Uh, am I stuck in a nearly unwinnable war?

[unmerged(13344)]

I have had the same problem with Burgundy. I controlled all of its provinces and destroyed every regiment or ship they had but it refused to cede the provinces I wanted even though they totaled only 84%. I do agree that the AI seems more inclined to cede provinces that you have a core on or they don't have a core on.
I'm more patient and am willing to conduct serval wars to accomplish a certian goal. After all, you have three hundred years. Personally, I get bored around the mid-1600's anyway.

 

[unmerged(46403)]

I've just had the same situation against Spain as the Ottomans - I decided to kick them out of as much of Muslim North Africa as I could. Even when I controlled all of their African possessions, the Spanish would not agree to anything but a white peace, even though they were also at war with France and had revolt risk everywhere of 13% at least. I was wondering whether I would end up having to send troops over to South America...
What finally made them give up was when I managed to cross over the Straits of Gibraltar and exterminate their 19000 man army led by the Spanish king. They not only gave me 5 North African provinces, but also handed 3 Spanish provinces to France. The AI only surrenders when it has no army left to fight with.

Which means that by the time it does give up, it has suffered a total defeat, and even if its victor doesn't destroy it, its neighbours will close in like a pack of wolves.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Yes - they would have been much more sensible to just give me what I asked for early on - which was Tripoli and the two Tunisian provinces. They wouldn't have had to give me Kabylia and Tangiers as well, and they wouldn't have been so completely defeated by France - the French were besieging Madrid when I made peace. The AI can be its worst enemy... another good one was Milan refusing to become my vassal as head of the alliance, with the consequence being that they instead got force-annexed by Poland in a separate treaty.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I guess I don't mind the fact that I have to knock out a huge enemy for that enemy to make peace, except:

1. The "99%" apparently means nothing. Why not change the system so you'll only get 99% when you actually take 99% of the enemy's territory? It'd be a lot less confusing.

2. In the case of Italy attacking a Muslim Qara Koyunlu, I should be able to fully take their territory whether they agree with it or not. I shouldn't have to make "peace" with their unreasonable asses, I should be able to just seize their territory and integrate it. This option is available for pagans...why not extremely low-tech, unstable, tribal-ruled Muslims?

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I guess I don't mind the fact that I have to knock out a huge enemy for that enemy to make peace, except:

1. The "99%" apparently means nothing. Why not change the system so you'll only get 99% when you actually take 99% of the enemy's territory? It'd be a lot less confusing.

2. In the case of Italy attacking a Muslim Qara Koyunlu, I should be able to fully take their territory whether they agree with it or not. I shouldn't have to make "peace" with their unreasonable asses, I should be able to just seize their territory and integrate it. This option is available for pagans...why not extremely low-tech, unstable, tribal-ruled Muslims?

99% means that you are entitled to demand anything less than 99% and the enemy gets a stab hit for refusing. The chance that they will refuse anyway is determined by whether they think they can still win - usually this depends on army size.

 

[swilhelm73]

This isn't actually extremely unrealistic. Soviets didn't make peace even if they had lost land worth 99% warscore because their army was still standing and they had tons of land left.

If you had your army still very much alive and kicking, loads of cash, land and manpower and thus healthy chance of victory (unified Italy simply couldn't supply as much troops as you in a war of attrition) would you make peace?

Of course one can look at France in the same war as the exact oppposite scenario. A few major battlefield defeats and a few occupied provinces and they were begging to hand the NAZIs a 200% peace treaty even with the vast majority of their province unoccupied and a fair amount of manpower to call upon.

However, as neither scenario was within the EU3 time frame though they are of questionable validity.

 

[swilhelm73]

Which means that by the time it does give up, it has suffered a total defeat, and even if its victor doesn't destroy it, its neighbours will close in like a pack of wolves.

I seem to recall in the old Empires in Arms boardgame they strongly cautioned players to keep this in mind when refusing to give in to reasonable terms (or demanding them for that matter).

 

[swilhelm73]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I guess I don't mind the fact that I have to knock out a huge enemy for that enemy to make peace, except:

1. The "99%" apparently means nothing. Why not change the system so you'll only get 99% when you actually take 99% of the enemy's territory? It'd be a lot less confusing.

