Unlosable sieges should already count a won

[t6.28]

I'm sure you all know that: You have decisively defeated the enemy army, occupy most of the provinces, but still need to unnecessarily wait for a few last sieges to finish to get what you want in a peace deal.

Since it would be advantageous for both countries (saving you manpower and time and them war exhaustion) I think it would be a good idea to have sieges that are almost impossible to lose already count as won (or at least already give you part of the warscore).

Maybe you could even have provinces under siege give you warscore based on the likeliness of them succeeding: If the enemy has no army left and all of his provinces are either occupied or under siege, still active sieges could give you all their warscore. If the enemy has no army left (or only a very tiny army) but still some free provinces, they could give half their warscore and otherwise they might give 1/4 of their warscore.

 

[londoner247]

But that high war exhaustion that they have will be removed if you demand a lot in the peace deal so they aren't as keen as you are to give up because the benefit to them is marginal.

Add to that the fact that high war exhaustion increases revolt risk and there is a chance that your sieges could fail if enemy rebels spawn in large enough numbers to kill your siege stacks.

Also bear in mind that those sieges are using up your manpower making you more vulnerable to attacks from other countries. This might mean that you need to peace out before you have 100% to avoid becoming too weak to defend yourself.

I'm not saying that the current system is perfect but I think the changes you have in mind are too favourable to the aggressor and would potentially unbalance the game.

 

[alertiu5]

As a country can get help in defensive war in any moment now if they secure a new alliance or their ally frees from another war (highly unlikely if its warscore is very low, but still).

For example, in my last run as Wallachia -> Romania I tried to force a union over Hungary. Both me and France were allied to Hungary and me+France were engaged vs Venice so they wouldn't help Hungary until a war with Venice ends. So I went to occupy almost whole Hungary and killed their forces with like 4-5 provinces left for them and no army. Then France concluded the war with Venice and came to their help. War ended with me having -99% warscore (foolish me, I though i will be fast enough to kill Hungary).

If your suggestions were implemented, I would have like 90% warscore instead of 40% or so I had (had Pest, capital, siege in progress) and would be able to enforce union in that war and not 100 years later. But despite that, I don't really think a player needs even faster way to win wars.

 

[ShadowCammy]

It makes sense. In real life, if defeat was 100% clear a nation would give up and submit to the victor, to save their people and what's left of their nation.

Think of it like this:
You're at war with a nation. Within a year, their army is gone, they have no manpower, but only a quarter of their nation is sieged, not including most of their forts. You try to take provinces, but they are like "Eh, this war isn't long enough." or "that one fort by the province you want hasn't been taken. We're almost 100% defeated and you could come take the rest of my nation within the 6 months but nope you can't have that yet."

It's common sense to give up when you've been defeated. If it was happening to you, you'd probably want to give them what they want so your nation doesn't get entirely crushed and you're crippled for years.

 

[Jomini]

But that high war exhaustion that they have will be removed if you demand a lot in the peace deal so they aren't as keen as you are to give up because the benefit to them is marginal.

Add to that the fact that high war exhaustion increases revolt risk and there is a chance that your sieges could fail if enemy rebels spawn in large enough numbers to kill your siege stacks.

Also bear in mind that those sieges are using up your manpower making you more vulnerable to attacks from other countries. This might mean that you need to peace out before you have 100% to avoid becoming too weak to defend yourself.

I'm not saying that the current system is perfect but I think the changes you have in mind are too favourable to the aggressor and would potentially unbalance the game.

You do realize that it is a WC strategy to farm WE on an AI until rebels break the place into a bunch of small pathetic statelets, right? And that other AIs are massive vultures who go after dead-ender AIs to pick over the corpse? In no universe is it wise for a defeated AI (e.g. that a human player would recognize objectively as defeated) to keep fighting to raise costs; yes you can suck down manpower, but the risk is far, far higher for the defender here.

Now Wiz has said that he errs on the side of caution. It is hard to give the AI a really good measure of is it losing, but giving a something significant for currently sieging, and sieges in progress is vital to the AI. 90% of resources in the game are spent on AI-AI wars and making war expensive means there are ever less resources to throw at the player.

 

[londoner247]

You do realize that it is a WC strategy to farm WE on an AI until rebels break the place into a bunch of small pathetic statelets, right? And that other AIs are massive vultures who go after dead-ender AIs to pick over the corpse? In no universe is it wise for a defeated AI (e.g. that a human player would recognize objectively as defeated) to keep fighting to raise costs; yes you can suck down manpower, but the risk is far, far higher for the defender here.

Now Wiz has said that he errs on the side of caution. It is hard to give the AI a really good measure of is it losing, but giving a something significant for currently sieging, and sieges in progress is vital to the AI. 90% of resources in the game are spent on AI-AI wars and making war expensive means there are ever less resources to throw at the player.

Not sure what point you're making here with the WC strategy. After all, the player who is trying that wouldn't take advantage of the OPs suggestion of higher wars score without sieges having finished because that player still wants to push the war exhaustion up to 20.

In circumstances where the AI is clearly beaten (such as an OPM whose army has been stack wiped, whose single province is under siege by a doom stack and who has no allies in the war) then I agree with the OPs initial sentiment that it would be nice to be able to end that war quickly but for the majority of wars in game I think that they have the balance about right.

