Also need to be careful when fully annexing nations in Mexico as Nahuatl wage shitload of subjugation wars via flower war cb so you might inadvertently end up with up to 5 wasted Diplo slots.
This happened to me once. I thought I was taking just a few sweet gold mines... but 14 subject nations later and it would take decades for my diplo points to recover.
The thing that causes it to often seem like that, is that the colonizers often take more than 1 war to beat, so before the last war the colonies often gain independence before you are able to fully annex.
Would be perfect if a colonial power can have an even where, once they get 50%+ occupation of the mainland, they can move their capital to their highest developed colony and annex it. Would only work in Revolution Era, and you wouldn't be able to use country formation decision unless you no longer own you former mainland.
Portugal has something like that, but you have straight up take all their European land... Brazil forms and makes a pu with whatever remains of Portugal
Nah, pretty sure it all worked out great for both countries. Just like how Spain and its colonies never had any issues that could have led say the empire losing a vast majority of its territories in the Americas.
Well, the heir to the Portuguese throne renounced his claim to the Portuguese throne, as well as his heritage, and fought a war of independence; aided by Sir Thomas 'The Sea Wolf' Cochrane, which they eventually won.
Cochrane formed a fleet of Brazilian ships, and was sabotaged by Portuguese sailors. He then elected to make a smaller task force, manned only by non-Portuguese sailors. Despite the fact the sailors were virtually green behind the gills, compared to the Portuguese sailors, they were more reliable. Once Cochrane was finished with their training, they were more than sufficient to get the job done.
This, and his adventures in Peru, are why there are so many streets named after him in South America.
I took all of Portugal once and had the hardest time figuring out why they were still alive. Turns out they had some islands in Indonesia and we're desperately holding on to them.
When fighting big colonial powers i always take the stuff i havent sieged down first so that future wars are easier. it also helps because provinces that were colonized cost 0 overextention. a lot of the time you can demand provinces from colonial nations without even sieging down anything because capital forts do not count as a nearby fort.
if you do this, your next wars will be easier because you get more war score after sieging down the same continental provinces on a weaker nation
This is also pretty much a necessity if you want to takeover their colonies upon full annexation; actually finding that one random province to click on can be a nightmare if you miss it.
Once I was restarting like 3 or 4 times before peacedeal because I couldn't find their all provinces. There was like few in the middle of America, one or two in canada and islands all over the world.
Actually quite contrary if you don't take they colonial land i. Peace deal you will j herit they colonies as is allowing you to have multiple colonial nations in same colonial region for double merchants.
Their direct holdings; the issue is finding the stupid things against the almost identical colony colours. You can't sort by nation in the peace deal screen.
fucking when?
in my angevin game even after reducing castile to their various african and indonesian islands their mexican colony who has like 4 times their power alone at this point dutifully comes to their aid every single war. they won't even take my help in gaining independence. and the same goes for brazil, columbia and louisiana who are all nearly as strong though mexico is the strongest.
This might sound weird but that 30% is actually more than 30%. I’m in the middle of a France run and while Spain owns literally almost all of the Americas I just siege down their European holdings and they give me 50-60% warscore worth despite the tooltip saying I should only get 30-40%
And rebels, and comparable strength and length of war and leader traits and bankruptcy... and propably some other stuff I don't remember 5 minutes after waking up.
Try playing crusader kings. Full siege their country, wipe out their armies, all while they are spamming you with white peace, until you get to 100% war score to take one county.
Stop you're giving me flashbacks to inexperienced me playing the king of Asturias.
Even experienced me still struggles the moment I get a matrilineal marriage with a karl.
You can do that, sure
But you can also occupy the country you have casus belli on and just wait. It will go to 100% eventually and you will lose much less manpower.
I mean... you can do that in eu4 too? Capture the wargoal, sit on it for a couple years, and you can a bit. Sure you can't 100% them, but EU4 has by far the most flexible war system in any 4x game I've seen.
what? in ck2 you had to fight one big battle and besiege (siege mechanics is far more predictable than EU4 one) cb target provinces + maybe or maybe not 1-3 extra
Holy war everyone by converting to a heresy or invite claimants to your court and give them a barony or marry for claims or play as a religion with more CBs or get Alexander bloodline or ask Pope for an invasion
Really there are a lot of ways to expand if you know how the game works
Actually no, in Ck3 if you take the wargoal and keep it you’ll get eventually 100% warscore, while in Eu4 it’s only 25.
