Limited Wars

[Codias]

Since I keep on thinking about EU3 today (Where's the Dev Update? ) I was wondering if we will see any sort of "Limited" war actions like we saw in Vicky.

Here's a couple ideas that would be cool.

Naval War - War is declared on the high seas, no land engagements occur. Embargo and fleet engagements are primary here. Since I decided to go into IT rather than get that History degree (thanks a lot, common sense) I don't have any examples of this type of engagement here. I would love to hear any from the history buffs out there, however!

Colonial War - War can only be fought on a continent other than where their capitals are. France and England could not fight in Europe, but they could certainly duke it out in Africa or North America. This should perhaps only be available to powers that share the same continent? Otherwise I propose total war to be the only option.

What are your feelings about this?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Naval War - War is declared on the high seas, no land engagements occur. Embargo and fleet engagements are primary here. Since I decided to go into IT rather than get that History degree (thanks a lot, common sense) I don't have any examples of this type of engagement here. I would love to hear any from the history buffs out there, however!

Fairly pointless, IMO. The only point of a 'naval war' would be (as an end result, at least) the destruction of that navy's nation. This could be through blockading or destruction of the enemy's fleet, and so on; but the end result is generally that of defeating the enemy on land.

Colonial War - War can only be fought on a continent other than where their capitals are. France and England could not fight in Europe, but they could certainly duke it out in Africa or North America. This should perhaps only be available to powers that share the same continent? Otherwise I propose total war to be the only option.

Good idea; I like it a lot It works in Victoria, so why not EUIII?

 

[KaiserChicken]

One thing I would have liked to see in Victoria was the possibility to escalate a colonial war to a total war.

 

[Gobi]

I really like the idea of a colonial war.

 

[knul]

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think there was any major war fought only at see (please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, it would be a bit odd to declare a naval war: imagine the diplomat telling the enemy king that his king declares war and kindly requests that all fighting shall be limited to ships. Doesn't sound very historically.

However, with the improved naval battle system, naval warfare is more important. You can (according to the dev diary) steal resources, so you can really hurt an enemy with your navy. So it's entirely possible that there will be fierce wars in EU3 fought exclusively at sea. But I don't think you should be able to declare a naval war: restricting the parties to only naval combat is unrealistic.

What would be nice is that wars have certain "escalation levels". With the Napoleonic wars, warfare was almost total and devastating, while at the start of the EU3 era, warfare was much less intensive (at a large scale, not for the participating persons). I hope the engine reflects this.

In general, it's a bit strange to have limited war declarations. It's not like you sit down with the enemy and decide where to fight or where it's not allowed to fight. The engine should nudge players into having colonial wars without invading home countries by having consequences for acting otherwise. But not completely forbidding it.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

We've had this discussion many-a-times on these boards. Some people want 1 type of war: total war. Then there's the other, like you and me, who want a wide array of wars. I want total war, sure. But naval conflict, proxy wars, limited area(limited gains) wars would all be nice.

 

[daedalus]

Count me on the total war crowd. There is always ways to keep a war confined to certan places (naval supremacy).

In colonial territiries however, two armies not at war that meet could fight a skirmish unless they have a non agression pact Low casualty.

 

[Skarion]

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think there was any major war fought only at see (please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, it would be a bit odd to declare a naval war: imagine the diplomat telling the enemy king that his king declares war and kindly requests that all fighting shall be limited to ships. Doesn't sound very historically.

However, with the improved naval battle system, naval warfare is more important. You can (according to the dev diary) steal resources, so you can really hurt an enemy with your navy. So it's entirely possible that there will be fierce wars in EU3 fought exclusively at sea. But I don't think you should be able to declare a naval war: restricting the parties to only naval combat is unrealistic.

It wouldn't be too unrealistic if you consider the naval war to be like a piracy time. It basicly isn't a war, just like a piracy and a war to take over traderoutes (Like England versus Spain, the Hansa towards most in the Baltic, Denmark versus Sweden etc).

Then if one of the involved don't think he can handle the naval war he would be able to escelate it into a real war and also recieving a CB as of the naval war.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think there was any major war fought only at see (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Well, the anglo-dutch war somewhere in the 1640-ties and 1650-ties springs to mind... Of course, the dutch were soundly defeated with their hastily armed merchant ships...

 

[Registered]

Well, the anglo-dutch war somewhere in the 1640-ties and 1650-ties springs to mind... Of course, the dutch were soundly defeated with their hastily armed merchant ships...

Not the 1640s the Dutch fleet was still in a good shape at the time and the Republic and England were mosttly friendly. You're thinking about 1652-1653 . Yes it was a solely naval affair but whether that would be usefull in the game depends entirely on how the trading system works and what navies can do about it. And as far as i can think of it is also the only example of a purely naval war. (the other anglo dutch wars were laos fought in the colonies and with attempts on the Dutch mainland) I'm not sure how aing it to the game would improve it.

