Is the peace system too rigid now?

[Diet of Worms]

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.

Well he's a Muslim... I imagine he has a holy war CB on everything the vassal owns...

One thing though, do you not get to imprison your opponent after winning a defensive war? (I haven't actually fought one outside my own realm yet). People talking about wanting reparations kind of hints that you can't, but that would give you some cash if you wanted it, and the ability to execute, without (as far as I can see) leading to problems.

 

[Dutchling]

You only imprison your own vassal if you win a defensive war and only the war leader. I think you do get 'the right to imprison' the other ones though.

 

[kentonio]

There is a bug with the Invasion CB in the demo; sometimes the Saxon vassals are not transferred correctly to the winning invader.

Thats ace, thanks man.

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.

Good point about the leige. If the system only allowed people to press existing claims against attackers though, it'd be a bit more manageable. Maybe as leige you should have to approve aggressive wars by your vassals that take place outside your realm? It's tricky because all options have problems of their own of course.

 

[Petorius]

In my Scotland-Ireland game in CK 1 England went to war with me over a county that one of the dukes had a claim on. I was able to make two or three of the northern English dukes my vassals in that defensive war and after that England dissolved into a lot of independent states that I could just eat by creating claims with prestige. I think that it is good that the wars have been nerfed to avoid such outcomes.

I will admit that it would be nice to press my own claims in a defensive war, but I think that forcing your attacker to admit defeat could hurt him so much that the next war will be a lot easier. Low prestige gives him bad relations and if he has used the levies of his vassals for too long they will also be unhappy. Unhappy vassals means less income and levies. If they also added some reparations it would be even more devastating. There are over 300 years of gameplay and I think a peace lasts 5 years (can probably be modded), so there should be enough time to press all your claims.

 

[HolisticGod]

I may be wrong, but doesn't the overlord have the ability to enter any war its vassal is fighting with an external enemy? If not, wouldn't that be simple to add?

Only allow the defender to press claims against the attacker himself-i.e, his own demense-and then leave it to the overlord to decide whether or not to get involved.

I'm perplexed by this "press all claims" button. If such a thing exists (I'm try to use the demo as it was intended, which means I haven't played it in a while), it means that the attacker has the potential to gut the defender but the defender has zero real ability to fight back. And you can say, "Just DOW right away," but sieges are the main thing and if you lose all you've taken, then have to break the truce and take the prestige hit (since you can't negotiate truce lengths at all), then have to re-occupy everything... Come on, that's not symmetrical. And while I don't mind it in SP because even this much improved AI is still an AI and I can roleplay my reasons for not going on the offensive, in MP this is liable to be a serious problem for which we'll have to use all sorts of clumsy workarounds.

There's also not explanation for not permitting negotiation on non-land issues, like tribute, indemnities, marriages, alliances, truce length, etc.

 

[Dutchling]

As far as I know, there is no 'press all claims' buttons.

 

[nimrod123]

i just want different truce timers for a victory in a defensive war. if i win the defense war then demand surrender, why do i have to wait 5 years for another go at him after he started a war he couldn't win.

maybe have it set that if you attack and lose you get a full truce but the person attacked gets a 1 month truce. for example i was poland and attacked danzig, those to neighbors attacked me but i had a pile of mercs. i got danzig but all i could do agianst the other 2 was peace out. then it was a 5 year wait until i could do shit agianst non christan leaders.

at the moment the best way to go about it seems to be, if you know someone will be called in anyway and you have CB, declare on them all at the same time

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Negotiated (give and take) peace never works well with an AI. It's difficult enough to work out if an AI should accept a simple win/lose offer, compared to how the war is going. Adding in a value for marriages, paying money to the loser in exchange for more favourable terms for the winner, and so on would complicate things enormously and open up possibilities for abuse.

Alliances can't come from war negotiations as things stand since there are only alliances from marriages and blood relations.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

As far as I know, there is no 'press all claims' buttons.

