home forces or risk rebellions at home. Hopefully this would stop nations from emptying out all troops from their lands during wars.

This is part of something I really want to see. A good part of the reason why nations such as Ottomans, PLC and Russia didn't immediately gobble up everything near them or actually had to sign disfavourable peace deals despite not being beaten in a ''total war''-scenario is because:

1) Internal factions didn't want the king to have power. Standing armies and such were dangerous as it allowed rulers to enforce their policies - same reason why PLC was later disallowed from raising a standing army beyond a certain size by Russia; to keep it docile and easily controlled.
2) The actual morale of the nation, its armies and most importantly the people interested in waging or defending against the war in the first place was low and this matters much more than how many warm bodies there are left to equip. In 1635 when PLC could've outright attacked Sweden and taken back more than just the Baltic ports on their lands lost in 1629, it didn't because the nobles just didn't want war, to fund war or (in accordance with 1) see the king's ambitions furthened.
3) Even though the nation was more powerful on an absolute scale, it couldn't bring that to bear as effectively or efficiently as it'd like for different reasons, two being 1 and 2 of this post and others being things like logistical ability that aren't a concern in EU3. See Russia for an example of this, there has to be some explanation for why it consistently during the 17th century failed to regain what it had lost in the Treaty of Stolbovo to Sweden and make any progress in Livonia, while earlier conflicts were pretty much stalemates that neither side won rather than the massive invasions we see in EU3.
4) Outside diplomatic pressure or involvement is non-existent in EU3 while in real life powers weren't interested in one nation eating up everything it wanted to unless it served their purposes. This doesn't happen in EU3 until after the peace deal is settled, and even then it's because of infamy, not because of traceable strategic reasons.
5) ... And so on.

Now that I think of it, I'd really like to read an explanation for why Russia couldn't just destroy Sweden (I don't care about the particular example but the reasons - Russia and Sweden just happens to be a very good example to explain what I want to learn about). Does anyone actually have a thorough explanation of why a nation like Russia couldn't just gobble up a place like Sweden?

 

[unmerged(303218)]

The core problem with AI peace deals (as far as I can see it) is the existence of multiple scales to measure wars.
1) Warscore: this is displayed to the player as "the one metric" which is quite misleading. In fact, this is just one factor to the AI to base its decisions on.
2) Military capacity: the quality and quantity of armies standing right now (or raisable on short notice, like levies, if they are in the game) - as far as I know, there is no such metric in EU3, even though this is quite a decisive factor.
3) "Economic" war capacity: state coffers, manpower and war exhaustion. I think it shouldn't even be mentioned outside the context of total wars, yet this is one of the key metrics the AI bases its decisions on.

As far as I could see, much of the EU3 war system was designed with the Thirty Years' War in mind, with the result that a great many wars do end up being of similar scope as the TYW.

I think that moving away from 3) to 2) would result in much more realistic assessment of the war by the AI.

---

Another thing is that I believe the AI to be "optimistic" - it keeps believing that, even despite repeated losses of armies and sieges, it can eventually defeat its foe. Most probably this is because WE is still comparatively low, the manpower pool is still full, and the coffers are OK - thus the AI evaluates the situation as being ready to carry on with the war.

It's a strange mixup of basing a long-term prognosis on a momentary value. E.g. the AI makes a prognosis on the current WE, manpower, and economy - while not taking into account the rapidly deteriorating state of these. Thus it ends up with a wildly inaccurate image of the situation.

 

[Avrelianvs]

War should be based only on warscore and value of the casus belli.

So, let's say England declare war to France to reconquest Normandy and Normandy's value is 10. So, when you have a warscore of 10 as England, France should have a higher probability to accept the peace deal (the higher the warscore from the set value the higher the probability). This, to ofset the very annoing issue that you need to conquer all France just to make them give you a province. That said though, if you're winning and you have a warscore higher then the set value, and you receive a peace proposition that gives you what you wanted (Normandy in my example) if you don't accept you should have heavy penalties like very low moral and high rebellion risk (quite realistic if you think about it: your population and your army knows you have refused the deal they thought they were fighting for). At the same time your enemy should have lower rebellion risk etc. (also realistic, they offered you what you claimed, but you didn't accept). This, so the player has heavy incentives to just accept the deal and avoid transforming it in a total war.

As for more important wars like the Thirty Years War, you just need to put a higher value to the casus belli.

Edit:Also, casus belli value should change from a country to another. If you are Scotland and you have been attacked from England that wants to vassalize you, that should be a 100% value, 'cause it's about your survival. But if you're England, no more than 30-35%, IMHO.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

War should be based only on warscore and value of the casus belli.

Then navy-hopping in an army to some unguarded but valuable province and storming it is the way to win any war. On a land-only frontier, throw a medium army at the enemy to pin it, walk past with the infantry-only siege force, and storm the capital.

I don't think this is what we want.

