So, my ally can just give my provinces away now?

[TheArkayn]

Playing as Byzantium, and I've recovered all of Greece except Ederine. I'm in a war with the Ottomans again, trying to save Theodoro. I'm also in a war with Venice, who is attacking Serbia. My armies are away in Crimea, fighting there, so Venice manages to slip onto my lands and take Epirius. Well, before I can regroup my army and head home, Serbia peaces out, and hands them Epirius, and my vassal, Albania.

Seriously? The tick box that prohibits my idiot ally from negotiating me is gone, so is this just how the game works now?

 

[hashinshin]

Players lost the player immunity to war losses. Like how you can jack territory off a random opponent who came to the defense of his ally, that can happen to you now too.

Defend your territory, it's more important than defending your ally.

 

[TheArkayn]

That's, incredibly stupid.
If my provinces are going to be at stake, I should have a hand at the negotiating table. Not Serbia handing off my provinces to save their own hide. An alert, or something would have been nice. "Hey, hurry home, or your ally is going to start giving the enemy your things!"

If OPM's can get a five year immunity to annexation, the player should get some kind of timed immunity towards having their stuff handed off.

 

[hashinshin]

Is it dumb? Yes. However it reveals a flaw in EU4 that has existed for a very long time: Why in god's name is anyone agreeing to give away their territories because their ally said so?

 

[ldevarga]

That's, incredibly stupid.
If my provinces are going to be at stake, I should have a hand at the negotiating table. Not Serbia handing off my provinces to save their own hide. An alert, or something would have been nice. "Hey, hurry home, or your ally is going to start giving the enemy your things!"

If OPM's can get a five year immunity to annexation, the player should get some kind of timed immunity towards having their stuff handed off.

If you don't care about ironman you can mod it back in by setting ALLOW_LEADER_DEMAND_TOGGLE in defines.lua to 1.

 

[Yorkie-GBR]

Being at war has risks.

You made the choice to honour the alliance, and thus lost the war as the war leader peaced out.

How many times have you been in a war and abused the AI?

 

[IZob]

Ironically players do the same thing to the AI. But even so, I think its an unfair way to end wars - peace being made at the expense of an ally, without their consent.

Being the war leader is power.

 

[TheArkayn]

If you don't care about ironman you can mod it back in by setting ALLOW_LEADER_DEMAND_TOGGLE in defines.lua to 1.

If I knew how to de-Ironman this save, I'd toggle that and reverse it.

Being at war has risks.

You made the choice to honour the alliance, and thus lost the war as the war leader peaced out.

How many times have you been in a war and abused the AI?

That isn't a risk that's any sort of reasonable though. The problem was that the province had been occupied for less than three months. I had troops en route to free it, and kick Venice out. But the AI used my province to inflate their peace deal. I had no way to say no, I didn't even have a way to say "Hold on for another week, and I'll have it back." It's absurd.
And that all depends on what you define as abusing the AI.

 

[Viperswhip]

If I knew how to de-Ironman this save, I'd toggle that and reverse it.



That isn't a risk that's any sort of reasonable though. The problem was that the province had been occupied for less than three months. I had troops en route to free it, and kick Venice out. But the AI used my province to inflate their peace deal. I had no way to say no, I didn't even have a way to say "Hold on for another week, and I'll have it back." It's absurd.
And that all depends on what you define as abusing the AI.

You can, as an example, get provinces under a general peace that the AI wont' give you separate peacing the relevant country. I did that yesterday peacing out the Ottos to get a few provinces from the Golden Horde that they wouldn't give me under a separate peace because I did not have the warscore against them.

It should give you a massive relations hit with your "ally" or give you an option to continue the war. You do get the best CB a few years later though.

 

[TheArkayn]

It should give you a massive relations hit with your "ally" or give you an option to continue the war. You do get the best CB a few years later though.

I would have gladly continued the war. I would've started a new war the second the peace hit if it wasn't for the truce. Only problem now is, Venice allied with a monstrous Austria. Time to test out the support rebel function!

As for Serbia, I was actually so mad they did that, that I declared war within the week, and made them my march. Figure it's only fair they should help me get them back.

 

[Beagá]

Being the war leader Always had advantages in Paradox games. In Victoria 2 is just as bad.

Next time be war leader. And yes reconquest makes things very cheap. Got 2 provinces from France as England, with 13% warscore.

 

[Pugman]

If you don't care about ironman you can mod it back in by setting ALLOW_LEADER_DEMAND_TOGGLE in defines.lua to 1.

