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

[Krask]

I think it's fair enough, it's to stop you from blitzing the enemy and ending a war that wouldn't end in such circumstances. Take WW2 France for example. It's fair to assume that if relief armies are expected from a large ally soon then even fully occupied there's nothing to really lose from waiting to be relieved.

 

[Kh3lben]

People on this forum having been complaining about aggressive expansion and coalitions for god knows how long.Now here comes a patch that does three things:

a) You can draw out a war for 5 years without getting a call for peace

b) You can name co-belligerents

c)During truce timers nations cannot join coalitions against you

And people are still complaining.How about putting 1+1 together?

 

[Ranjid]

People on this forum having been complaining about aggressive expansion and coalitions for god knows how long.Now here comes a patch that does three things:

a) You can draw out a war for 5 years without getting a call for peace

b) You can name co-belligerents

c)During truce timers nations cannot join coalitions against you

And people are still complaining.How about putting 1+1 together?

Coalitions have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's silly to be at war for 5 years while neither the aggressor nor a defender can do anything about it. There's a "Cannot reach wargoal" modifier for CTAs. I'd incorporate that into peace deals. If the unoccupied allies cannot reach the wargoal, they should be taken out of the equation. That way you'd have to fight everyone who could reach you, but wouldn't be forced to sit on your butt on a stalemate due to distance.

 

[beckdawg]

People on this forum having been complaining about aggressive expansion and coalitions for god knows how long.Now here comes a patch that does three things:

a) You can draw out a war for 5 years without getting a call for peace

b) You can name co-belligerents

c)During truce timers nations cannot join coalitions against you

And people are still complaining.How about putting 1+1 together?

Well here's a good reason why this is flawed. In the same Milan game I'm allied with Urbino. The pope has a claim on Urbino. Decides to use it. I honor the call. He fully occupy's Urbino then immediately white peaces. He's done this 3 times now.

 

[Kh3lben]

Coalitions have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's silly to be at war for 5 years while neither the aggressor nor a defender can do anything about it. There's a "Cannot reach wargoal" modifier for CTAs. I'd incorporate that into peace deals. If the unoccupied allies cannot reach the wargoal, they should be taken out of the equation. That way you'd have to fight everyone who could reach you, but wouldn't be forced to sit on your butt on a stalemate due to distance.

The premise is that you,the aggressor,can do something about it,but you don't cause you choose to.If you plan ahead carefully you can practically drag everyone and his mother into small consecutive wars and peace them out simultaneously when you are ready.And guess what,when the war ends those poor sods cannot even join a coalition against you.You are free to chain massacre a new set of victims.I haven't done this yet,but i imagine that dismantling the HRE with only one chain-war is totally doable in 1.8,if the electors are allied *favourably*.

 

[Ranjid]

The premise is that you,the aggressor,can do something about it,but you don't cause you choose to.If you plan ahead carefully you can practically drag everyone and his mother into small consecutive wars and peace them out simultaneously when you are ready.And guess what,when the war ends those poor sods cannot even join a coalition against you.You are free to chain massacre a new set of victims.I haven't done this yet,but i imagine that dismantling the HRE with only one chain-war is totally doable in 1.8,if the electors are allied *favourably*.

I am the aggressor against MANTUA, not Brandenburg. If Brandenburg can't reach me, why the hell should I risk my troops, money and supplies to reach him? I don't care about the coalition mechanics in this example as they have _nothing_ to do with the topic here. If you want to discuss them, open up a new thread. This one is about wars that are arbitrarily streched because reasons.

 

[Kh3lben]

I am the aggressor against MANTUA, not Brandenburg. If Brandenburg can't reach me, why the hell should I risk my troops, money and supplies to reach him? I don't care about the coalition mechanics in this example as they have _nothing_ to do with the topic here. If you want to discuss them, open up a new thread. This one is about wars that are arbitrarily streched because reasons.

