Diplomats and war score is not enough you have to have a decades worth of dip points even for a 2 month war and hope the AI isnt delusional
the number of requisits for peace settlements is TOO DAMN HIGH
- Thread starter americanu197
- 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.
What are you complaining about? That you need a diplomat to make peace?
That the infamy mechanic has been replaced with DipMP and the Aggressive Expansion Penalty as a way to restrict expansion?
Or that the AI you're fighting doesn't feel like giving up after only 2 months?
What would you prefer? Immediate concessions to all your goals after 2 months?
That the infamy mechanic has been replaced with DipMP and the Aggressive Expansion Penalty as a way to restrict expansion?
Or that the AI you're fighting doesn't feel like giving up after only 2 months?
What would you prefer? Immediate concessions to all your goals after 2 months?
im saying you cant have a quick war and when you have a long war that disorganizes your country you cant just peace when the situation on the ground makes for a peace settlement and get on with recovering you have to wait for the sun and the moon and the stars to be in place
The sun and the moon and the stars? It's like 50 dip points max for a monster peace deal and then you might have to return a diplomat from another country which is a couple weeks max, so I think that's a bit of hyperbole. I haven't noticed a problem myself. I think there's only been one or two times where I had to wait for dip points so I could make peace.
There is a big difference between reasonable and unreasonable peace demands in this game as opposed to EU3. This will likely help against human blobbing, a good thing.
Beside, there is at least one Idea that reduces the cost of unreasonable peace demands, sound like one for the OP.
I found it weird that you said "and hope the AI isnt delusional", as the whole peace negotiation mechanic is now much more clear and reasonable: at least the AI now explains why he rejects an offer and what you can do about it.
Beside, there is at least one Idea that reduces the cost of unreasonable peace demands, sound like one for the OP.
I found it weird that you said "and hope the AI isnt delusional", as the whole peace negotiation mechanic is now much more clear and reasonable: at least the AI now explains why he rejects an offer and what you can do about it.
I have to agree, especially after my hand with the OE. I spent three years waiting to be able to push a peace treaty over Adana because the Mamluks/Persia were being obstinate. Even with seven occupied provinces, they wouldn't agree to let me just have Adana. While I have seen this system work towards curtailing doomstacks/immediate treaties so far, there should be some look into making it more efficient when war-goals are small.
Overall I think the system works great, but there are some war-score calculation problems when small-scale conflicts escalate.
Playing as the Ottomans, I went after a Bosnian province. Suddenly Muscovy and its whole sphere of influence stepped in on Bosnia's behalf. The Russians never actually came- I don't think either of us had the military access to actually fight each other. But even after I had sieged the whole of 2-province Bosnia, the AI wouldn't let me take my province (not even annexing! I just wanted one lame inland province!). The fighting was definitively over, but I had to wait for the ticking.
Fortunately, I eventually realized that Verona had joined the war, allowing me to stomp someone within range and rack up enough warscore to annex Bosnia in its entirety. So really the problem was my stupidity.
Playing as the Ottomans, I went after a Bosnian province. Suddenly Muscovy and its whole sphere of influence stepped in on Bosnia's behalf. The Russians never actually came- I don't think either of us had the military access to actually fight each other. But even after I had sieged the whole of 2-province Bosnia, the AI wouldn't let me take my province (not even annexing! I just wanted one lame inland province!). The fighting was definitively over, but I had to wait for the ticking.
Fortunately, I eventually realized that Verona had joined the war, allowing me to stomp someone within range and rack up enough warscore to annex Bosnia in its entirety. So really the problem was my stupidity.
A decade produces, at minimum (no advisors, Carlos el Hechizado on the throne), 360 dip points.
What on earth are you trying to demand to get the dip cost of the treaty so high?
I would like to see a screenshot of the tooltip that tallies up the reasons for acceptance and the reasons for rejecting in this particular case. After all, hearing that you occupy 7 provinces does not, by itself, tell us anything about whether your peace demand was reasonable or not.
What was your warscore? What was the value of the peace you demanded? What were the reasons for rejection? It is all there in the interface and makes for a much better discussion of whether demands are unreasonable or not.
playing OE warring against aq qoyunlu or whatever i wanted 6 provinces of which 2 were cores the dip points were around 250-275... we won the war clearly all their alliance armies destroyed all your provinces are belong to us
i mean the dip point req are negligible when getting a core so BS to anyone saying WC will be easy
I played a little as the Ottomans and I never even noticed it. Probably because I had nothing else to spend diplo points on anyway.
6 wargoals, is WAY too much, and I am positive that you didn't have that many from a quest. you can get a region which contains 6 provinces in a peace treaty much more easilly than that you can get 6 provinces. next time check which mission your on, and peace out much more quickly, and move your war's about, you should fight different borders. Don't just try and have 1 enemy. Nations have always had multiple interests. it's much easier to run 4-5 wars gaining 2-provinces each war than 1 war gaining 6 provinces.
