I truly don't get this. It'd just be so much easier and it'd make more sense if we could tell that huge France to NOT attack that Lorraine.
Why does enforce peace require relations?
- Thread starter Red John
- 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 believe it is you forcing a nation to stop warring, a huge France is unlikely to listen even with good relations.
But as HRE if you can force the princelings to stop fighting it helps maintain the empire.
I think, I have never used it to be honest.
But as HRE if you can force the princelings to stop fighting it helps maintain the empire.
I think, I have never used it to be honest.
I don't like the relations requirement either. It just makes the thing a bit useless.
When I see a couple of small countries fighting, and I don't like it (say one of them wants to annex a province I want, or it wants to conquer the papacy), why can't I just give one of the sides an ultimatum: make peace now or we destroy you?
When I see a couple of small countries fighting, and I don't like it (say one of them wants to annex a province I want, or it wants to conquer the papacy), why can't I just give one of the sides an ultimatum: make peace now or we destroy you?
So you can't intercede in any war going on anywhere in the world, circumventing alliance webs and cherry-picking the nations you want to fight. You have to plan ahead at least a little, and can't do it with nations who know nothing about you - or at least, not that quickly or reliably.
And so you can't end up fighting on the side of your sworn rival, which would look a bit silly, and might allow exploits to make him weaker - such as completely cutting off one front of the war with doomstacks, leaving your rival the only place the war enemy can go; funnelling him towards your rival.
Though that would be rather fun actually
And so you can't end up fighting on the side of your sworn rival, which would look a bit silly, and might allow exploits to make him weaker - such as completely cutting off one front of the war with doomstacks, leaving your rival the only place the war enemy can go; funnelling him towards your rival.
Though that would be rather fun actually
It's very far from useless. I've used it loads of times to great effect. It needs this restriction else it would be way overpowered.
Example, fun usage: Fairly early in the game, Austria is my big rival and very powerful, and also allied to everyone I want to attack. Can't DOW Austria direct, can't DOW any of my main targets (their allies) direct.
But Denmark called Austria into a poxy war against Litvonian Order. I quickly use all tricks in the book to boost with Litvonian, get them up to 100 relations in a few months. Enforce Peace with Denmark, now I'm fighting Denmark and Austria. Ignore Denmark, fight almost exclusively against Austria. Destroy their armies, take their manpower to 0, siege their provinces. Ultimately force them to release a bunch of nations to cripple their economy, and also cancel some of those alliances to isolate my real enemies.
Job done, thank you Enforce Peace!
If you always ended up as a minor partner in the alliance then it wouldn't matter whether you could intervene anywhere you wanted. And who is to say that the AI won't just accept the ultimatum anyway if you are significantly stronger?So you can't intercede in any war going on anywhere in the world, circumventing alliance webs and cherry-picking the nations you want to fight. You have to plan ahead at least a little, and can't do it with nations who know nothing about you - or at least, not that quickly or reliably.
And so you can't end up fighting on the side of your sworn rival, which would look a bit silly, and might allow exploits to make him weaker - such as completely cutting off one front of the war with doomstacks, leaving your rival the only place the war enemy can go; funnelling him towards your rival.
Though that would be rather fun actually
If someone doesn't like you, they certainly don't want you to 'defend' them, become warleader and give away their land in the peace deal.
That would also fix a lot of the problems with it, but that would actually turn it from a very useful tool you need to work for to something that isn't all that helpful, but readily available. It's fine if you want that, but I don't
Enforce Peace is a powerful tool, and needs restriction on when it can be used in order to keep it in line.
Without that restriction, you could (even easier) cherry-pick your way into every single war you care to, merely to prevent your real target's allies from jumping in. As the Emperor, you could build Authority rapidly, because assuming leadership of any foreign-aggressor defensive war as the Emperor gives you IA for winning at least a concession; the larger the aggressor, the better.
Example : As Spain, I wanted a single province from Austria, my ally and royal marriage target, to complete a self-imposed goal. By using Enforce peace, I was able to bypass "Cannot attack ally", bypass "royal marriage stability drop", and bypass "broke alliance" by improving relations with the Hansa, who was defending the Papal State from Cologne, then enforcing peace on Cologne, which gave me leadership of the defensive side, in which Austria was an opponent, letting me take the single province from them at 75% defensive AE, then happily allying with them again afterwards, since it wasn't a 'broken alliance'.
