I feel like the new 5 year wait to annex a war leader causes weird circumstances

[beckdawg]

I can appreciate paradox's attempts to improve this. I especially appreciate the 60 day war ally thing being gone. That being said, in this milan game I just started I did the typical thing which is to annex Mantua. Savoy and myself wiped them out with little to no effort. Mantua was obviously allied to Brandenburg from the start. So like 3-4 months into this war here we sit with Mantua fully occupied and Brandenburg cannot be arsed to come do anything but wont leave the war and myself and Savoy CBA to go to fight Brandenburg. In fact, if I actually tried to it would cripple my dip monarch points getting all that access.

I'm not entirely sure what the answer is but perhaps something like the eu3 thing where after x amount of time if no battles have occurred between two countries a white peace happens. Obviously the Brandenburgians have no desire to be a part of this war so you would think after say a year if they CBA to attack then they should gracefully back out of the war with a white peace.

I've also seen circumstance where you do occupy a OPM who's war leader and after 5 years you get that 100% and are allowed to vassalize the second nation because of war score even without doing anything to them. Overall, I'm not really sure it is "better" than what was previous. If a country isn't going to help out then clearly they shouldn't be joining wars. And if that's too difficult to program around I still feel like the white peace thing would make this solution better.

 

[Taterthomp2]

i somewhat feel same, like...

i wish ifi go to war with urbino and god forbid, riga joins....

it would kill my fleet with attrition just to get to the baltic...

 

[Xinkc]

This would be nice.

 

[IIWW]

I had a late-game weird situation. DoWed some small Catholic country in Europe (If I recall corectly it was Sicily or Crete), who had no allies. But the catholic defender of faith got into war. And who was it? The Aztecs. Even better, they were landlocked.

 

[Xara]

I had a late-game weird situation. DoWed some small Catholic country in Europe (If I recall corectly it was Sicily or Crete), who had no allies. But the catholic defender of faith got into war. And who was it? The Aztecs. Even better, they were landlocked.

At least it's better than before, where the Aztecs would take war lead, and then you find out they had one ally, France. Who then takes war lead and calls Europe, Russia, Mars, and Asgard against you.

 

[chrnno]

While I agree it is annoying I don't see how it could cripple your dip points? Just get access as you need them and cancel whenever you aren't using them. After you get to Brandeburg you can even cancel them all so overall you are only going to lose a handful points.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

Or just wait five years? It's not like you are getting war exhaustion.

 

[beckdawg]

While I agree it is annoying I don't see how it could cripple your dip points? Just get access as you need them and cancel whenever you aren't using them. After you get to Brandeburg you can even cancel them all so overall you are only going to lose a handful points.

You realize how many countries are between a start of the game Milan and Brandenburg right? I mean granted you can cancel as you move one to another but you're always running 2+ relations because you can't cancel when you're in a country and you need the next. Plus, that leaves you in a situation where you have have to macro everything at the end of the war...etc. Perhaps cripple was the wrong word but -2 dip at the start of the game can be a fairly large deal. You figure that is essentially a +2 advisor which is like what 5 gold per month which is fairly pricey even for large nations.

Either way, the overriding factor should always be "is it fun?" If a mechanic is atypically real but is fun I think most would prefer that to something that is accurate but tedious. Like I said, I can understand the logic behind the change. That's why I didn't just say dump it entirely. But I think a small tweak like the white peace idea I suggested could keep the intention they set out for while removing at least some of the annoyance. If I had to wait a year without battles to get someone out of a war then so be it. It would be nice for the game to be omnipresent and just know when to get out of wars but that's close enough to not complain about.

 

[beckdawg]

Or just wait five years? It's not like you are getting war exhaustion.

Well not in this case but you're also not losing it either. Additionally, if you have a mission to conquer x then it can tie you up for a lot of unnecessary time. I'm not saying it's a game breaking aspect at least not in my case but it's honestly kind of annoying.

 

[Illianor123]

Just declare war on the emperor and get free access all the way*



*war with the Emperor may have unintended side effects, including but not restricted to annexations, loss of income, unlawful territory demands.

 

[vranasm]

Just declare war on the emperor and get free access all the way*



*war with the Emperor may have unintended side effects, including but not restricted to annexations, loss of income, unlawful territory demands.

thanks sir for the laughs... greatly appreaciated monday morning...

 

[VampireBoot]

I'm more worried about how this affects the AI. Way too often I see the AI peace out a small country for war reparations and annul treaties because it doesn't know that it needs to wait five years to annex.

 

[aitaituo]

In fact, if I actually tried to it would cripple my dip monarch points getting all that access.

Why does MA cost a dip slot, again? Especially after they nerfed dip slot bonuses.

 

[hajutze]

I've seen Spain getting occupied for ~4 years by France because one italian minor decided to annex another ...

 

[Zqrfmb]

the limit should go down if you fight battles with/occupy the other powers, granted this doesn't address issues like brunei being defender of the sunni faith while you're trying to conquer Granada (but substitute that situation with something more plausible; brunei couldn't afford the 500 before castille finishes the reconquista) leading to a whole lot of nothing.

 

[Squirrelloid]

the limit should go down if you fight battles with/occupy the other powers, granted this doesn't address issues like brunei being defender of the sunni faith while you're trying to conquer Granada (but substitute that situation with something more plausible; brunei couldn't afford the 500 before castille finishes the reconquista) leading to a whole lot of nothing.

I just declared on landlocked OPM Jenne with Palais as Sunni defender of the faith, which is almost as bad. Fortunately Palais declined to defend the faith, or that could have been a long war. (They did call in Songhai and Air, but Songhai is currently a 2PM, and they're both right there, so this'll be over in probably 2 years, most of that being sieges).

 

[Rabid]

I like the concept behind this mechanic but 5 years is just too long. 2 years would be fine, if the other members of the enemy alliance don't manage to stop me from occupying the war leader for that long then I think they never will. 5 years just makes too many extended non-wars where nothing happens because the allies can't reach me or don't care.

 

[hajutze]

Or at least make the non-targets peace out easier.

Can't get there ? Don't care ? White peace.

 

[Cromwell-M]

I agree, the allies who don't fight because 1) they don't care 2) they can't reach you because of military access 3) whatever, shouldn't be able to spoil your entire conquest war.

I know Paradox's intentions are good with that change, but it's really annoying... If I want to annex one OPM I have to siege all its allies, and all of their provinces, in order to peace out everybody and isolate the OPM in the peace deal. That's just tedious...

 

[PiriReis]

2 year is enough IMHO.