War In EU4
- Thread starter Damedius
- 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.
They made this change years ago. It would be fine if it actually made the AI more difficult to fight, but often it makes wars even easier, while simultaneously becoming more frustrating.
I have been beating this drum for years at this point that the way the AI prosecutes wars is a devilish combination of stupid and annoying. It's slightly improved recently, but still, the AI will often lead your armies on pointless goose chases you have to re-micro every 5 seconds while you carpet siege their country.
I unironically value troop movement speed bonuses pretty highly just for the simple fact that it lets you catch AI armies easier and makes wars less tedious. I wish I was joking.
I have been beating this drum for years at this point that the way the AI prosecutes wars is a devilish combination of stupid and annoying. It's slightly improved recently, but still, the AI will often lead your armies on pointless goose chases you have to re-micro every 5 seconds while you carpet siege their country.
I unironically value troop movement speed bonuses pretty highly just for the simple fact that it lets you catch AI armies easier and makes wars less tedious. I wish I was joking.
- 9
- 7
- 3
If you are ever a nation in India and go colonial colonize Siberia. If you declare on a nation weaker than you they will immediately abandon their country and march up to Siberia to burn down some igloos I guess.
- 5
- 1
- 1
This.
Oh, the joy of playing a horde, it's so fun catching those pesky Muscovite small stacks as they slug through flatlands..
- 2
A board member recently told me he prefers leaving one province to be gobbled up by whoever wants it (or to revisit the nation himself at a later date) because it is actually faster to take the 99% peacedeal than it is to chase down the last remaining army.
I've started doing the same when I am not doing timed achievements. My quality of life has improved.
I've started doing the same when I am not doing timed achievements. My quality of life has improved.
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
- 1
The war in EU IV would have given some amazing scenes IRL. Imagine a peasant from Poitou seeing his field devastated by Ottoman troops, who have the decency to apologize :
- Sorry, Sir, we were chasing Lithuanian soldiers for the conquest of Trebizond.
- No problem, I understand, man.
- Sorry, Sir, we were chasing Lithuanian soldiers for the conquest of Trebizond.
- No problem, I understand, man.
- 8
- 1
Wait, this isnt standard behavior?
I did this even before remnant armies started turning into rebels because not only because it makes the war go faster
but also because it makes the separatist rebels much weaker.
- 4
No. It is counterintuitive to do so.
Depends on the patch. 1.13 until 1.17 you could get 100 WS with full occupation. 1.23 had something similar. The rest I don't know from the top of my head, but it did pop up again.
On the current patch "utterly defeated" triggers a lot faster than on previous patches too.
There's a lot of microchanges that can make full annexation not be much slower than leaving 1 province.
OTOH when "fierce negotiator" got introduced (2015? 2016? It's been so long) you pretty much had to fully occupy the enemy or leave multiple provinces, not just one or two. It was worse to leave them alive than to eradicate their existence.
We are going into the kind of min-maxing territory where it's more esoteric than useful though. One province won't make or break a run.
But it wasn't always faster and there's no guarantee it always will be.
There's a chance I may not understand what you mean.
Rebels spawn based on rebellious development. Leaving him one worthless province decreases the size by an irrelevant amount. Leaving him a province that's worth a lot makes it a bad peacedeal.
Are there any other modifiers I am not aware of that trigger, if the enemy gets fully annexed?
- 1
The biggest logical flaw with war score in this game is that it's almost all based on holding forts. It should be based on occupying development, and the forts should be placed to protect that development. Strategies like deleting all of your forts in Normandy as England so France can't take them for the war score shouldn't exist.
- 13
- 1
Separatist of a dead nation spawn with the tech of the host, separatist of an existing with that nations tech.
I will admit that this was more impactful back when rebel stacks were much bigger.
I dont know what you mean. You always get 100% with full occupation.
The point is that you dont need to do that.
Especialy lategame with imperialism the difference between full annexing a ~15 province nation
in one go vs doing 14+1 is 2 months(siege down the capital) vs a year(and lots of clicks to occupy every province).
In areas like west africa (where the enemy disappears into the sahara tunnels) and north asia (with the gigantic provinces)
its always worth it even if just for my sanity.
Maybe for some, not for me.
I started doing this naturaly because it made sense for multiple reasons.
