Nullify enemy gains from separate peace

[Oglesby]

"PieDmont" hurts my brain, come on Piemonte

Oops, my mistake.

Okay


Piemont supported them because they are allies


They could have had another war, Austria could have had overwhelmed them temporarily, because they were mobilized

So France started a play while at war, that resulted in a war, and couldn't bother to put any attention to said new war? Maybe they shouldn't have started it. Maybe Piemont should not have supported it since France was distracted elsewhere and they would be the focus of Austria solo.
Or Austria overwhelmed them for 16 weeks!!! That is not temporarily.

It is advancing towards Galicia, or attacking Denmark, Austrias Ally. How is it relevant? I am talking about a hypothetical problem of game mechanic. Imagine Prussia is a lazy player who takes his time.

So again in another war, has added distractions. I guess it is relevant since (a) those providing aid need to consider those things when entering the play, and (b) figuring out what is preventing the attacker from removing any gains from the defender for 16 weeks, or 4 month, or 1/3 year.

Anyway - you seem to be using some game circumstances as a tool to mitigate the problem. This is completely irrelevant, as I am discussing the problem with mechanic itself and potential outcomes. Potential problems might or might not happen, depending on circumstances. But the <potential problem> remains

I am not seeing the <potential problem>. They have to get to -100 to be forced to capitulate, which takes months. We need to have the 'strong' attacker to be 'absent', a 'weak' attacker that joins, the 'medium' defender that adds the 'weak' attacker as a war goal and the defender is able to run wild for months.

 

[The Goldfinch]

I am not seeing the <potential problem>. They have to get to -100 to be forced to capitulate, which takes months. We need to have the 'strong' attacker to be 'absent', a 'weak' attacker that joins, the 'medium' defender that adds the 'weak' attacker as a war goal and the defender is able to run wild for months.

Even if, say, forces are evenly matched - lets say Austria barely defeats Piemont, lots of battles, but better prepared, and then France almost, after months of struggle, gathering colonial force, finally manages to destroy Austria - still there remains the problem of unreasonable peace. Austria would keep Turin, while releasing Milan. They would be defeated, but would gains more territory from the war

 

[BeauNiddle]

As long as all combatants rejected every single proposed peace deal at every step of the way to end the war short of two full capitulations.

Which is heading towards "next weeks lottery numbers are ...." levels of randomness.

But the idea that an extra war goal is added when one side capitulates such that their allies can enforce a repeal of the early deal (at the cost of giving up their own potential gains) might be a nice addition.

 

[Oglesby]

Even if, say, forces are evenly matched - lets say Austria barely defeats Piemont, lots of battles, but better prepared, and then France almost, after months of struggle, gathering colonial force, finally manages to destroy Austria - still there remains the problem of unreasonable peace. Austria would keep Turin, while releasing Milan. They would be defeated, but would gains more territory from the war

France doesn't have to destroy Austria. They have to make progress in Piemont to bolster Piemont's war support to where they do not capitulate. We do not know what actions are available to gain war support. Recovering Piemont's capital should snap it all the way back to zero as that is also part of the wargoal.

I do not see the system failing in this situation. Austria managed to occupy all of Piemont for a *long* time during which they *prevented* France/Piemont from reasserting control.

 

[The Goldfinch]

France doesn't have to destroy Austria.

Naturally, it doesn't have to. But its AI, it will not make most reasonable decisions most of the time.

Recovering Piemont's capital should snap it all the way

AI most likely won't know it. It might try to navally invade Istria, and many other things, before Piemonts capital.

I do not see the system failing in this situation. Austria managed to occupy all of Piemont for a *long* time during which they *prevented* France/Piemont from reasserting control.

Yeah, does it change the fact that victorious France should firstly demand restoration of its ally? You know, Hitler also managed to defeat Poland, and occupy it for a long time.

Anyway, If you still do not see the problem, let me try with another example, hopefully we succeed this time.

Prussia makes a play for Bohemia. Austria sways Russia with "humiliate Prussia" wargoal. Unfortunately, Russia is currently a bit busy with war in China. So Prussia makes few weeks blitz and Austria surrenders. But after two months, Russian bear slowly starts to awaken. Months pass, decisive battle at Brest Litovsk. After that, Russia goes all the way to Berlin, total victory. Then it just... Humiliates Prussia. Prussia keeps Bohemia. Prussia completely lost the war, lost all armies, yet it keeps the most valuable prize.

You still don't see the problem?