I am not going to discuss WC with you, but I will note that the only reason you have so high DMP costs are because you have only had the Demo for a short time and do not understand the EU4 peace game mechanics.
You are trying to acquire the provinces in the single most expensive way possible: Making unjustified demands of somebody, who is not your rival.
Look, this is how it works.
If you annex a country, there is a fixed DMP cost for that (50) that gets reduced by various modifiers. Ignore that for now.
If you demand provinces in a peace deal, you pay a DMP cost for each province involved. For a province that is not your core, the base cost of such a demand is 50.
You do not want to pay this cost, nor should you.
Take the Demo Ottomans as an example. They get -10% unjustified demands because they are a despotic monarchy (booh!), so if you invade Ak Koyunlu willy-nilly using e.g. your core on Erzunum as an excuse and start demanding territory, you will quickly scream, because the cost of all those completely unjustified claims is 45 DMP each.
However, if you had taken the minimal effort involved of setting Ak Koyunlu as your rival (one-time cost: 10 DMP), you would get a further 33% reduction in the cost of unjustified demands, making your total reduction (33%+10%=43%), so each province would cost you 28 DMP instead of 45 DMP. A considerable saving that exceeds the cost of setting them as your rivals in the first place.
And if you had the full game rather than the demo and had chosen the significant DMP investment of using an entire idea group on getting Diplomatic ideas - as you WILL do in the full game if you are the sort of player who wants to go on conquest sprees, which I suspect given that you talk about WC in the first place - Flexible Negotiations will give a further 33% reduction in the cost of unjustified demands.
Of course, if you actually had a claim on the things you demanded, it would be cheaper yet.
The wargoal you choose also matters: look at what it states with regards to the cost of various actions. (And in the case of alliance wars, note that the cost reductions you get depending on wargoal apply to the country that is the target of the wargoal, not for everybody in the alliance; You don't get an cost reduction against B, an ally of A, because your wargoal says you get a cost reduction vs. A).
So, regardless of whether you are playing the Demo or in a few days time the full game, it is a really good idea to take the time to fabricate claims on what you want to conquer rather than making completely unjustified demands. Frequently that means applying the sausage method to conquest, slicing up countries in multiple wars.
In conclusion, "the number of requisits for peace settlements is TOO DAMN HIGH" is complete and utter nonsense, as I am sure you will agree with me now that you understand what you did wrong. The EU series has always been about legitimizing your conquests in various ways, and EU4 is no different in that regard, whether it is paying AMP to core or DMP to acquire in peace treaties. The ability to reduce the cost of both exists for the player who makes the effort, so make that effort.
right thanks for the tips
i still think this system is wrong and i would rather have a system that stops me from going to war because of the horrible repercussions than one that stops me from making a peace... and this will make the game overall more boring
and im not a fan of WC never did it but i get annoyed when people say the game is too easy
now how do i make someone my rival i dont see anything on the interface
i still think this system is wrong and i would rather have a system that stops me from going to war because of the horrible repercussions than one that stops me from making a peace... and this will make the game overall more boring
and im not a fan of WC never did it but i get annoyed when people say the game is too easy
now how do i make someone my rival i dont see anything on the interface
Last edited:
In this time period massive land changes were not typical in war, so gaining one or two provinces per war is normal.
Set yourself to one goal rather than trying to expand in random places and set rivals for the countries you are set on annihilating and expansion will be easier, more sensible, and moreover more realistic.
Set yourself to one goal rather than trying to expand in random places and set rivals for the countries you are set on annihilating and expansion will be easier, more sensible, and moreover more realistic.
I wish it was easier to give up. In the demo Ottomans DoW you and i just want to hand over Corfu and naxos and be done with. NO they have to siege the entire venice and still end up demanding what i wanted to give them in the first place!
Good thread,
I actually learned a lot from Peter Ebbesen post...It explained a lot to me.
I actually learned a lot from Peter Ebbesen post...It explained a lot to me.
Diplomatic interface, i.e. F1->2 for quick access. Click on one of the three shields for rivals, then select your chosen rival from the list that appears.now how do i make someone my rival i dont see anything on the interface
My pleasure.
There's a reason that those of my screenshots in my Phoenix Rising beta AAR that show peace deals typically have a cost of 0 DMP or 8DMP for each province I take; If I had had to pay 50 DMP per non-core, that Byzantium would only have expanded at a snail's pace, if at all.
Come to think of it, perhaps I did not stress enough in the AAR how important it is to make sure you legitimize your conquests in all the ways you can - i.e. plan your conquests and do the diplomatic spadework ahead of invasion - but hopefully now everybody that reads this thread will know it.