I am not denying that at all mate.I am just saying that it is easily exploitable in favour of the player if the situation allows it.

 

[Elin]

I am playing a game as Najd right now and i really got some weird situations because of this problem.

Especially when i wanted to full annex a small country which have a random ally somewhere.
I just dow the country, their allies comes into it, unluckily he is too far or i just can't have access to it. Waiting 5 years is damn too long.... I even don't understand why this changed and what was the problem about it in 1.7

 

[IIWW]

I am playing a game as Najd right now and i really got some weird situations because of this problem.

Especially when i wanted to full annex a small country which have a random ally somewhere.
I just dow the country, their allies comes into it, unluckily he is too far or i just can't have access to it. Waiting 5 years is damn too long.... I even don't understand why this changed and what was the problem about it in 1.7

There was no ptoblem with it in 1.7, but there was cascading alliances. 5 years till peace was implemented to balance this out. Still, it turned out to be not as good as it seemed.

 

[Ranjid]

I am playing a game as Najd right now and i really got some weird situations because of this problem.

Especially when i wanted to full annex a small country which have a random ally somewhere.
I just dow the country, their allies comes into it, unluckily he is too far or i just can't have access to it. Waiting 5 years is damn too long.... I even don't understand why this changed and what was the problem about it in 1.7

There wasn't really a problem in 1.7 because a bigger nation would become the war leader. In 1.7 however the war leader doesn't change. To prevent instant 100% warscore the 5 years rule was embeded. Now you have to defeat all your opponents, which is fair enough. But this topic shows a problem with this approach.

/edit:

Another way of fixing this would be the Victoria 2 system: You can annex the nation, but you remain at war and the former allies have to get the provinces back with a negative warscore ticking for them.

 

[IIWW]

Good news:

Yeah, AI needs to wait the 5 years when it wants to annex the target. Will fix.

Sauce

hopefully he was talking about 5 YT, not about AI being unable to handle it

 

[Tacticus101]

Why is it so difficult to just get Military access to Brandenburg? Even if it takes a whole year to get your armies over there, that is a only a grand total cost of 24 diplo points, far less that you will spend on the peace at the end of the war. You shouldn't be able to Blitzkrieg annex a target just because their allies cant get to you very fast (if at all).

A reasonable point might be why the AI makes alliances with nations that cant actually do anything to help them, since that seems to be the actual problem here. Realistically you should be fighting their combined armies.

 

[Wixit]

Why is it so difficult to just get Military access to Brandenburg? Even if it takes a whole year to get your armies over there, that is a only a grand total cost of 24 diplo points, far less that you will spend on the peace at the end of the war. You shouldn't be able to Blitzkrieg annex a target just because their allies cant get to you very fast (if at all).

A reasonable point might be why the AI makes alliances with nations that cant actually do anything to help them, since that seems to be the actual problem here. Realistically you should be fighting their combined armies.

But if the defender's ally does nothing, why should the aggressor care? I agree with Ranjid, Vic2's counter-goal system would probably be best, as it would put the onus on the defender to, you know, defend. If they can't or won't defend, the aggressor shouldn't be forced to occupy the ally as well.

 

[AureliusBob]

Another way of fixing this would be the Victoria 2 system: You can annex the nation, but you remain at war and the former allies have to get the provinces back with a negative warscore ticking for them.

yeah I like that system and think that it is much better solution than the current system in EU4, however I think it needs to tick be a bit quicker in those situations where the player just waits for the enemy to white peace out.

Also as of now, AI nations seem to be too quick to peace out for war reparations, especially during wars in which they are clearly winning. I wish there was somekind of mechanic where I knew which allies were on the verge of peacing out early. Ive had a few wars where my powerful ally just peaced out early for no reason, leaving me to go it alone.

 

[Tacticus101]

But if the defender's ally does nothing, why should the aggressor care? I agree with Ranjid, Vic2's counter-goal system would probably be best, as it would put the onus on the defender to, you know, defend. If they can't or won't defend, the aggressor shouldn't be forced to occupy the ally as well.

