its really annoying and leads to wars lasting the entire lifespan of the ruler. alternatively add those -10 reasons for accepting peace deals directly to the war enthusiasm so it can be offset by lenght of war.
- 8
- 7
- 4
the fierce negociator ruler trait should go
- Thread starter subzero12479
- 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.
I think this is a good feature. It's annoying but you can overcome it by winning decisively, or exhausting enemy, or just reducing your demands.
On the other hand, I think this -10 modifier should drop down when AI country needs peace more badly than its enemies (e.g. AI has many loans with negative balance, or WS is too high and causes rebellions, while attackers doesn't have these problems). Otherwise it's about ruler being "stubborn ass" (as said above), and not about negotiating skills.
On the other hand, I think this -10 modifier should drop down when AI country needs peace more badly than its enemies (e.g. AI has many loans with negative balance, or WS is too high and causes rebellions, while attackers doesn't have these problems). Otherwise it's about ruler being "stubborn ass" (as said above), and not about negotiating skills.
- 1
In the screenshot I shared no one suffered from the war. England sat on their island with only Calais being occupied while France also sat home doing nothing. A war like this lasting the entire english rulers lifespan is just stupid.
The way monarchs work in general is yet another thing that could be improved.
- 1
I mean, you might not be entirely off the mark. A negative trait titled simply like "Obstinate" could suffice instead.
Obstinate ()
This ruler is obstinate. This independently minded ruler ignores the consul of advisors and general opinion at large to pursue their own agenda to their own detriment.
be more stubborn to surrender in a war. (-20 warscore)
be more stubborn to accept terms of subjugation (-20 warscore + some/same value of diplo-vassalization reluctance)
Ignores warleader/overlord goals and military focus (default none, but applies weight on supporting traits)
answers calls to war more selectively determined by relation to country (-30 to negative/+30 to positive)
Extra Unconditional Surrender Warscore: +50
Maybe needs cutting down just a little bit. The extra warscore is just a balancing element to beating a stubborn country to a 100% or are prompted by events (caused by capital occupation/low crownland etc) to unconditonal surrender or take a large hit to stability, legitimacy, maybe crownland.
Fierce negotiator is way too flattering in its current form considering that its competlely cut off from even the behaviour of utilizing condoterri.
- 2
- 1
The french shouldn't have peaced out the savoyards, frisians and others. It was warscore they could have traded for Calais. Aside from that, Napoleon had the exactly same problem with stubborn English.
- 1
That's not how that works. They already have enought ws to take Calais like 4 times. The ai calculates their willingness to accept peace deals based on their war enthusiasm and the war score. Lenght of war keeps reducing war enthusiasm until it reaches -1. Since this "war" was basicly just Fra and Eng sitting at home and doing nothing, that's exactly what happened, so both their enthusiasm is -1. On paper both would be fine with accepting a 59% peace deal, except that fierce negotiator gets applied separatly from war enthusiasm so the war will last for ever. Just renaming the trait to "optimistic" and making it so that it directly modifies war enthusiasm (and can be offset by length of war) would be the easiest solution.
Why? I couldn't have cared less if france conquers Calais or not, why would I waste tons of resources on it? I ended up white peacing and taking the trust hit.
Those 22 galleys were enought to beat anyone in the med but the ottomans, building more would have unneccessarily reduced the available fl for light ships and thus far reduced my trade income. Also I only had 12 transports so invanding britain would have been risky and definitly taken time and manpower. My point is, occupying the british homeland shouldn't be neccessary. We had 60% ws (more than enought for france to take Calais and max money+war reps) and everyone involved (including england) was tired of the war. Ending the war would have been in englands interest as well.