Lack of peace options?

[puggle999]

So atm when you set up a war you pick your war goals and have to gun for them. So far so good.

There are only two modifications I think should be made,

First the removal of the requirement to have occupied the planet - pops there could have a greater revolt risk and lower happiness at being unfairly left, but a large space empire who has lost the war (-99) would sacrifice one planet if it would end the war, regardless of whether or not the opponent had occupied it.

Secondly, it would be nice to be able to 'pad out' your peace deal with demands for minerals and energy. If you'd just fought in a damaging war, you are going to want some recompense, especially if no territory changes hands.

I love the principle of the changed war method, I just think that, from current glance, it could use a bit more padding.

Cheers x

 

[Exemplar Voss]

Well, keep in mind, if the AI surrenders to you, the planet need not be occupied. We've seen that several times, so when you do get to the point where you break the enemies, they do give up without requiring occupations. The recent wars have just been large enough that it takes a while.

As for minerals and energy... It makes some sense from a 'realism' perspective, but it causes some balance problems. It puts the conqueror on a prospective never ending conquest path, where they never need to pause and think about resources, have shortfalls or any sort of check to their power. It also means the loser gets hit again, not only do they lose planets, stations and ships, but they also lose their capacity to rebuild. That makes for an instant death spiral for anyone losing a war.

 

[Turin the Mad]

Concur.

It would be nice to add items from the trade menu to one's war demands.
Military / civilian transit rights.
Resource reparations (monthly) of influence or strategic resources. (Above post wisely notes the death spiral resource reparations would impose. Perhaps if resource reparations are implemented, they only last 1/10th or 1/5th the duration of a required NAP?)
Longer duration NAP (perhaps extending the duration from the default of 5 years).
Wormhole station destruction (low, low cost) or turnover (if your empire has at least the fundamental tech for using wormhole FTL).

 

[puggle999]

Fair enough, I guess it was a weighting bug.

As for minerals and energy... It makes some sense from a 'realism' perspective, but it causes some balance problems. It puts the conqueror on a prospective never ending conquest path, where they never need to pause and think about resources, have shortfalls or any sort of check to their power. It also means the loser gets hit again, not only do they lose planets, stations and ships, but they also lose their capacity to rebuild. That makes for an instant death spiral for anyone losing a war.

Not talking permanent reparations, but a couple of thousand minerals and energy creds isn't going to cripple them

 

[Exemplar Voss]

Fair enough, I guess it was a weighting bug.



Not talking permanent reparations, but a couple of thousand minerals and energy creds isn't going to cripple them

Isn't it? Mid game ships are hundreds of minerals each. If you attack the Boring Empire, and then when you're done, the Aggro Empire on their other border attacks them, and then your truce timer runs out, and you've got a nice helpless remnant to chew on. Once you start extracting resource penalties from losers, it doesn't stop unless their neighbors don't care to attack them or they are dead. We've seen it in EUiv often enough: first someone rips a chunk out of an empire, then the next one has a go, then rebels explode, and suddenly Ming is a handful of shoddy little successor states that fall like leaves in winter.

Even with a mechanic to specifically give a pile of bonuses at the end of lost wars, empires still fail to recover.

 

[Amightypie]

i wouldnt mind being able to take non-occupied provinces but only at a 1.5->2.5 X standard cost otherwise its too easy to expand after a war

 

[LastLeviathan]

A system akin to EU4 would be fine. Have the ability to demand planets you don't occupy at a much greater warscore cost, demand release of a vassal, war reperations, a flat payment of energy/minerals. An interesting addition could be to include an option against rivals, like a humiliate, which could have effects such as increased ethics divergence for x amount of years.

 

[CptWilly]

The inability to peace out separately (at the expense of losing your alliance and a taking a hefty relations penalty with your abandoned allies) does make me a tad nervous. As it stands now, it's not hard to find yourself fighting an entirely unproductive war with goals that only benefit allies or federation partners. Since you can't add new goals and can't just peace out if they are the war leader, you are sort of just stuck. You might be able to just turtle up and defend your space until the war ends, but with some ethos, you might suffer fairly large wartime penalties.

Still, I have a lot of faith in PDS, so I'm hesitatant to level any full-throated criticisms of the new system until playing it.

 

[Xeldrakka]

The inability to peace out separately (at the expense of losing your alliance and a taking a hefty relations penalty with your abandoned allies) does make me a tad nervous. As it stands now, it's not hard to find yourself fighting an entirely unproductive war with goals that only benefit allies or federation partners. Since you can't add new goals and can't just peace out if they are the war leader, you are sort of just stuck. You might be able to just turtle up and defend your space until the war ends, but with some ethos, you might suffer fairly large wartime penalties.

