Warscore is broken as well

[ErikHeinrichs]

This basicly means that some places are impossible to annex/conquer just because the warscore for one single province is higher than 100%.

I wonder what kind of QA you guys at Paradox have. My quess it's subpar as these kind of things actually break the game as you can't conquer a single province when the warscore is higher than 100%.

 

[SerFishy]

This basicly means that some places are impossible to annex/conquer just because the warscore for one single province is higher than 100%.

I wonder what kind of QA you guys at Paradox have. My quess it's subpar as these kind of things actually break the game as you can't conquer a single province when the warscore is higher than 100%.

I think that perfectly makes sense. What, are you expecting the Ottomans to leave their capitol, Constantinople, for winning against the Timurids?

Foul language removed - Seelmeister

 

[oblio-]

That's their capital and it's not been cut off from the rest of the the rest of the country. Conquer Izmit first. It's not a bug.

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

SerFishy: Well, i do think that my 1.5 million or something like that strong army (vassals and me) and them having all their provinces sieged and 0 army left would kind of tell them "yeah ok, we surrender".

oblio-: It is cut off and Ottomans capital is Dulkadir. Karaman, my vassal, hold Anatolia.


The point is that you can't take a province in a war because they happen to have a temple and a mint in the province so the warscore goes over 100%. The province itself has "only" 17 basetax.

 

[zodium]

You should have posted the thread with a substantially milder tone, since I'm sure people are about to pile in and tell you what an ass you're being given the number of steps you could have taken to foresee and prevent this problem from occurring. Like, you know, "have a claim on the province and CB against the Ottomans."

Please don't confuse this with a defense of the peace offer system, which is objectively awful, but you're being a big baby.

Edit: If you post your savegame, I'll take the province for you and send you the save back as soon as I get home in a week or so to show you it's perfectly possible.

 

[roman566]

That's because the game takes into account trade power of the province. Trade power that is useless 90% of the time, yet we have to 'pay' for it in the peace treaties. To be honest there should be a fixed limit how much province can cost in a peace deal, and I don't mean limit like 100% but something like 33-50% so you can ALWAYS take at least two or three provinces, right now some wars are simply ridiculous.

PS With WS that high it's impossible to annex OE as the cost of it's provinces is above 100%

 

[Xara]

You should try having a claim on it, for one thing

 

[Anthropoid]

.. . right now some wars are simply ridiculous. . .

Most of the wars during the period were "ridiculous." If you want to always be able to take two or three provinces, you are playing the wrong game.

 

[dstarsboy]

Capitals are usually difficult to take unless they're the only thing left... doubly so for one of the largest capitals in the game. Just peel off their other provinces first.

 

[roman566]

Most of the wars during the period were "ridiculous." If you want to always be able to take two or three provinces, you are playing the wrong game.

Yes, but those wars ended after couple battles and sieges, you did not have to carpet siege the entire France, wipe out their armies and drive their WE up to get TWO provinces, such outcome in EU is actually quite normal.

 

[Anthropoid]

Yes, but those wars ended after couple battles and sieges, you did not have to carpet siege the entire France, wipe out their armies and drive their WE up to get TWO provinces, such outcome in EU is actually quite normal.

I don't have exhaustive knowledge of the period, so I cannot say what proportion of wars were short and simple as you describe. However some very famous wars during the period (100 years war, 30 years war, 80 years war) lasted a long time, involved nearly every power in Europe at one point or another, bankrupted many nations, depopulated whole regions and were seemingly nearly as great a scourge on land as WWI and resulted in rather minor exchanges of territory afterwards. That is what I meant by ridiculous.

I agree that destroying all of the AIs regiments and sieging all of his provinces in order to get him to some of the wargoals that require 100% seems a bit gamey. But I don't think it is 'broken' nor even bad design. In order to take things from the AI, he has to be soundly beaten. You can often easily take 2 provinces for 50% WS, sometimes even less. You can easily rackup 50% WS just from battles and occupying two or three provinces.

 

[dgrane]

This is why I don't play ironman. Being able to use yesman is crucial to me not getting frustrated over a wargoal that's at 102 and so completely impossible.

Nothing like declaring war to vassalize someone and then discovering its impossible since they have 1 too many basetax

 

[mcmanusaur]

I think that perfectly makes sense. What, are you expecting the Ottomans to leave their capitol, Constantinople, for winning against the Timurids?

Foul language removed - Seelmeister

At this point it's a little late for them to have an opinion about the possibility of losing their capital, as they've already lost the war and have no means of preventing their capital from being taken.

But zodium puts it accurately: no matter how many workarounds there are, the warscore system is objectively awful.

I don't have exhaustive knowledge of the period, so I cannot say what proportion of wars were short and simple as you describe. However some very famous wars during the period (100 years war, 30 years war, 80 years war) lasted a long time, involved nearly every power in Europe at one point or another, bankrupted many nations, depopulated whole regions and were seemingly nearly as great a scourge on land as WWI and resulted in rather minor exchanges of territory afterwards.

That is because those wars were pretty much evenly contested (or perhaps because in some cases unexpected external circumstances forced the winning power to shift priorities), which hardly pertains to the problem wars in EU4. In EU4 you can literally siege and occupy a whole country and eradicate every last soldier of the enemy army, and you only have a small fraction of the negotiation power to show for it, all so that the country can unrealistically bounce back in five years when the truce expires. To me, that reeks of a multiplayer-oriented balance decision, and it's really unfortunate.

