Petition: Alternatives to White Peace

[grumphie]

I don't see the point.

i do actually. im not so much for the shorter truces, but i'd very much liek to demand LONGER truces if i dont want to get btohered by soemone for a while. say, france is attacking me and im currently busy takign voer china, i can just beat them, demand a 30 year truce and focus on toehr stuff in peace.

 

[Xara]

i do actually. im not so much for the shorter truces, but i'd very much liek to demand LONGER truces if i dont want to get btohered by soemone for a while. say, france is attacking me and im currently busy takign voer china, i can just beat them, demand a 30 year truce and focus on toehr stuff in peace.

Which makes the situation even weirder. What's more valuable? Decreasing truce time or increasing it? Because the situation you just described would indicate that moving either direction should cost you warscore.

 

[beckermt]

i do actually. im not so much for the shorter truces, but i'd very much liek to demand LONGER truces if i dont want to get btohered by soemone for a while. say, france is attacking me and im currently busy takign voer china, i can just beat them, demand a 30 year truce and focus on toehr stuff in peace.

That's actually kind of a neat idea.

 

[crusaderking]

Which makes the situation even weirder. What's more valuable? Decreasing truce time or increasing it? Because the situation you just described would indicate that moving either direction should cost you warscore.

May be, if you are the attacker, decreasing truce time costs warscore, and if you are the defender, increasing truce time costs warscore.

 

[Xara]

May be, if you are the attacker, decreasing truce time costs warscore, and if you are the defender, increasing truce time costs warscore.

That's just unnecessary imo. It exacerbates the situation already in place. If you can win when you attack, now you get to fight them again even sooner. If you win when you defend, suddenly you're super-protected.

 

[crusaderking]

That's just unnecessary imo. It exacerbates the situation already in place. If you can win when you attack, now you get to fight them again even sooner. If you win when you defend, suddenly you're super-protected.

Now that's a completely different argument, which I agree with. Personally, I think scaling truces are alright. I don't think they are the real problem. IMO, the lack of realm management mechanics which makes war the only interesting option.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

I don't see the point.

Originally, all peace treaties were accompanied by a 5-year truce. With the recent patch, that got scaled automatically to 5 to 15 years, based upon a function of your peace treaty's warscore cost. So, a 50% warscore used in your peace conditions causes a 10-year truce, etc.

The length of this truce should be negotiable. Min. 5 years, max 15 years, but you can expend warscore to reduce the truce timer from the scaled result if you are the war's winner. With the 5-year minimum, a beaten country can recover, as was the case in the past, even if you are willing to try and game the system by roflstomping them, and taking minimal terms for your peace.

 

[Xara]

I still don't see the point. If you are winning, you can white peace them for 5 years. There's no "reduced timer" to spend it on, there.

What you're really saying is "I'm winning really well, I want to take stuff AND I want to be able to fight them again soon, so I can take more stuff." I just don't see how that's balanced. That sort of thing is why the truce timers were increased to begin with.

What is the strategic value, otherwise, of spending 20% warscore to reduce truce timer so you can sooner fight ANOTHER war in order to take a 20% province? Why not just take it now? Now is more valuable than later.

And this still doesn't address that increasing OR decreasing truce timer has value. What if I totally crush a nation just for one highly valuable province, then demand that the truce be extended 15 extra years so they can't even try to reconquest it for ages?

It doesn't seem remotely balanced, seems quite exploitable, and I can't imagine it would work well in multiplayer, which pretty much guarantees it ain't gonna happen at P.I.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree that negotiated truce timer isn't the way to go here, however the truce mechanic does need to function sensibly.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

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

Don't exploit it.
I support the OP, great idea.