Nullify enemy gains from separate peace

[wingren013]

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.

truces exist, and the AI don't make good use of it.

This is going to create border gore and exploits.

 

[The Goldfinch]

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.

1. There will be truce. Situation might be completely different after few years.
2. You will get infamy and diplomatic incident for starting a new play so in this case its both unfair and illogical
3. Its just extremely silly.

 

[wingren013]

What exactly is the argument against this by the way?

Nobody has made one, they've just said "I don't think this situation will come up a lot"

 

[wilcoxchar]

1. There will be truce. Situation might be completely different after few years.
2. You will get infamy and diplomatic incident for starting a new play

Yes, that's the point. If there is actually cause to return the land and you are powerful enough to force it, then the other side will back down anyway before it escalates to war and you won't violate the truce. But it gives a chance for other countries to step in and say "no I support this new status quo" which is realistic, and in which case if you still don't want to violate the truce don't let the play escalate to a war.

3. Its just extremely silly.

So it having your land taken away from you through absolutely zero agency of your own when you're a great power, which is what you're proposing.

What exactly is the argument against this by the way?

Nobody has made one, they've just said "I don't think this situation will come up a lot"

I have made a case against this in this thread, and several others have been made in other threads. In a general sense, it just goes against the intended gameplay of the new diplomatic play, war goal, and peace deal system. The system is that the diplomatic play sets up the initial stakeholders in the conflict, and during the war stakeholders remain in the war so long as they have a stake in the war. Once a country capitulates, drops its wargoals, or negotiates a peace that results in it having no goals in the war, then it leaves the war. That's it. What the proposal does is violate that design principle by making it so countries have a stake in the war while being unable to participate, and allowing countries to have wargoals that affect countries that are no longer stakeholders. That's not good from a gameplay perspective with this system.

Additionally, the only argument I've seen in favor of some sort of return territory wargoal is people trying to jury-rig the game into simulating WWI exactly and perfectly using a single diplomatic play. Which is absurd on the face of it that it would be a single play in the first place. But also frankly I don't think the game needs to or should try to shoehorn in mechanics just to attempt modeling one of the most complicated set of peace deals in history that won't even happen anywhere in most games.

 

[The Goldfinch]

So it having your land taken away from you through absolutely zero agency of your own when you're a great power, which is what you're proposing.

What are you even talking about? I think you don't understand the concept. I am suggesting a wargoal that forces you to return something you took in a war. Where do you see a problem?

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.

Any source for that? It would be extremely dumb, if its true. Nations can fight in a war without any wargoals. If getting your wargoal means you exit the war then this will be 100x more frustrating than anything you are talking about in your post. Jesus, I am sure this is not the case.

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?

Britain would only return what it took if wargoal was pressed against it. Nothing like this happened here, so it keeps what it gained.

 

[wilcoxchar]

What are you even talking about? I think you don't understand the concept. I am suggesting a wargoal that forces you to return something you took in a war. Where do you see a problem?

I understand the concept very well. I just also see how this would actually impact gameplay in practice instead of just in concept. Maybe read your own thread.

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.

 

[wingren013]

What the proposal does is violate that design principle by making it so countries have a stake in the war while being unable to participate, and allowing countries to have wargoals that affect countries that are no longer stakeholders. That's not good from a gameplay perspective with this system.

But it is good from a realism perspective. This happened in real life. Regularly. It was in fact a component of the balance of power in Europe, and had become normative in peace treaties over a century before the start of the game.

Additionally, the only argument I've seen in favor of some sort of return territory wargoal is people trying to jury-rig the game into simulating WWI exactly

It happened in basically every major European war of the modern era that featured what would be ingame separate peace treaties. It had literally just happened in the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[The Goldfinch]

I understand the concept very well. I just also see how this would actually impact gameplay in practice instead of just in concept. Maybe read your own thread.