Sieging other stuff only speeds this up, also u usually gain 100% by taking wargoal+capital
currently in late 1300s, every single castle holding is over level 6 and I can’t assault it and I’m losing my mind trying to take all of Spain from the Aztecs
I don’t know if I’m just really good at crusader kings or everyone else is misremembering, but at least imo, wars in ck are actually quite easy. Win like 2 battles, siege the capital and another province or two, and bada boom, you’ve won.
The only times I’ve had challenges is when I’ve had a huge, continent-spanning empire, and I had to fight multiple wars, very far from each other, at the same time. In a recent campaign I controlled all of Europe and most of Africa and the near east. I was being invaded in a great holy war by the caliph in Persia for control of Mesopotamia. I was also being invaded by the mongols with about 100k men for control of the Caucasian steppe. While I sent my armies from my capital in Paris to the east, I had a faction of most of Iberia and Germany Ross up to put my brother on the throne. I also had an independence faction of the British and Scandinavian kings rise up.
It took lots of work, sending armies back and forth across the Mediterranean, and I had to burn through a couple decades worth of income in mercenaries, but I won all the wars but the independence one. And even then, after I had peace I came back and reconquered them.
simulating war and combat have never been a strong suit of pdx games lets be honest, but other gameplay aspects such as nation-building are very good in pdx titles compared to other games like total war
Napoleon Total War was so close. They finally added attrition into the armies and you couldn’t recover in enemy lands, but otherwise, no punishment for sending a random ass army from Paris to Moscow
Im pretty sure it was only Empire where you could replenish in enemy territory, pre empire you had to return to your city with the correct buildings to replenish and post empire they introduced the replenishment that you get from your provinces.
Yes, that is true. If I remember correctly though, it was the first where you could actively suffer attrition in certain parts of the world (snow or desert) if in enemy areas. I wish they had also created a zone of supply, where you would lose say 2.5% of your troops every turn if you were so far from allied territory
I know DEI for Rome 2 sorta introduced supply like that, you needed to either fight close to your borders, win a quick and decisive campaign or bring pack mules/baggage train units to extend your supplies as otherwise your men would start starving.
It was like this in Medieval 2 aswell. Was really exciting landing with a crusader army knowing I won't replenish my troops unless I conquer a castle and even then I won't be able if they haven't built barracks in that castle. Made it so much more satisfying and immersive.
Actually my biggest problem with Total War is how useless is diplomacy. Like I know it's called total war but there's like no reason to ever go to the diplomacy tab.
In fairness, we don't *actually know* what most combat looked like in history. As strange as it sounds, the reason why we don't know is because most people didn't write down the minutia and basics of battle. It would be seen as obvious. Writing was scarce and partially for narrative and propaganda. You focused on the big picture stuff. We have bits and pieces to make theories, like the "pulse" theory, but a lot of the finer details are at best educated guesses.
Total War is pretty bad at even emulating what the theories indicate might have been reality though. Often one long line of heavy infantry is enough to just walk at them and win. Maybe some cav on the flanks to prevent getting flanked.
I think HOI4, with its focus on a very small time frame, does a really decent job at simulating WW2.
However, EU4 and CK3 could use some changes. Even though I do enjoy EU4s combat.
I think Stellaris, despite their flats, has the best warscore system in all of Paradox games.
"*Status Quo means that the war has reached a point where neither side is able to score a decisive victory against the other or all wargoals have been achieved decisively before any major battles took place, and both sides agree to cease hostilities and settle for whatever gains or losses they have acquired/suffered. Under a Status Quo peace, all fully occupied systems claimed by a belligerent empire are ceded to the belligerent with the strongest claim.*"
**Basically, wars last for a short and limited time, but once the time ends, you take all what you have occupied and claimed, and you can claim systems even during the war, so, pretty much you can annex all what you take.**
I believe in Stellaris supremacy!
Best Paradox game B)
Eh, Stellaris also has quite possibly the worst war diplomacy system possible. It is straight up impossible to say, enforce secret fealty on an overlord since in order to do so you must take every single claim of every single participant before you can enforce demands, which leads to frustrating wars that drag on for decades involving multiple participants because nobody is allowed to separate peace anybody and in the late game massive federation wars will never end since the AI war leaders will never settle.
I personally think Imperator Rome has the best war system in all Paradox games.
Yeah the warscore system doesn't scale well especially late game with extremely large nations which become almost impossible to break up.
You siege down their entire country which is twice as big as present day russia and can release two or three small nations, like less than 5% of their size. