How to end the total wars?

[Battlex]

That sounds like hell. Thank God they changed it. But! occupying fortless provinces now, even if it's your wartarget, gives too little war points thingies. I mean, imagine a country with a level 3 fort in their capital and many fortless provinces. You can occupy their entire country except for the capital, and even then they wouldn't surrender. I mean, come on! Your entire country is occupied. You're surrounded in your castle. I can do whatever I want in your former provinces. Period. I won. But no... they won't still surrender because no fort was occupied. Come on!

You can't take territory but you can peace them out if you occupy every province and besiege the fort capital. Sometimes for ducats and war reps sometimes not. I think it's perfectly same to need their Fort occupied to actually annex for good their lands, otherwise eating through tribes would be ezpz

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That sounds like hell. Thank God they changed it. But! occupying fortless provinces now, even if it's your wartarget, gives too little war points thingies. I mean, imagine a country with a level 3 fort in their capital and many fortless provinces. You can occupy their entire country except for the capital, and even then they wouldn't surrender. I mean, come on! Your entire country is occupied. You're surrounded in your castle. I can do whatever I want in your former provinces. Period. I won. But no... they won't still surrender because no fort was occupied. Come on!

It was a superior system, in functionality. Mostly because the present one doesn't work though. And it created consequences like the rebel UI lying to the player that still exist in the game to this day, because that's how much they care about UI bugs.

Common criticisms about the old model:

• Ping pong army retreats - still a thing, though with more time in between
• Carpet sieging - not only is this still a thing, it's so much "still a thing" that we're going to get DLC that will let the AI do it (poorly) for us soon.
• Army mobility - the previous model was closer to history in terms of the threat of nearby powers while army was abroad.

What made the old model tedious was that you had to siege whatever you'd take in the peace deal. So people were beholden to RNG to take specific provinces on siege timer. That could have been removed either way though, don't need to implement ZoC for that change.

Also the perma-stopgap that is "length of war" was as much an issue back then as now. Unless they assaulted, which didn't require a breach back then...which is also more consistent with history (did people in EU 4 universe forget how to make ladders?). I don't remember if assaults were bugged back then like they are now.

 

[Arizal]

In defense of the "new" system, I remember the goal was to give a safe space for retreating armies with the ZoC, otherwise every war would end very quickly as the armies would get stackwiped soon after their first defeat. Then they had to decrease the number of forts and increase their durability or else they wouldn't make "chokepoints" last long enough for them to matter. Finally, with the increase in the number of provinces (a province used to roughly be the size what a region is now), there would have been far too many forts in the game.

That being said, I didn't expect this conversation to devolve into a(nother) discussion about the fort system. It seems loosely connected to the issue I was describing which is that wars are too long when you already won and that the AI isn't responsive enough to threats and enfeebeelment by the other empires. The players also don't have the tools to exploit diplomatically those situations (besides outright war).

 

[Battlex]

I think what I’m getting at is that players (like me) might react badly to the kind of reactive mechanic I’m proposing. So by adding some kind of opting out option, like AE and OE are at their core, it could be possible to implement them without harming too much the sense of control players have.

It would be a feature that would only show when players overexerted themselves.

Now it might make the game too predictable. Unless you would play against a player you would be aware of the possibility that some country declare war to you because of your actions. But to an extent weren’t those information available for any informed ruler?

It wouldn’t kill the usefulness of babbling Buffon since it would still allow you to learn when the AI is attacking other countries and when exactly they are going to attack you.

Anyway, I didn’t see it like it and if you play a small power that alert would basically be always on. It sounded interesting when I wrote it...

A derivation of that idea could be that going below the threshold would unlock special diplomatic actions to your neighbours, like negotiate longer truces, extorting money or provinces, give them an intervention CB against you, remove the time limit for them to join as defensive allies...