2. In the case of Italy attacking a Muslim Qara Koyunlu, I should be able to fully take their territory whether they agree with it or not. I shouldn't have to make "peace" with their unreasonable asses, I should be able to just seize their territory and integrate it. This option is available for pagans...why not extremely low-tech, unstable, tribal-ruled Muslims?

1) They changed the value of war score for Eu3 and have tinkered alot in the latest patch. In Eu2, 99% warscore meant you could generally get 99 worth of provinces...

2) EU3 is basically enforcing inter-European rules on how territory changes hands to the whole world. The expections for pagans would probably apply to every non-Christian state besides maybe the Ottomans in the Eu3 time frame to the Europeans of the time, but allowing you to say annex the Mameluks in one go would be something of a game breaker.

In reality the problem is that the AI can't fight as well as it should, so they just made it much more stubborn in peace deals. One wonders how Frederick's Prussia would ever get more then a white peace (if that!) out of the Austrian/French/Russian/etc armies they faced and the UK getting much of France's colonial empire...

 

[unmerged(20077)]

I seem to recall in the old Empires in Arms boardgame they strongly cautioned players to keep this in mind when refusing to give in to reasonable terms (or demanding them for that matter).

Empires in Arms! That takes me back... I don't believe I ever persuaded any of my wargaming friends to actually play that one.

 

[swilhelm73]

Empires in Arms! That takes me back... I don't believe I ever persuaded any of my wargaming friends to actually play that one.

Yeah, damn shame it was so hard to find people to play it...

Of course, IIRC, EiA ended up being a strong influence in the creation of the EU boardgame -> EU videogame.

 

[unmerged(46403)]

In reality the problem is that the AI can't fight as well as it should, so they just made it much more stubborn in peace deals.

Which is stupid, and the wort way to deal with bad AI. Plus, to be honest I can recall the AI of Vicky as fighting better on land (of course, it had no idea what to do with its navy ), so how come it got worse in EUIII?

 

[Darkrenown]

Also, why no acceptall cheat? Along with a nofog and showid cheat it'd make modding/testing a lot easier and acceptall also gives you an out when the AI is being a pain.

 

[unmerged(73471)]

Yeah, damn shame it was so hard to find people to play it...

Of course, IIRC, EiA ended up being a strong influence in the creation of the EU boardgame -> EU videogame.

A desire to find a way to Play EiA online is what led my friends and I to EU1 in the first place.

Damn that was a great game - shame it took so long to play!

 

[unmerged(3921)]

>The Soviets were a kind of political construction that's as removed a sit is possible to be from anything that existed in the EUIII time period.

Fine. Then let's just consider Imperial Russia circa 1814, only very slightly beyond EU3's time frame (and probably within the time frame of EU3's expansion game). Capital occupied, provinces with well over a 99% war score by EU3 calculation occupied. And they still wouldn't surrender.

We had this exact same thread topic about 3 weeks ago. Yes, EU2 calculated war score differently. Yes, EU3 seems to have inherited Victoria's stubbornness to conceding a "lost" war. Yes, EU3 players seem to be annoyed that the AI won't admit to being "defeated". Yes, half the time that means the AI isn't actually DEFEATED.

>Empires in Arms! ... I don't believe I ever persuaded any of my wargaming friends to actually play that one.

We had a revolving group that used to play that game weekly. We must have finished 20 face-to-face games with all 7 countries controlled by a human. Backstabbing, massive battles, Nappy v. Charles all the time, Russian 2 step Guard commitments, ah the memories!

I don't know for certain, but wasn't EiA an influence on Europa Universalis (the boardgame) which in turn was of course highly influential in the development of EU the PC game?

*And by the way, I am just postulating that there would be an EU3 expansion game.*

 

[Storey]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I guess I don't mind the fact that I have to knock out a huge enemy for that enemy to make peace, except:

1. The "99%" apparently means nothing. Why not change the system so you'll only get 99% when you actually take 99% of the enemy's territory? It'd be a lot less confusing.

2. In the case of Italy attacking a Muslim Qara Koyunlu, I should be able to fully take their territory whether they agree with it or not. I shouldn't have to make "peace" with their unreasonable asses, I should be able to just seize their territory and integrate it. This option is available for pagans...why not extremely low-tech, unstable, tribal-ruled Muslims?

