You can still get call for peace before 5 years are up. I have. (Fortunately, I didn't have any enemy called allies that were so far away they couldn't be reached).
I feel like the new 5 year wait to annex a war leader causes weird circumstances
- Thread starter beckdawg
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You can still get call for peace before 5 years are up. I have. (Fortunately, I didn't have any enemy called allies that were so far away they couldn't be reached).
That isn't true. Those wars have those names because they involved multiple separate conflicts in different theatres', they all have different names that can be applied with the (English) name that covers the entire conflict under one banner being the most common.
Reading a list of wars in Europe, there were actually plenty of long wars. In fact, wars lasting 4+ years seem pretty common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#15th_century (look particularly for wars where large amounts of territory were annexed rather than minor battles followed by a peace)
Because this isn't war, it is a game. If you create mechanics that prevent a nation being able to defend its ally in a war (the Military access mechanic), to then impose a penalty because they do not defend them, it is unfair. The 5 year timer is there to give the defenders the chance to do something and only after that chance is up do you penalise them.
How dare these nations interfere with your conquering spree, who do they think they are appointing themselves defender of all Catholics and actually defending them when you attack?
You could just beat them in a war and make them lose the title?
Realistically, it is inane to fight combined armies rather than fighting them separately given the option to do the latter.
Realistically, if a nation can't reach the war front, its forces are irrelevant, and the war front in this war is Mantua, not Brandenburg.
Realistically, expecting the player to go fight Brandenburg when it otherwise can't influence the war in any capacity whatsoever is inane and shatters anything remotely construed as plausibility.
Realistically, the OP has demonstrated a legitimate hole in the current design that can be, and should be, fixed.
If a nation can't project its power in a war, it doesn't deserve to be a factor in the war. Maybe the easiest solution is to simply lower the amount of time you have to hold 100% on the war leader. 2 years should do. If an army can't get to the front in 2 years (you can march across Asia in that time frame or ship units across oceans), why is it being considered as a material factor in a war?
Speaking of fair, enforcing peace into every war from across the world and then riding it out doesn't sound very "fair", now does it? You know what does sound fair though? Being unable to protect allies you can't reach, and punishing you for allying or enforcing on nations you can't reach.
One of these things allows for some strategy to be applied. The other allows some idiot troll from the other side of the world to significantly influence your progress without lifting a finger. I'm not sure how you're arguing in favor of the latter being more "fair".
I do think 5 years is too long to wait IF there is nothing going on with the other partners in the war.
A couple examples:
1) Where this works well
I siege all of Hungary. Hungary is allied with France, who is in the war.
Before I'm quite done sieging all of Hungary, France's armies start showing up. Many protracted battles as I beat them off and then they come back later.
Here I am fine not being able to get full war score against Hungary. (I wasn't even going to annex them, they were too big, but IF they were small enough to annex, I'm fine in this situation not being able to do so for a while.)
I was rivaled with France and tried to go siege them a bunch so I could humiliate them, but with 2 other wars going on (one with Austria which I started because they wouldn't give me access to France due to being my rival and hating me) I ended up being a bit short in the army department in France, and had split my forces up too much; the French finally defeated my armies there and I made peace for the Hungarian provinces I wanted in the first place.
2) I was at war with Bosnia. They were allied with the Hansa. I quickly sieged their handful of provinces. Then I had to wait. For a very long time.
Now, eventually (it took a couple years) the Hansa landed some troops in Epirus. I quickly decimated them. And then I waited another several years.
Finally I was able to annex Bosnia.
In this situation, it was very frustrating having a TON of distance between me & the Hansa--there was little chance I'd want to waste all those diplo relations slots getting access all the way up to there.
Or likely lose my transports trying to sail around the coast of Europe to drop troops off down there. (I'm guessing the Hansa had fleet support from Bosnia so that their transports didn't just fall apart before they dropped the troops off.)
I think something like 12 or 18 months should be sufficient, if during that time:
- Your troops haven't been in that country's provinces.
- Their troops haven't been in yours.
- They haven't been in any battles for this war.
In that case, they should no longer "keep hope alive" for the fully occupied war target. (That is how I see this mechanic--even though fully occupied, that country is holding out hope that their ally will show up and turn the tide.)
A couple examples:
1) Where this works well
I siege all of Hungary. Hungary is allied with France, who is in the war.
Before I'm quite done sieging all of Hungary, France's armies start showing up. Many protracted battles as I beat them off and then they come back later.
Here I am fine not being able to get full war score against Hungary. (I wasn't even going to annex them, they were too big, but IF they were small enough to annex, I'm fine in this situation not being able to do so for a while.)