I think a better solution would be to just disallow war demands against nations who are not part of the war goal to start with. I haven't tested this but I've thought about looking into whether I can mod this and try it out. It's still too easy to get around truces, guarantees, etc. to go after someone. For example, you can still easily get around France's guarantee on Scotland by just declaring war on one of Scotland's Irish allies. You can pull Scotland fully into the war since they only have Irish allies anyway and boom, vassalized Scotland by 1450. I think this should have been done instead of vastly increasing truce times. Probably most of the runaway expansion is due to this and not truce times. There's already expansion controls in place via OE and AE.

 

[Viperswhip]

I would have gladly continued the war. I would've started a new war the second the peace hit if it wasn't for the truce. Only problem now is, Venice allied with a monstrous Austria. Time to test out the support rebel function!

As for Serbia, I was actually so mad they did that, that I declared war within the week, and made them my march. Figure it's only fair they should help me get them back.

Marches are kind of crap if you ever want to expand beyond them, just be aware of that.

 

[ldevarga]

I think a better solution would be to just disallow war demands against nations who are not part of the war goal to start with. I haven't tested this but I've thought about looking into whether I can mod this and try it out. It's still too easy to get around truces, guarantees, etc. to go after someone. For example, you can still easily get around France's guarantee on Scotland by just declaring war on one of Scotland's Irish allies. You can pull Scotland fully into the war since they only have Irish allies anyway and boom, vassalized Scotland by 1450. I think this should have been done instead of vastly increasing truce times. Probably most of the runaway expansion is due to this and not truce times. There's already expansion controls in place via OE and AE.

I don't know if this is already the case, but I would prefer a system where taking things from someone who is not the wartarget generates large amounts of AE and a diplomatic reputation, better relations over time penalty, that way you can take things, but you'll have to be careful (well sort of, depends how blobby you are at that point, but I don't play like that much so it would work for me).

 

[ldevarga]

Marches are kind of crap if you ever want to expand beyond them, just be aware of that.

What do you mean?

 

[Viperswhip]

What do you mean?

-1 Stab and 200 relations hit when you cancel it to integrate them as your territory expands beyond them. The bonuses are not terrific, I mean, going from 7 to 9 men because of the bonus isn't going to help them over much and if you are losing the war so badly you are being invaded, 20% fort defence isn't likely going to save you.

 

[fleetothemoon]

Is it dumb? Yes. However it reveals a flaw in EU4 that has existed for a very long time: Why in god's name is anyone agreeing to give away their territories because their ally said so?

Agreed. I don't think it is farfetched that giving up provinces of allies should require the ally's approval to some extent...

Being at war has risks.

You made the choice to honour the alliance, and thus lost the war as the war leader peaced out.

How many times have you been in a war and abused the AI?

Regardless of whether it is the player who abused the AI or the AI who seemingly abused the player, it doesn't change the fact that the underlying mechanic is and has always been flawed.

 

[Andy578]

should be an option to continue the war alone if the war leader makes peace. basically you'd get an option to refuse or accept the terms. same thing happened to me as Prussia a few min ago, me and Austria vs pretty much everyone then another minor war popped up so i decided to ignore it and focus on clearing off a few enemy stacks so Austria could manage while i dealt with the other war. while doing that they managed to occupy 2 provinces and the leader imminently gives up my shit. of course i was pissed and imminently broke the truce then my next target was the bastard that gave up my stuff

 

[Viperswhip]

should be an option to continue the war alone if the war leader makes peace. basically you'd get an option to refuse or accept the terms. same thing happened to me as Prussia a few min ago, me and Austria vs pretty much everyone then another minor war popped up so i decided to ignore it and focus on clearing off a few enemy stacks so Austria could manage while i dealt with the other war. while doing that they managed to occupy 2 provinces and the leader imminently gives up my shit. of course i was pissed and imminently broke the truce then my next target was the bastard that gave up my stuff

Well, I mean, how many times have I sieged half of France and the leader peaces out leaving me with nothing but mil tradition.

It rubs both ways guys. I don't love the ability to negotiate for yourself being gone but it is what it is, it's not so bad.

 

[Mikalos]

That's, incredibly stupid.
If my provinces are going to be at stake, I should have a hand at the negotiating table. Not Serbia handing off my provinces to save their own hide. An alert, or something would have been nice. "Hey, hurry home, or your ally is going to start giving the enemy your things!"

If OPM's can get a five year immunity to annexation, the player should get some kind of timed immunity towards having their stuff handed off.

i didnt see you complaining when the player got to do it to random other nations. And i should have tyo discuss territorial changes of genoa with genoa when i take on france too; ju8st cause its unfair and dumb that some other country gets to decide what goes on for another in a peace deal