Paradox Office Multiplayer Campaign V

[blackchoas]

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.

not really since this is will largely be a multiplayer feature, you can choose to bleed someone else dry even if you know you will lose the war in the end, attempt to politic new alliances to join into the war and change it as it is ongoing. In multiplayer there is merit to making someone bleed for their victory while it is less so in single player

 

[oskar-kar]

I think that the easiest way for "surrender" would be that, when nation surrender, attacker has popup that forces him to offer peace, if he won't do it, game will use "suggest offer" option and automatically accept it. In that case, it would just had to be easy script that pops up peace offer screen and if ignored by player, it would make suggest offer peace and accept it. What do you think about that?

 

[Wagonlitz]

I think that the easiest way for "surrender" would be that, when nation surrender, attacker has popup that forces him to offer peace, if he won't do it, game will use "suggest offer" option and automatically accept it. In that case, it would just had to be easy script that pops up peace offer screen and if ignored by player, it would make suggest offer peace and accept it. What do you think about that?

Horrible as suggest offer is completely broken. And you should be able to trash somebody if you really want to; but it having a large malus seems fine.

 

[oskar-kar]

Horrible as suggest offer is completely broken. And you should be able to trash somebody if you really want to; but it having a large malus seems fine.

Yes, but that's your choice not to make peace yourself. The game would give you that option by popup of peace offer saying that this is your last chance before AI would decide for you. Knowing that suggest offer is not the best option for you as attacker, you would be forced to make peace yourself or face consequences (gaining things AI think are important, not you). That's the point of it right? "surrender" should force attacker to quit on his terms and at the same time don't give him penalties for winning.

 

[yerm]

not really since this is will largely be a multiplayer feature, you can choose to bleed someone else dry even if you know you will lose the war in the end, attempt to politic new alliances to join into the war and change it as it is ongoing. In multiplayer there is merit to making someone bleed for their victory while it is less so in single player

You're nitpicking situational details. Of course there are times when you fight it out even though you will lose. That's not and never was the point. The point is that this refusing to end war and pummeling someone into ruin is a poor feature. Revanchist and call for peace mechanics are specifically designed to combat this unwanted aspect, and unconditional surrender is the logical best full stopgap to prevent it in the extreme.

I think that the easiest way for "surrender" would be that, when nation surrender, attacker has popup that forces him to offer peace, if he won't do it, game will use "suggest offer" option and automatically accept it. In that case, it would just had to be easy script that pops up peace offer screen and if ignored by player, it would make suggest offer peace and accept it. What do you think about that?

Yes, but that's your choice not to make peace yourself. The game would give you that option by popup of peace offer saying that this is your last chance before AI would decide for you. Knowing that suggest offer is not the best option for you as attacker, you would be forced to make peace yourself or face consequences (gaining things AI think are important, not you). That's the point of it right? "surrender" should force attacker to quit on his terms and at the same time don't give him penalties for winning.

It's possibly superior to the stalemate peace that only gives the wargoal (possibly other reasonable demands?) but isn't close to perfect. It's why when I mentioned it, I said I'd prefer the use of saved peace deals instead. The more I think about it though... setting up a peace deal can be lengthy, and distracting. I'm not sure I like the auto-peace in any implementation really, even if I suggested it before. I'm now heavily in favor of the use of call to peace without a firm automatic deadline.

Surrender doesn't need to force the end to the war so long as it simply prevents the abuse, whereby the attacker camps the defender into unreasonable and excessive ruin with little consequence.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Yes, but that's your choice not to make peace yourself. The game would give you that option by popup of peace offer saying that this is your last chance before AI would decide for you. Knowing that suggest offer is not the best option for you as attacker, you would be forced to make peace yourself or face consequences (gaining things AI think are important, not you). That's the point of it right? "surrender" should force attacker to quit on his terms and at the same time don't give him penalties for winning.

But that means that I cannot keep trashing the enemy if I so desire. That should be possible, but with significant maluses.
This just artificially forces you to make peace which is unrealistic.

 

[kontinos]

So it might be that lithuania's demise was "staged"?

 

[Philadelphus]

Haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but I'm liking the look of the Random New World there! Especially West Iceland. Are those a cluster of Inti states in the southern hemisphere? Can you get the various types of New World nations anywhere regardless of latitude?

 

[Golladan]

Haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but I'm liking the look of the Random New World there! Especially West Iceland. Are those a cluster of Inti states in the southern hemisphere? Can you get the various types of New World nations anywhere regardless of latitude?