 

[Ffc]

Very well thought, I hope Devs will consider this seriously

 

[Oglesby]

Naturally, it doesn't have to. But its AI, it will not make most reasonable decisions most of the time.

AI most likely won't know it. It might try to navally invade Istria, and many other things, before Piemonts capital.

So we are going with the "AI sucks" defense?

Yeah, does it change the fact that victorious France should firstly demand restoration of its ally? You know, Hitler also managed to defeat Poland, and occupy it for a long time.

And invoking Hitler? I believe those that entered later into WWII would be using the 'cut down to size' action.

Anyway, If you still do not see the problem, let me try with another example, hopefully we succeed this time.

Prussia makes a play for Bohemia. Austria sways Russia with "humiliate Prussia" wargoal. Unfortunately, Russia is currently a bit busy with war in China. So Prussia makes few weeks blitz and Austria surrenders. But after two months, Russian bear slowly starts to awaken. Months pass, decisive battle at Brest Litovsk. After that, Russia goes all the way to Berlin, total victory. Then it just... Humiliates Prussia. Prussia keeps Bohemia. Prussia completely lost the war, lost all armies, yet it keeps the most valuable prize.

You still don't see the problem?

First, it wouldn't be a 'few weeks' for Austria to surrender. It would be double digit weeks of complete occupation (100% wargoal is only 2, 100% occupy is 10).
Second, why would Russia accept for 'humiliate' while it is 'a bit busy' and months away from awakening?

Let us edit.

Any issue with "Prussia makes a play for Bohemia. Austria sways cannot sway Russia with "humiliate Prussia" wargoal . Unfortunately, as Russia is currently a bit busy with war in China. So Prussia blitz and Austria surrenders. But after two months, Russian bear slowly starts to awaken. Months pass, decisive battle at Brest Litovsk. After that, Russia goes all the way to Berlin, total victory. Then it just... Humiliates Prussia. Prussia keeps Bohemia. Prussia completely lost the war, lost all armies, yet it keeps the most valuable prize.

Maybe after Russia in done in China it does something about it (because of infamy or what ever else).

I feel the examples are extremely contrived and that is why I am not having issues with it.

 

[The Goldfinch]

So we are going with the "AI sucks" defense?

Err... And what exactly is wrong with wanting the game to be prepared for AI not making most optimal choices in every situation?

And invoking Hitler? I believe those that entered later into WWII would be using the 'cut down to size' action.

It is not possible to enter later in war in vic3.

Maybe after Russia in done in China it does something about it (because of infamy or what ever else).

I feel the examples are extremely contrived and that is why I am not having issues with it.

Man, it does seem quite extraordinary to me that you are not able/willing to use your imagination to adjust situation a tiny bit, if you find my example so wildly improbable. Is it really so hard to think of a scenario where Prussia beats Austria easily, and has some initial successes against Russia, but eventually gets overwhelmed? Maybe some minority in Russia revolted after outbreak of war, so they could not use all of their army immediately? Maybe they just had a bad general initially? Is this scenario so "contrived"? Dude.

What if I play Britain, and Germany makes a play to annex Netherlands, Netherlands sway me with Neukamerun, so I join them; then German army overwhelmes the Dutch before my expeditionary force arrives. Netherlands surrender. Then I make naval blockade, suffocate German economy, they surrender. And as a victorious power, I cannot bring back the balance of power, Germany has to keep its gains and I need another war to restore order.

Is this one also out of this world?

 

[Hawke06]

then maybe every country should be able to suggest the shape of the peace deal.

Very good idea

The reason why i think one annulment wargoal per separate peace is better than your suggestion of a single wargoal of "revert all gains", is that this allows more give-and-take in the negotiations, and surely will give the negotiated peace talks more spice.

I like it. Some nice flavor here. "Annul the treaty of Warsaw". Mmmmm

Let us edit.

But why though? What he described totally can happen, you are finding problems out of thin air. You saw AARs with Austria taking Switzerland and giving up Vienna (which happen due to capitulation mechanic he describes), but you argue that what he says cannot happen?

 

[Oglesby]

Err... And what exactly is wrong with wanting the game to be prepared for AI not making most optimal choices in every situation?

I would think it would be better to design mechanics with the assumption that other mechanics will be designed to be functional. I guess it sounds like I should make changes to the entree because I assume the side dish is going to suck. Why not plan for a better side dish?

It is not possible to enter later in war in vic3.

Since in Vic3 that is true, I think those who entered later would be handled as a new diplomatic play (or for the Benelux "violating a neutral country’s sovereignty"). The World Wars would in effect be multiple smaller conflicts. Since infamy is gained during the play, 'cut down to size' might be the cause for the new diplomatic plays.

