I cant be the only one that hates all these restrictions

[unmerged(44481)]

wtf is it with all these restrictions:

- retreating armies can just waltz right by enemy army who is besieging. Wtf blocking retreats its one of the oldest strategies in warfare.
- bengal asked for timurid assistance. Timurid join war against orissa. Tim lose battle in bengal land and units retreat to samarkand. Are you freaking kidding me?
- can only start one war per month
- cant support multiple rebels
- cant assign leaders while besieging
- a cooldown on insults?

 

[IIWW]

1st No it's not. It's one of the oldest tactics, there weren't really much possibilities to do it on strategic level. Especially with some provinces being so big, look at siberia: there is plenty of space to avoid a fight in a province, if You don't want to fight. It may be not perfect, but it's ok gameplay compromise
2nd Yeah, thats stupid.
3th Don't know why exactly was it intruduced, but it is a rare problem
4th I'd guess it is either an oversight, either a simplification
5th too cheesy. You could, with massive micromanaging, assign Your 3 pips leader to multiple sieges, just by assigning him a day before the siege tic
6th I don't get why is it, but then again, it's rarely a problem.

 

[henzington]

The insults give a cb and some minor amount of power projection now so it makes sense for them to have a cool down or you might be down to call his mother a fatty.

 

[darthfanta]

Number 3 is an attempt to curb on exploits. If two countries are allied and you declare wars separately on both of them, then you get double the amount of land if you won.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

- cant assign leaders while besieging

Nevermind the fact that generals can instantly teleport halfway around the world with no cooldown as long as they're on either your or your allies' controlled territory.

Yeah, such a terrible restriction.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

Number 3 is an attempt to curb on exploits. If two countries are allied and you declare wars separately on both of them, then you get double the amount of land if you won.

In 1.7 and before you could peace out countries individually and your war score with each was independent of the main war score such that you could easily nail each and every ally with 100% war scores and reduce them to whatever that meant, vassal, full annex, lots of land, w/e gaining a cumulative amount of land far in excess of what was yielded by the main war score.

As for 1.8 it still isn't true because by assigning them co-belligerency status it is essentially the same as declaring war on that country individually since your war score on them is 100% of it's value versus only 50% if it is not, in terms of province ws value. In fact, the new co-belligerency approach is much more identical since they get to CTA their allies the same as having been individually declared upon, whereas before they could not call in their allies.

So perhaps what you wrote isn't what you meant?

Other than that, I agree this timing limitation should go.

 

[Illianor123]

Coalition management. You could just declare on all the OPMs as they joined the coalition against you rather than being forced to wait a month for them to join together.

The lack of cooldown on general transfer is bad, but that is not an argument to change the system. A single siege 4 general would wreck everything that way.

 

[Rey]

wtf is it with all these restrictions:

- retreating armies can just waltz right by enemy army who is besieging. Wtf blocking retreats its one of the oldest strategies in warfare.

You still block retreating armies if their retreating path goes across a strait, just place a ship there. Tbh, most pre-industrial warfare battles happened when armies 'offered battle' to the enemy. Otherwise, if the conditions weren't satisfactory, an army could just move and avoid the other, they had scouts after all.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

The lack of cooldown on general transfer is bad, but that is not an argument to change the system. A single siege 4 general would wreck everything that way.

If you're referring to my post, it was pretty obviously sarcasm. General assignment is simply not restricted and the OP's complaint with regards to that is silly. Not being able to assign generals to armies that are in land you don't control make far more sense than generals being able to teleport across the map.

 

[Illianor123]

If you're referring to my post, it was pretty obviously sarcasm. General assignment is simply not restricted and the OP's complaint with regards to that is silly. Not being able to assign generals to armies that are in land you don't control make far more sense than generals being able to teleport across the map.

Okay. Makes more sense now.

 

[Zones]

You still block retreating armies if their retreating path goes across a strait, just place a ship there. Tbh, most pre-industrial warfare battles happened when armies 'offered battle' to the enemy. Otherwise, if the conditions weren't satisfactory, an army could just move and avoid the other, they had scouts after all.

I'm going to wager most people don't spend too much time reading about regular battles. Probably reading about Ghengis Khan or Zhuge Liang.

 

[ChildeR]

> - retreating armies can just waltz right by enemy army who is besieging. Wtf blocking retreats its one of the oldest strategies in warfare.

A shattered army is a disorganized bunch of people. You can't stop them moving through a large province. Stack wiping also doesn't need to be any easier.

> - bengal asked for timurid assistance. Timurid join war against orissa. Tim lose battle in bengal land and units retreat to samarkand. Are you freaking kidding me?

Not sure what the problem here is.

> - can only start one war per month

I'm not sure what the reason for this is (probably to do with alliances/CTA), but it also doesn't hinder my play in any way.

> - cant support multiple rebels

Somewhat annoying when you fall just short of 25/50 PP, but I can see why the rebels might not accept your help if you are also helping their competitors.

> - cant assign leaders while besieging

Needed, or a single teleporting leader would handle all the sieges.

> - a cooldown on insults?

Otherwise you'd get an infinite amount of PP. However, I think the cooldown should be halved.