To make warfare match the other great (or at least promising) parts of EU4, the decision about war should be based mostly on military capacity, i.e. how many and how good troops does each side have in the primary theater of operations. The major regions of EU3 (e.g. Gallia, Aquitanie, Occitania) would serve comparatively well in this role, I think.
Obviously, the "cold, hard warscore", showing who controls the contested area, should be another major factor, but I believe it should not be the primary, decisive one.
And the economic war capacity should be left out of the calculation, unless a war is bound to last more than five years. Hint: they shouldn't. The TYW is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Avrelianvs]

Then navy-hopping in an army to some unguarded but valuable province and storming it is the way to win any war. On a land-only frontier, throw a medium army at the enemy to pin it, walk past with the infantry-only siege force, and storm the capital.

I don't think this is what we want.

You do realize that you just basically described the idea of Nazi Blietzkrieg against France: pinning the French-English army in the Line Maginot while the Germans flanked them throw Holland and Belgium. This way you should garrison (for real, not bulding forts) vulnerable parts of your state. I mean, if the French managed to conquer London in the 100 Years War, don't you think the English king will concede them what they wanted?

 

[unmerged(303218)]

You do realize that you just basically described the idea of Nazi Blietzkrieg against France: pinning the French-English army in the Line Maginot while the Germans flanked them throw Holland and Belgium. This way you should garrison (for real, not bulding forts) vulnerable parts of your state. I mean, if the French managed to conquer London in the 100 Years War, don't you think the English king will concede them what they wanted?

For the first part:
I think you mixed it it up with WWI and the Schlieffen plan, but it doesn't matter. What is more important that in both World Wars, the plan depended on a very high strategic mobility, relying on the railroad system (WW1) and concrete roads (WW2), neither of which existed during the EU timeframe.

To put it simply, during the Early Modern era (EU) the armies weren't nearly as mobile as it would be required to execute this plan successfully. And even if they could march at the required speed, the supply train surely couldn't make it. (Note that I'm all for making attrition much, much more of a problem to invading armies, and to stop instant reinforcements all around the globe.)

---

About the French conquering London:
If they have defeated the Royal Navy, ans well as a serious army, then indeed England had lost the war.
However, if either there is an English army big enough to defeat them, and/or the Royal Navy is capable of stopping more troops and supplies being shipped to them, then the English do have a very real chance to even out - defeat that army in battle or through attrition, take London back, and France is back to square 1 - sitting on the continental side of the Channel, thinking of ways to land troops in England.

So no, losing the capital is no sure way to determine the victor. It is a huge blunder, but if the armies are close by and intact, then the outcome is undetermined. May I remind you of Napoleon taking Moscow, to no avail?

 

[grommile]

Cascading alliances would stop if the war leader didn't change. That's the most basic fix, you (potentially) fight their allies/vassals, and that's it. That's how it should be. It shouldn't go from Savoy - Bohemia - Austria - France.

Unfortunately, not changing the warleader when a more powerful country than the current warleader enters a war makes guarantees basically worthless.

 

[Avrelianvs]

For the first part:
I think you mixed it it up with WWI and the Schlieffen plan, but it doesn't matter. What is more important that in both World Wars, the plan depended on a very high strategic mobility, relying on the railroad system (WW1) and concrete roads (WW2), neither of which existed during the EU timeframe.

To put it simply, during the Early Modern era (EU) the armies weren't nearly as mobile as it would be required to execute this plan successfully. And even if they could march at the required speed, the supply train surely couldn't make it. (Note that I'm all for making attrition much, much more of a problem to invading armies, and to stop instant reinforcements all around the globe.)

---

About the French conquering London:
If they have defeated the Royal Navy, ans well as a serious army, then indeed England had lost the war.
However, if either there is an English army big enough to defeat them, and/or the Royal Navy is capable of stopping more troops and supplies being shipped to them, then the English do have a very real chance to even out - defeat that army in battle or through attrition, take London back, and France is back to square 1 - sitting on the continental side of the Channel, thinking of ways to land troops in England.

So no, losing the capital is no sure way to determine the victor. It is a huge blunder, but if the armies are close by and intact, then the outcome is undetermined. May I remind you of Napoleon taking Moscow, to no avail?

I agree with you in pretty much everything, and yes the Schlieffen plan was based on deception and not in actual 'pinning', but I think my point stands. Quoting from you:

If they have defeated the Royal Navy, ans well as a serious army, then indeed England had lost the war.

That was basically my point: that you don't need to actually take the province you want, you just need to have the warscore necessary to force them to accept your request. So, you think that losing London wouldn't put England in a losing position. I do agree, but that's only in a total war optic. The point is that the English state should be forced to ask itself: is the possession of Normandy worth the effort? I think most of the population and the army will think that they really don't care about Normandy so why not accepting a white peace if offered? If, you as player, do not accept, there should be some penalties, isn't it? Low moral and rebellion risk for example?

Now, you can push throw, that's why I didn't say a peace offer was authomatic, but only probable, and the higher the warscore the higher the probability.