Is the peace system too rigid now?

[Alerias]

I assume that the whole "one goal only for each war" is mostly a balance decision, but I admit I'm not entirely a fan so far.

When I have two valid CBs on an enemy, having to wage two wars to enforce them can -sometimes- make sense, other times though, much less so.

I also miss the historical and quite natural ability to demand financial recompense from a defeated foe.

All in all, the EU3 peace system certainly felt more realistic. Compromises for balance are okay, but I'd say, this may overall be a bit too restricted.

What are your thoughts?

 

[unmerged(164239)]

And what about defensive wars. Is there a way to add a war goal, if you are being attacked? It seems unfair, if only attacker can press claims. If defender win war, he gets nothing.

 

[Wezqu]

I assume that the whole "one goal only for each war" is mostly a balance decision, but I admit I'm not entirely a fan so far.

When I have two valid CBs on an enemy, having to wage two wars to enforce them can -sometimes- make sense, other times though, much less so.

You don't have to fight two wars if you have claim on two counties that he owns just chose press all claims and those counties are both your war goals.

 

[HolisticGod]

Alerias,

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?583638-Military-Access-and-Defensive-Wars

Even if you, Dishonor and myself are the only ones who feel this way, it is nice to find I'm not the only one.

I actually think the 1-claim-per-war approach is the best we're going to get. It slows down expansion and comes closer to realism, even if it's artificial, than a system that allows all claims to be pressed at once. Generally speaking, wars in the middle ages were brief (or fighting was, followed by long periods of glaring at one another over the river) and inconclusive.

What I think should be fixed is the inability of the defender to choose a preexisting claim to press. And I would like to see things like indemnities, tributes, marriages, alliances, and variable-length truces/peace treaties added to the war goals. It would be nice if, say, one side could concede the title to a county in exchange for a marriage and alliance, which was a fairly common settlement in the era.

Wezqu,

Is that right? I don't remember seeing a "press all claims" button. I thought you had to choose a single CB, each one containing the available claims.

 

[Alerias]

I havent found this 'press all claims' button yet... Even worse, so far, I've often gotten less from a victory than the game led me to believe I would get, ie, attack for a Ducal claim, get the title but only part of the Duchy...

And yes, I would agree, defensive wars are even worse. Defenders with a valid CB on their attackers should have a way to add it. I hope at the very least they give us this option...

 

[kentonio]

Yes it's far too rigid. Once someone declares war, you're basically locked into an all or nothing conflict with very little room for either side to manouver. White peace has stopped being a way out generally, because of the big prestige hit, so if someones winning but doesn't want to continue the war, they have no option other than to take a hit, or grind out the whole thing.

The AI also seems to always want to press their highest claim, so the King of France instead of just pressing the claim on Normandy against William, will instead press his claim on England despite being in no state to actually pull that off.

I seriously miss the flexibility and intriege that CK1 gave you. If I have 2 people attacking me, I want to be able to desperately save up some cash to bribe one of them to stop, or hand over a few provinces to do so. It could be as simple as transferring vassalage rather than handing over actual claims if they don't hold claims to that land.

There also seems to be strangeness over attacking Kingdoms unless I'm just missing something. As William I have no idea how to acheive the realistic result of taking the throne but having Saxon dukes retaining their duchies as my vassals. If I don't directly conquer their lands then they become independant, and if I do then I get their lands directly.

It all just feels disappointingly shallow, which is a real shame because theres so much goodness in this game. I'm really hoping this doesn't spoil the long term enjoyment of the game. Currently when things start going badly wrong in the game it feels like the only sensible response is to start over, rather than just adapt to whats happening.

 

[thebard]

kentonio,
The war William the Conqueror fights is an "Invasion".
If you win the war, you will get everything which is occupied by you. If you occupy the territory of the saxon dukes, you will get it.
That has nothing to do with the rigid war system.

 

[kentonio]

kentonio,
The war William the Conqueror fights is an "Invasion".
If you win the war, you will get everything which is occupied by you. If you occupy the territory of the saxon dukes, you will get it.
That has nothing to do with the rigid war system.