Event chains could be useful, with size of spy network helping chance of success. 'reports of upcoming intervention' rather than just sudden enforce peace

In defense of the "new" system, I remember the goal was to give a safe space for retreating armies with the ZoC, otherwise every war would end very quickly as the armies would get stackwiped soon after their first defeat. Then they had to decrease the number of forts and increase their durability or else they wouldn't make "chokepoints" last long enough for them to matter. Finally, with the increase in the number of provinces (a province used to roughly be the size what a region is now), there would have been far too many forts in the game.

That being said, I didn't expect this conversation to devolve into a(nother) discussion about the fort system. It seems loosely connected to the issue I was describing which is that wars are too long when you already won and that the AI isn't responsive enough to threats and enfeebeelment by the other empires. The players also don't have the tools to exploit diplomatically those situations (besides outright war).

Ping-Pong vs stack wipe can still be got around with mil access, but there's lots of things people want scrapped because they're nuisances but are healthy mechanics like the no Fort occupied

 

[Arizal]

Event chains could be useful, with size of spy network helping chance of success. 'reports of upcoming intervention' rather than just sudden enforce peace

Yes, I think we are getting somewhere, here. As long as those aren't scripted like DHE, I would be on board.

As for special actions, those are the ones I have in mind for the moment :

- Renegociating truces (lenghtening or shortening them depending on the countries relative strenght)
- Sow unrest in bordering same culture provinces (I know there is an espionnage action about this, but maybe a "better" one?)
- Ask for money/provinces/trade power/steering/military access
- ...

 

[abedfo]

Can we not make a system where if you want military access through a neutral nation you have a pay a tribute of ducats ? Also it would cause devastation.

 

[Arizal]

Can we not make a system where if you want military access through a neutral nation you have a pay a tribute of ducats ? Also it would cause devastation.

Why not, though? This would discourage some of the most unrealistic behaviours in the game and make forts more relevant, since you couldn't just bypass them by marching into a neutral country. The ideas about supplies and attrition would also make less likely that Spain would invade Russia through Siberia. I think this would be in line with the change they made with Emperor that armies are severely depleted by trans-oceanic travels.

 

[Battlex]

Why not, though? This would discourage some of the most unrealistic behaviours in the game and make forts more relevant, since you couldn't just bypass them by marching into a neutral country. The ideas about supplies and attrition would also make less likely that Spain would invade Russia through Siberia. I think this would be in line with the change they made with Emperor that armies are severely depleted by trans-oceanic travels.

I think he is suggesting that but using a neutral tone

 

[filcat]

You can occupy their entire country except for the capital, and even then they wouldn't surrender.

Yes, such situations are excruciatingly painful to see.

This reminded the author the days of ck2, and its warscore system that would get stuck at 99%, causing the war to be inconclusive and barring the code from surrendering. There was a perfect cartoon-sketch satirising the hardcoded conditionals of surrendering.

 

[Jomini]

The main reasons to go for total war:
1. Truce timers are dynamic + a flat 5 year. This means that getting two 50% WS deals locks you for 20 years while one 100% (which can take more to boot against a big enough opponent) locks for 15. Playing some sort of historical death of a thousand cuts against places like Hungary or India just is less viable.
2. AI peace logic is terrible. When the AI will cough up 20% WS, it will often be just a year and maybe half again more casualties from coughing up everything. If it costs me X amounts of manpower, favors, cash, etc. to earn a booty of 20% WS and it costs me 2X to take 100% WS, total war is two-and-a-half times as efficient as a limited war.
3. The ability of rivals, coalitions, and opportunistic minors to intervene is basically nil. Truces, for the AI, are essentially inviable. Cycling truces means that staying at war for another year or two to carpet siege somebody comes with no risks. Even if the Russian AI ships the whole army to China and somehow Sweden makes an opportunistic attack for Estonia, it is virtually impossible for the AI to force concessions before Russia concludes some peace in China and then turns her full might on Sweden.
4. The long term diplomatic issues favor total war. AE gain for historical conquests is routinely in the range that game ends before it burns off with the target (who will also hate you forever thanks to the cores you took). Killing off a state reduces the number of people who hate your guts forever. Going after religious-cultural blocs sharply decreases the people who want to attack you.

