Switching sides in wars

[123e55]

Hi! What about an option that lets you to switch sides in wars? This happened many times in history.
If this would be implemented, I think there should be a warscore loss for the team you switched the side.
And what about an opinion bonus for who you switched the side for?
Any suggestions welcomed

 

[123e55]

bump.

 

[talilu]

 

[123e55]

Wtf xD
So i'm not The single one who likes countryballs

 

[123e55]

Aacronian, I saw you don't really agree with my idea, can you explain why ? Just for improving my idea

 

[gronak]

I think this would be a cool feature. Could do it so you need to be called in to war in order to switch because if you start the war then switch you've left your allies to fight the war as well as you.

 

[MasterC00L10]

I don't think there has been a single case of this happening in the middle of an actual war. Lots of wars in European history were actually a series of smaller wars put together, with a period of peace between them. It was during this peace that nations changed sides and alliegiences. You didn't get a nation in the middle of a battle just suddenly switching sides and attacking their former allies.

 

[gronak]

maybe make it a peace option you can make with the enemy to make peace and then join their side of the war?

 

[Aacronian]

It would break the game. If you have your army on the same province as an ally's and you switch sides then BAM there goes your allies army. It way to easy to exploit, will break the game in half, and just not work. The feature doesn't need to be in the game, war as a whole after the fort system is pretty great (except for carpet sieging) and the new features should concentrate on expanding peacetime, adding an additional feature like switching side in a war will add complicated and gamey bloat.

 

[Itchel]

I think the only way someone should be able to switch sides is by a peace treaty taking something like 50-80% warscore. a person from one side could force a member of the enemy side of the war to switch sides, although they must have been occupied for at least a year or more

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

It would make cambrai more interesting and historical, it should be very difficult to get someone to do this though.

 

[Bella Gerant]

It would also have to accompany a massive diplo rep reduction or a some other penalty, since it would be horrifically difficult to balance. You'd also have to restrict the instances where you can employ this or hide it behind an idea group (espionage does something useful please) since you could rig League Wars, start them, then proceed to switch sides and reap the benefits. Or you could you it to backstab allies with desirable lands (let them bleed each other out without lifting a finger, take provinces from all of the opposing side's secondaries, then do the same to your original sides after they run out of manpower. Would speed up conquests way too much). And of course, just getting out of a losing war is problematic.

In the Italy example, WWI Italy switched when the Allies offered Austro-Hungarian lands. So maybe part of diplomacy could involve enticing enemies to switch sides. That would be intriguing.

 

[Me_]

It would break the game. If you have your army on the same province as an ally's and you switch sides then BAM there goes your allies army. It way to easy to exploit, will break the game in half, and just not work. The feature doesn't need to be in the game, war as a whole after the fort system is pretty great (except for carpet sieging) and the new features should concentrate on expanding peacetime, adding an additional feature like switching side in a war will add complicated and gamey bloat.

None of this matters if switching sides were a peace treaty option. Say, you lost the war and the winner can force you to switch sides. One: the fact that your armies might be annihilated is meaningless as you are already in a war, losing troops is what happens during wars. Two: it would not be easy to exploit if it required high warscore as the side joining you now would be very weak. Three: no feature needs to be in game. We don't need stability, prestige, monarch points, leaders, heirs, personal unions, alliances etc. But the game is better for having them.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

It would also have to accompany a massive diplo rep reduction or a some other penalty, since it would be horrifically difficult to balance. You'd also have to restrict the instances where you can employ this or hide it behind an idea group (espionage does something useful please) since you could rig League Wars, start them, then proceed to switch sides and reap the benefits. Or you could you it to backstab allies with desirable lands (let them bleed each other out without lifting a finger, take provinces from all of the opposing side's secondaries, then do the same to your original sides after they run out of manpower. Would speed up conquests way too much). And of course, just getting out of a losing war is problematic.

In the Italy example, WWI Italy switched when the Allies offered Austro-Hungarian lands. So maybe part of diplomacy could involve enticing enemies to switch sides. That would be intriguing.

Its not quite the same example as represented in EU4 terms but the earl of warwick switched sides 3 times during the wars of the roses, probably would have switched more if he wasnt killed off midway through.

None of this matters if switching sides were a peace treaty option. Say, you lost the war and the winner can force you to switch sides. One: the fact that your armies might be annihilated is meaningless as you are already in a war, losing troops is what happens during wars. Two: it would not be easy to exploit if it required high warscore as the side joining you now would be very weak. Three: no feature needs to be in game. We don't need stability, prestige, monarch points, leaders, heirs, personal unions, alliances etc. But the game is better for having them.

Depends, I have seen a few wars where the AI only commits something like 1/3 of their forces, I have done the same where I have no interest in winning a war so I just sit about guarding my lands without helping with the war in any other capacity, there are plenty of reasons why there could be a strong power left in a country that changes sides in a war, the problem with the idea is more about diplomatic ties rather than anything else, while you could potentially join chances are you might have a royal marriage and all other kinds of agreements with a nation which looks a bit daft.

 

[FurorGermanicus]

I totally agree.
But it should only be possible if you have a war reason against your (previous) ally.

 

[123e55]

Heh, a very good ideea furor!