I'm not sure if something like this has been raised before (I did search but I find it quite unwieldy) but I've been getting a bit frustrated recently with the mechanics of single player wars with allies. Allies dropping out for no obvious reason is bad enough but the most irritating thing is when I'm joining my ally in a defensive war and he takes a peace deal that suits him without giving any thought to my needs.
I know that I can sue for peace on my own but this brings a relations penalty with it and requires me to guess when he is likely to sue for peace in order to time it right.
In a multiplayer scenario you can get round this by having a detailed chat both to coordinate battle strategy and to agree objectives and peace terms. Whilst I realise that you can never hope to code such detail and sophistication into the AI, I would like to see some changes and I wonder whether something along the following lines might work.
1. When an ally is called into a war, he is able to set his own objective just as he would if he was starting a war. If it is a defensive war then the default war goal will be the same as the war leader but it can be changed. This would be akin to saying to your ally "I will help, but for a price."
2. If the participants change because new allies join your enemy then you should get the chance to change your objective.
3. If you peace out early, achieving your objective but leaving your ally unable to achieve his within a short time then you should get a large relationship malus for being selfish.
4. When the war leader is ready to propose peace, his allies should see the proposal first and have a chance to indicate their views. These views could range from strong approval to strong disapproval and could also include a plea for more time, say three, six or twelve months, before looking at the situation again.
5. The allies should also be able to construct their own proposal for the war leader to consider which may make different use of the available war score but may still be acceptable to the leader.
6. The war leader would be free to ignore the views of his allies but would have a penalty for doing so which would vary in severity depending on the strength of feeling.
7. If the war leader agrees to a request for more time then his allies should be able to prepare a revised draft proposal at any time after that should they be ready to do so. If the leader (and the other allies) are happy then the deal can be done.
8. If the agreed extra time runs out then the war leader should circulate another proposal for consideration as in point 4.
9. Asking for extra time should have relationship consequences which are immediate (and so affect willingness to agree to further requests for time) but the size of which will depend on how much of a burden continuing with the war actually is. If the leader will not be involved in any additional fighting then the malus will be small but if he is likely to take heavy losses then it will be large.
10. Notwithstanding point 3 above, if an ally wants to sue for peace early then he should have the chance to circulate that for feedback. If he wants out because he is losing and is in danger of being overrun then he may get more sympathy (and less malus) from his allies than if he is just being selfish.
As I say, I realise that this is no substitute for the full discussions that are possible in multiplayer but there are plenty of players who don't like multiplayer or whose schedules are too unpredictable to be available so anything that can be done to make things a bit better would seem to me to be worth considering.
I know that I can sue for peace on my own but this brings a relations penalty with it and requires me to guess when he is likely to sue for peace in order to time it right.
In a multiplayer scenario you can get round this by having a detailed chat both to coordinate battle strategy and to agree objectives and peace terms. Whilst I realise that you can never hope to code such detail and sophistication into the AI, I would like to see some changes and I wonder whether something along the following lines might work.
1. When an ally is called into a war, he is able to set his own objective just as he would if he was starting a war. If it is a defensive war then the default war goal will be the same as the war leader but it can be changed. This would be akin to saying to your ally "I will help, but for a price."
2. If the participants change because new allies join your enemy then you should get the chance to change your objective.
3. If you peace out early, achieving your objective but leaving your ally unable to achieve his within a short time then you should get a large relationship malus for being selfish.
4. When the war leader is ready to propose peace, his allies should see the proposal first and have a chance to indicate their views. These views could range from strong approval to strong disapproval and could also include a plea for more time, say three, six or twelve months, before looking at the situation again.
5. The allies should also be able to construct their own proposal for the war leader to consider which may make different use of the available war score but may still be acceptable to the leader.
6. The war leader would be free to ignore the views of his allies but would have a penalty for doing so which would vary in severity depending on the strength of feeling.
7. If the war leader agrees to a request for more time then his allies should be able to prepare a revised draft proposal at any time after that should they be ready to do so. If the leader (and the other allies) are happy then the deal can be done.
8. If the agreed extra time runs out then the war leader should circulate another proposal for consideration as in point 4.
9. Asking for extra time should have relationship consequences which are immediate (and so affect willingness to agree to further requests for time) but the size of which will depend on how much of a burden continuing with the war actually is. If the leader will not be involved in any additional fighting then the malus will be small but if he is likely to take heavy losses then it will be large.
10. Notwithstanding point 3 above, if an ally wants to sue for peace early then he should have the chance to circulate that for feedback. If he wants out because he is losing and is in danger of being overrun then he may get more sympathy (and less malus) from his allies than if he is just being selfish.
As I say, I realise that this is no substitute for the full discussions that are possible in multiplayer but there are plenty of players who don't like multiplayer or whose schedules are too unpredictable to be available so anything that can be done to make things a bit better would seem to me to be worth considering.