Man, it does seem quite extraordinary to me that you are not able/willing to use your imagination to adjust situation a tiny bit, if you find my example so wildly improbable. Is it really so hard to think of a scenario where Prussia beats Austria easily, and has some initial successes against Russia, but eventually gets overwhelmed? Maybe some minority in Russia revolted after outbreak of war, so they could not use all of their army immediately? Maybe they just had a bad general initially? Is this scenario so "contrived"? Dude.

What if I play Britain, and Germany makes a play to annex Netherlands, Netherlands sway me with Neukamerun, so I join them; then German army overwhelmes the Dutch before my expeditionary force arrives. Netherlands surrender. Then I make naval blockade, suffocate German economy, they surrender. And as a victorious power, I cannot bring back the balance of power, Germany has to keep its gains and I need another war to restore order.

Is this one also out of this world?

I think the problem I am having is the way it appears that you are glossing over the time scales involved. I do not feel that it is only a tiny bit that I have to adjust the situation.

So in your new example it takes Britain longer to cross the channel than it takes Germany to fully defeat and occupy the Netherlands long enough so that the Netherlands have completely lost war support. You do not see the problem there?

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Why not plan for a better side dish?

Then you have planned for a better side dish. Doesn't change the fact the side dish might suck.

 

[niemcycle]

Then you have planned for a better side dish. Doesn't change the fact the side dish might suck.

Yeah, it's important for systems to include the possibility for failure. While they will design it so that the AI shouldn't make poor decisions on release, having the game be prepared for the above scenario is vastly better than just hoping the AI doesn't peace out this way.

I like it. Some nice flavor here. "Annul the treaty of Warsaw". Mmmmm

I agree, that's excellent flavour right there and I'd love to see that implemented! We do know the 'Cut Down to Size' wargoal exists, which returns all territorial gains made in the last 20 years, so something similar to this is not unreasonable.

 

[wilcoxchar]

This sounds like it would get really frustrating for the player really fast. Imagine a situation where Spain launches a play for Portugal, Britain supports Portugal in exchange for getting Cuba and the Canary Islands, and France supports Spain in exchange for Angola. The might of Britain is able to get Spain to capitulate to them early, giving Britain their war goals and Britain and Spain exit the war since the only war goals left are between France and Portugal. But now, the war is still going on and France is able to beat Portugal. Why should Spain be able get back what Britain rightfully won just because Portugal lost the war without Britain having any say whatsoever, when neither Spain nor Britain are even involved in the war anymore? If you were playing as Britain, you'd be rightfully pissed at the game for doing this and you not being able to do a thing about it.

 

[niemcycle]

This sounds like it would get really frustrating for the player really fast. Imagine a situation where Spain launches a play for Portugal, Britain supports Portugal in exchange for getting Cuba and the Canary Islands, and France supports Spain in exchange for Angola. The might of Britain is able to get Spain to capitulate to them early, giving Britain their war goals and Britain and Spain exit the war since the only war goals left are between France and Portugal. But now, the war is still going on and France is able to beat Portugal. Why should Spain be able get back what Britain rightfully won just because Portugal lost the war without Britain having any say whatsoever, when neither Spain nor Britain are even involved in the war anymore? If you were playing as Britain, you'd be rightfully pissed at the game for doing this and you not being able to do a thing about it.

That's a good point, and one I think would be best accounted for by making it so that a party has to be an active participant in the war to have its gains reversed. A party would have to actively be losing a war to be able to lose what it gained, not just having an ally lose.

It could also be that one would have to get the party to capitulate to press this wargoal, but I like the idea of it being a bargaining chip a previously-winning country could use to quickly end a war with a Negotiated Peace.

 

[Oglesby]

But why though? What he described totally can happen, you are finding problems out of thin air. You saw AARs with Austria taking Switzerland and giving up Vienna (which happen due to capitulation mechanic he describes), but you argue that what he says cannot happen?

Do we have more information about this action than what is listed here? Because I cannot even tell if this is one or multiple plays that made this happen. Also the AAR numbers were altered to make nations less stable/ more aggressive. I don't know if that affected War Support / Exhaustion which would reduce the time needed for capitulation. I would agree there is a problem with The Goldfinches examples if it only took 'few weeks'.

