War system historically correct?

[Duman]

Hello I have one question. Lately I had this problem and it made me think about how this situation would look like in history.

As Ottomans, I have claim on Trebizond, which is province of Trebizond. I am declaring war on them.

When we think historically, this is not a big issue for Ottomans huh? Have tons of advantage agaisnt this little country. But in game, HELL NO.

Trebizond's independence has been guaranteed by Georgia. Georgia is an Ally of Muscovy. So when I declare war on this little country Muscovy becames a war leader and I have to go all the way north and capture the f- Muscovy to take one little neighbouring province as Ottomans.

How we should think of it?

Ottoman Sultan : I am declaring war on Trebizond, which is my neighbour province and they are also infidel so I dont need too much reasons to invade anyway.
King of Trebizond : Awwww , but wait a second, I will call my friend!
King of Georgia : Man I was guaranteeing their independency so you have to fight with me if you want Trebizond!
Ottoman : Well okay, as far as you are also in my geographical sphere and you are neighbour of Trebizond, that makes sense, lets fight then.
Knyaz of Muscovy the douchebag : Ah my ally Georgia you are in trouble? So I am joining to war and becoming a warleader so if those Ottomans want Trebizond they should negotiate with me. If their armies couldnt handle the winter of Russia then they have no right in Trebizond. Who whould invade Russia to conquer Trebizond anyway?

When we historically think Ottoman Sultan wouldnt negoitate at all, if you conquer the Trebizond and if your flag stays there and Trebizond gets destroyed then it makes you owner of this province. But in game, instead of this you have to beg to Muscovy to take Trebizond

Same thing happened in my England game, when I declared war on Scotland Sweden joined to war. So I had to invade Scandinavia to make Scotland my vassal.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

Hello I have one question. Lately I had this problem and it made me think about how this situation would look like in history.

As Ottomans, I have claim on Trebizond, which is province of Trebizond. I am declaring war on them.

When we think historically, this is not a big issue for Ottomans huh? Have tons of advantage agaisnt this little country. But in game, HELL NO.

Trebizond's independence has been guaranteed by Georgia. Georgia is an Ally of Muscovy. So when I declare war on this little country Muscovy becames a war leader and I have to go all the way north and capture the f- Muscovy to take one little neighbouring province as Ottomans.

How we should think of it?

Ottoman Sultan : I am declaring war on Trebizond, which is my neighbour province and they are also infidel so I dont need too much reasons to invade anyway.
King of Trebizond : Awwww , but wait a second, I will call my friend!
King of Georgia : Man I was guaranteeing their independency so you have to fight with me if you want Trebizond!
Ottoman : Well okay, as far you are also in my geographical sphere, that makes sense, lets fight then.
Knyaz of Muscovy the douchebag : Ah my ally Georgia you are in trouble? So I am joining to war and becoming a warleader so if those Ottomans want Trebizond they should negotiate with me. If their armies couldnt handle the winter of Russia then they have no right in Trebizond. Who whould invade Russia to conquer Trebizond anyway?

When we historically think Ottoman Sultan wouldnt negoitate at all, if you conquer the Trebizond and if your flag stays there and Trebizond gets destroyed then it makes you owner of this province. But in game, instead of this you have to beg to Muscovy to take Trebizond

Same thing happened in my England game, when I declared war on Scotland Sweden joined to war. So I had to invade Scandinavia to make Scotland my vassal.

Conquering Trebizond and fighting battles should give you enough war score to demand peace though.

 

[Duman]

But my point is wanting Trebizond from Muscovy. Or lets say negotiating with Muscovy at all

 

[Greyhind]

WWI was pulling new countries in months after that tiny little region was attacked. Austria tried to annex Serbia which pulled in the Ottomans which pulled in...

WWII was started after Britain guarantied Poland and was allied to France which caused...

If you are taking about the distance between countries making for example Russia Vs Ottomans rarer in real life then all I can say is that the game mimics this. Russia usually doesn't care what France does until late game when blobbing and colonising have made the game smaller.

 

[Duman]

You are aware of you are talking the time periods over 1900 right? Every country has info of each other and also relationships etc. When you declare war on any little country it can trigger tons of different issues in 1900. But not in 1400.

I am talking about the game, starts at 1444. In this time period that would be like :

Trebizond : Well bro you declared war on me but Georgia is guaranteeing me and Muscovy is his ally and he is so stronk so you have to negotiate with Muscovy. Even you conquer me entirely you have to make Muscovy say " OKAY " to take this land
Ottomans : Mus what?

Just dont try to make game more logically to have fun from it. This makes no sense at all, Ottomans-Trebizond-Muscovy triangle is just one example there are tons of different situations are possible for this.

 

[GC13]

Well, since holding on to territory (and benefiting from it in the first place) is really easy once you have it, the game has to make it hard for you to acquire territory in order to make blobbing hard. If you had to station troops in provinces to keep rebels from prying the countryside out of your control, and if the province could easily cost more to keep than it brings in, then maybe these silly situations wouldn't occur.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

But my point is wanting Trebizond from Muscovy. Or lets say negotiating with Muscovy at all

Don't have any problems with it personally. They're all Orthodox so it makes sense for Muscovy to look out for their interests.

 

[Korashy]

If you are using Holy War you should be able to annex anyone no matter the cascading alliances (since there is no stated war goal, you can negotiate with the original war target, even tho they are no longer war leader, meaning they can be peaced out separately). That is why "superiority type" are the best casus belli in the game in my opinion.

 

[Greyhind]

You are aware of you are talking the time periods over 1900 right? Every country has info of each other and also relationships etc. When you declare war on any little country it can trigger tons of different issues in 1900. But not in 1400.