I was rivaled with France and tried to go siege them a bunch so I could humiliate them, but with 2 other wars going on (one with Austria which I started because they wouldn't give me access to France due to being my rival and hating me) I ended up being a bit short in the army department in France, and had split my forces up too much; the French finally defeated my armies there and I made peace for the Hungarian provinces I wanted in the first place.
2) I was at war with Bosnia. They were allied with the Hansa. I quickly sieged their handful of provinces. Then I had to wait. For a very long time.
Now, eventually (it took a couple years) the Hansa landed some troops in Epirus. I quickly decimated them. And then I waited another several years.
Finally I was able to annex Bosnia.
In this situation, it was very frustrating having a TON of distance between me & the Hansa--there was little chance I'd want to waste all those diplo relations slots getting access all the way up to there.
Or likely lose my transports trying to sail around the coast of Europe to drop troops off down there. (I'm guessing the Hansa had fleet support from Bosnia so that their transports didn't just fall apart before they dropped the troops off.)
I think something like 12 or 18 months should be sufficient, if during that time:
- Your troops haven't been in that country's provinces.
- Their troops haven't been in yours.
- They haven't been in any battles for this war.
In that case, they should no longer "keep hope alive" for the fully occupied war target. (That is how I see this mechanic--even though fully occupied, that country is holding out hope that their ally will show up and turn the tide.)
Yes I agree with this, I went to vassalise Scotland in my new Norway game, which of course drags France in (the old way of dow'ing some Irish minor ally to avoid that is gone. 73% to vassalise). But then I wipe out the French navy which prevents the power projection to Norway.
So queue 5yrs of sitting around waiting for the score to tick up, it only reached about 45% until the 5yr mark hit then boom 100%.
Now on a restart, I should just take the bloody place cos 75% integration autonomy sucks but I'm digressing...
So queue 5yrs of sitting around waiting for the score to tick up, it only reached about 45% until the 5yr mark hit then boom 100%.
Now on a restart, I should just take the bloody place cos 75% integration autonomy sucks but I'm digressing...
I think 2 years until 100% war score is achieved is good enough. if the OPM allies can not do anything in 2 years, well, they wont do anything (good) at all. not to mention this can help the AI a lot. soo much s### can happen in 5 years, players can deal with it, but AI..not so much
Maybe if there isn't a battle between the aggressor and the defender's ally, and the ally does not set foot in the war target's land, or have a member of the opposing side set foot in their land for two years, they are declared irrelevant and thus don't count for the war length minimum. It still doesnt' completely solve the problem of arbitrary minimum war lengths for non-wars, but it could mitigate a lot of the problems.
I don't get it.
I said that I thought the AI shouldn't make alliances with nations it cant reach.
You then appear to disagree with me with your rather patronising "reasonably" and then agree with me afterwards (although you suggest a different solution).
huh?
One of these things allows for some strategy to be applied. The other allows some idiot troll from the other side of the world to significantly influence your progress without lifting a finger. I'm not sure how you're arguing in favor of the latter being more "fair". [/QUOTE]
I like the way you completely rewrote what I said and then argued against it, a perfect straw man. Its impressive considering you had my words quoted above right above, congratulations.
Since you seem unclear, what I was talking about is artificial mechanical limits interfering with the gameplay, I thought you hated things like that. The issue in the OP's example is that Brandenburg seems unable to get military access to the player, an issue caused not by Brandenburg but by the way the Military access mechanic works (arbitrary and unrealistic). What I was suggesting is that rather than remove (or nerf into uselessness) the 5 year requirement, Paradox ensure that the AI can actually arrange access to get its troops to the fight, hit the problem at its root rather than just hiding it. I thought that the AI seemed excellent at getting access last patch, if Brandenburg is failing then maybe something changed in 1.8 that should be reverted.
To be honest though, I think the most likely abuser of the 5 year rule will be human players, dragging out wars by not sending troops whilst they deal with another front or build up an army, before turning up 5 years in (or just waiting for the easy white peace).
So, why exactly is the 7YW not called something like "English Dominance War" commonly instead...you know...Seven Years War? Yes, they have different names. But everyone knows it as 7YW. For a reason.
I never said there weren't any long or big wars with massive amounts of conquered cities etc. But that's exactly my point. In this particular example it's basically a limited war about 1 city. The fact that you have to compare it to wars in that list is proof enough for my statement.
Mate...he is NOT defending them. He doesn't do anything. His trade fleet is still protecting trade. Now and then he sends a few vessels to scout my coast or something. But other than that he's doing nothing but dragging on the war. Yes, I could beat him. But I would have to occupy provinces on every continent of the world to make OPM Anhalt concede defeat. Do you really want to tell me that's a good game mechanic?
