Why do I have to besiege a country's province to get white peace?

[wetblowdryer]

I'll make this quick:

I was playing as Ottomans. I declared war on the Mamluks naturally who were allied to Persia that owns less land than modern-day Iran and has a measly army of around 15,000. I have an army of around 80,000 men with over +100,000 manpower. I outnumbered that whole alliance by about 3:1. The Persians SOMEHOW think it's a good idea to suicide attack my army with their 15,000 men against my 25,000 men army. Not only are they outnumbered, but I have a better leader and I am about 3 or 4 tech levels ahead of them. I eventually COMPLETELY destroy that army. They are left with a total army of around 3,000 men that are scattered and I cannot get a white peace with them (negotiating by themselves) despite completely raping their army and leaving their manpower reserves almost dry.

Why?

 

[Xara]

Because they start with war enthusiasm that slowly erodes over time.

If you destroyed their army, what do you need to peace them out separately for, if you aren't interested in their lands (yet)? Just focus on the threat. It's not like Persia would be hampering you in that scenario.

 

[wetblowdryer]

Because they start with war enthusiasm that slowly erodes over time.

If you destroyed their army, what do you need to peace them out separately for, if you aren't interested in their lands (yet)? Just focus on the threat. It's not like Persia would be hampering you in that scenario.

Having their lands would make my boundaries out of whack and I'm generally just not interested.

It's an annoyance if anything and I want them out of the war ASAP so I can hammer the Mamluks and ONLY the Mamluks. I've tried getting a royal marriage with them to help them keep out of the war but that won't work; they seem to not care about the stability hit despite them constantly facing peasant rebellions.

 

[Strager]

Having their lands would make my boundaries out of whack and I'm generally just not interested.

It's an annoyance if anything and I want them out of the war ASAP so I can hammer the Mamluks and ONLY the Mamluks. I've tried getting a royal marriage with them to help them keep out of the war but that won't work; they seem to not care about the stability hit despite them constantly facing peasant rebellions.

It makes sense logically - you might have wiped out their armies, but as far as the AI is concerned they still have the ability to come back. Say for example you decided to siege one of the other nations provinces. While you are doing that they can let their manpower reserves refill than make a new army (with mercs or a holy order this time?) and try again. Once you take a province, they know you are focused on them and they re-evaluate

 

[Xara]

Having their lands would make my boundaries out of whack and I'm generally just not interested.

It's an annoyance if anything and I want them out of the war ASAP so I can hammer the Mamluks and ONLY the Mamluks. I've tried getting a royal marriage with them to help them keep out of the war but that won't work; they seem to not care about the stability hit despite them constantly facing peasant rebellions.

Why do you need them "out of the war" if you've destroyed their army and they are relegated to 'pest status'? Just go deal with the Mamluks. Or hire 1 mercenary infantry per Persian province and sit them on top of it so they can't build anything. Or a few more for the capital province and siege it actively. Or a few more and siege everything. It's not that big of a deal if you are so far advanced.

 

[wetblowdryer]

Why do you need them "out of the war" if you've destroyed their army and they are relegated to 'pest status'? Just go deal with the Mamluks. Or hire 1 mercenary infantry per Persian province and sit them on top of it so they can't build anything. Or a few more for the capital province and siege it actively. Or a few more and siege everything. It's not that big of a deal if you are so far advanced.

They bring down my overall war-score causing me to have to get the Mamluks even more and having more issues with war.

 

[Xara]

a 3-province nation is not going to affect the total war score THAT much.

 

[wetblowdryer]

a 3-province nation is not going to affect the total war score THAT much.

14

 

[Brawler]

Heh I see small nations joining a war as an opportunity. My military will usually go straight for their lands first and instead of white peace them out I vassalise them instead.

Whenever I go to war always check on my enemies allies to see if it is possible to vassalise them, I couldn't care any less about the main objective I had for the war as long as I can subjugate more nations

 

[Xara]

Well then you really understated the amount of land they have. I still don't get your complaint. Go siege them and knock them out. What the hell do you think the point of their alliance was? "Sorry guys, we sent one army, I think we'd rather just call it quits, okay?".

 

[wetblowdryer]

Well then you really understated the amount of land they have. I still don't get your complaint. Go siege them and knock them out. What the hell do you think the point of their alliance was? "Sorry guys, we sent one army, I think we'd rather just call it quits, okay?".

Considering my power and that I literally left them defenseless and have only one more mean to build an army, yes.

 

[Pandadan]

They bring down my overall war-score causing me to have to get the Mamluks even more and having more issues with war.

Isn't it the other way around — their losses in battle count against the warleader's warscore?

 

[Xara]

Considering my power and that I literally left them defenseless and have only one more mean to build an army, yes.

They're not defenseless when they have 14 uncontested provinces.

 

[hwoosh]

There is no downside to sieging down 14 provinces, as long as there is no threat to your siege stacks. It’s an abundant source of free army tradition.

 

[macd21]

Yeah, just send a handful of units to attack their provinces. Right now you aren't threatening them, so they have no incentive to leave the war. They may also withdraw (I think) if you crush the Mamluk army, as the 'Relative strength of alliance' modifier may go down.

 

[e_quality]

Given the logistic problems of subjugating large territories in the early modern era it's actually not a bad design. Historically, it's not like Sweden for example, after having their main army routed and destroyed by the Russians in 1709, went belly-up and just surrendered. That war went on until 1721 and the Swedes stamped a second and a third and a fourth army from the ground until they were completely bled dry.

 

[Beagá]

They're not defenseless when they have 14 uncontested provinces.

It´s not the provinces only, but the Manpower. When Manpower drops to critical levels any AI will settle for White Peace, 99% time.

 

[Anthropoid]

Given the logistic problems of subjugating large territories in the early modern era it's actually not a bad design. Historically, it's not like Sweden for example, after having their main army routed and destroyed by the Russians in 1709, went belly-up and just surrendered. That war went on until 1721 and the Swedes stamped a second and a third and a fourth army from the ground until they were completely bled dry.

Have to admit, I have often thought that besieging 100% or even 75% of an enemies "provinces" for years on end just to get them to cede one province felt somehow artificial. But on the other hand, I imagined that the point you are making was true based on what I knew about a few of the wars of the era (Hundred Years War; 30 and 80-years Wars). It is quite edifying to learn of yet another example and indeed one where whole replacement armies were formed after the initial one was devastated.

 

[Ruanek]

Realistically speaking if they are as large as you say they really aren't defeated yet. You killed their army, sure. But they can make more. And it really doesn't hurt you much to siege a province or two.