War system historically correct?

[1alexey]

The game already has far too easy expansion, since all provinces only provide you with wealth and manpower, and rarely drain any.

The "peace with war leader" was intentionally introduced to make alliances to meter more. If the game had as inflexible wargoal system as Victoria 2, there could be Victoria 2`s situation where you can annex the country as soon as you occupy all provinces, and if it has allies fighting, their wargoal becomes to free the country from you. But it is much harder to achieve that in EU4.

 

[Anthropoid]

No matter how imperfect the game may be, all of these complaints really boil down to wanting/intending/resulting in directing changes in one overall direction: make the game easier for the player.

In that sense I disagree. The game is already pretty easy. Making it easier will not make it more fun or interesting.

 

[Chevaresqye]

No matter how imperfect the game may be, all of these complaints really boil down to wanting/intending/resulting in directing changes in one overall direction: make the game easier for the player.

In that sense I disagree. The game is already pretty easy. Making it easier will not make it more fun or interesting.

As long as the change make the game more tolerable. As long as all the frustrating issue of the game is removed, the game will be more fun and interesting. Difficulty has nothing to do with the fun of this game.

 

[lukesilveira]

As long as the change make the game more tolerable. As long as all the frustrating issue of the game is removed, the game will be more fun and interesting. Difficulty has nothing to do with the fun of this game.

Exactly. What is supposed to balance your game should feel natural, not a deliberate and rude way to hinder your efforts.

 

[GC13]

The game already has far too easy expansion, since all provinces only provide you with wealth and manpower, and rarely drain any.

And any attempt to reduce blobbing that doesn't impact this will be thoroughly convoluted and therefore unsatisfying.

 

[JacquesLeChien]

I think there should be a second warscore that ticks faster after you have occupied all of the wargoal's territory. This warscore would not be able to make any demands from the leader except taking territories from the wargoal (i.e. you wouldn't be able to take Trebizond and after a little while demand $$ from Muscovy, but if Muscovy could not free their ally and/or inflict damage on you, they would accept letting you have Trebizond's territories - all this faster than the natural warscore regular ticking). Maybe a prestigy hit to the warleader in order to keep him interested in freeing their dudes.

 

[JacquesLeChien]

And while I agree that blobbing should be harder, measures to prevent it should come from other sources. Making England sail to Sweden in order to take Ireland is not a clever way of making expansion challenging.

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

It's working as intended. EU4 is a multiplayer game and balance issues are solely designed around multiplayer (paraphrasing the devs).

 

[Chevaresqye]

It's working as intended. EU4 is a multiplayer game and balance issues are solely designed around multiplayer (paraphrasing the devs).

It is not a balance issue since the rule apply to everyone. Fixing the war score problem will make war more logical and improve multiplayer as well.

 

[diceyy]

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.

WW1 and WW2 didn't happen in the 15th century.


A way to limit these situations would be to make it so the war leadership can only change once. So even if georgia still calls in muscovy the fight takes place in georgia.

It kind of irritates me when I'm on the other side of this too. I was playing france earlier and every 10 years algiers would declare on genoa over corsica or sardinia. Austria steps in to defend genoa and calls to arms me. Somehow I end up with war leader every time despite not giving a damn about genoa.

 

[Duman]

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.

Exactly. This is my point.

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.

And that makes the war system in game unrealistic. I mean if we were writing AAR how we would explain the situation? As England we want to conquer Munster but Munster is ally with Burgundy and Connacht, so we are declaring war on Connacht who has no any strong ally and if Munster joins to war that wont make him war leader so Burgundy wont join. This is what we call " gamey " I think.

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...

Well this is what exactly happened in my game. I didn't attack Trebizond cuz I saw Georgia guaranteeing them and they are ally with Muscovy. A little bit later Georgia went into war with Kazan, probably it was war between Kazan-Muscovy and Muscovy called Georgia into it.

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.

Exactly.

 

[Duman]

And while I agree that blobbing should be harder, measures to prevent it should come from other sources. Making England sail to Sweden in order to take Ireland is not a clever way of making expansion challenging.

+1


I believe thinking historically would solve the problem.

Ottoman-Trebizond-Muscovy
England-Irish State-Burgundy
England-Scotland-Sweden

These are all just examples.

I also dont want to "blobbing" easier that wouldnt be cool while we are seeing people trying to unlock " Jihad " Achievement.

But this system is not logical and it should be CHANGED.

We always talked about 1444 situation. What if in 1700s Muscovy does its classical blobbing and becames Russia? All the way to Kamchatka?

These style of war system should be integrated in Europe mid-1800s maybe. I am okay with coalitions when we think about Ottomans there were always coalitions against them and they became succesfull at the end. But this coalition should have the countries which is neighbour or in sphere of Ottomans.

COALITION SYSTEM

Also there could be 2 different coalitions. Why just one?

Lets think about Ottomans again.

While you are fightning in West, you are keeping expanding in East. You are reaching to Indian border, lets say Muslim states who hasnt any Muslim population already overthrowned so all India is enemy of Ottomans. There is no need to talk about Catholics in Europe.

So these states creating a coalition.

Why it should be integrated to each other? What if Europeans still had no idea about where exactly India is?

I want to see " Indian League against the Ottomans " and " Holy League agaisnt the Ottomans "

ALSO, REBEL SYSTEM

I want to talk about rebel system.

Why they have equal power as my armies do?

In my opinion, rebels shouldnt have organised army UNLESS any other country supports them.

If England supports any rebels in Ottoman lands I want to see English-tech-level weapons on this army.

If no one supports them Ottomans should have crash this army EASILY.

Not because they are landed in mountain I should lose.

TECH SUPPORT SYSTEM

There should be technological support between allies, like these war subsidiary thing but you are giving your technology " JUST FOR THE WAR "

This is what happened between England and Ottomans while Ottomans were fightning with Napoleon in Egypt.

Ottomans defeated Napoleon's army with English weapons cuz their technology were already bad..

 

[Rabid]

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?

It actually works just like this in V2. Larger allies of minors forced to cede provinces get a special "restore status quo" war goal which they can enforce.