You really need a button to let players signal to the allied AI that they should consider making peace soon while things are favourable.

[bad hidden mechanics]

Title.

Some of this is just absurd and always has been. Saving Georgia from QQ as Ryazan in a defensive warand we've got them at no enthusiasm and 42% warscore in a defensive war. Instead AI proceeds to wait several months and lose associated forts. War drags on for another two years, pointlessly - same results - forts recaptured, etc. Georgia has no claims on QQ too., Georgia 200 ducats in debt, low man power, stackwiped, being carried by me. Still relatively outnumbered by QQ so if we actually clash we'll lose unless in favourable terrain.

 

[cuendillar]

The idea is interesting, though it's presumably nontrivial to determine when and if the AI should take the suggestion. A 'Peace out now' would be potentially bad for the AI if it can't properly evaluate the future prospects of a war and the significance of that war - at least unless the mechanic is only used by human players concerned about keeping the AI ally strong. And if the AI got better at judging war prospects, there would be no need to ask them to do so.

 

[Me_]

A very crude "solution" would be to have "Player suggest peace" via a diplomatic interaction (Ask for peace) make the AI evaluate their willingness to peace out slightly more, e.g. if the AI would consider peacing out at 55% warscore, being nudged by the player would make it peace out at 50% warscore (I don't really know how AI peace evaluation works in AI-AI wars, if it is the same as with AI-player wars, then it would be an extra +5/10 or so to the calculation of peace acceptance).

Ideally, it should be enough to make AI that is close to deciding to peace out actually do so rather than wait for the few missing points that it will never get, but would not force the staunch AI that wants to fight to the end to just abandon the fight.

It certainly would have to be designed in a way that does not make it abusable.

 

[atwix]

the best button to make an ai at low enthousiasm make peace is... exit to menu (restart client to force ai to recompute everything).

Sad.

A sort of button to force AI to recalculate diplomacy like on client restart wouldn't be too bad, but practically impossible I think.

 

[mysticdueler]

Out of curiosity, in your war OP, did any of the AIs involved have the Fierce Negotiator modifier? (Especially QQ?)

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Title.

Some of this is just absurd and always has been. Saving Georgia from QQ as Ryazan in a defensive warand we've got them at no enthusiasm and 42% warscore in a defensive war. Instead AI proceeds to wait several months and lose associated forts. War drags on for another two years, pointlessly - same results - forts recaptured, etc. Georgia has no claims on QQ too., Georgia 200 ducats in debt, low man power, stackwiped, being carried by me. Still relatively outnumbered by QQ so if we actually clash we'll lose unless in favourable terrain.

This is a symptom of the real disease that I've considered making a thread on.

The AI feels it needs 100% warscore, or near 100% to peace out. If they get what they need with 60% they still won't accept a deal. They'll continue fighting till all the forts and land are occupied. It's very annoying especially when helping an ally out.

If I could list the top 3 things I wish Paradox would change, this would easily be one of them. The AI should peace out when it gets enough warscore for the demands it needs, as does the player. If I want 3 provinces + full gold I peace out when I can get 3 provinces + full gold. It makes more sense for the AI in terms of resource manageent.

 

[mysticdueler]

This is a symptom of the real disease that I've considered making a thread on.

The AI feels it needs 100% warscore, or near 100% to peace out. If they get what they need with 60% they still won't accept a deal. They'll continue fighting till all the forts and land are occupied. It's very annoying especially when helping an ally out.

If I could list the top 3 things I wish Paradox would change, this would easily be one of them. The AI should peace out when it gets enough warscore for the demands it needs, as does the player. If I want 3 provinces + full gold I peace out when I can get 3 provinces + full gold. It makes more sense for the AI in terms of resource manageent.

But . . . But . . . But . . . Greed is good!

I’m not sure how you can balance the AI’s priorities between desired land, war enthusiasm, and peace deals without breaking things even more than they already are.

 

[LukasYork]

I think this button could work as suggestion player will separate peace out and leave the ally alone if it doesn't strike a deal soon. That could make them more wiling to sign peace (by decreasing strength of alliance modifier to enthusiasm)

That could not be enough though...

 

[Travis_Bickle]

But . . . But . . . But . . . Greed is good!

I’m not sure how you can balance the AI’s priorities between desired land, war enthusiasm, and peace deals without breaking things even more than they already are.

When the AI declares a war, I'd like to think they have something in mind in terms of what they want since the AI practically never goes into coalition territory. When they reach that, I feel they should peace out.

In my Byzantium run, Austria (my trusty ally) got the full BI and France declared war. I ended up with France focusing solely on me (I had Naples too) and wrecking my country whilst Austria sat on French mountain forts so they could get 100% warscore even though they had more than enough.. In the end they took two provinces + war reps...they could have peaced that out about 2 years earlier.

 

[Alyosha]

I agree with the OP and have suggested something similar (which would allow and ally to leave the war if the suggestion is not taken after a month). An alternative option would also be for the state with more war participation to claim war leadership if above say 50% (could be limited to the original war leader NOT being a Great Power).

The bigger issue is the total war mentality of the AI. I imagine the AI was programmed in this manner o provide more challenge for the human player, when in fact it serves to weaken the AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Rather than this, I would like to see a rework of AI algorithm for willingness to peace. Entirety of EU 4 has run with what feels like a stopgap called "length of war".

