Option to continue war if main target declares peace

[SHADOW-XIII]

I think it should be possible for a country that is not a war leader to stay/continue war when the warleader declares peace.
A way to show that your country is not happy with the peace deal that was made between warleaders.

It could be:
- option valid to some specific CBs, or if you have claim on the country etc
- carry a significant cost, -3 stability to continue war as a new warleader and -2 as non-warleader (if there's already new warleader) Diplo idea group but lower impact to -2/-1, possibility also boost to war exhaustion and maybe unrest
- great impact to trust and relations with everyone former warleader

I think it would go nicely with my other suggestion of limiting multiple war

 

[SHADOW-XIII]

ah, it was supposed to go to Suggestions - can anyone move it please?

 

[delpiero1234]

ah, it was supposed to go to Suggestions - can anyone move it please?

PM a moderator

 

[GChapman]

What about a new war with breaking truces? There is no real different between your description and truce breaking.

 

[ace1234567890]

This is a great idea. And it's not just something to benefit players. Think of when players lose wars and use allies' land to pay off the enemy for peace. Well, now it may not work.

 

[Ilightmaster]

So let me recap.

Imagine you're France and Castile declared a war on Aragon and you want Rousillon. But Castile took the control of it and didn't give it to you during the peace deal. So you want a button to continue the war with Aragon. Why would want that ?
Portugal was also involved in this war and want to continu it without having to fight him again ?

Isn't it more simple to ask for a"give me the control of that land button if you don't either i make peace with them or i start a new war for it".

Because i agree with GChapman break a truce would have the same effect. Or when you allies start their war, start yours.

Btw i already had a situation where poland took the control of a province that i had claim and mission on and i couldn't take it back. Is that your issue with the current mecanics ?

I think this is a bad suggestion. ( I think people would just use this to rig AI : France would put one unit on each provinces of aragon, take the land they wanted, humiliate them and take back those stability points with power projection points assuming that they are French's rival )

Also someone suggested rewards and penalties for allies that participates actively to a war. This make more sense.

 

[SHADOW-XIII]

So let me recap.
Imagine you're France and Castile declared a war on Aragon and you want Rousillon. But Castile took the control of it. So you want a button to continue the war with Aragon. Why would want that ?
)

This needs some restrictions like I said - limited to some CBs or depending on claims/cores in other regions. The system idea was not to declare new war with impact to AE & Stability etc,
Think of it that country says: we think the cause is just, the war should continue, the warleaders deal was bad, I disagree, I will continue"

Imagine both France and Castile have both fabricated core on Rousillon.
Castile declares war on Aragon, France joins.

Possible outcomes (assuming it would be part of Conquering the region CB):
- Castile white peace with Aragon, France disagrees, continues with heavy impact on the all the mentioned stats
- Castile takes non-Rousillon region, France disagrees, continues with heavy impact on the all the mentioned stats
- Castile takes Rousillon region, France doesn't like it, cannot continue war as the region isn't part of it
- Castile losts, France can try and continue with heavy impact on the all the mentioned stats or give up

Now let's assume war to change religion:
- Castile white peace with Aragon, France disagrees says Aragon should change religion, continues with heavy impact on the all the mentioned stat
- Castile forces Aragon to change religion, France cannot disagree, cannot continue
- Castile losts, France believes it's their responsibility and they are still strong enough to continue war against other religion (though will still take stat hit)


Besides, wouldn't that make it more strategic for both sides to create peace deals that give benefits more parties than just warleaders?

 

[josh127]

By joining the war as an ally you have agreed to support the cause of the war leader. You are ceding the negotiating authority to them. If you want to push your own agenda you can declare your own war or gather your own warscore and get a separate peace.

I think there's enough options there already, and adding an option that's so similar to simply breaking truce seems repetitive. It would probably be more productive to discuss ways that the truce mechanics could impact countries differently, such as the loser in the war and allies receiving nothing having a different truce length.