Every measure of efficiency says that total war and getting 100% WS or something close thereto gets the most benefit/cost. External threats are locked by ahistoric truce mechanics and even when somebody makes a classic historical play for limited gains, they have no way to force concessions before they are locked in a total war.

Somehow, somewhere the Devs became convinced that players would just punch out AIs for limited gains. This has lead to multiple interlocking mechanisms that make total war overwhelmingly more efficient. To the degree that the AI does not play for total war, it become worse against the player. All the conquest slowing mechanisms, all the speedbumps to incorporating your gains ... all of these hit the AI far harder and result in the player much more easily outgrowing any individual AI and rapidly any bloc of AIs.

If you want to make limited war viable without implicitly nerfing the AI you need to make limited war more profitable than total war: have ways to force a low loss peace for limited gains, let nations violate truces for lesser penalties when rivals are on the rampage, and above all, have the AI start cooperating more efficiently when some state starts kicking around everyone in the area (e.g. as historically happened when a bunch of rivals all began dogging the Ottomans at the same time).

 

[Battlex]

The main reasons to go for total war:
1. Truce timers are dynamic + a flat 5 year. This means that getting two 50% WS deals locks you for 20 years while one 100% (which can take more to boot against a big enough opponent) locks for 15. Playing some sort of historical death of a thousand cuts against places like Hungary or India just is less viable.
2. AI peace logic is terrible. When the AI will cough up 20% WS, it will often be just a year and maybe half again more casualties from coughing up everything. If it costs me X amounts of manpower, favors, cash, etc. to earn a booty of 20% WS and it costs me 2X to take 100% WS, total war is two-and-a-half times as efficient as a limited war.
3. The ability of rivals, coalitions, and opportunistic minors to intervene is basically nil. Truces, for the AI, are essentially inviable. Cycling truces means that staying at war for another year or two to carpet siege somebody comes with no risks. Even if the Russian AI ships the whole army to China and somehow Sweden makes an opportunistic attack for Estonia, it is virtually impossible for the AI to force concessions before Russia concludes some peace in China and then turns her full might on Sweden.
4. The long term diplomatic issues favor total war. AE gain for historical conquests is routinely in the range that game ends before it burns off with the target (who will also hate you forever thanks to the cores you took). Killing off a state reduces the number of people who hate your guts forever. Going after religious-cultural blocs sharply decreases the people who want to attack you.

Every measure of efficiency says that total war and getting 100% WS or something close thereto gets the most benefit/cost. External threats are locked by ahistoric truce mechanics and even when somebody makes a classic historical play for limited gains, they have no way to force concessions before they are locked in a total war.

Somehow, somewhere the Devs became convinced that players would just punch out AIs for limited gains. This has lead to multiple interlocking mechanisms that make total war overwhelmingly more efficient. To the degree that the AI does not play for total war, it become worse against the player. All the conquest slowing mechanisms, all the speedbumps to incorporating your gains ... all of these hit the AI far harder and result in the player much more easily outgrowing any individual AI and rapidly any bloc of AIs.

If you want to make limited war viable without implicitly nerfing the AI you need to make limited war more profitable than total war: have ways to force a low loss peace for limited gains, let nations violate truces for lesser penalties when rivals are on the rampage, and above all, have the AI start cooperating more efficiently when some state starts kicking around everyone in the area (e.g. as historically happened when a bunch of rivals all began dogging the Ottomans at the same time).

Make the AE needed to join a coalition more dynamic would be a great thing on the last point. The famous siege of Vienna movie treats it as a truce break which would give the AE for a coalition, but iirc historically it was just the truce wasn't extended as planned

 

[Arizal]

@Jomini Amen

Make the AE needed to join a coalition more dynamic would be a great thing on the last point. The famous siege of Vienna movie treats it as a truce break which would give the AE for a coalition, but iirc historically it was just the truce wasn't extended as planned

How do you envision this? As long as the Ottomans are in Hungary things are fine, but when the besiege Vienna (with the intent to take it) their AE limit is lowered or they gain AE in advance so that Poland can join Austria? This would require some kind of declaration of intent system like in Vicky 2, or else that as soon as you expand in your war beyond what you claim others could interfere with the belief that your goal is to take all that you occupy.

