How would that be handled in the game in regards to time passing? Does it automatically pause the game (very inconvenient in MP)? Or can the attacker just keep doing while he is doing and ignore the peace window?
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.
Try this:
What region, hell what country, would be objectively improved if it was made Buddhist? Assume its starting true faith provinces are also Buddhist at start. Who is buffed here? I can't think of any country, let alone a region, that I'd say Buddhism buffs. Can you?
You'd have the game's usual window of time, months, to select. Failure to choose something I would assume would result in the same outcome as when a war stalemates to an end, which I believe hands over only wargoal-related reasonable demands and nothing else. I suppose they could reasonably add the option of allowing a player to queue up a peace offer (these get saved as it is) and have it enforce that when time runs out if nothing is picked.
Or, it could just hand over the 100% warscore and turn on call for peace, with huge exponential WE growth for the attacker.
- 1
Honestly, just clicking a surrender button that gives your opponent free peace deals (automatically accepted) while also gaining say 0.1 monthly war exhaustion that increases a large amount each month would be fine. You'd only have a few months before the war exhaustion destroyed you, but it wouldn't pause or otherwise slow down the game.
The only one that comes to mind is *possibly* Mayan
. Obviously you'd just switch out of Buddhism later though.You can maybe make a case in a few other instances, all involving first taking the Buddhist conversion strength decisions then instantly dumping it. There are 0 starts I can think of where you'd want to actually keep it. It's not good design if the best part about a religion is switching out of it though, even generic pagans are less hateful than that these days.
- 1
Why? Often the wargoal might only be a single province, but you actually want more. So this would arbitrarily limit you.
We don't want turbo annex back.
You should get a discount on provinces as if you had occupied them though; after all it is unconditional.
Well, it would work better if you could set out a more extensive wargoal, but it would be reasonable to say that someone reconquering lost territory who manages to force an outright surrender, and who then demands MORE than just their reconquest goal, would be seen as an agressive expander - and more so than they would if there had been a long, hard fought war.
Thus, more AE than normal.
Maybe it would be reasonable to also give an AE discount if the surrender wasn't exploited heavily.
We both know that in a standard blobbing game, Buddhism is bad. However, if you expand a bit more slowly it still is manageable, especially in MP.
And for a late game army stacking bonuses, Vajrayana Buddhism is as good or better than Shia/Protestant Defender of Faith.
That is terribly abusable. You are attacked and know you will lose badly, so you surrender and the attacker now only can take lost cores and everything else will give horrible AE. A reconquest can really naturally include snatching strategically important territory from the opponent. Say you last a large plain between a river and a mountain range. You attack the guy who took the plain from you, but you also plan on taking the mountain range since it will mean you will have a better chance of defending the plain in the future. Why should you be punished for taking the strategic choice?
I wouldn't suggest horrible AE, just more than normal.
I think it would be better achieved if there was a slightly more extensive peace/war negotiation system, that allowed for pre-specifying the goals of the war, so you would be able to have a goal of reconquest plus that mountain range.
Then the surrender would just accept what you had already demanded, and adding anything else on top would be extra AE.
Might also be a good way of making the AI better at responding to player expansionism if they player had to give more of an indication of their intent from a war than just "I'm using this CB". And allow for limited theatre wars. But that is kind of wishful thinking.
Anno Domine 1468 - 1499
History in the making (twitch VoD)
####################
## STATS FOR MP ###
####################
Current Score
Sorry Groogy ;___;
The known world
History in the making (twitch VoD)
####################
## STATS FOR MP ###
####################
Current Score
- Ottomans 424 (+0.89)
- Ming 402 (+0.84)
- Austria 296 (+0.69)
- Timurids 287 (+0.74)
- Bahmanis 247 (+0.64)
- Hungary 215 (+0.31)
- France 192 (+0.59)
- Aragon 142 (+0.00)
- Mamluks 118 (+0.06)
- England 118 (+0.19)
- Verden 101 (+0.49)
- Bohemia 99 (+0.34)
- Burgundy 72 (+0.35)
- Portugal 67 (+0.00)
- Muscovy 63 (+0.00)
- Nassau 63 (+0.44)
- Castile 62 (+0.05)
- Frankfurt 57 (+0.00)
- Lithuania 45 (+0.00)
- Cleves 40 (+0.00)
- Ming 1201
- Ottomans 671
- Timurids 620
- France 492
- England 429
- Mamluks 395
- Muscovy 382
- Hungary 375
- Bahmanis 369
- Austria 317
- Burgundy 298
- Lithuania 287
- Castile 285
- Delhi 240
- Bohemia 225
- Brandenburg 225
- Aragon 197
- Ayutthaya 192
- Japan 175
- Milan 174
- Ming 52.46
- Ottomans 43.10
- England 37.87
- Bahmanis 36.64
- France 31.58