The result is scenarios where allies with 0 units or eligible provinces (for anyone in the alliance) to recruit units will still refuse to take white peace (!) because the war hasn't lasted long enough yet.

Similarly, in many cases AI allies will stall out wars for long periods to its own detriment. Rather than accepting white peace while being sieged with nothing left, it instead prefers to get cap sieged + give up all alliances + give up money + pay war reps.

Even war leaders themselves prefer total wars even when just about every player's evaluation of the war outcome is that extending the war will result in 100% war score loss. I would like to see an algorithm evaluating this whereby AI is increasingly more willing to make small concessions if it has a losing estimate. A rudimentary form of this already exists with the "threaten war" feature, but only pre-war. Evaluated-favorable offers should ideally offset "length of war".

I get that coming up with an algorithm that minimizes players gaming it would be difficult, however. To the point where I'm not even willing to type "avoids" in the previous sentence. But it would probably still be better that what we have now if done carefully. Bit of a pipe dream though. I'd rather see the low hanging fruit fixed first, and EU 4 has a TON of that (aka make the game stop lying to us please).

 

[makaramus]

I think there should be a button to tell AI "DUDE I AM DONE WITH THIS WAR" too
if you press to this button you will not be considered as helping to war but if you quit war after some time you wont lose any trust with target
AI will do this too , giving us a warning that stating AI is about to leave war

 

[gronak]

I agree, it's ridiculous that the AI will always try to 100% occupy a nation to take the handful of provinces they want. This feature would definitely be abused my min-maxers, but I really hope paradox stops balancing the game around them and makes the game more enjoyable for normal games and rp games. Either that, or make this not an option for ironman saves.

 

[Alyosha]

I’d be fine with removing the length of war modifier entirely. Could always lower aggressive expansion thresholds in the early game to offset this if need be.

Honestly I find these drag-out wars incredibly boring.

 

[cetvrtak]

Separate peace and let the drown in their ambition. Plenty more useless AI out there.

 

[Ekcrbe]

I'd be willing to put in a button that, say, forfeits half of the favors I'm slated to get with the AI war leader in exchange for forcing them to recompute the peace terms as if I were not in the war but had transferred all my occupations to them—so the relative strength of alliances and is making gains modifiers would change. It could be available only at >+30% war score and >50% war participation for the human player, to prevent abuse by bailing out of any wars you get called into.

I also want to echo @TheMeInTeam's point, because this is a bugaboo for me as well. The whole warfare system makes countries, AI and human, way too resilient. If I have occupied every province except your capital, your war enthusiasm shouldn't still be medium. It's low at that point. The AI should be begging for peace before you drive the war score any higher once you start making gains, not dancing around Siberia and waiting until you finally get to 100% and can demand everything. Similarly, there should be more serious consequences than just the loss of prosperity for letting your own provinces be occupied, since a valid strategy against a smaller opponent can often be "If we siege race and don't interact at all, I can get all your forts before you can get most of mine."

Also one small thing I noticed recently... I know the AI usually spams military access everywhere, but occasionally I've seen it not do so, and an AI ally that's not willing to get access and show up to fight should be more willing to take a white peace. I recently had a war against Utrecht, who called in Genoa, who never moved or asked for access from anyone. I shouldn't have to go way over my diplo limit and march through eight little HRE tags just to go down there and get them out of a war they obviously didn't feel like participating in.

 

[bad hidden mechanics]

Wow I didn't know this would take off and haven't had time to read the full thread.. I'd have to go back and see if i have a save related to that initial war for the question of whether Georgia had the fierce negotiator. I'm currently fighting the second defensive war against QQ and we're definitely going to be losing this time. Georgia in the first war stupidly continued it for years, even after i seperate peaced out(eventually). They even made some gains, putting them back between 21-42% warscore but like a good time later. There is like no way for us to 'win' this war without me torpedoing my own country overcommitting to it. I genuinely don't need them now since i've just allied Denmark, managed to placate poland removing its hostile attitude.

This button should be a thing - it should probably indicate the player's waning 'enthusiasm' in the war to an extent to perhaps reflect when or how it might be advantageous to make a peace - something that factors in the likelihood of 'making gains or further losses' since if you look at the AI formula on whether it is going to make peace that is taken into account. I'll read further and perhaps post again.

Right now QQ can be peaced out for 14%+ warscore in a war we're definitely going to lose if if keeps going on where they have low enthusiasm. Any human player would jump at this opportunity since we're roughly outnumbered 2.5-3 to 1 - the wargoal isn't a fort so can easily be taken and Georgia's capital isn't a fort and its under siege.

Worst part is the war contributions are calculated since i wont' get much in this peace since we can't hold on to any forts in this war but i've basically won all the battles by mysellf. The QQ leader in this war also has the fierce negotiator modifier.

I shouldn't have to decline defensive call to arms in general because the AI I am defending is absurdly delusional/stupid about what its going to achieve in a war.
the AI should be willing to embrace short and decisive victories against opponents that otherwise have in general much greater advantages

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Separate peace and let the drown in their ambition. Plenty more useless AI out there.

Try this in a quick modding hack job and watch what happens. Length of war plays like a stopgap, but if you remove that stopgap w/o replacing it with something better it breaks the game pretty badly.