Opinion: Too many options are locked behind being not at war

[Aepdneds]

For example the estate interaction seize land or the possibilty to start the integration of a vassal. Also like the -1000 modifier for new alliances shouldn't apply when you are fighting the new world wars or if the war is against the rival of a nation.

 

[Arizal]

I agree. I think one reason for those restrictions is that Paradox wants to prevent "exploits" and strange effects. By leveling the playing field, the consequences of those actions are easier to track.

Some examples :
- Seizing land during a war could result in your ennemy having to fight your rebels since an army just popped out of thin air.à
- Provoke rebellions would work the same way
- Allying new people after the war declaration would make declaring war far more a gamble since you could have the opponent suddenly allying a big dog and outnumbering you
- Integrating vassals is already locked when the vassal's capital is occupied, so I'm not sure what is gained by locking it to being in peace...

In my opinion, those hard locks are where Paradox should look like to make new mechanics.
- Maybe the ennemy could negociate with rebels, or the player could negociate to have their support against a common ennemy
- Rebels could have some kind of sense and not revolt (even provoked) when the country is at risk, depending on their type of course
- When you declare war, you could see who your ennemy *could* ally in the next few months, or who would guarantee the country integrity to a point. This would require a rework of CBs and peace deals so that they aren't made in a day
- Integrating vassals should just be unlocked

 

[Aepdneds]

Ok, I get the rebel points.
The new allies could be locked out of already ongoing wars the same way that you can't call an ally into a war anymore after x months of time.
Rebels should really don't see all troops as enemies, I was involved in a liberation war in China and liberation rebels popped up which attacked my troops which were there to liberate their provinces, that is just right out stupid.

 

[jonjowett]

Rebels should really don't see all troops at enemies, I was involved in a liberation war in China and liberation rebels popped up which attacked my troops which were there to liberate their provinces, that is just right out stupid.

Yeah, I don't agree with this one. Rebels have prepared their rebellion for years, sometimes decades, and they are usually very local. I don't see how they would know the intentions of a foreign army - they probably view your "liberation" as "conquest". The only time they are on your side is if you have directly supported them via espionage. (Or if they are separatist rebels that want to join your exact nation - but it's very rare for this to occur for a human player.) I think the game gets this part right.

 

[Aepdneds]

I had exact this situation several times, the liberation rebels even attacked the troops of the nation they wanted to be a part of, like byzantium rebels in the Ottoman Empire attacking byzantium troops which were on a reconquest war, this really shouldn't happen

Edit: The same with religious rebels, sunni rebels attacking sunni troops in a religious war

 

[jonjowett]

I had exact this situation several times, the liberation rebels even attacked the troops of the nation they wanted to be a part of, like byzantium rebels in the Ottoman Empire attacking byzantium troops which were on a reconquest war, this really shouldn't happen

I could have sworn that this didn't happen in the past, maybe something changed over the last year or two. (I took a long hiatus from EU4.)

Or maybe I'm just wrong lol.

 

[Aepdneds]

I had this different in my memory too, so I was really surprised as it happened

 

[atwix]

I would agree with OP.. but that is not allowed while at war...

 

[Less2]

Alliances during wars would be nice. Add a call to arms modifier "-1000 was not allied before the war was declared". It's arbitrary but no less arbitrary than "-1000 war started more than 24 months ago".

Anything that spawns rebels is a bit abusive, but I don't understand why lowering autonomy is banned. It takes a long time to spawn rebels, the exact timing is quite random, and you can do it immediately before war is declared to get the same effect of random rebels in an area when the enemy is there. Also estate rebels from seize land are so stupidly weak that permitting that action during war would be OK (though really the estate rebels should probably be just buffed instead).

Integrating vassals should definitely be allowed.

 

[Arizal]

@Less2 Right, I was forgeting lowering autonomy! You are perfectly right, especially when the country is at war against very far away nations that most of the country will never hear about, it doesn't make sense that you can't lower autonomy. I think something similar to disband army would be fine. You couldn't lower autonomy in provinces that are currently threatened by ennemies or occupied, but otherwise it would be fine. Mechanically speaking, it sounds easy enough to implement.

Basically, I think war and peace is a bit too black and white in this game. A state of war shouldn't be the end of the world.

 

[Xdevo]

The idea of being at war blocking things makes sense when we're talking about things like a France - Austrian War, but now that we've added 210891230123798123987 microtags and decided that every war with an OPM with allies is a 5 year waiting period, it makes very little sense to block a lot of the game while at war.

There's a bunch of edge cases like the old rebel bombing, but frankly I think there's far more abusable things in the game to focus on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think the game gets this part right.