If they haven't done anything in 5 years, in my view a reasonable amount of time, then you do get to peace them out. Just because an ally is struggling to get to them in time does not mean you should be able to peace out in time, it is just unfair on the defender, particularly since it is more a failing of the AI than a game mechanic (a human player could help fine). It would be a bit OP to allow someone to annex someone and then force their former allies to liberate them, simply assaulting castles with stacks of Mercs and forcing enemies to send their armies all the way over to you or have a large ticking warscore against them is crazy.

Incidentally though, if you do occupy your target you get some income from them and have ticking warscore against your enemies, so it has a similar effect to the Vic2 system.

 

[beckermt]

yeah I like that system and think that it is much better solution than the current system in EU4, however I think it needs to tick be a bit quicker in those situations where the player just waits for the enemy to white peace out.

Well, that IS basically the system you have. There is a ticking warscore and taking it back starts the tickin' in the other direction. That's not really the issue at hand.

 

[chrnno]

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.

You are really, really exaggerating. At worst it would take a few months for you to cross to Brandeburg and if you time it completely wrong you might lose up to... 10 points. If that really is going to make a difference for your game...

That said one year is too little. It currently takes five years without fighting for the whole war to end, making a white peace between one country and the entire other side shouldn't be so far from that. 2 or 3 years works better as that is long enough you can't cheese the country out(occupy a OPM then avoid fights while relying in siege taking that time) so easily.

 

[wickermoon]

I'm actually perfectly fine with the new system. It's affecting everyone, which means it changes almost everything. I did a Brandenburg->Prussia->Germany stomp that was amazing and the only reason I didn't conquer all of Europe was my obsession of 1821-ish borders. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that this new rule helped me quite a lot. But maybe it was the bug where England and France hadn't been at war from the beginning. I'm not sure, all I know is that Provence kind of took over southern France, while northern France was conquered by Burgundy. Also, Austria was almost always weakened and if it hadn't been for their alliance with Poland-Lithuania all would've been swell.

 

[Ranjid]

If they haven't done anything in 5 years, in my view a reasonable amount of time, then you do get to peace them out. Just because an ally is struggling to get to them in time does not mean you should be able to peace out in time, it is just unfair on the defender, particularly since it is more a failing of the AI than a game mechanic (a human player could help fine). It would be a bit OP to allow someone to annex someone and then force their former allies to liberate them, simply assaulting castles with stacks of Mercs and forcing enemies to send their armies all the way over to you or have a large ticking warscore against them is crazy.

Incidentally though, if you do occupy your target you get some income from them and have ticking warscore against your enemies, so it has a similar effect to the Vic2 system.

5 years is reasonable? There's a reason why the 7YW, 30YW and 100YW have those names. It's because most wars of that time were settled in a matter of months, not years. And why would it be "unfair" towards the defender? Wars aren't fair to begin with. Also even a human player might struggle at times. And the most hilarious thing is the DotF crap right now. Portugal has been that for 300 years now in my current game as Prussia. Every time I wanted to annex a minor in north germany they'd choose to be a cockblocker. Now should I really have to occupy all of their provinces around the world because I want to annex an OPM? Wars are too big right now anyway. Smaller conquests shouldn't take half a decade.

Well, that IS basically the system you have. There is a ticking warscore and taking it back starts the tickin' in the other direction. That's not really the issue at hand.

Of course it is. Annexation costs 100 warscore. Therefore they will never submit to it before the timer expires or every single holding is sieged out. If you turn it around however the AI will peace out if they don't think they can win. Thus reducing the length of war considerably

 

[Panzerschiffe]

Sitting on that piece of land for 5 years should be enough to core, culture convert, and convert religion of the province. Full annex should do all of these things to the OPMs.
Seriously, it's way too much time. You just sit there. Might as well declare other wars.