 

[Freudia]

Biggest thing I'm not a fan of in this game is being unable to declare a war on a member of the HRE while you're at war with the emperor (I have no problems with being unable to do so while allied with the emperor in a war). I sort of get why it's there (what with a nation unable to be in two wars with another nation, regardless of what sides they're on), but it complicates dismantling the HRE arbitrarily if you can't pull all electors into the same war.

This is, of course, a really specific and nitpicky thing to have an issue with, and I'm not going to fault people on it, but still. It really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[agustinalarcon]

I'm going to wager most people don't spend too much time reading about regular battles. Probably reading about Ghengis Khan or Zhuge Liang.

So, if you do read about regular battles, could you please enlighten us, and not just tease us ?

 

[grommile]

- retreating armies can just waltz right by enemy army who is besieging. Wtf blocking retreats its one of the oldest strategies in warfare.

Meh. Shattered retreat is a passable solution to a rather awkward game design problem.

- bengal asked for timurid assistance. Timurid join war against orissa. Tim lose battle in bengal land and units retreat to samarkand. Are you freaking kidding me?

... though occasionally its choice of destination does raise my eyebrows, since it doesn't even seem to be consistently weird.

- can only start one war per month

Every time this has meaningfully annoyed me, I have on some level been trying to "break the game", so my annoyance is not justifiable and the restriction is fine.

- cant support multiple rebels

I can see that one being annoying. (It happens not to have actually annoyed me, but I don't often play countries who need to support rebels.)

- cant assign leaders while besieging

That's just a special case of "can't assign leaders while on enemy territory", which I find perfectly reasonable.

- a cooldown on insults?

I didn't know there was one (other than "you can't insult a country if your last insult to them hasn't worn off").

 

[ChildeR]

I didn't know there was one (other than "you can't insult a country if your last insult to them hasn't worn off").

You can insult someone every 10 years, but the PP wear off in 5 and the CB lasts even less (1 year?).

 

[Aries666]

In 1.7 and before you could peace out countries individually and your war score with each was independent of the main war score such that you could easily nail each and every ally with 100% war scores and reduce them to whatever that meant, vassal, full annex, lots of land, w/e gaining a cumulative amount of land far in excess of what was yielded by the main war score.

As for 1.8 it still isn't true because by assigning them co-belligerency status it is essentially the same as declaring war on that country individually since your war score on them is 100% of it's value versus only 50% if it is not, in terms of province ws value. In fact, the new co-belligerency approach is much more identical since they get to CTA their allies the same as having been individually declared upon, whereas before they could not call in their allies.

So perhaps what you wrote isn't what you meant?

Other than that, I agree this timing limitation should go.

If you were able to declare wars on allies simultaneously you would get to fight them independently, i.e. they wouldnt coordinate their forces against you making the war easier. Also you would get a ticking warscore against each opponent allowing you to take more of each sooner.

 

[happymix91]

A game can't reproduce real world exactly. Some restrictions may look like unrealistic, but it makes a game playable and realistic at last.

 

[Schlez]

- retreating armies can just waltz right by enemy army who is besieging. Wtf blocking retreats its one of the oldest strategies in warfare.

Not generally a big problem for but when tied with the second problem (where the army retreats halfway around the world) it does get annoying at times.

- bengal asked for timurid assistance. Timurid join war against orissa. Tim lose battle in bengal land and units retreat to samarkand. Are you freaking kidding me?

Possibly one of the biggest problems in the game. I was trying that "Seoul to Paris" thing and when I lost a battle in Baden, my army retreated all the way back to Korea which meant the war was already over by the time it managed to walk back.

- can only start one war per month

Can't exactly see how this is a problem. I see some posters wrote that it's to declare war on each ally separately but then there would be no point having an alliance system then.

- cant support multiple rebels

Not a big problem for me as I don't want to spend my gold on the proles but I guess if they implemented it, the UI would be too complex and overloaded (need to load every single type of rebel for every single nation in the game with sliders).

- cant assign leaders while besieging

As far as I can see, you can't assign leaders while besieging because you're in enemy territory. If you could reassign leaders in enemy territory, France's level 16 general would be teleporting all over the world and winning all their battles for them. If you forgot to assign a general before sending the army to siege and don't want to lose the siege percentage, you could just send a regiment with the general from friendly territory to that army and combine the armies or separate a regiment from the army, send it to neutral/friendly territory, and then send it back with the general to combine with the sieging army.

- a cooldown on insults?

Even if you don't factor in the amount of Power Projection you would get from spamming insults, you would see Personal Unions falling left and right everywhere

 

[yerm]

Biggest thing I'm not a fan of in this game is being unable to declare a war on a member of the HRE while you're at war with the emperor (I have no problems with being unable to do so while allied with the emperor in a war). I sort of get why it's there (what with a nation unable to be in two wars with another nation, regardless of what sides they're on), but it complicates dismantling the HRE arbitrarily if you can't pull all electors into the same war.

This is, of course, a really specific and nitpicky thing to have an issue with, and I'm not going to fault people on it, but still. It really rubs me the wrong way.

This is to prevent you from forcing the emperor into multiple wars against the same person. The game does not like to have one person fighting one other person in multiple wars.

It would be kinda cool if you could declare an end-the-empire war, which would name the emperor as wargoal and every elector as co-belligerents, and possibly call all members in as normal allies.