I don't think you do, because something similar was implemented in vic2 and worked perfectly fine, without bizarre stuff you mention

Again, Prussia demands Schleswig. Britain supports Denmark. Denmark capitulates, Prussia takes Schleswig. Britain gets "liberate Schleswig" wargoal.

 

[wilcoxchar]

But it is good from a realism perspective. This happened in real life. Regularly. It was in fact a component of the balance of power in Europe, and had become normative in peace treaties over a century before the start of the game.


It happened in basically every major European war of the modern era that featured what would be ingame separate peace treaties. It had literally just happened in the Napoleonic Wars.

And now you're using an example of a war that took place over the course of twenty years, with several periods of peace in between, so it would again not be modeled as a single diplomatic play or a single war. And again you're still not considering the actual gameplay impact of adding it. Gameplay trumps realism every time when considering things like this. If it's not fun, it shouldn't be in the game.

I don't think you do, because something similar was implemented in vic2 and worked perfectly fine, without bizarre stuff you mention

Because the crisis system in Victoria 2 was very different in both design and in implementation to what the diplomatic play system is in Victoria 3. For one, you could add wargoals during a war in Victoria 2, and you can't in Victoria 3.

 

[wingren013]

I understand the concept very well. I just also see how this would actually impact gameplay in practice instead of just in concept. Maybe read your own thread.

I don't think you know how wars in V3 work, because your example breaks the rules of the game.

To go to your example Britain + Portugal are fighting Spain + France

Britain has wargoals on Spanish territory

Britain and Portugal beat Spain and sign a separate peace. Spain is not signing a peace with Britain, but in fact the entire alliance. This is how the system works as described in the dev diaries. Participants only leave the war when they are defeated. If they have achieved their wargoals in a separate peace, they still remain in the war.

Britain remains in the war on Portugal's side and continues to fight France.

Now under the proposed system, France would receive wargoals to liberate the recently conquered Spanish territory.

France can only push those wargoals as part of peace negotiations with the Britain + Portugal alliance, or in separate peace negotiations with Britain alone. This is how peace deals have been described to work.

If somehow Britain exited the war, and only France and Portugal were fighting, then France could demand that Britain give up territory while it was making peace with solely Portugal.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Because the crisis system in Victoria 2 was very different in both design and in implementation to what the diplomatic play system is in Victoria 3. For one, you could add wargoals during a war in Victoria 2, and you can't in Victoria 3.

How does it relate to bizarre example you claimed would happen? Seriously, until I see a proof I refuse to believe that after your ally gets his wargoal in separate peace, he automatically exits the war. It would be super stupid. From what I understand, only ways to exit the war is to either capitulate, or sign peace treaty together with other allies

 

[wingren013]

Gameplay trumps realism every time when considering things like this. If it's not fun, it shouldn't be in the game.

I am playing as Germany. AI France tries to annex Luxembourg. I intervene. During the war, Luxembourg capitulates and is annexed. If things were as you want, then as a player I would be extremely frustrated. The entire point of the war was to keep Luxembourg out of the hands of the French. Now they have annexed it, and I can only wait for the truce timer to to end and start a diplomatic play. This is incredibly frustrating

What you seem to be concerned about is "if I start a war I can't win then I should still be able to keep territory I gain in separate peace" which is absolutely bonkers. It would mean that the player could safely declare wars an weaker nations that they are sure can be capitulated quickly, and any nations that come to the defense of said weaker nations will be of no consequence. This is the opposite of Paradox's intentions with the diplomatic play system.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I am playing as Germany. AI France tries to annex Luxembourg. I intervene. During the war, Luxembourg capitulates and is annexed. If things were as you want, then as a player I would be extremely frustrated. The entire point of the war was to keep Luxembourg out of the hands of the French. Now they have annexed it, and I can only wait for the truce timer to to end and start a diplomatic play. This is incredibly frustrating

Then maybe you should have defended Luxembourg better and assigned more generals and troops to your allies' front.