They already have modifiers for provinces under siege and if you want less than full annexation you can now normally get your deal much earlier than in previous versions. All in all, I think the balance is right but I know others want to finish their wars faster.

 

[t6.28]

As a country can get help in defensive war in any moment now if they secure a new alliance or their ally frees from another war (highly unlikely if its warscore is very low, but still).

Isn't there a mechanic stopping you from calling in new allies, after the war has been going on for some time? Also, doesn't the AI get a -1000 modifier to joining, if the warscore is lower than -25?

 

[Jomini]

Not sure what point you're making here with the WC strategy. After all, the player who is trying that wouldn't take advantage of the OPs suggestion of higher wars score without sieges having finished because that player still wants to push the war exhaustion up to 20.

In circumstances where the AI is clearly beaten (such as an OPM whose army has been stack wiped, whose single province is under siege by a doom stack and who has no allies in the war) then I agree with the OPs initial sentiment that it would be nice to be able to end that war quickly but for the majority of wars in game I think that they have the balance about right.

They already have modifiers for provinces under siege and if you want less than full annexation you can now normally get your deal much earlier than in previous versions. All in all, I think the balance is right but I know others want to finish their wars faster.

My point is, everyone worries about piddling things making conquest too easy and bends over backwards to say the current setup somehow makes sense because it slows blobbing. This is nonsensical, the current setup makes WC easier - AIs spend the vast majority of their resources on AI-AI wars and dead-ending there is a net win for the player (oh Burgundy and France just generated 30 WE between them, burnt off all their manpower, and have 5 loans each; guess it is time for England to expand).

Now maybe somebody might be able to expand a bit faster if the early game weren't a perpetual slog to the death; on the other hand the mid-late game would be a lot longer because fewer AIs would be backwards shriveled corpses with no manpower just waiting to be snapped up. Exactly the setup the poster says slows conquest is what speeds up conquest in the mid-late game if you are seriously blobbing. Most players don't notice how AI-AI fights pan out, so I talk in terms of the human at extremis in order to illustrate the point. Dead ending results in very high chances of spawning rebellions (more dangerous to the AI than most invasions), vulturing by other AIs, massive point burn, long term manpower depletion, and possibly bankruptcy.

The current setup exists because the AI has a really hard time knowing when it has lost so Wiz elected to err on the side of the AI not giving in too soon. If we had an AI that knew (to say poor human level) when it lost, it would always peace out long before it does. Despite the many things about rebels and the like, reality is that the AI behavior is just a reflection of limited ability - not indicative of any useful strategy.

 

[lolada]

Nop, bad suggestion. nothing is lost until there's a soldier standing, never give up -_-.

This suggestion would open 99 cheesy tactics the first day..

 

[Maq]

I would suggest not to forget the historical aspect. Indeed, some wars were decided in open battles, but significant part of all warfare until the very end of 18th century consisted of sieges. Winning time and enemy's attrition plus enormous war costs were all important factors, often very successful.
I have read about some wars in India which were essentially restricted to sieging one single fortress - and it lasted years. Obviously, both participants considered controlling the fortress decisive for the outcome of the whole war.

 

[Jomini]

I would suggest not to forget the historical aspect. Indeed, some wars were decided in open battles, but significant part of all warfare until the very end of 18th century consisted of sieges. Winning time and enemy's attrition plus enormous war costs were all important factors, often very successful.
I have read about some wars in India which were essentially restricted to sieging one single fortress - and it lasted years. Obviously, both participants considered controlling the fortress decisive for the outcome of the whole war.

Actually no, most wars were decided by a small number of battles. The wars that dragged on after major losses are notable because they are the exception. Most states never committed anything near their full military might to any one war. If they lost a major battle, the forts typically fell in short succession and states often went to the peace table long before the last soldier died. For instance, Blenheim resulted in all of Bavaria and the French fortifications on the Rhine and Moselle being overrun in about four months.

After Waterloo, France fell in spite of every fort being intact.

Historical states regarded forts as important if they impeded major waterways and sieged them accordingly. However a state without an army gained little by hiding behind the forts unless they could raise another - sieges were extremely expensive to the defender even if they held out. The countryside would be devastated if nothing worse. If you couldn't realistically raise a new force, then you normally went straight to the negotiating table - you won't dead end and wrack up bills for the other guy, he gets less despoiled territory, and neither of you becomes easy prey to third parties.

 

[Maq]

Actually no, most wars were decided by a small number of battles. The wars that dragged on after major losses are notable because they are the exception. Most states never committed anything near their full military might to any one war. If they lost a major battle, the forts typically fell in short succession and states often went to the peace table long before the last soldier died. For instance, Blenheim resulted in all of Bavaria and the French fortifications on the Rhine and Moselle being overrun in about four months.

After Waterloo, France fell in spite of every fort being intact.

Historical states regarded forts as important if they impeded major waterways and sieged them accordingly. However a state without an army gained little by hiding behind the forts unless they could raise another - sieges were extremely expensive to the defender even if they held out. The countryside would be devastated if nothing worse. If you couldn't realistically raise a new force, then you normally went straight to the negotiating table - you won't dead end and wrack up bills for the other guy, he gets less despoiled territory, and neither of you becomes easy prey to third parties.

I quite agree, as far as the late game is concerned. Let's say from Thirty Years War on. Before that, I believe my point is more relevant.