If I recall correctly they were mesoamericans.

 

[kontinos]

Btw, what do you think of the central Europe alliances with the ottomans? Do you feel they will last?

 

[oskar-kar]

But that means that I cannot keep trashing the enemy if I so desire. That should be possible, but with significant maluses.
This just artificially forces you to make peace which is unrealistic.

I agree that forcing peace is unrealistic, but, in my opinion, so is trashing enemy while having 100% warscore on him.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I agree that forcing peace is unrealistic, but, in my opinion, so is trashing enemy while having 100% warscore on him.

Actually not. While it certainly wasn't common then it could happen you wanted to trash your opponent a little bit more before peace. I seem to remember that some of the Danish/Swedish wars went on a bit longer than they could have due to just wanting to siege this fort/take this area.
And during the 30 years war the Germans stayed and trashed Jutland far after we were fully beaten. In fact Jutland was so trashed that it was a factor when we 30 years later lost Skåneland. With a Jutland not getting completely trashed from the 1623 German invasion we might have retained Skåneland.
Also the Germans trashed the village my ancestors lived in and cost them lots of property to which I say: Pay denbts now!

 

[Golladan]

Btw, what do you think of the central Europe alliances with the ottomans? Do you feel they will last?

I think by the end of the next session that alliance will have dissolved.

 

[oskar-kar]

Actually not. While it certainly wasn't common then it could happen you wanted to trash your opponent a little bit more before peace. I seem to remember that some of the Danish/Swedish wars went on a bit longer than they could have due to just wanting to siege this fort/take this area.
And during the 30 years war the Germans stayed and trashed Jutland far after we were fully beaten. In fact Jutland was so trashed that it was a factor when we 30 years later lost Skåneland. With a Jutland not getting completely trashed from the 1623 German invasion we might have retained Skåneland.
Also the Germans trashed the village my ancestors lived in and cost them lots of property to which I say: Pay denbts now!

Yes, but you mentioned: "wars went on a bit longer than they could have due to just wanting to siege this fort/take this area." And we are talking of situations like you have everything besieged. There is literally nothing to do but sitting around doing nothing and waiting for that war exhaustion, autonomy or rebels, while in your example there was fort or area to be besieged. You also mentioned Jutland, I am no expert so don't get me wrong but I think that Jutland could be trashed during war because of many battles took place there, or Jutland was back and forth besieged, not because Germans were sitting around while their enemies had no land and no armies.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Yes, but you mentioned: "wars went on a bit longer than they could have due to just wanting to siege this fort/take this area." And we are talking of situations like you have everything besieged. There is literally nothing to do but sitting around doing nothing and waiting for that war exhaustion, autonomy or rebels.

What I meant is that I seem to remember some of the Danish Swedish wars going on after one surrendering due to the other part wanting to trash/burn down a little more.

You also mentioned Jutland, I am no expert so don't get me wrong but I think that Jutland could be trashed during war because of many battles took place there, or Jutland was back and forth sieged, not because Germans were sitting around while their enemies had no land and no armies.

Actually there weren't really battles taking place there and places getting sieged back and forth. The Danish army was severely beaten around Holstein and chased up through Jutland. The German then occupied Jutland for a couple years and trash, looted, and burnt it down. In the village my ancestors lived in they made the church into a stable and it was so destroyed when they left 2 years later than it had to be torn down and the parish abolished.

As mentioned it was so thoroughly trashed that it still hadn't recovered when the Swedes came in 1658 (and in 1645).

 

[Gringovoir]

Hungary shoulf have taken Aristocratic to make the trio as stable as long as possible, o/w Austria and Ottos would turn on him.

 

[Rooz]

By the way, that's one interesting naming convention used in Milan

 

[grisamentum]

By the way, that's one interesting naming convention used in Milan

I noticed that; was disappointed DDRJake did not explain to the non-twitch regulars.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Can somebody explain it here then?

 

[grisamentum]

Can somebody explain it here then?

Milan renamed its provinces after "twitch emotes" which are like emojis or emoticons for twitch chat. There are stock emotes that any twitch user can use, and there are channel-specific emotes that channel subscribers can use.

Twitch emotes are mostly used in an immature and content-devoid fashion to spam chat, or have highly context-dependent meanings. The most popular emote is "kappa" which is generally used to signify irony or sarcasm but also general "trollishness." IIRC "Kappa" was the new capital of Milan. Various other provinces included Pogchamp, SMOrc, FrankerZ, Keepo, etc.