Only insofar as they aren't necessarily friendly to invaders.

The rebel system, in general, is a design failure on several levels. Could stand to be made more similar to CK2 or otherwise reworked, though I won't hold my breath this late in the game's life.

Though the bug about rebels breaking country w/o controlling a fort while the UI claims they need one should be fixed.

 

[jonjowett]

@Less2 Right, I was forgeting lowering autonomy! You are perfectly right, especially when the country is at war against very far away nations that most of the country will never hear about, it doesn't make sense that you can't lower autonomy. I think something similar to disband army would be fine. You couldn't lower autonomy in provinces that are currently threatened by ennemies or occupied, but otherwise it would be fine. Mechanically speaking, it sounds easy enough to implement.

Basically, I think war and peace is a bit too black and white in this game. A state of war shouldn't be the end of the world.

Maybe a new blanket "peaceful province" status/mapmode, which would enable peacetime province actions while at war?

• At province level:
  • No "nearby" enemy/rebel armies - ie. that can march to the province through <= 5 provinces (where forts block the route according to normal movement rules)
    • This may be difficult to code, so we might need a dumber version like "within 5 provinces" or "within 300 distance".
  • No "nearby" pending naval invasions (same criteria as previous)
• At state level:
  • No blockaded ports; and
  • No occupied provinces; and
  • No enemy/rebel armies in the state

(For provincial peacetime actions to be enabled, each affected province would need to fulfil both the province-level and the state-level criteria.)

Any province that fulfils these criteria is pretty clearly peaceful and is far from any war. This also provides some utility for border forts - if they come under siege then the border state is worried but, as long as all your border forts hold, your internal area is still "peaceful".

 

[L'Afrique]

@Less2 Right, I was forgeting lowering autonomy! You are perfectly right, especially when the country is at war against very far away nations that most of the country will never hear about, it doesn't make sense that you can't lower autonomy. I think something similar to disband army would be fine. You couldn't lower autonomy in provinces that are currently threatened by ennemies or occupied, but otherwise it would be fine. Mechanically speaking, it sounds easy enough to implement.

Basically, I think war and peace is a bit too black and white in this game. A state of war shouldn't be the end of the world.

It's probably more an EU5 thing than a thing that would ever come in a patch, but having formal states of war tied to dip tech level or mid-tier reform or something would make a lot of sense. Warfare between peer post-westphalian states in the 18th-century having different conditions than 1444 dynastic slapfights between the Baronet of Lesser Crapcesthire and the Marquis de Merdeville and the whole 19 dudes they can muster between them.

It also would make sense as a sort of update to the CB and AE systems that say, 1700s France spontaneously deciding to sack and loot Vienna without a formal state of war would be considered an enormous deal by peer countries, whereas that's fine in 1444, and fine if they sack someone like Mapuche that presumably hasn't reached the tech required to get considered a formal state that deserves being dealt with under legal terms in the first place. That already is almost like the AE system already works though.

 

[Arizal]

@jonjowett Your idea is intriguing, but I was more looking for the same mechanic that determines whether you can disband an army or not, which is (I think) a simple check if there is an ennemy presence on the next province. It is less intricate than your proposal, but I think it would be clearer to understand for any player and easier to implement.

@L'Afrique Victoria III way, which "recognized" and "unrecognized" countries? Yes, that would be interesting.

 

[jonjowett]

@jonjowett Your idea is intriguing, but I was more looking for the same mechanic that determines whether you can disband an army or not, which is (I think) a simple check if there is an ennemy presence on the next province. It is less intricate than your proposal, but I think it would be clearer to understand for any player and easier to implement.

Definitely clearer and easier to understand, but also more open to exploits. Eg. Provoking revolts along the path of enemy troops.

I definitely think that all of these "peacetime" actions are tangentially related and therefore should have the same criteria. (Otherwise, the mishmash of overturned conditions will be very difficult to understand.) The reason I suggested a mapmode is in case the criteria are complicated - you'd be able to switch to the mapmode and see exactly which provinces qualify (and, ideally, a tooltip explaining why certain provinces don't qualify).

 

[Aepdneds]

Another one I don't get is why we can't upgrade/downgrade centers of trade during war

 

[Nwaij]

Another one I don't get is why we can't upgrade/downgrade centers of trade during war

Can't downgrade so you can't spite someone by downgrading on a province you will loose. Can't upgrade because REASONS.

 

[Aepdneds]

REASONS, the justification for everything. Could someone think about the children

 

[Sauron44]

Both reducing autonomy and upgrading centers of trade increase the warscore cost of taking that province, I think that is the reason we cant do that while at war