Relative strength of alliances bs

[Riekopo]

I'm playing as England in the 1444 start and kicking France's ass in the Hundred's Year War. I've gotten my wargoal objective and beaten multiple armies and have them blockaded. I had the option to make them give up a couple vassals, but I realized I could get my warscore higher if I continued the war for a few more months. Lo and behold though a few months later and I can no longer do shit. My warscore is higher, but now I can't even get a white peace because of the "relative strength of alliances" modifier. What the hell is this bullshit?!

 

[riknap]

it's probably because france and his vassals/allies have more units than you (that may not necessarily be in a position to attack you, but the game takes them into consideration none the less)
one thing you can do is to wait further so that the "Length of War" modifier goes down. the longer the war drags on, the higher the warscore you can get away with. it'll also help if you begin occupying French provinces, the capital as well if possible (as that makes the enemy more likely to accept defeat)

 

[Demonsul]

If it's the actual HYW your end goal as England should be near-full occupation of France and enforcing a personal union. If this isn't the actual HYW (war the game starts with), just do whatever you want I guess.

The appearance of the modifier was likely caused by France rebuilding its army, or possibly calling in a new ally. Go murder new armies, kick out their allies with separate peaces and take back the lead!

 

[StatikShocker]

I think this is one of the top worst features of the game. relative strength of alliances NEEDS to be removed. I've already made my case in the past but the public didn't agree.

 

[Riekopo]

I guess this modifier just doesn't make sense to me. How does the enemy know all my forces' strengths? What's the point of this modifier? To annoy the player?

 

[matk]

I think this is one of the top worst features of the game. relative strength of alliances NEEDS to be removed. I've already made my case in the past but the public didn't agree.

I'm with you. Relative strength of alliances should be measured on what is brought to bear on the battlefield. If your forces are too far away to matter or can get access to the fight, they don't matter. Toss the modifier. Length of war usually gives a losing faction enough time for relatively distant allies to show up to the fight if they're ever going to.

 

[Aries666]

I think this is one of the top worst features of the game. relative strength of alliances NEEDS to be removed. I've already made my case in the past but the public didn't agree.

This becomes escpecially apparent when you have fully occupied Spain and Portugal yet still get penalised by relative strength of alliances because their CN's (who are effectively non-combatnants) are contributing several hundred thousand troops.

 

[StatikShocker]

and you guys made the two most important points. It is so redundant of a mechanic.
I love when its just a 1 on 1 war, and when the smaller nation wins the larger nation has "relative strength of alliances -37418927340919047749236740923658"

It is simply a mechanic to encourage mass carpet seiging.