If you could do this without any relations requirement, you could far too easily hop into wars simply to generate truces or to place a target's allies on your side in an unrelated war, preventing them from defending when you attack.
Without that restriction, you could (even easier) cherry-pick your way into every single war you care to, merely to prevent your real target's allies from jumping in. As the Emperor, you could build Authority rapidly, because assuming leadership of any foreign-aggressor defensive war as the Emperor gives you IA for winning at least a concession; the larger the aggressor, the better.
Example : As Spain, I wanted a single province from Austria, my ally and royal marriage target, to complete a self-imposed goal. By using Enforce peace, I was able to bypass "Cannot attack ally", bypass "royal marriage stability drop", and bypass "broke alliance" by improving relations with the Hansa, who was defending the Papal State from Cologne, then enforcing peace on Cologne, which gave me leadership of the defensive side, in which Austria was an opponent, letting me take the single province from them at 75% defensive AE, then happily allying with them again afterwards, since it wasn't a 'broken alliance'.
If you could do this without any relations requirement, you could far too easily hop into wars simply to generate truces or to place a target's allies on your side in an unrelated war, preventing them from defending when you attack.
.png){kind=avatar}
Enforce Peace is my go-to CB after 1650 nowadays. It takes 85/4 = 22 months to build from a -10 Different Religion malus to 75 + 25, which means that I can circumvent coalitions all day as Ottomans feebly try to reclaim cores or Spain tries to invade the Aztecs for the 9th time. Since I'm counted as defender and invariably take war leader, I can keep demanding provinces at 75%.
i used it same way as ottoman to prevent oman annexing yemen, that's a powerfull tool to prevent someone to grow or someone to disappear. a bit reminded "send warning" but can be used after the war had begun
As above, its fairly powerful, especially as you know who you will be fighting if you intervene (as alliances have already been triggered).
Peace enforcing is a way overpowered now, if you are big enough you will become warleader after enforcing. In fact you start agression war with defencive bonus of war result, totally known enemies and some allies at your side for free.
Oh, and I forgot one of the best bits!
I didn't cancel all their alliances with my targets. I just cancelled the ones I didn't want to war with immediately.
My next target was Burgundy. I specifically didn't cancel the Burgundy alliance in my Peace with Austria. Instead, as soon as the Austrian war was over, I just DOW'd Burgundy. Burgundy tried to call in Austria, who said "ohh.. noo... we have a truce!" Boom, alliance cancelled, relations trashed! And much better than a Peace forced-cancelling of the alliance, it won't just be re-created after the truce is over, because of those trashed relations. Bye bye, Burgundy. How do you like those trashed relations, Austria? I forget, do you like having poor Diplomatic relations with nations?
Enforce Peace almost never gets the AI to cease the war, but if they refuse you get to hop in on the side of the friendly nation you tried to warn them off of.
It's like loans; the AI will always default on them. You're not getting interest, you're getting a CB.
+1 on both.
Both are kind of broken, I suppose. It's a bit silly that the AI will take loans that it almost never repays, giving out CBs. I have often given loans with the sole intent of using the resulting CB.
And it's a bit silly that the AI will almost never listen to an Enforced Peace. I've never seen it, at least - even when I've enforced peace on a small nation when I'm huge.
If people want Enforced Peace nerfed a little, then that would be the way to do it - update the AI so it does sometimes stop the war when you Enforce.
If it's gone on long enough / they have good reasons to simply stop, they'll accept a cease fire occasionally. But yea, mostly its just an excuse to insert yourself in a war for whatever various reason.
I never really thought of the abuses of it... I just found it odd that relations factored into it. Unless it's absolutely severe hate, as in, rivals for 300 years, then I see no reason why they'd rather get annexed than accept help.
(Though there are probably historical examples of this stubbornness)
(Though there are probably historical examples of this stubbornness)
You don't need the relations because the defender needs to accept your help, you need the relations so you can use the pretense of historical friendship to intrude on the war. Like fabricating a claim for a casus belli.