1) Your correct the 99% war score is misleading and causes a great deal of confusion. The questionable programming of the AI in peace agreements needs to be patched. They made a good start with 1.2 but need to continue working on it.

2)N o you should not be able to take their territory whether they agree with it or not. In the first place it would make an easy game far too easy. And the second part of the problem is you haven’t learned what the game will allow you to do and what it won’t and so you start looking for an easy way out of a basic mistake you’ve made. In this game if you plan on attacking a vastly larger country than your own and you want to de able to dictate the peace agreement you’d better plan on a very long war. You’re going to have to capture the vast majority of your enemy’s provinces, destroy its military forces and capture it’s capital. If you are not willing to expend the time and energy to do that then ‘don’t’ declare war! In EU 3 size does matter. I’m playing the Ming in a game and my object is to march west and attack Europe. Right now I’ve got a corridor of provinces that reach to the Black Sea. I routinely fight wars where I have anywhere from 50-70% war score and I demand one or two provinces for peace and the AI almost always agrees. It appears that there are many factors that the AI takes into consideration and the relative size (military, economic and physical) of the two countries is of great importance. More so than revolt risk or stability. So adapt your playing style and hopefully Paradox will improve the AI.

Joe

 

[unmerged(12921)]

>Fine. Then let's just consider Imperial Russia circa 1814, only very slightly beyond EU3's time frame (and probably within the time frame of EU3's expansion game). Capital occupied, provinces with well over a 99% war score by EU3 calculation occupied. And they still wouldn't surrender.*

"Circa 1814", the armies of Imperial Russia were marching victoriously through Paris. I think you mean October of 1812..., just before the disasterous retreat from Moscow began.

 

[Vynd]

It seems to me that the biggest problem here is that 99% warscore doesn't mean what it intuitively should. Your enemy is not "99 percent defeated" when you have 99% warscore. This is just one of many areas where the game calls something a percentage but doesn't treat it like one.

 

[unmerged(50629)]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I guess I don't mind the fact that I have to knock out a huge enemy for that enemy to make peace, except:

1. The "99%" apparently means nothing. Why not change the system so you'll only get 99% when you actually take 99% of the enemy's territory? It'd be a lot less confusing.

I agree, it seems that the value of provinces overall needs to come down, the value for winning battles a proportional amount, and the 100% limit remain constant. As it stands 99% is a meaningless number, since 4 provinces of a 20 province superpower can get to that limit. I wish they had the provinces of different values based on the overall size of the nation, like HoI or Victoria does.

2. In the case of Italy attacking a Muslim Qara Koyunlu, I should be able to fully take their territory whether they agree with it or not. I shouldn't have to make "peace" with their unreasonable asses, I should be able to just seize their territory and integrate it. This option is available for pagans...why not extremely low-tech, unstable, tribal-ruled Muslims?

Because you can't seperate out those low tech unstable nations from the religion. The annex = yes section is related only to religion. Also, as super power Qara Koyunlu would not be a low tech unstable nation. Think of it instead as the Ottoman Empire, since that is the comparable size.

 

[Melric]

It seems to me that the biggest problem here is that 99% warscore doesn't mean what it intuitively should. Your enemy is not "99 percent defeated" when you have 99% warscore. This is just one of many areas where the game calls something a percentage but doesn't treat it like one.

And yet, it seems ridiculously easy to vassalize nations once you get that 99% score. They won't cede any land, but they'll capitulate and give you half their income? I've been in some wars with Castille where I quickly gobbled up land that I'd lose in a heart beat once Castille refocused their armies on my front. But if you can hit them with a couple vassalization requests to reduce their stability, they'll end up a vassal when the reality is that they could stomp right over my land.

I don't believe a country should agree to be a vassal unless most of their provinces are occupied.

 

[swilhelm73]

Which is stupid, and the wort way to deal with bad AI. Plus, to be honest I can recall the AI of Vicky as fighting better on land (of course, it had no idea what to do with its navy ), so how come it got worse in EUIII?

One of my bigger disappointments with EU3 is that the combat/strategic AI did not significantly improve. I still believe that war costs, and the AI recognition of war costs, should be increased so that both the player and the AI will have reason to come to terms short of total victory for one side or the other.

And I agree, just making the AI more stubborn is not the answer.