Claim, as in take it? you just invade the country and make acquisition of that state your wargoal
Question about peace deals
- Thread starter unmerged(185163)
- 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.
- Status
Claim, as in take it? you just invade the country and make acquisition of that state your wargoal
As most people here, I would actually like to be able to trade individual provinces, but it makes more sense (and more beautiful borders!) to claim by state. Paradox certainly invested many hours of planning to conclude this is the best way. (but I'll edit the save files to get a single province when I think it's apropriated).
A not very elegant solution, but that can work for particular cases, is to change single provinces by event. I imagine it's possible that, trough an event, you can change the owner of a province. This way, it's possible to mod "decisions" for particular provinces - for example, if you're at war with the Gibraltar owner and you control Gibraltar, a national decision "Conquer Gibraltar!" could appear, giving the province directly to you (and some infamy, etc).
A dynamic version of this could also be possible if you can, somehow, "mark" an enemy province you're occupying - it could be something like a spy mission (though, AFAIK, there's no spionage in VIcky2) or some action an army could do over a province. It would mark the enemy province, which enable the national decision to conquer that province, which fires an event passing the province. Tricky and probably harder to do than it looks like, but it would work very well, as only the human players would use such tool. (but, again, it will not be beautiful nor easy to do).
---
I have a question, also: a nation has cores over (individual) provinces or over states? If the former, when it claims this core as a war goal, it will get all the state as usual, or just the core provinces in it?
A not very elegant solution, but that can work for particular cases, is to change single provinces by event. I imagine it's possible that, trough an event, you can change the owner of a province. This way, it's possible to mod "decisions" for particular provinces - for example, if you're at war with the Gibraltar owner and you control Gibraltar, a national decision "Conquer Gibraltar!" could appear, giving the province directly to you (and some infamy, etc).
A dynamic version of this could also be possible if you can, somehow, "mark" an enemy province you're occupying - it could be something like a spy mission (though, AFAIK, there's no spionage in VIcky2) or some action an army could do over a province. It would mark the enemy province, which enable the national decision to conquer that province, which fires an event passing the province. Tricky and probably harder to do than it looks like, but it would work very well, as only the human players would use such tool. (but, again, it will not be beautiful nor easy to do).
---
I have a question, also: a nation has cores over (individual) provinces or over states? If the former, when it claims this core as a war goal, it will get all the state as usual, or just the core provinces in it?
So you declare war first and then make the wargoal later?
Surely you must have some sort of reason to go to war in the first place? Sorry if I'm being obtuse...
You have some solid ideas for modding right here. Let's see how they fold in to the released product.
So you declare war first and then make the wargoal later?
Surely you must have some sort of reason to go to war in the first place? Sorry if I'm being obtuse...
That is a Causus Belli. Read the DD, it is well explained.
So you declare war first and then make the wargoal later?
Surely you must have some sort of reason to go to war in the first place? Sorry if I'm being obtuse...
your wargoal is your DOW. you go to war for a specific objective, unlike EU3
I understand how this is supposed to work, but my understanding is that you can still add more war goals as the war continues. So why not start with minimal war goals and add more when you are ready to negotiate for peace?
You can add new wargoals as long as you have the requisite jingoism in your country, but you have to be sure you will achieve them, because you WILL suffer if you don't get your wargoals.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this means. Are you referring to the political policy of the ruling country?
No, the amount of people who have jingoism as an issue (IIRC, don't take that as gospel until a dev confirms it)
You must have enough people supporting the war (ie, people with jingoistic politics) to expand War Goals.
Edit. Wiggum!
I can't reach a properly informed view about this yet as I haven't played the game, but the war goals system had better be good and had better be completely incompatible with the ability to demand individual provinces, because otherwise it just makes no sense to reduce the player's ability to shape his or her country's borders like this. Right now I would take the ability to demand individual provinces over the whole war goal system as I understand it.
As I said in another thread a lot of the "states" in Vicky are Paradox inventions. Provinces may be equally imaginary, but they are much smaller so they allow you to get a lot closer to the borders you want. As I also said elsewhere, this system means that any U.S. states which are combined into single Vicky 2 "states" are indivisible in the game.
It is such a fudge to allow divided states at game start but not represent that possibility within the game mechanics. As soon as we deviate from the historical path even slightly, we are resticted to bulky state-size provinces.
I may be an idiot, but bear with me:
If a War Goal is to reclaim cores in an enemy state, will pressing that goal in the peace treaty only cede the core provinces while leaving non-core provinces of the state in the enemy country?
If a War Goal is to reclaim cores in an enemy state, will pressing that goal in the peace treaty only cede the core provinces while leaving non-core provinces of the state in the enemy country?
Isn't there great chance that a nation would be made unplayable with this state based war goal system? What if Austria is fighting Prussia, Italy, Russia and Ottoman Empire and all of them are asking one state each? At least in multiplayer games you always want small reward for fighting a costly war. Now you cant ask a province or two but are forced to take whole state or nothing. Well in Victoria 1 it was land and pops you wanted, that might be changed now.
Since we're at the namecalling level:
If China re-takes Macao from Portugal and Hong Kong from Britain using your example, idiot, then when Britain goes to retake Hong Kong they'll be forced to demand not only Hong Kong but also Macau.
Which is quite possibly the dumbest design decision in the history of the planet. I can only assume you did it since you're defending this insanity by calling me an idiot and too stupid to understand.
And possibly I am too stupid to understand, because this seems like pure foolishness. I can only assume that your failure to create a peace deal system that can handle demanding a whole state OR individual provinces is because you're either lazy or incompetent, right?
Or we can quit namecalling and acting like children and you could explain the design decision in a way that isn't childish. After all, we're Paradox gamers and used to demanding 95 tiny provinces in a colonial war.
Your forum manner leaves a lot to be desired. Instead of getting pissed off at your future customers who are bringing up legitimate concerns maybe you should address them. So far I have only seen you trying to talk your way around what I and several others see as a substantial design flaw
AI programing is one of the most difficult things to achieve at competent levels. For nearly half-century we've been working on creating better AIs and they become ever more complex and ever more prone to break and do stupid things we can't figure out easily because of the vast amount of instruction logic programmed into it; ie, the more issues you throw at it, the more likely it is to act stupidly and remove the immersible value of the game thereby making customers not want to play it and spread this by word-of-mouth. Now I'm sure King and team could program the AI to act competently trading provinces if you gave them another year or so just to do that, but at increasing costs to labor (which would likely be passed on to the customer), no other major investments to the game or other games (King may play a central role in), etc. Or the easier route that gets a game out quicker that has a compitent AI is to create a new division which the present AI is able to handle with more realistic results.
As to what constitutes each individual state, well that's certainly more debatable.
Regardless what the justification is, a representative of the company namecalling on their public forum is ridiculously unprofessional. It's not even like anyone was trolling here.
If states can function while split (such as in the initial setup), I don't see why there shouldn't at least be the possibility to acquire subsets of a state.
If states can function while split (such as in the initial setup), I don't see why there shouldn't at least be the possibility to acquire subsets of a state.
No only whole states. Although we are constantly tweaking the state setup to get the cores in confrom to the states.
- Status