Well alright those weren't the best examples but the seven years' war is in the games time frame and involved geographically everyone from Portugal to Russia and all their colonies and vassels too. Religiously it involved the Muslims Murghals as well as various Christian sects.

 

[Jalex]

Well alright those weren't the best examples but the seven years' war is in the games time frame and involved geographically everyone from Portugal to Russia and all their colonies and vassels too. Religiously it involved the Muslims Murghals as well as various Christian sects.

The Seven Years War was the result of two enormous alliance blocs going to war, in the mid 1750's, when technology and development had shrunk the world considerably from 1444. Let's use what actually happened in regards to Georgia and Moscowy when Trebizond was invaded in real life: nothing.

Another example of the silly war negotiation mechanics would be Britain and invading Ireland. Burgundy was allied with one of the minor states and became war leader. After blockading the Burgundian coast and occupying the Irishi province, I can't annex them because they aren't the warleader and Burgundy doesn't want to make peace. Nice.

 

[Viking]

Never ever declare war on your actual war goal. Always declare war on the ally of your war goal. In that way you can make a separate peace.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

The Seven Years War was the result of two enormous alliance blocs going to war, in the mid 1750's, when technology and development had shrunk the world considerably from 1444. Let's use what actually happened in regards to Georgia and Moscowy when Trebizond was invaded in real life: nothing.

Another example of the silly war negotiation mechanics would be Britain and invading Ireland. Burgundy was allied with one of the minor states and became war leader. After blockading the Burgundian coast and occupying the Irishi province, I can't annex them because they aren't the warleader and Burgundy doesn't want to make peace. Nice.

Not sure how the real-life annexation of Trebizond is relevant here. Do you have evidence that Georgia and Muscovy were allies? (I'm assuming the Georgian guarantee on Trebizond is historical since it exists at the 1444 start date)

Don't think your historical reality argument against the wargoal system works here at all...

 

[Rabid]

Yes this system is a very flawed and ineffective (and exploitable, though the AI doesn't try to do so) one which only really serves to punish the player for not using gamey workarounds in order to be able to reasonably achieve war goals. You should always be able to make peace with a fully occupied country.

Don't think your historical reality argument against the wargoal system works here at all...

His example may not have been the best but it's insane that you will frequently end up at war with countries hundreds of miles away and have to negotiate with them in order to annex an OPM that you border. The annexation should be a fiat accompli once you occupy the province and have the OPM's army destroyed, if anyone else involved in that war wants things to go back to status quo then they should have to come over and make you do something about it.

I suppose faster / more significant ticking WS would also help this problem a bit, at least then it wouldn't take years and years to get enough WS to demand peace when no fighting is happening.

 

[S0ny B1ack]

Yes this system is a very flawed and ineffective (and exploitable, though the AI doesn't try to do so) one which only really serves to punish the player for not using gamey workarounds in order to be able to reasonably achieve war goals. You should always be able to make peace with a fully occupied country.



His example may not have been the best but it's insane that you will frequently end up at war with countries hundreds of miles away and have to negotiate with them in order to annex an OPM that you border. The annexation should be a fiat accompli once you occupy the province and have the OPM's army destroyed, if anyone else involved in that war wants things to go back to status quo then they should have to come over and make you do something about it.

I suppose faster / more significant ticking WS would also help this problem a bit, at least then it wouldn't take years and years to get enough WS to demand peace when no fighting is happening.

Maybe there could be a special "peace deal" for such cases (war for a small country which gets defended by big friends) where you could force the annexion (for example after you have all their provinces occupied and defeated all their armies for a certain time) but all the defenders of the small country get a CB which would allow them to reliberate it later?

 

[Arizal]

I often thought I would like that if having the actual possession of a province was enough to administrate it. Then, truces would exist (and perhaps with a modulable lenght) and until a province is officially ceded to the occupying country, the two of them would be at war. That would be more accurate, I think.

 

[SheaferDaDawg]

Personally, I would like it if occupying a province for x years resulted in annexation in exchange for admin.

 

[El Jojo]

It's even worse when you end up with a warleader you did not know existed. As Venice I discovered Najd because somehow they became warleader, so I was supposed to negociate with a country I had no idea existed before the war and had no way of reaching since there was a lot of terra incognita between me and them.

In victoria 2 you can annex a country if you completely occupy it, and then the opposed warleader automatically gets a new wargoal (in the same war) which liberate XXX, but now the ticking warscore works against them and meanwhile you do get the province

 

[Matrim_Cauthon]

Just invade Trebizond and wait. The ticking war-score, plus the modififer for how the long the war has lasted, should give you enough warscore to actually win the province through negotiations some years after the war started. Most wars of these time period lasted a loooooooong time, most of which was either sieging or not admitting that the war was over.

England took a long while to admit it has lost most of its continental possessions to France in the 100 year war.

 

[Bonafide]

I always find it hilarious that nations manages to contact each other and react and send help within at most a month when something happens. In the case of Ottomans attacking Trebizond and thus involving Muscowy in the war within a couple of days feels slightly off. I think it could've been cool if it took some time to call for help and then get it, but I guess that would ruin the alliance system and such.

 

[lukesilveira]

Never ever declare war on your actual war goal. Always declare war on the ally of your war goal. In that way you can make a separate peace.

This. It doesn't make sense, you are forced to declare war to an enemy's ally if you want to demand something from your original target, but you can't do the same thing if you dow the target itself! It's ridiculous.

Let's say, if he dowed Georgia (assuming Trebizond was in the alliance and not just being guaranteed) he could annex Trebizond sooner than later.