Please explain how you can end the war with the Saxon dukes as your vassals.

It does tie in with the rigidity of the war system. The all or nothing approach means that you get exactly that. There appears to be no way to force vassalage, bribe or otherwise end wars on positive terms that are less than all out victory. I'm arguing that that is not realistic and is less interesting in the long term.

 

[Alerias]

Please explain how you can end the war with the Saxon dukes as your vassals.

It does tie in with the rigidity of the war system. The all or nothing approach means that you get exactly that. There appears to be no way to force vassalage, bribe or otherwise end wars on positive terms that are less than all out victory. I'm arguing that that is not realistic and is less interesting in the long term.

The 'invasion' is actually one of the more open-ended cbs because you keep what you can take. You can end it after just getting the Crown or you can press for all the duchies too.

occupy_minors_of_occupied_settlements = FROM
gain_all_occupied_titles = FROM
give_nickname = nick_the_conqueror

 

[kentonio]

The 'invasion' is actually one of the more open-ended cbs because you keep what you can take. You can end it after just getting the Crown or you can press for all the duchies too.

Yes, but there appears to be no way of taking the throne and having the existing duchies transfer into your vassalage other than having them going independant and then asking them to go vassal afterwards, which they quite understandably normally refuse. I've played several games now where I've ended up King of England but had several independant duchies/counties that refuse vassalization. I'm just wishing for a system that allows the realistic result of ending a war with saxon duchies who probably hate me, but who grudgingly accept my rule (while doubtless plotting against me at every turn ).

 

[Diet of Worms]

While there are obviously historical objections the current defensive wars setup, I think it is fairly fundamental to the way the game is setup.

For two independent states, there is no problem with a CK1 system, with give and take between the parties. But with all the differing levels of vassals and lieges, it would (and did) cause problems.

If you can lose land in offensive wars, that means that your liege can lose lands in offensive wars that you start. So you have to either have the CK1 system, where the liege always participate, and where any vassal could pull his liege into any war. Even if he was a one province count and his liege was the HRE. Or you would just have to accept that, as a liege, any and all of your vassals might lose land to a foriegn power, without you having any right to be involved.

The current system isn't perfect, but avoids what seem to be worse issues. Any improvement would be extremely complex - you'd need a system where a liege could get involved if a war went badly, or something. Maybe it is possible, but "non-trivial" would be something of an understatement I'd say.

It IS rigid, no two ways about it. But it is functional, and it is better than CK1, and it is better than just adding CK1 style treaties to CK2 would be.

 

[Doomdark]

There also seems to be strangeness over attacking Kingdoms unless I'm just missing something. As William I have no idea how to acheive the realistic result of taking the throne but having Saxon dukes retaining their duchies as my vassals. If I don't directly conquer their lands then they become independant, and if I do then I get their lands directly.

There is a bug with the Invasion CB in the demo; sometimes the Saxon vassals are not transferred correctly to the winning invader. Note that it is useful to occupy as much territory as you can before signing the peace, as all the Saxon vassals there will be cleared out.

 

[Alerias]

While there are obviously historical objections the current defensive wars setup, I think it is fairly fundamental to the way the game is setup.

For two independent states, there is no problem with a CK1 system, with give and take between the parties. But with all the differing levels of vassals and lieges, it would (and did) cause problems.

If you can lose land in offensive wars, that means that your liege can lose lands in offensive wars that you start. So you have to either have the CK1 system, where the liege always participate, and where any vassal could pull his liege into any war. Even if he was a one province count and his liege was the HRE. Or you would just have to accept that, as a liege, any and all of your vassals might lose land to a foriegn power, without you having any right to be involved.

The current system isn't perfect, but avoids what seem to be worse issues. Any improvement would be extremely complex - you'd need a system where a liege could get involved if a war went badly, or something. Maybe it is possible, but "non-trivial" would be something of an understatement I'd say.

It IS rigid, no two ways about it. But it is functional, and it is better than CK1, and it is better than just adding CK1 style treaties to CK2 would be.

