Neighbor realm has rebellion.
Declare war on rebellion.
Make good progress, including winning some sieges.
Neighbor realm achieves peace, ending your war and wasting your time.
That (above) is not broken. It's not even infuriating really. It's mildly irritating, and once you understand how it works, it's a risk you accept going into the war in the first place (in fact, you're warned against it when you declare the war).
Why does it work when the player is the one defending the rebellion then?
A rebellion fires against me.
A neighbor realm declares war against the rebellion.
I get war score to 100% against rebellion.
I CAN NOT END THE REBELLION BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR WHO DECLARED WAR OCCUPIES AT LEAST ONE HOLDING FROM THE REBELLION.
This is absolute, absurd, madness. I can't declare peace against the rebellion because some other clown sieged one of their holdings?
No. That's wrong and broken.
It doesn't even make sense, and it's not consistent with how any other war works.
If a player is attacking an AI rebellion, when the AI make peace, the player's war is casus belli invalid, no matter what.
There some scenarios in which a war either ends (casus belli invalid) due to land changing hands. There are other scenarios in which the target of the war changes based on land changing hands (instead of attacking Character X, you're now attacking Character Y who just captured that land). And there are also cases where two realms are attacking the same territory. Who ever finishes first will end up at war with the second whose casus belli wasn't invalidated.
So why doesn't it work like this when the player is defending against a rebellion?
Suppose you've just founded the Holy Roman Empire, and a few of your easternmost vassals are rebelling (in the area of Saxony/East Francia). You win a couple of big battles against the rebels and siege one territory. You're still not to 100% warscore against the rebels, but now Pomerania, with their 3 provinces, sees how weak the rebel "realm" is and declares a conquest war against them. So win a siege. Somewhere. Anywhere, it doesn't matter. Next, you get rebels to 100%, only to find out that Pomerania is blocking your peace because of madness. And now you're playing whack-a-mole against their fast light infantry who are siege just as fast as your desieging.
Why do I have to clear their sieges in order to make peace? Why isn't their war canceled when I make peace (just as it would be if the player were Pomerania and the AI were HRE)? Worse case scenario, the war should just shift to me, so I can just go siege down Pomerania's provinces and end that war.
This is absurdity.
And all I want, one way or the other, is for this to work consistent for players and AI. If the AI's peace kills my war against their rebellion, then my peace should kill AI war against my rebellion (no matter occupied territory). Or if the AI's occupation blocks my making peace with my rebellion, then my occupation should block AI's from making peace on their rebellions.
Declare war on rebellion.
Make good progress, including winning some sieges.
Neighbor realm achieves peace, ending your war and wasting your time.
That (above) is not broken. It's not even infuriating really. It's mildly irritating, and once you understand how it works, it's a risk you accept going into the war in the first place (in fact, you're warned against it when you declare the war).
Why does it work when the player is the one defending the rebellion then?
A rebellion fires against me.
A neighbor realm declares war against the rebellion.
I get war score to 100% against rebellion.
I CAN NOT END THE REBELLION BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR WHO DECLARED WAR OCCUPIES AT LEAST ONE HOLDING FROM THE REBELLION.
This is absolute, absurd, madness. I can't declare peace against the rebellion because some other clown sieged one of their holdings?
No. That's wrong and broken.
It doesn't even make sense, and it's not consistent with how any other war works.
If a player is attacking an AI rebellion, when the AI make peace, the player's war is casus belli invalid, no matter what.
There some scenarios in which a war either ends (casus belli invalid) due to land changing hands. There are other scenarios in which the target of the war changes based on land changing hands (instead of attacking Character X, you're now attacking Character Y who just captured that land). And there are also cases where two realms are attacking the same territory. Who ever finishes first will end up at war with the second whose casus belli wasn't invalidated.
So why doesn't it work like this when the player is defending against a rebellion?
Suppose you've just founded the Holy Roman Empire, and a few of your easternmost vassals are rebelling (in the area of Saxony/East Francia). You win a couple of big battles against the rebels and siege one territory. You're still not to 100% warscore against the rebels, but now Pomerania, with their 3 provinces, sees how weak the rebel "realm" is and declares a conquest war against them. So win a siege. Somewhere. Anywhere, it doesn't matter. Next, you get rebels to 100%, only to find out that Pomerania is blocking your peace because of madness. And now you're playing whack-a-mole against their fast light infantry who are siege just as fast as your desieging.
Why do I have to clear their sieges in order to make peace? Why isn't their war canceled when I make peace (just as it would be if the player were Pomerania and the AI were HRE)? Worse case scenario, the war should just shift to me, so I can just go siege down Pomerania's provinces and end that war.
This is absurdity.
And all I want, one way or the other, is for this to work consistent for players and AI. If the AI's peace kills my war against their rebellion, then my peace should kill AI war against my rebellion (no matter occupied territory). Or if the AI's occupation blocks my making peace with my rebellion, then my occupation should block AI's from making peace on their rebellions.
- 114
- 4
- 1