There is, but it only appears if you have multiple claims on the same person. Thus, if you have a claim for the county of Rutland, and the duchy of York, if they are held by the same person you can try to enforce both claims.

i just want different truce timers for a victory in a defensive war. if i win the defense war then demand surrender, why do i have to wait 5 years for another go at him after he started a war he couldn't win.

maybe have it set that if you attack and lose you get a full truce but the person attacked gets a 1 month truce. for example i was poland and attacked danzig, those to neighbors attacked me but i had a pile of mercs. i got danzig but all i could do agianst the other 2 was peace out. then it was a 5 year wait until i could do shit agianst non christan leaders.

at the moment the best way to go about it seems to be, if you know someone will be called in anyway and you have CB, declare on them all at the same time

DoW on all of them seems like a good idea, until they all invite their cousins into the war. After a certain point you physically can't DoW all of them.
I'm guessing the 5 year truce is arbitrary, since there has to be a limit somewhere to stop you running entirely on mercs and conquering vast swathes of land from a kingdom in one go whilst it is still damaged from the previous war. Whether this is a defensive war for you or not, the idea is to stop losing a war being effectively game over as your victorious enemy now hits you whilst you have no troops whatsoever, and takes your lands from you.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

As far as I know, there is no 'press all claims' buttons.

There is, but only if you possess multiple claims against who you are attacking personally.

You can't press all the claims of your courtiers.

 

[Diet of Worms]

As far as I know, there is no 'press all claims' buttons.

It's definitely there, I used it last night in my 800AD Irish count game...

You may well not be able to use it for all claim types, or mix and match different types. But I got two forged count level claims on an English duke one after the other, and when I declared war I could claim for either one, or press all claims. I did this and won both counties in the peace.

I suspect it is only for when you have multiple actual claims on provinces - the sort that are displayed in your character screen under your titles - rather than the various Holy War, Ducal claims, claimants in your court, etc.

 

[Dutchling]

Negotiated (give and take) peace never works well with an AI. It's difficult enough to work out if an AI should accept a simple win/lose offer, compared to how the war is going. Adding in a value for marriages, paying money to the loser in exchange for more favourable terms for the winner, and so on would complicate things enormously and open up possibilities for abuse.

This is probably the main reason why I like this peace system. So far I haven't seen the AI act like a complete retard during peace negotiations which it did most of the time in EU3.

 

[unmerged(179107)]

The biggest problem is that one cannot 'press all claims' on muslims.

 

[nimrod123]

i still think if a country joins a losing war and gets its ass kicked they shouldn't expect a huge grace period, you DOW me! i only chose peace because i couldn't apply legitimate claims on you, i was coming for you in 3 months any way! hence why i want asymetrical truce's.

or i will do what i do now and mod the defines.lua and make truces last 1 month and to hell with game balance

 

[kentonio]

Whether this is a defensive war for you or not, the idea is to stop losing a war being effectively game over as your victorious enemy now hits you whilst you have no troops whatsoever, and takes your lands from you.

Except that if you are starting wars which involve you losing all your troops without your opponent losing his, and you also fail to achieve your objectives, then you deserve to lose your lands.

 

[nimrod123]

Except that if you are starting wars which involve you losing all your troops without your opponent losing his, and you also fail to achieve your objectives, then you deserve to lose your lands.

no no no, your missing the point, these wars are honorable, i mean if i was backstabed, crushed his armies and had my own ready to crush him, i would occupy his land, force peace then give it all back and ask for nothing. *sarc*

oh and i wont attack you for a couple of years so you can try again latter!

 

[HolisticGod]

Apart from a variable truce term, I think nimdrod's is the best suggestion for truce.

The attacker may be bound by a five year term (I think it should be less-2 to 3), but the defender is bound by no term. It may DOW again right away to press its claim.

Even better would be to add a peace option for the defender that converts the war to his CB, so that the attacker becomes the defender. That way, occupied territory is not reset.

 

[nimrod123]

it probably would require a new line in the defines.lua (so not necessarily a mod) that does something like:

truce_time_months = 60
truce_time_win_defender_months = 1 ##?

so if you attack and win both parties get the standard time out, you attack and lose you get standard and the defender gets win_defender

as long as the game stores who attacked and defended, and has an auto event that controls this it shouldn't be to hard if we could get the line in the defines.lua

we likely wont see it in game as they will have stopped creating and be well into bug squash and QA, but we can dream

 

[nimrod123]

of course you still have to disband your levies to go back to war so it provides the defender with something of a chance, thats why i employ mercs as my first to fight's!

 

[unmerged(209891)]

I would say counter-CBs are an absolute necessity. Having no chance of the attacker losing anything but prestige is absurd.