Petition: Alternatives to White Peace

[Masquinongy]

To begin with I know that I am not the first to suggest this, but I figured with the new DLC AoW being war focused that I should bring it up again.

Currently you either win/lose/or white peace.

Why can countries that are at war peace out with both positive and negative outcomes?
Example: Austria is at war with France.
Austria has a number of French territories occupied, but France occupies a number of Austrian vassals and lands.
Austria should be able to renounce its vassals in return for some French land as an alternative to just calling the war a dud and white peacing.

It could be as simple as a comparison of WS for each warleader for how these peaces are decided. All the normal options of peace deals should be viable.

What do you, the people think?

 

[Captain Frye]

/signed

 

[Viperswhip]

To begin with I know that I am not the first to suggest this, but I figured with the new DLC AoW being war focused that I should bring it up again.

Currently you either win/lose/or white peace.

Why can countries that are at war peace out with both positive and negative outcomes?
Example: Austria is at war with France.
Austria has a number of French territories occupied, but France occupies a number of Austrian vassals and lands.
Austria should be able to renounce its vassals in return for some French land as an alternative to just calling the war a dud and white peacing.

It could be as simple as a comparison of WS for each warleader for how these peaces are decided. All the normal options of peace deals should be viable.

What do you, the people think?

I would also like this, but can understand that it might be hard to do. Soon there will be a DDRJake video showing how to abuse the hell out the AI by like force vassalizing natives to gain land in Europe.

 

[Finlayn]

So more of a two-way street peace treaties, rather than just a loser and a victor.

 

[Luminatis]

Signed

 

[AppoX]

-1 Impossible to make the AI able to use it, *intelligently* at least. Would probably be easy to exploit.

 

[987655mm]

-1 Impossible to make the AI able to use it, *intelligently* at least. Would probably be easy to exploit.

Make it MP only. Problem solved.

 

[aitaituo]

-1 Impossible to make the AI able to use it, *intelligently* at least. Would probably be easy to exploit.

I'm pretty sure Wiz has said as much. I'm always in favor of special rules for multiplayer, though.

 

[grumphie]

how about an AI -1000 if they give up land but dont get any?

as much as it may be a pain for the AI, its also an really really important mechanic thats still missing.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

So you want the possibility to accept the status quo but no ante

 

[AppoX]

Hmm, yes it could work in multiplayer. But I doubt the devs would be too keen on developing multiplayer-only features.

 

[canuckinmontrea]

The problem with it even just being for MP is 95% of all countries are still ai

 

[heliostellar]

So, a negotiated peace that nets to a zero warscore... it's an interesting thought, but I'd think that the AI would have a huge problem understanding it.

The problem with it even just being for MP is 95% of all countries are still ai

And most people play SP not MP.

 

[Viljainen]

I can already see players abusing this. Trading land from their allies in exchange to land from their enemy.

 

[gaius valerius]

I would also like this, but can understand that it might be hard to do. Soon there will be a DDRJake video showing how to abuse the hell out the AI by like force vassalizing natives to gain land in Europe.

As it stands only workable in MP between humans. And since not even all players in an MP are human... well... it would be ideal... but sadly no.

 

[Wizzington]

I'm pretty sure Wiz has said as much. I'm always in favor of special rules for multiplayer, though.

It's not *impossible*, but it'd be a fairly insane amount of work to tweak it into something that couldn't be easily exploited.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

I'd love the duration of the truce to be a negotiable component when suing for peace.

A longer truce would give a larger negative WS to the aggressor, allowing them to demand more in reparations.
While a shorter truce(costing the aggressor +ive WS) would lessen the need for every war to end in total victory for it to be considered time-efficient.

 

[Xara]

Although I see your point (and partially agree, though like Wiz says its probably not worth the work involved), imagine current peace deals are like this:

It can be equal, or one side can get something, but both sides can't get something

I'd love the duration of the truce to be a negotiable component when suing for peace.

A longer truce would give a larger negative WS to the aggressor, allowing them to demand more in reparations.
While a shorter truce(costing the aggressor +ive WS) would lessen the need for every war to end in total victory for it to be considered time-efficient.

That is simply too exploitable. Win a war, demand the shortest truce time possible as well as for them to break every alliance. Then your follow up war shortly after has them helpless and easily beaten, and you can take way more stuff.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

That is simply too exploitable. Win a war, demand the shortest truce time possible as well as for them to break every alliance. Then your follow up war shortly after has them helpless and easily beaten, and you can take way more stuff.

Which is why any such proposal assumes that there would be a minimum truce time (like exists at present) to allow recovery. The point to the proposal is to make truce time negotiable, not automatically scaled by WS of the peace proposal.

 

[Xara]

Which is why any such proposal assumes that there would be a minimum truce time (like exists at present) to allow recovery. The point to the proposal is to make truce time negotiable, not automatically scaled by WS of the peace proposal.

I don't see the point.