Because it's very weird to see East Frisia unconditionally surrender the League war when it is winning by 40% warscore. (Sorry, Ironman save and I forgot to make a screenshot.)
When exactly would AI countries unconditionally surrender?
- Thread starter iquabakaner
- 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.
I'm not exactly sure if it's unconditional surrender or something else. But I did see several times wars with AI countries suddenly jumped to 100% warscore, when you've occupied their entire country for quite a while but haven't taken out their allies.
After 5 years (I think) allied land is not in the warscore calculation, so if you have them occupied by 100% they will jump to 100% warscore
That seems to make it very easy to game your way to 100% warscore in a league war (which just happened to me), if you just occupy every province of the league leader.
Yup. If you can do it, it works.
Trust me, the (practical) alternatives are worse.
They introduced that AI rule (and enemy land being part of the warscore before 5 years of war) because you could siege down several provinces of a nation weaker than yourself and before enemy allies could help you would peace out. There was almost no risk.
That only tells the story of one step along the way to the current situation
They don't use unconditional surrender. That mechanic was put in after a player in a MP dev game complained that his situation, despite still being better than smaller nations in the same game controlled by other players, was unfair because he got dogpiled and trashed as a large nation. Gutted though his nation was, it was still technically better than simply getting full annexed instantly and no coherent reasoning was ever presented as to why large nations needed additional special protection beyond just being large.
Despite no basis for it, the devs disagreed and thus one of the most overt blob-protector mechanics to make it into EU4 was born.
What OP is observing is the "WL on either side is fully occupied after 5 years = 100% war score" rule. That rule applies to humans and AIs alike, to prevent some ridiculous stalling scenarios.
Despite no basis for it, the devs disagreed and thus one of the most overt blob-protector mechanics to make it into EU4 was born.
What OP is observing is the "WL on either side is fully occupied after 5 years = 100% war score" rule. That rule applies to humans and AIs alike, to prevent some ridiculous stalling scenarios.
And looking at it realistically, if all of your land is occupied by the enemy for five years, you've lost the war.
but what if the rest of your allies are winning the war, and it is a league war?
In MP, If you can gain the upper hand on a huge blob that you're not entirely sure you can take on again, it's much better to siege down the whole country and sit on them until rebels break their country, other countries declare war on them, they go bankrupt etc. etc. etc. Once you have won the war there is next to no downside to doing this, and the player on the receiving end will likely never recover.
Get a white peace and do it again in 5 years while they have spent the entire time just trying to get things under control and fighting off other nations that smelled blood.
Then again.
And again.
It's a true case of the nail that sticks out being hammered.
It's not a great deal of fun to be on the receiving end of, and that is why we have unconditional surrender. It is often much better to just give up 100 WS than let yourself be totally trashed over and over again.
Get a white peace and do it again in 5 years while they have spent the entire time just trying to get things under control and fighting off other nations that smelled blood.
Then again.
And again.
It's a true case of the nail that sticks out being hammered.
It's not a great deal of fun to be on the receiving end of, and that is why we have unconditional surrender. It is often much better to just give up 100 WS than let yourself be totally trashed over and over again.
The situation I was having was that I as Tuscany was fighting along side the Austrian Emperor, and France, Ottomans and the Commonwealth were in the Protestant League. We occupied every province of League leader East Frisia, but were losing basically every battle and was at -40% warscore, and still ticking down. And suddenly the warscore jumped to 100%. So I don't see how East Frisia "have lost the war".
Why is having a occupied nation worse than a game over?
How is unconditionally surrendering protection? Still seems like a loss to me. Just less of a loss not really protection.
If your nation is big enough 100% WS isn't game over, and there are catchup mechanics to help you bounce back. Unconditional surrender ends the war and likely gives you a 15 year truce.
However, if there is no way for the losing side to force peace you can just sit on them until they spawn a million rebels. Eventually the AI countries surrounding them will want a bite. It is also going to force them into heavy, heavy debt. Their land will be devastated. They are likely going bankrupt and it get's worse from there, especially against human players.
Having someone sit on you and basically salt your nation Carthage style is so much worse than just giving up 100 war score, and if they want they can just take 100 warscore after they sit on you anyway.
However, if there is no way for the losing side to force peace you can just sit on them until they spawn a million rebels. Eventually the AI countries surrounding them will want a bite. It is also going to force them into heavy, heavy debt. Their land will be devastated. They are likely going bankrupt and it get's worse from there, especially against human players.
Having someone sit on you and basically salt your nation Carthage style is so much worse than just giving up 100 war score, and if they want they can just take 100 warscore after they sit on you anyway.
Leaving aside the whole "losing 100% WS is not a game over if you are big", it has to be said that being shot in the head is widely regarded as preferable to being tortured to death.
The camping nation does get call for peace, so can't extend the war indefinitely. It is correct that rebels were used to divide the country, then 100% war score was taken. However, that was in accordance with the game's rules and TBH I'm still not seeing why this is worse than just being small.
Basically, this mechanic is a direct statement that your stakes (and the cost of mistakes) should be less as you get larger. There was never coherent justification for it, and still isn't.
I see claims all the time that large countries are too stable or the game is too blobby etc. This mechanic was implemented precisely to better protect those blobs. Losing a war has lower stakes for large nations now than it did prior to the mechanic. Losing a war as a small nation is identical.
That is not a useful analogy. Unconditional surrender provided a kind of shield that can prevent actual death outright.
If a player is so gutted that they think they can't come back there has been recourse since patch 1.0: resign the game (or quit in SP). You don't need a blob protection mechanic to prevent "torture" in a game.
1) This would be horribly exploitable if there are any loop holes whatsoever since AI has a fixed strategy
2) It's already bad at deciding when to make peace
These two things means that having the AI use this feature would cause more damage than not, and game designer has (rightfully) always said no.
2) It's already bad at deciding when to make peace
These two things means that having the AI use this feature would cause more damage than not, and game designer has (rightfully) always said no.
For the AI, if anything would improve its peace logic drastically it isn't unconditional surrender for sure. By far I'd estimate the most bang for buck being to replace "length of war" with factors that, on average, better represent its situation. Length of war sucks the soul out of the AI, especially in AI vs AI wars...but right now it's necessary to get wars to last long enough for territory to actually change hands.