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

[Ranjid]

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.

Wait what? This is the most awesome and polished expansion yet. I don't know how this could possibly piss anyone off. Sure I've been debating against the mechanic discussed in this topic. But while I stand by what I said, I found it to be just a minor annoyance ingame.

 

[Viperswhip]

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.

It's not 5 years if you can convince their allies to give up the fight. This change feels a lot more realistic to me. So, you are entitled to your opinion, but I do wish their were more options, maybe via espionage to get your enemies enemies more likely to attack them; that would help get them out of the war.

 

[Illianor123]

Cut it down to 3 years from 5.

Declare on the larger allies, then just annex the OPMs as you siege them. Easy.

Also, Venice, Austria Bohemia is so very many countries to get to Brandenburg from Milan. Three times when you need to cross a border that takes less than a month and only a few days travel time for the diplo so you need need both at the monthly tick. Pathetic.

 

[beckdawg]

Cut it down to 3 years from 5.

Declare on the larger allies, then just annex the OPMs as you siege them. Easy.

Also, Venice, Austria Bohemia is so very many countries to get to Brandenburg from Milan. Three times when you need to cross a border that takes less than a month and only a few days travel time for the diplo so you need need both at the monthly tick. Pathetic.

How exactly does A) Milan get a CB on Brandenburg and B) Milan get access from Venice when they have you rivaled? What if Austria/Bohemia aren't in a position to allow you access and you can improve relations to get it? Regardless, you're missing the point. Games are meant to be "fun." I acknowledged there were legitimate reasons for the change but how can you honestly suggest with a straight face that this current situation doesn't need tweaking? There are clear issues with it. Also, why are you so combative? If you disagree fine but there's no reason to be rude about it.

 

[Ranjid]

How exactly does A) Milan get a CB on Brandenburg and B) Milan get access from Venice when they have you rivaled? What if Austria/Bohemia aren't in a position to allow you access and you can improve relations to get it? Regardless, you're missing the point. Games are meant to be "fun." I acknowledged there were legitimate reasons for the change but how can you honestly suggest with a straight face that this current situation doesn't need tweaking? There are clear issues with it. Also, why are you so combative? If you disagree fine but there's no reason to be rude about it.

Not to mention that Brandenburg will ally Austria, Poland and Bohemia. And since they removed the 60d rule, they will all join the war even on a day 1 DoW. Eh, no. I'll stick with attacking Mantua.

 

[TheSavage01]

What we really need is a fractional diplomatic point system where mil access costs 0.25/month...

But barring that, maybe each country should get 2-3 "freebie" military access slots (and military access with allies wouldn't count). Only after these freebies were occupied would mil access cost a dip relation slot. Personally, I think transfer of trade power also shouldn't cost a dip rel slot, so maybe the freebies could apply to that as well. (Why would you take trade transfer in peace if it's going to cost you 1 dip/month?)

 

[Atlanteax]

2 year is enough imho.

this !!!

 

[Squirrelloid]

What we really need is a fractional diplomatic point system where mil access costs 0.25/month...

But barring that, maybe each country should get 2-3 "freebie" military access slots (and military access with allies wouldn't count). Only after these freebies were occupied would mil access cost a dip relation slot. Personally, I think transfer of trade power also shouldn't cost a dip rel slot, so maybe the freebies could apply to that as well. (Why would you take trade transfer in peace if it's going to cost you 1 dip/month?)

Or just.. not have military access cost diplo points in the first place? If it has to cost something, give it separate slots (when not bundled with an alliance), and have it cost military points. (Military points desperately need more uses now).

 

[Viperswhip]

Or just.. not have military access cost diplo points in the first place? If it has to cost something, give it separate slots (when not bundled with an alliance), and have it cost military points. (Military points desperately need more uses now).

The AI is too stupid, it does not take up a diplo slot for them because of it and it would not cost them mil points. They will be exempt from every system you devise because while blanket mil access is not as bad in Art of War as previously, the AI still gets mil access for insanely nonsensical reasons, like Genoa is blanket sieged with no troops and asks me for mil access...okay.