Personally I think war (and specifically occupation of enemy territory) should be made a fair bit more expensive, but there shouldn't be any artificially restrictive mechanics that you keep you from conquering within your means.

 

[Calad]

You should have posted the thread with a substantially milder tone, since I'm sure people are about to pile in and tell you what an ass you're being given the number of steps you could have taken to foresee and prevent this problem from occurring. Like, you know, "have a claim on the province and CB against the Ottomans."

Please don't confuse this with a defense of the peace offer system, which is objectively awful, but you're being a big baby.

Edit: If you post your savegame, I'll take the province for you and send you the save back as soon as I get home in a week or so to show you it's perfectly possible.

Nope. Game simply is broken and stupidly designed and you dont need to say it nicely. Most of defenders are rather retard, they defend what ever crazy happens in game and when paradox fix it they tell how wonderful chances are.

 

[Novacat]

That's their capital and it's not been cut off from the rest of the the rest of the country. Conquer Izmit first. It's not a bug.

Um, look at the screenshot again, all of Turkey is under him except for Constintanople and far east Anatolia. If the capital was not isolated it would not even be available for selection. A single province having more than 100% warscore cost is not unrealistic considering its not unusual for Constinantople to get close to 20 basetax, and it only takes roughly 15 basetax to hit 100%.

Provinces cost rediculous amounts of warscore.

 

[GamingHUD]

You should try having a claim on it, for one thing

This.

And using proper CB.

 

[zodium]

Most of defenders are rather retard

I'm going to take the opportunity here to do something I've been meaning to do for a while, which is to coin Zodium's Law of Intellectual Irony: One cannot deride the intellect of another over the Internet without, inadvertently or otherwise, appearing to be a complete idiot.

 

[Anthropoid]

In EU4 you can literally siege and occupy a whole country and eradicate every last soldier of the enemy army, and you only have a small fraction of the negotiation power to show for it, all so that the country can unrealistically bounce back in five years when the truce expires.

Lets stop and consider here what "occupying" a province really means, or at least is LIKELY to "mean."

First off we should note that many provinces in the game are enormous. Many probably include two to three major towns, if not two or more full fledged cities. This would also mean multiple castles or other fortifications, half-dozen or more villages, as well as agricultural, mining and foresting/hunting outposts. The forces involved in "sieging a province" can be as small as two thousand soldiers.

Obviously "occupying" a province does not mean, nah CANNOT mean, either (a) occupying all of the settlements and installations in the province, nor even (b) driving the enemy out of every one of them, much less (c) destroying all of them or (d) killing all of them.

These points are corroborated by the fact that, rebels fighting to liberate the province, can spontaneously spawn in a province that the player has "occupied."

In sum, you are taking things too literally if you think that "occupying" a province in game terms means that that province is completely and totally pacified, all possible combatants eliminated, all communities fully occupied and garrisoned, etc., etc.

What occupying a province is probably meant to mean is that one or perhaps two key strategic forts or perhaps towns have been besieged, causing some damage and death, and eventually the defenders of those settlements/installations surrender. The town in question likely still harbors would be rebels, to say nothing of all the other towns, castles, forts, etc. that any given province is likely to comprise. By taking control of one or two strategic points, the attacker has "occupied" the province, and can begin the process of garrisoning it enough to properly resist efforts to take it back.

To me, that reeks of a multiplayer-oriented balance decision, and it's really unfortunate.

"Reeks?" LOL bit over the top Sheeze, so they make sure after they've designed the game that none of the elements are unbalanced in MP play.

Personally I think war (and specifically occupation of enemy territory) should be made a fair bit more expensive, but there shouldn't be any artificially restrictive mechanics that you keep you from conquering within your means.

Wouldn't necessarily disagree, and these are some things that mods can address.

 

[Novacat]

Obviously "occupying" a province does not mean, nah CANNOT mean, either (a) occupying all of the settlements and installations in the province, nor even (b) driving the enemy out of every one of them, much less (c) destroying all of them or (d) killing all of them.

If you have a big and well orgnized force, it very well can mean this. Especially if your willing to burn a few villiages of resisters. The Mongols were very, very effective at this, which is primarily why they had Europe so terrified of them.

Wouldn't necessarily disagree, and these are some things that mods can address.

Mods can only address up to a point... a lot of the game is hardcoded.

 

[Anthropoid]

If you have a big and well orgnized force, it very well can mean this. Especially if your willing to burn a few villiages of resisters. The Mongols were very, very effective at this, which is primarily why they had Europe so terrified of them.

In real history, of course. Cities were sacked, regions were decimated. But in game, all we have is "looting" "scorching" and "occupying." We don't get the option to devote the time and energy to fully driving the enemy out of every single nook and cranny in a province.

The point being that, the game does not actually "let you" achieve the 'total victory' that most guys who feel the Warscore system is broken seem to think they have achieved when they have destroyed all of the target countries regiments and occupied all of his provinces. While it might be nice if it was possible to engage in total war, it isn't unreasonable that it is not an option in a game like EU4.

When you've got them at 100% Warscore they are not utterly crushed, with no possibility to turn the tide. They still have the capacity to engage in diplomacy, they still gather a small amount of tax from the provinces you have occupied, and if rebels spawn they can even 'take back' provinces. This combined with the fact that they can engage in diplomacy means that a nation at 100% WS is hardly the helpless totally defeated entity that one might think.

All of which is superficial and abstract, but then it is a game.