- Austria 29.85
- Hungary 29.60
- Timurids 27.61
- Castile 24.46
- Muscovy 22.28
- Novgorod 19.60
- Burgundy 19.09
- Bohemia 18.53
- Mamluks 18.43
- Delhi 15.12
- Milan 15.03
- Mutapa 14.96
- Brandenburg 14.93
- Aragon 14.11
- Morocco 13.87
- Austria 53,253
- Ottomans 52,339
- Timurids 47,989
- England 46,992
- France 42,461
- Ming 41,337
- Muscovy 36,430
- Castile 29,233
- Bahmanis 28,791
- Mamluks 28,595
- Burgundy 26,893
- Bohemia 24,847
- Uzbek 24,642
- Hungary 24,563
- Aragon 23,977
- Naples 23,594
- Yarkand 21,423
- Brandenburg 21,177
- Mewar 20,927
- Sweden 20,856
- Ming 69,000
- Ottomans 68,993
- Austria 58,000
- Timurids 46,222
- France 44,000
- England 43,000
- Bahmanis 43,000
- Mamluks 40,000
- Castile 38,000
- Burgundy 36,000
- Hungary 30,000
- Muscovy 25,910
- Brandenburg 24,000
- Bohemia 22,000
- Uzbek 22,000
- Portugal 20,000
- Denmark 19,000
- Malacca 18,000
- Novgorod 17,000
- Mutapa 17,000
- Ottomans 0/54
- Ming 8/14
- Mamluks 0/21
- Venice 0/15
- Hungary 0/13
- Timurids 0/12
- England 10/0
- Genoa 0/9
- Korea 0/7
- Naples 0/5
- Aragon 0/5
- France 4/0
- Riga 0/4
- Dai Viet 0/4
- Japan 0/4
- Ayutthaya 4/0
- Mecklenburg 0/4
- Haasa 0/3
- Castile 3/0
- Brunei 3/0
- England 16
- Ming 13
- Genoa 10
- Malacca 10
- Pasai 10
- Portugal 9
- Kilwa 9
- Ayutthaya 8
- Jolof 8
- Sunda 7
- Scotland 7
- Brunei 7
- Austria 6
- Ceylon 6
- Novgorod 6
- Morocco 6
- Mogadishu 6
- Bahmanis 5
- Burgundy 5
- Ternate 5
- Burgundy 23
- Bohemia 23
- Brabant 23
- Venice 23
- Denmark 23
- Naples 23
- Flanders 23
- Genoa 22
- Cleves 22
- Brunswick 22
- Austria 22
- England 22
- Livonian Order 22
- The Papal State 22
- France 22
- Ottomans 21
- Galicia–Volhynia 21
- The Palatinate 21
- Scotland 21
- Brandenburg 21
Sorry Groogy ;___;
Yeah that seems more reasonable. Though the extra AE shouldn't be too high.
You guys are way overdoing it.
Unconditional surrender absolutely should not put ANY negatives on the victor. NONE. It is a stopgap for the ability to just draw out a lost war in order to pulverize the loser. The only punishment for the attacker, literally it, should be lost potential army tradition and loot. Tacking on increased costs, AE, or any kind of limitation goes completely against the entire point of the mechanic.
Sure, with a fleshed out and detailed/lengthy peace process, you could add in these things. In their absence, unconditional surrender needs to be kept in perspective - a way to end the war in the attacker's favor exactly as the attacker would end it IF they dragged it out 5+ years, but without ACTUALLY dragging the war out the full 5+ years.
Unconditional surrender absolutely should not put ANY negatives on the victor. NONE. It is a stopgap for the ability to just draw out a lost war in order to pulverize the loser. The only punishment for the attacker, literally it, should be lost potential army tradition and loot. Tacking on increased costs, AE, or any kind of limitation goes completely against the entire point of the mechanic.
Sure, with a fleshed out and detailed/lengthy peace process, you could add in these things. In their absence, unconditional surrender needs to be kept in perspective - a way to end the war in the attacker's favor exactly as the attacker would end it IF they dragged it out 5+ years, but without ACTUALLY dragging the war out the full 5+ years.
- 7
However it still needs to make sure the attacker actually makes peace instead of ignoring the surrender.
Sometimes the simplest way is the best way. And Wiz already mentioned a method in the MP chat. Defender surrenders. Attacker gets Call for Peace until they make the peace. And as per Johan, it would be a 100% war score peace.
- 4
It will still punish the attacker though unless he also gets the discount for provinces as if he had occupied them.
That would be horribly broken. Somebody attacks you and you know you will lose; you surrender immediately and make sure he doesn't really occupy anything. The attacker is now forced to white peace or be wrecked by WE. Then you have 5 years of truce and can do it again after the truce expires.
- 2
So what would happen if Wiz were to move his capital to one of this English France provinces? Will he then have England in the main continent and English British Isles?
Did you intentionally leave out the last part of that paragraph?
- 2
Unconditional surrender should = 100% war score and very fast WE scaling on "call for peace", or a stabhit if ignored each 6 months for example. No penalty for taking stuff; the purpose is to let the attacker get out with what he wants because despite that it's still a better deal for the defender than a slow bleed.
- 1
The attacker still loses out on the occupied province discount though meaning that surrendering immediately if you know you will lose will be a nobrainer.
Why do they lose out on the occupied province discount? It necessarily needs to consider all forts occupied and remove that restriction so why can't it also consider all provinces occupied as well? Nothing is forcing them out of giving whatever discounts they want when it's implemented.
Surrendering immediately when you are guaranteed to lose should be a nobrainer.
- 2
If it gives all discounts then it is fine. Otherwise as mentioned it can be gamed to lose less than you would otherwise.