We've discussed some alternatives in the thread HolisticGod linked above, but I admit we didn't think very much about the feudal hierarchy in this process. Still, it can be worked out. Lieges could get an intervention CB or a 'reclaim lost land for the Crown' CB after its lost because of an underling's aggressive wars. At the very minimum, defenders should always be able to press for monetary reparations from their attackers; surely that poses no issues whatsoever. It would often force aggressors to take out expensive loans to compensate their enemies, maybe bankrupting them. That would be an effective deterrent against further aggression for awhile, too, and a good reason for the defender to push for a real victory rather than a white peace.

 

[InnocentIII]

There is a bug with the Invasion CB in the demo; sometimes the Saxon vassals are not transferred correctly to the winning invader. Note that it is useful to occupy as much territory as you can before signing the peace, as all the Saxon vassals there will be cleared out.

Wait, there's a bug affecting a position we're not supposed to be able to play in the Demo? Say it ain't so!

The inability to add wargoals to a defensive war, to me anyway, will only be frustrating if all the armies return to full strength before I can DoW the swine who DoWed me. Annihilating the enemy yet being unable to take what he holds that I have a claim on without everyone returning to square one to start again strikes me as wrong. I've had no problem Pressing All Claims so far, so if that is sometimes not possible (e.g. titles held in a different form or claims arising from different sources) I don't see myself losing any sleep over it.

If I have to re-kill my enemy's eternally respawning armies because we started the new war from scratch, that's different.

 

[Diet of Worms]

We've discussed some alternatives in the thread HolisticGod linked above, but I admit we didn't think very much about the feudal hierarchy in this process. Still, it can be worked out. Lieges could get an intervention CB or a 'reclaim lost land for the Crown' CB after its lost because of an underling's aggressive wars. At the very minimum, defenders should always be able to press for monetary reparations from their attackers; surely that poses no issues whatsoever. It would often force aggressors to take out expensive loans to compensate their enemies, maybe bankrupting them. That would be an effective deterrent against further aggression for awhile, too, and a good reason for the defender to push for a real victory rather than a white peace.

Fair points. Just nit-picking here, but there is a benefit in winning a defensive war - the attacker loses the claims. White peace not only do they keep them, but they are pressed and can be inherited. But I certainly don't have an objection to an improved system, and certainly not to monetary reparations. I just suspect it would have to be fairly complex.

 

[Dutchling]

Well, it would certainly be bad if a defender could add a claim in a war someone else's vassal has started. Because right now your vassals can declare war to another realm and if they lose it it wouldn't matter (a lot) to you. If the other realm could add a claim you would suddenly be forced to defend your vassal, which would change the whole war system for vassals.

I actually like the system as it is now. The only way you can really lose vassals land in a war without you being able to defend him is in a civil war when your vassals aren't your vassals for a while.

 

[Talar]

So as long as you are first on the declare war button you will not risk losing anything even if it goes badly? That does not sound entirely right.

 

[Alerias]

So as long as you are first on the declare war button you will not risk losing anything even if it goes badly? That does not sound entirely right.

Well you can lose the claim and a bunch of prestige, but you're right, its a bit unfair, hence why we're discussing counter-CBs. Its esp. frustrating for the player when you get DoWed by someone you wanted to DoW, and now you know you have to fight them for 'nothing' AND wait out a long truce before you can fight them AGAIN for what you originally wanted.. assuming you didnt lose the CB in the meantime!

 

[brifbates]

So as long as you are first on the declare war button you will not risk losing anything even if it goes badly? That does not sound entirely right.

You lose all claims you are trying to enforce in the war plus a pile of prestige. Not to mention your economic and military losses suffered during the course of the war. All of these make you more vulnerable to attacks from other quarters.

I'd much rather see this system than the original CK's Muslim Bohemia every game scenario.

 

[Alerias]

I'd much rather see this system than the original CK's Muslim Bohemia every game scenario.

This isnt what we're asking for, though. We were discussing in the other thread the possibility of a popup when attacked that lets you pick one of your own valid claims against your attacker, if you have any. Unless the Muslim attacker had a valid claim on Bohemia, he couldn't take it in a defensive war with such a system.