I'll be bold and assume you didn't do it like this from the get go, but rather transitioned to it. I will assume you _started_ trying to fully annex nations, then moved on to not doing that. I may be wrong, but that idea was the point of my comment. It's counterintuitive to be the winner, but end the war before you have "fully" won. Leaving a province is learned behavior based on game mechanics, but it is not natural to do so.
After all, why should you stop at 98% or 99% when you can get 100%? It doesn't "feel" good.
That's not saying I want it to get changed. It is actually one of the few things I want to continue making players feel bad because I assume it is necessary for AI <> AI interactions to function better/properly.
No and you haven't gotten 100% warscore in peacedeals with only full occupation for a long time now.
You need war exhaustion, length of war modifier and army strength to decrease significantly.
Ahh, yes, I forgot, my bad, thanks for clearing it up.
Last edited:
- 1
Well, obviously. But i did not need anyone to tell me that it might be a good idea.
Am i missing something then?
Full occupation, as in 100% WS not just 99% + enthusiasm, gets you whatever peacedeal you want.
I did this as recent as 2 hours ago.
If i have 99% and i cant get to the one province the enemy occupied in alaska within a month or 2
i leave them with one province and move on to other wars.
And of we are talking lategame and with recent knowledge added you can sometimes even forego that
and use the 3 month window from "making gainz" to overpower "length of war"
to full annex anyway.
I edited/expanded on my comment. I didn't like how aggressive it sounded. Just as an fyi.
And yes, you did, but it wasn't your first instinct. Because it is counterintuitive behavior.
Like how loaning up is normal behavior in EU4 after a while, but the cycle of debt > expansion > debt > expansion is something players have to learn. It is not natural.
Some 100% peacedeals are because you have 100% warscore.
Not every 100% warscore situation gets you a 100% peacedeal.
Fierce Negotiator, low War Exhaustion, ally in war, length of war modifier can all negate that.
It has gotten a lot better on the current patch (the AI can switch to 'utterly defeated' despite controlling troops!) and it's by far not as egregious as it used to be so I won't complain about it, but you can get less than 100% peacedeals with full occupation.
There is only one 100% WS situation in this game.
Everything else is 99% or less.
Just to clarify:
Are we talking about the same "full occupation".
I mean having the game display 100% WS on the war emblem.
In that case there is no enthusiam. You take 100% and click the button. The opponent has no say in the matter.
If you only have 99% WS while fully occupying the enemy then they have an occupation somewhere else.
It does not even need to be in your war. In can be a province in a third party they are also at war with.
It that case yes. Enemy troops, length of war, would result in annexation, fierce negotiator are all there in full force to annoy you.
- 1
the good news is that the beta patch is making the AI actually use more than 2 forts now. The bad news is that this makes these ignore fights siege everything wars even worse.
And honestly with this system big wars are the absolute worst, both sides just build up massive siege teams, mostly ignore each others armies other than catching occasional strays and then race each other on who sieges faster.
Any serious war between Great Powers just devolves into a logistical nightmare, its literally unfun to play out. Not challenging or interesting, tedious and annoying.
And honestly with this system big wars are the absolute worst, both sides just build up massive siege teams, mostly ignore each others armies other than catching occasional strays and then race each other on who sieges faster.
Any serious war between Great Powers just devolves into a logistical nightmare, its literally unfun to play out. Not challenging or interesting, tedious and annoying.
- 6
- 1
- 1
It was about this quote
And the answer is no, you do not get 100% with full occupation.
Yes, having one occupation anywhere suffices, but even less is sufficient.
Taking part in an incomplete blockade is enough to stop a fully occupied enemy from accepting anything.
Again, not complaining about it, just pointing out that it has been ages since full occupation was the only thing you needed for a 100% peacedeal.
Attachments
- 1
It also works if they occupy nothing at all. You can see in the warleader overview that they have 0 warscore. They don't accept a 100% peacedeal either.
100% occupation hasn't sufficed for 100% peacedeals in a loooong time
- 1
You dont have 100% WS in either of these wars.
The only full occupation you have is on the one country you are trying to peace out.
Thats why i wanted to make sure we are talking about the same thing here.
The only full occupation you have is on the one country you are trying to peace out.
Thats why i wanted to make sure we are talking about the same thing here.