What you seem to be concerned about is "if I start a war I can't win then I should still be able to keep territory I gain in separate peace" which is absolutely bonkers. It would mean that the player could safely declare wars an weaker nations that they are sure can be capitulated quickly, and any nations that come to the defense of said weaker nations will be of no consequence. This is the opposite of Paradox's intentions with the diplomatic play system.

No? That is demonstrably incorrect from what we've seen of the game. In the example from the Papal States AAR, Austria gambled to take East Switzerland in a war against Bavaria and Prussia and then when they lost they faced the consequence of losing Vienna among other things. That sure sounds like a consequence to me especially for the player.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Then maybe you should have defended Luxembourg better and assigned more generals and troops to your allies' front.

Compiegne. German unconditional surrender.
France: okay we want you Germans to release Belgium
Germany: no, sorry but no. You cannot demand this, because you should have defended them properly in the first place

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Then maybe you should have defended Luxembourg better and assigned more generals and troops to your allies' front.

Someone please tell me it's a joke. I refuse to believe it's serious.
Austria Hungary capitulates in ww1. Austrian Emperor: "he he, but we annexed Serbia and are keeping it, and what are you gonna do about it, pitiful entente boys?" Austria Hungary survives as Serbia.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Compiegne. German unconditional surrender.
France: okay we want you Germans to release Belgium
Germany: no, sorry but no. You cannot demand this, because you should have defended them properly in the first place

Someone please tell me it's a joke. I refuse to believe it's serious.
Austria Hungary capitulates in ww1. Austrian Emperor: "he he, but we annexed Serbia and are keeping it, and what are you gonna do about it, pitiful entente boys?" Austria Hungary survives as Serbia.

See, it's sad how the desire for these kind of things always, always, always goes back to wanting to perfectly and exactly simulate historical WWI and the Paris Peace Conferences and absurdly thinking that they would all be in one diplomatic play. If you want to play WWI historically, play a WWI game. Victoria is not going to be able to do that because it is not a game specifically about WWI.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

See, it's sad how the desire for these kind of things always, always, always goes back to wanting to perfectly and exactly simulate historical WWI and the Paris Peace Conferences and absurdly thinking that they would all be in one diplomatic play. If you want to play WWI historically, play a WWI game. Victoria is not going to be able to do that because it is not a game specifically about WWI.

So, if the desire was to simulate historical something else would it be okay?
I mean, it's Paradox, a company famous for doing historical games with a very specific niche.
It's like Creative Assembly released a new Total War: Rome where elephants won't walk on mountain terrain (even if poorly) and then you can't emulate Hannibal's attack...

 

[wilcoxchar]

So, if the desire was to simulate historical something else would it be okay?
I mean, it's Paradox, a company famous for doing historical games with a very specific niche.
It's like Creative Assembly released a new Total War: Rome where elephants won't walk on mountain terrain (even if poorly) and then you can't emulate Hannibal's attack...

Yes. For a 19th century grand strategy game focused on economics and sociopolitics, wanting to model a broader process that took place over the course of the game period and that would fit in with the design vision and core gameplay focus of the game would be a good argument, such as the formalization of loosely aligned interest groups into political parties. And that is indeed something I called for early in the game's development. But cherry picking specific pieces of specific instances during the time period is not a good argument for inclusion of a feature in a grand strategy game. It would be like looking at the part of the Treaty of Versailles where Bayer had to give up their patents on heroin and aspirin and demanding that heroin, aspirin, corporations, international patents, and diplomatic forcing of releasing patents be included in the game just so it has the infintesimal chance of modeling that during the game.

 

[Zarastro Marchio]

I must admit, it does sound more interesting and challenging if you are actually forced to defend smaller states. This would also force global players like the UK to be more careful about when and where they commit their ressources.

 

[wingren013]

Okay picture this. Austria invades Albania.. The French have been buttering up Albania, and so intervene. The French don't want anything from Austria, and so add no wargoals of their own. Albania capitulates. Austria and France remain at war.

What exactly are they fighting over?

We know the above situation can happen in the war system as described in the game. Why should France not be able to demand the release of Albania if they win?