I was arguing against this:
You are directly saying the that the player should get military access to reach Brandenburg, and that he shouldn't be able to annex a nation that Brandenburg isn't actually defending. My points were geared towards refuting this absurd notion; going to Brandenburg shouldn't even be a consideration for the attacker in this war, unless he wants to take stuff from Brandenburg directly.
You did not attack military access in the post I quoted above, you directly implied the player is the one who should to pay the MA cost. If you want to claim the MA system is bad, say so clearly. As it stands, you're basically manufacturing a new statement after the fact and then claiming I made a strawman argument since I didn't argue the point you didn't say
.
Regardless, 5 years is an enormous amount of time to reach any front a realistic ally should need, even 2 years is long enough to walk across Europe and back a few times. This will only be more true if MA were to function in a more accessible way.
You are directly saying the that the player should get military access to reach Brandenburg, and that he shouldn't be able to annex a nation that Brandenburg isn't actually defending. My points were geared towards refuting this absurd notion; going to Brandenburg shouldn't even be a consideration for the attacker in this war, unless he wants to take stuff from Brandenburg directly.
You did not attack military access in the post I quoted above, you directly implied the player is the one who should to pay the MA cost. If you want to claim the MA system is bad, say so clearly. As it stands, you're basically manufacturing a new statement after the fact and then claiming I made a strawman argument since I didn't argue the point you didn't say
.Regardless, 5 years is an enormous amount of time to reach any front a realistic ally should need, even 2 years is long enough to walk across Europe and back a few times. This will only be more true if MA were to function in a more accessible way.
Yeah, but because of actual fighting. 'The war dragged on because someone on the other end of the continent insisted he was actually in the war and not ready to surrender' said no one ever.
If you ally people you can't defend, you should be penalized. (And the only penalty here is that you don't get counted as being in the war because you materially failed to fulfill your obligations as an ally).
Defending requires actually sending armies, not 'lol lol lol, i'm in this war, neener'.
Which they will just rebuy instantly because Portugal is rolling in money now. (Wiz saying CNs didn't need to be nerfed was wrong).
Edit: Although I do appreciate the bank of Portugal. I think I extorted more money from them than I have otherwise seen all game...
Last edited:
Agree with the OP. This mechanic is a good try, and prevents a lot of gamey behaviour, but can seriously fail. In early game, as Bavaria, I was fighting some German OPM. Who brought in Scotland. I do not have ships. I cannot get ships. And so I get 5 years of stagnant provincial autonomy.
That's really what it feels like.
"They want Mantua? We'll they're gonna have to go through Potsdam to get to it!"
Wait, what?
As Taungoo I went to war with Arakan who was allied with Jaunpur. Neither of us can reach each other as Bengal hates them and doesn't really like me (They wreck me anyways). In the five years I wait for the war score to reach 100 I fight and finish in another war with all the other south-east asians. 2 years would be better.
You could argue that the mechanic itself is fine but were just hitting the poor decisions of the AI further down the chain, as someone else has pointed out, why ally someone they can't defend? Well maybe, its for fighting someone in the middle of them, just a powerplay? Yet if the AI has no interest in actually fighting for their ally they shouldn't join the war at all, then who cares if its a 5yr period when you know everyone in the war cares about it.
The only time I see an issue with this is guarantee independence. I hate how the game does this with France and Scotland yet since France can't project its power over the Channel, its useless (maybe just to scare AI England from annexing Scotland straight after HYW).
The optimist in me hopes this mechanic was put in place just before the AI was improved to not always say yes to defence calls to arms.
The only time I see an issue with this is guarantee independence. I hate how the game does this with France and Scotland yet since France can't project its power over the Channel, its useless (maybe just to scare AI England from annexing Scotland straight after HYW).
The optimist in me hopes this mechanic was put in place just before the AI was improved to not always say yes to defence calls to arms.
I don't know if anybody has suggested this before, but couldn't we just make the "distant war" thing from calling in allies when attacking also have an effect on the defenders side, albeit modified. Like an ally that is far away would only be asked to halp defend his ally if he can reach the ally (or attacking warleader) by sea, or when he or they are landlocked, there can not be more than two or three indivudual country borders between them? It would kinda solve the whole "irrelevent players" thing quite well I think.
It should be possible to bribe other countries to go to war, as in not be allied to them, but maybe give them money, mil access, whatever, because for the OP, you should be able to bribe one of Brandenburg's rivals to attack them, so they would then be much more inclined to get out of your war. Sadly, this is not possible at the moment.
