Idea: a table of peace talks & threat of security.

[unmerged(144721)]

Reflecting on the negotiations finishing war, I was visited with such idea:

When the country wins and it demands an armistice, taking into account the purpose of war, chooses the deserved, lawful award (annexation, the satellite, the independent countries, prestige, etc.).
Essence of my idea: the won country has no restriction for the award. The won country can take, besides lawful (deserved in war), even more (more provinces, etc., but, certainly, with restriction of the certain account of a victory over war). However, the more it takes away, the more see threat of the security the next (boundary) countries and eight Great Powers (seven, if you - Great Power too) more. It is shown in falling relations and, in some cases, in occurrence of casus belli to this country. Thus other countries which expect threat of security, probably will try to unleash new war in which they could return the old status quo of the defeated country.
Such concept will resolve a problem of absence of threat of security, will essentially add historicities, it was really actual for this epoch, and gameplay will be more realistic and it will be more interesting.

 

[unmerged(144721)]

Yes, and about the badboy I have overlooked to mention: it too should raise at an aggressor.

 

[Orinsul]

heres what ive said a couple times already on the issue, its not the best but i cant find that one and i could write it again but thatd take effort so heres it copied.

There needs to be a system for ratification, the alliance leader draws up peace terms and then all parties involved need to accept it before it comes into effect, the war continues, maybe a cease fire period during peace talks where there are no longer battles but land remains occupied and war-time effects continue just no actual fighting. And then once a treaty is agreed by all parties involved it ends but if it fails to get full apporval compromises might be needed to be made or it could dissolve into either a continuation of the war or into a number of smaller limited wars. Some ability for alliance leaders to veto seperate treaties or take over seperate negotitations and for alliance leaders to change by the players hand [take control or give it up to a chosen state.] It seems diplomacy is getting its casing cleaned and a good number of new shiny buttons on the outside but unless someone finds a way to add some new gears its just going to run the same as it used to. Something to prevent the worst of troubles from victoria when the late arriving alliance leaders would trade a couple islands in the pacific and screw over the rest of the world, with the instant loss of occupied lands and war progress, and sometimes actual loss of terrotory at the hand of an arbitary decision from the other side of the world.
War goals are brilliant and everything, but it doesnt really mend anything at all.

The same system as in the first game only with a second and thrid step slapped on the end for major wars or wars involving more than two Great Powers or something else.

 

[Snaggleooo]

The ideas are good, but I think King wrote somewhere that multilateral peace talks weren't going to be included in Vicky 2. I'd get you a link, but the post illudes me for the moment.

 

[Orinsul]

multilateral talks being out of it is a good thing as itd be more complicated than would be worth it, but we can hope for a question of whether or not to accept it, whether or not to honour it, that'll be whats needed. Simply a little box to pop up along the lines of 'the alliance leader has accepted a peace with these terms' and an accept button and a fight on one thatd come with with a reputation hit or something