Spoiler: Discord image

 

[Oglesby]

Yeah, it's important for systems to include the possibility for failure. While they will design it so that the AI shouldn't make poor decisions on release, having the game be prepared for the above scenario is vastly better than just hoping the AI doesn't peace out this way.

True, one needs to look at the possible failures modes and the effects of them. One also has to consider how many faults are needed to reach those failure modes, the severity of those failure modes and then mitigate those risks appropriately.

In this case it is not one poor decision. It is enough poor decisions that it ignores the occupied ally for long enough that it is occupied for double digit weeks.

For reference this is one of the comments that I was responding to which decodes to 'AI will pick wrong most of the time'

But its AI, it will not make most reasonable decisions most of the time.

Isn't is a good play to attack an opponent while their ally is busy elsewhere and try to resolve the issue before the ally disentangle from their other engagement? This is what we would be removing.

 

[shoebird]

This sounds like it would get really frustrating for the player really fast. Imagine a situation where Spain launches a play for Portugal, Britain supports Portugal in exchange for getting Cuba and the Canary Islands, and France supports Spain in exchange for Angola. The might of Britain is able to get Spain to capitulate to them early, giving Britain their war goals and Britain and Spain exit the war since the only war goals left are between France and Portugal. But now, the war is still going on and France is able to beat Portugal. Why should Spain be able get back what Britain rightfully won just because Portugal lost the war without Britain having any say whatsoever, when neither Spain nor Britain are even involved in the war anymore? If you were playing as Britain, you'd be rightfully pissed at the game for doing this and you not being able to do a thing about it.

I guess that the UK is still involved in the war, otherwise it wouldn’t be taken part in the peace negotiations and no war goals could be pressed against it. But yes, you might have a point.

Here is the point: in case any side achieved any gains in separate peace, the other side should have an automatic wargoal added: "Nullify enemy gains". And this wargoal should be prioritized before pressing other wargoals.

I think that Vic 2 already implemented something like this. It was already mentioned in the AAR by someone, sorry don’t remember who, on the discussion about the results of the Swiss-Austrian war, but others said that it wasn’t in vanilla Vic2. I think that’s wrong and it was in vanilla Vic2, as I think I saw it in a game later. Playing Spain, got dragged to a war by Prussia to conquer some German state. After the state capitulated, it’s ally Austria has the war goal to liberate the country. So I don’t think it should be a problem to implement it back in Vic 3.

 

[Zarastro Marchio]

A very interesting dilemma you present here. It would certainly be strange if a party that got completely defeated ended up with gains because it took out other opponents first and was able to force more valuable demands through.

That being said, I do believe this might be less of a problem than it may appear for the following reasons.

1. It has been repeatedly stated that losing a war decisvely will be a very painful process and thus encourage early settlements. The loser will have lost pops and will have to care for those who are permanently injured, and the devastated regions will be crippled in their economic output for some time. Adding to the economic costs there will also be an increase in political turmoil, with class struggles and the appearance of independence movements. Thus going with your Austria example, Austria would come out of the war with some additional land, while being heavily in debt, and the potential of losing other parts of its' Empire to independence movements (which can I believe, be supported by other Great Powers) and in no shape to supress them. Not exactly an appealing outlook for Vienna.

2. I do hope that this will force smaller countries to be more careful in the way they choose their wars, and in return encourage countries to actually support their partners. Each country has its' own priorities and making interesting decisions is part of the fun of strategy games. It has also been mentioned that choosing when to mobilize will be part of how a player can influence diplomatic plays and the outcome of wars. If the UK decides to defend Belgium and guarantee it, but can't actually do so for many months, then I would argue that this glaring strategic miscalculation should have consequences. Realistically, if we think more in terms of localized conflicts (which will hopefully be more commom than WWI-scenarios) than this will be but one of many struggles for supremacy. The UK will get another chance to check the Jerries, and it would be more prudent to invest ressources than in a scenario in which one is not on the backfoot to such a degree.

3. RP-wise, I do wonder how realistic it would be for popular support in e.g. the Austria scenario among the French population for a prolonged war against Austria on another ones' behalf. Some Parisians would probably ask why they should go all the way to Vienna just so that Piedmont who stopped fighting very quickly do not loose Turin.

 

[wingren013]

Victoria 2 had this feature.

If you annexed territory in a multi-participant war via separate peace, the enemy would get a wargoal to liberate said territory.

V3 needs it too.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Honestly I still don't see what's so bad about just starting another diplomatic play to return the land after the war is over if you're that desperate to do this. If the other side is in such a state that they'd give it over in a peace deal, then they'll back down from the new diplomatic play.