Yeah, it's a bit... ridiculous with an ally that is zealous to answer the call but refuses to do anything about it, dragging out the war. Especially if the ally is called in mid-way through the war. I get why teh 60 day limit is gone, but right now there's just not enough preventing defenders from calling everyone in Europe they can secure an alliance with (or outside it) to delay wars.
I'd also like the idea to bribe them. I think a country, especially republics, would be quite happy with a large sum of money slipped their way to get out of the war...
I'd also like the idea to bribe them. I think a country, especially republics, would be quite happy with a large sum of money slipped their way to get out of the war...
A more relevant question would be why wars like the Austrian war of Succession, that were as long if not longer, were not named after their length? Or why the Seven Years war actually lasted for 9 years (or the hundred years war for 116)?
The names are merely convenient titles to sum up conflicts that generally involved more than one war. The Seven Years War covers the separate wars: Third Carnatic War, Third Silesian War, French and Indian War, War of the Conquest and Pomeranian War.
One of the things that isn't a reason for the name is that it was a war of remarkable length, 7 years was nothing special what so ever. It is just the name that happened to be chosen AFTER the war because it was convenient.
You were fighting a medium war between two alliances over the annexation of territory that increases your territory by about 50%, notably the full conquest of one of the beligerants. It is hardly a large war, but the conflicts I was referring to (the minor battles) were small wars where a couple of battles were fought and then a white peace or at the most some reparations/a small city (ie, not full annexation) was exchanged, all entirely possible without having to invade Brandenburg. The only reason you had a problem was because you wanted something that required 100% warscore, you could have easily got a lesser deal.
Also, you will find plenty of examples of large, long wars over single cities.
That still seems to me like it is the AI at fault rather than the mechanic, the AI should be helping (and in most cases seems to).
You don't have to occupy every province, just some of his mainland provinces would be enough. Not to mention you can get 25% warscore just from the wargoal.
I didn't say he should have to go to Brandenburg, I was directly responding to his claim that attempting to get to Brandenburg would cripple his diplo points. I was pointing out that it would be a barely noticeable cost, not suggesting he should be forced to invade Brandenburg as part of the war.
So again, no, I am not saying "that the player should get military access to reach Brandenburg, and that he shouldn't be able to annex a nation that Brandenburg isn't actually defending", let alone directly. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Although, considering all the (evidently deliberate) repeated used of realistically (patronisingly), I think you were responding to my "Realistically you should be fighting their combined armies." sentence, which is weird considering that it had nothing to do with the first part of the quote. Could you please explain what your relevance in using it was?
You did not attack military access in the post I quoted above, you directly implied the player is the one who should to pay the MA cost. If you want to claim the MA system is bad, say so clearly. As it stands, you're basically manufacturing a new statement after the fact and then claiming I made a strawman argument since I didn't argue the point you didn't say
Things such as:
"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."
Or
"If you create mechanics that prevent a nation being able to defend its ally in a war (the Military access mechanic), to then impose a penalty because they do not defend them, it is unfair"
Both things you yourself quoted, so you must have read them. They don't count as me criticising the system?
Since those were evidently not clear enough, I will sum up what I was saying (I even used the word bad):
1) AIs should not make alliances with nations that cannot help them, that is BAD.
2) The Military access mechanic needs tweaking if nations (player or AI) are finding it impossible to reach allies in wars, because that is BAD.
Depends.
To walk across territory? yeah, a lot of time.
To improve relations, sort out fleet basing and military access rights, get transports and then ship our army over to another continent so that they can defend a colonial ally....I think its fair.
Late game in particular it would be unfair to force nations to have an army and fleet on standby all the time if they want to accept call to arms, particularly against major powers who you might need to build up some forces in a nearby location before you can actually engage. Even early game as a minor power, I want to support an ally in a war but need to cross some water to do so, only can afford 3 transports...it will take me a while to get my entire army over to help.
Just another typical stupidity made by Paradox just to piss me off...by every patch, game´s getting worse and worse, instead of better and better. Why am I even surprised about that...it´s PARADOX after all...
Why da f... should I wait for 5 years till I annex enemy? AGAIN - if they want to balance their worthless multiplayer game, then they should balance just the multiplayer. I´m not even closely interested in that and when I plan war, I want to finish it in a matter of months, not years. If so-I would be a freakin bad leader and general. Nobody is interested in years-length fights.
Why da f... should I wait for 5 years till I annex enemy? AGAIN - if they want to balance their worthless multiplayer game, then they should balance just the multiplayer. I´m not even closely interested in that and when I plan war, I want to finish it in a matter of months, not years. If so-I would be a freakin bad leader and general. Nobody is interested in years-length fights.