How do you think such a mechanic would work?
Maybe you surrender and the other war leader is forced to take up to 100% warscore of a peace deal?
Paradox Office Multiplayer Campaign V
- Thread starter Groogy
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
How do you think such a mechanic would work?
Maybe you surrender and the other war leader is forced to take up to 100% warscore of a peace deal?
Would a surrender mechanic produce an offer for the belligerent that is unable to be refused? I'm all for a mechanic like this in multiplayer but it also seems like it could feel like an arbitrary limitation. Unqualified expansion and aggression is certainly part of the spirit of the game in single player.
I'm all for a "surrender" button that gives the enemy 100% warscore instantly, but at the same time some crazy thing like Call for peace +0,5 per month. That forces them to make peace in a reasonable timeframe. Simple as that. Its not like you could abuse that, you are always crippled by a 100% loss, but it stops throwing people completely out of the game in one war, much like you anyway attempt to do it with the revanchism mechanic.
- 8
The main problem with Buddhism is that it is the worst religion in the game by a margin and any sensible player in MP would take the opportunity to switch to Hindu or Sunni without batting an eye if handed that short straw. No matter what your relative bonus is in tech, there's no upside to running an utter trash religion over readily available better ones.
60% penalty with access to the Malacca node (or in one case starting in it) is not materially weaker than most Indian nations. But when you're capped at 2 missionaries and the absolute best state your faith can get you is comparable to stuff other religions can give with no risk, why deliberately pick something worse? If you're going to go Sunni or Hindu you might as well just pick something like Malacca or Sunda and call it a day.
Mesoamerica is totally non-viable in MP, like "pick BYZ with Ottoman player" degrees of terrible. You get propped up diplomatically or you die horribly. That was true even before the baseless primitive ship nerf, and it didn't become less true after it.
- 1
- 1
- 1
You could presumably make it work for SP, although presumably it would only ever occur when the player was being attacked. Perhaps if an AI army was destroyed and they had a disaster going on or something? Have it let the party you are surrendering to go up to 100% WS, with a discount (to reflect the discount you get on taking and holding)... but also give extra AE for anything over the wargoal.
I like @Daddl 's idea of a surrender button that give 100% WS. Perhaps it should give ticking AE, and then the standard call for peace could occur based on the warscore? Given that the winning nation is unlikely to be feeling instantly fed up with the war, but other nations would be upset by a country battering an enemy who has already surrendered.
I like @Daddl 's idea of a surrender button that give 100% WS. Perhaps it should give ticking AE, and then the standard call for peace could occur based on the warscore? Given that the winning nation is unlikely to be feeling instantly fed up with the war, but other nations would be upset by a country battering an enemy who has already surrendered.
Any mechanic which reduces ahistorical nation destroying is good in my book.
Nobody in history went "Okay you give up? Hold up, we're just gonna continue to sit on your lands for a bit longer so as to mess with you."
And yes, with the above: A mechanic which basically says "I surrender, any peace deal you give will be accepted so long as it's 100% or below" but in return gives the opponents lets say 0.10 monthly war exhaustion which ticks up by 0.02 every month would be fantastic.
It would also stop players from taking major powers out of the game in one war, which is just frighteningly ahistorical.
On the OTHER hand I would like to see a "broken nation" enforced peace. Too many times in multiplayer I see a country sieged by multiple players, each player unable to get the warscore they want, each player refusing to leave war, while the country they have sieged just sits there forever going "haha I'll never surrender what you want!"
- 4
5% discipline and 10% morale is kinda good, sincerely. And in MP you can more easily manipulate your Karma and stay in the good range. I speak from (limited) experience
- 1
Guys will the new random new world be free for those with Conquest of Paradise? Surely it's not part of the expansion....?
- 1
On a different issue, did i just noticed a New World province named "Cockaigne"? LOL!
Seems to me natural that it's free for those who have CoP.
Seems to me natural that it's free for those who have CoP.
It is a shame that the Muscovy player still is not in, the AI is really squandering the opportunities it gets and now eastern europe is only battered and weak AIs.
- 1
5% discipline and 10% morale is kinda good, sincerely. And in MP you can more easily manipulate your Karma and stay in the good range. I speak from (limited) experience
I'd rather just have a free 10-20% morale without any risk, especially in this kind of setup where they're underpopulating Asia.
Perhaps Buddhism could b e given 10% development cost reduction (for free) on their peaceful side? It wouldn't be very good when you consider the chinese tech malus, but it might give them something to do
- 2
Yeah, ya'll guys didn't do right by Groogy!
My idea for a change would be this:
You "surrender". The enemy gets the peace offer window and he must offer a deal up to 100 WS that the other MUST accept (no negotiations). He can not go for the full 100 WS of course or he can choose to do that.
That would solve most problems.
My idea for a change would be this:
You "surrender". The enemy gets the peace offer window and he must offer a deal up to 100 WS that the other MUST accept (no negotiations). He can not go for the full 100 WS of course or he can choose to do that.
That would solve most problems.
Its an update for the Random New world in Conquest of Paradise so yes it requires you to own Conquest of Paradise and you will get it if you own Conquest of Paradise
- 9
Awesome! Really hope you can pull it back in the multiplayer mate, good luck
Yes, Shia is globally better but Buddhism still gives an excellent military bonus. The fact that South East Asia is really poor does not change the value of the religion.
I've wanted unconditional surrender for a while now. It's such an absolutely necessary mechanic. It shouldn't be that awful to just hand the opponent 100% warscore and fully unrestricted selection from you (and you only) in the peace deal. The only real complication is that it would prevent the ability of the attacker to exploit the defender's allies. I for one am totally fine with this. If you really need this to stay in, just allow the attacker an option to continue the war against marked co-belligerents after the warleader is gone.
If it requires Groogy's salty tears to obtain, it's a small sacrifice to make for the greater good.
For Buddhism, regional concerns are not relevant. Buddhism is the worst religion in any position. You would not choose it if given the option in south Africa, new world, anywhere. There isn't a single place in the game where Buddhism is a good choice. Don't blame the poor starts; the religion is objectively terrible.
If it requires Groogy's salty tears to obtain, it's a small sacrifice to make for the greater good.
For Buddhism, regional concerns are not relevant. Buddhism is the worst religion in any position. You would not choose it if given the option in south Africa, new world, anywhere. There isn't a single place in the game where Buddhism is a good choice. Don't blame the poor starts; the religion is objectively terrible.
- 1
The value of the religion is negative to anybody expanding decently regardless of where you put it.
Nations within a short distance of the Malacca node being called poor is really silly. It's like calling the Mamluks poor or something.
Sorry, misread your last comment and we were not talking of the same thing.