Still, I have a lot of faith in PDS, so I'm hesitatant to level any full-throated criticisms of the new system until playing it.

I'm pretty sure that's why the veto power for alliance warfare exists. You'll be able to meassure the possible gains in warfare for yourself against the risks that the alliance as a whole is asking you to take part of. If there is little or nothing of value being given to you as a reward for your part in the conquest, then you tell your alliance buddies NOPE.jpeg and no war occurs.

 

[CptWilly]

I'm pretty sure that's why the veto power for alliance warfare exists. You'll be able to meassure the possible gains in warfare for yourself against the risks that the alliance as a whole is asking you to take part of. If there is little or nothing of value being given to you as a reward for your part in the conquest, then you tell your alliance buddies NOPE.jpeg and no war occurs.

Until you are in a federation. Then you have no say whatsoever. Or if it is a defensive war. No veto there either, I think.

 

[Xeldrakka]

Until you are in a federation. Then you have no say whatsoever. Or if it is a defensive war. No veto there either, I think.

With the Federation, there is definitely that issue. It's balance is mostly in the rotating presidency. However, like with Alliances, you always have the option to simply not join one. I don't believe that Federations are going to be to prominent in the game for exactly the reason you describe.

 

[blakh]

... suddenly Ming is a handful of shoddy little successor states that fall like leaves in winter.

What sort of trees do they have in your country

 

[FlavourBeans]

The inability to peace out separately (at the expense of losing your alliance and a taking a hefty relations penalty with your abandoned allies) does make me a tad nervous. As it stands now, it's not hard to find yourself fighting an entirely unproductive war with goals that only benefit allies or federation partners. Since you can't add new goals and can't just peace out if they are the war leader, you are sort of just stuck. You might be able to just turtle up and defend your space until the war ends, but with some ethos, you might suffer fairly large wartime penalties.

Still, I have a lot of faith in PDS, so I'm hesitatant to level any full-throated criticisms of the new system until playing it.

I wonder what happens if you leave a federation while it's at war?

 

[anomalacaris]

I wonder what happens if you leave a federation while it's at war?

I would expect it to be not allowed

 

[Safehold]

Fair enough, I guess it was a weighting bug.



Not talking permanent reparations, but a couple of thousand minerals and energy creds isn't going to cripple them

In SC2, taking even 500 minerals from one player and giving it to another player would cripple the match one way or another, between equally good players. The sooner it happens, the more damaging it is. Maybe if it got gold sinked and destroyed, it wouldn't matter as much.

 

[anomalacaris]

In SC2, taking even 500 minerals from one player and giving it to another player would cripple the match one way or another, between equally good players. The sooner it happens, the more damaging it is. Maybe if it got gold sinked and destroyed, it wouldn't matter as much.

In previous paradox games though, taking 500 gold is nothing. None of EU CK etc were designed to have fair starts for all parties either. So I wont really expect differently for this title.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

What sort of trees do they have in your country

Deciduous?

 

[Oscot]

Deciduous?

Some of us don't even have winter, let alone trees which base their life-cycle around it.

Isn't it? Mid game ships are hundreds of minerals each. If you attack the Boring Empire, and then when you're done, the Aggro Empire on their other border attacks them, and then your truce timer runs out, and you've got a nice helpless remnant to chew on. Once you start extracting resource penalties from losers, it doesn't stop unless their neighbors don't care to attack them or they are dead. We've seen it in EUiv often enough: first someone rips a chunk out of an empire, then the next one has a go, then rebels explode, and suddenly Ming is a handful of shoddy little successor states that fall like leaves in winter. something something

... but leaving seasonal confusion aside: (A) is the Chinese analogy applicable, and (B), if it is, is that even a bad thing? Not all Paradox blobs collapse: look at CK2 Abbasids, which these days is solid enough to substitute for diamond drill-bits in certain deep-sea oil extraction applications. Stellaris might take the Caliphate model over the Ming mode. But even if it takes the Ming model, it's not like that's game-breaking. Dogpiling large empires is a feature, not a bug.

 

[blakh]

Deciduous?

Well, in my country, trees tend to shed their leaves in fall. That's why it's called, y'know, fall.

 

[[Q]uik]

I also wish we could somehow "break down" a country, rather than conquering it. Instead of demanding planets, demand that they release x planets as a empire?