 

[Battlex]

@Jomini Amen

How do you envision this? As long as the Ottomans are in Hungary things are fine, but when the besiege Vienna (with the intent to take it) their AE limit is lowered or they gain AE in advance so that Poland can join Austria? This would require some kind of declaration of intent system like in Vicky 2, or else that as soon as you expand in your war beyond what you claim others could interfere with the belief that your goal is to take all that you occupy.

It's not a specific Ottos thing, it'd just be generally, so France can be coalitioned more easily too. Perhaps defensive leagues vs offensive coalitions could be looked at with ae. What I want is more depending on their opinion of you, they'll be more willing to join a coalition against you, even tho it already kinda modifies how much ae you generate against them

 

[Nostalgium]

Removing the "length of war" modifier when the wargoal has been fully occupied for a year could help. Alternatively, apply a hefty positive modifier to acceptance if you're only demanding the war goal in the peace.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I find it really frustrating wars in EU4 have to be large-scale things only ending when one party has had their nation fully sieged down.

1. the supply limit needs to be much, much more localised, i.e. decrease very quickly away from your borders
2. AI should understand the supply limits
3. there should be no attrition cap.
4. getting a military access outside of HRE should be a big thing and armies marching through neutral territory should give it some devastation. Refusing military access should give limited CB permitting exclusively its enforcement. The AI should understand that powerful enough countries need to be given access, but smaller ones-no way.
5. AI should take the above into account when making alliances, so as to make them local as well

I think these 5 points, particularly the first 2, being implemented would greatly improve the experience.

 

[Shiny Dog]

I'd personally argue that devastating battles should put a huge dent in "Length of War" for non-Cobelligerent AI.
This way it would go like this:
1. DoW on Ragusa as Ottomans.
2. France is DoTF or something, so they scurry onward.
3. You fully siege Ragusa and stackwipe France's army.
4. France, after this humiliating defeat, is much more amenable to white peace, leaving Ragusa to its fate.

This would lead to AI, especially sweeping ones like DoTF, to wage more limited wars.

 

[Battlex]

I'd personally argue that devastating battles should put a huge dent in "Length of War" for non-Cobelligerent AI.
This way it would go like this:
1. DoW on Ragusa as Ottomans.
2. France is DoTF or something, so they scurry onward.
3. You fully siege Ragusa and stackwipe France's army.
4. France, after this humiliating defeat, is much more amenable to white peace, leaving Ragusa to its fate.

This would lead to AI, especially sweeping ones like DoTF, to wage more limited wars.

If we could have something like the oriental crisis of vic2 added for when major joins a minors war that could be cool. So ragusa can be full annexed following sufficient occupation, but the already departed French crusader force can decide whether it wants to turn back or not

 

[Shiny Dog]

If we could have something like the oriental crisis of vic2 added for when major joins a minors war that could be cool. So ragusa can be full annexed following sufficient occupation, but the already departed French crusader force can decide whether it wants to turn back or not

Yeah, that sounds cool. Could incur a cost on Ragusa too, such as owing France a LOT of favors.

 

[Battlex]

Yeah, that sounds cool. Could incur a cost on Ragusa too, such as owing France a LOT of favors.

Some historians see Ottomans as taking Mamlukes red sea ports even before their big battles as commanders on the Ottoman pay roll were garrisoned along the red sea to prevent the Portuguese being able to raid mecca and medina. There's many examples of someone inviting a foreign power in to help with a local dispute and then ending up being annexed by the foreign power, so favours translating to trust translating to more likely to be diplo vassalised would be cool. Leviathan is also adding several new uses of favours, so that would be useful.
Does defender of the faith get favours atm for helping out, or is it like allies of the HREmperor not getting favours if the HREmperor is called in to help a Prince

 

[treb]

What's the game like if you just make every province a lv1 Fort base again?

its called eu3 and it was a dark time back then.