 

[Slavophil]

"Raid war" or "Small war". You can invade enemy's land and loot his provinces, but you can't demand provinces or something else. You'll gain money, prestige and military tradition without risking your land. And you can wage such type of war only if you enemy have other religion. Or,maybe, even the other techgroop.
For example several tartar khanates such as Kazan and Crimea khanates for centuries raid their christian neigbors. This war could be a good way to boost economy for small, but aggressive frontier countries

 

[Registered]

There is amother sort of war i think should be added. The punitive expedition. Only to be used against vassal that you have a CB on. Why? i hear you ask? Well, has a vassal ever embargoed your trade or given military access to your enemies? Then you know why. Obviously the vassalage would not be broken by this type of war (relations would go down the drain) and you would not be allowed to take any of their territory. But you would be able to lift embargoes, cancel their diplomatic actions and change their state religion.

 

[knul]

Well, the anglo-dutch war somewhere in the 1640-ties and 1650-ties springs to mind... Of course, the dutch were soundly defeated with their hastily armed merchant ships...

Mmmm, I guess I have to feel ashamed that I have overlooked the Anglo-Dutch wars, being dutch myself

My point is, however, that declaring a limited war is unrealistic. The Dutch and English didn't agree to only fight at sea. In declarations of war the enemy was not asked to fight only here or there. Limited wars should be declared the same way as total wars, but with consequences.

An example. A DoW brings you stability down with 1. As long as you only fight in colonies and at sea, nothing special happens. But as soon as you invade the enemy's homeland, your war has escalated. Another stability hits occurs.

So having a total war in contrast should have consequences, but not be outruled outright. DoW should result in a low intensity war, which you can escalate at will, at a cost. No need for different kinds of DoW.

Skarion, piracy is indeed a good exampl of covert naval-only conflict. But I think it should be possible to commision privateers in peacetime, which give the target the opportunity to more easily DoW you.

 

[unmerged(19042)]

Count me on the total war crowd. There is always ways to keep a war confined to certan places (naval supremacy).

In colonial territiries however, two armies not at war that meet could fight a skirmish unless they have a non agression pact Low casualty.

Yes, kind of like with what happens with ToT at the moment. I wouldnt mid the Vicky colonial wars against non-Euro powers as well.

As for naval warfare, perhaps a more developed form of issuing letters of marque and not simply getting plain old pirates, but country specific pirates? I am not sure how it would work though.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Judging by the recent development diaries, naval supremacy will actually be meaningful for a large colonial nation. Having limited colonial wars would be nice, particularly as it looks like it might be harder for a human player to ship 100k soldiers across the oceans and conquer everything within a few months.

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

"Raid war" or "Small war". You can invade enemy's land and loot his provinces, but you can't demand provinces or something else. You'll gain money, prestige and military tradition without risking your land. And you can wage such type of war only if you enemy have other religion. Or,maybe, even the other techgroop.
For example several tartar khanates such as Kazan and Crimea khanates for centuries raid their christian neigbors. This war could be a good way to boost economy for small, but aggressive frontier countries

Seems Ok, but should not give you prestige, but a lot of Bad Boy. Makes me think of the Turks in Hungary and Austria which was basically not able to do anything about it. The Turks used this raids to keep morale low in the neighbouring countries and explore future battle scenes.

 

[Captain Frakas]

Colonial wars could perhaps be the normal situation between european country... No peace outside the line (outside europa and european waters) until we sign a colonial pact wich definie area of influence.

For exemple, Spain could sign an colonial pact with Portugal :
America granted to Spain
Brasil granted to Portugal (this make the first one act as America minus Brasil)
Africa granted to Portugal
Asia Granted to Portugal
Philippines granted to Spain (this make the last one act as Asia minus Philippines).

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

Colonial wars could perhaps be the normal situation between european country... No peace outside the line (outside europa and european waters) until we sign a colonial pact wich definie area of influence.

Area of influence...makes me think of better controlling the pope when this happens...

 

[George LeS]

Undeclared limited naval war was almost the norm in the Indian Ocean. The Brits, Dutch, & Portuguese fought a number of battles, some between ostensible allies. I'd love to see it added.

 

[Captain Frakas]

I suggest :

-Colonial War (including Naval Wars).
Thoses war don't need to be declared, they are automatic as this is the normal situation between european powers. They are all at war outside the european continent and the european waters, until they sign one colonial pact that define area of influence of both party. Colonial provinces controled are autoannexed.
Allied countries, Country under personnal union and Lord/Vassal countries don't need to have colonial pact, they are at peace outside the line.
It look like the EU2's Tordesillas treaty, but for all european countries, and also in non-european waters.

-Expansion War (including Independance War).
Classical EU2 war, you can annexe provinces, vassalise country, force releasing country, force religious conversion, force trade etc.

-Civil War
A civil war could only end with the total annexion of one side by the other one. The Forced annexion is badboy free. The War Score price for an forced annexion is reduced to something like 60-70%.

-Dynastic War
The objectif isn't to annexe provinces, but to force an personnal union. You could also annexe some provinces, but the War Score Price for each provinces is increased.

I think that it cover all the spectrum of 1453-1792 war...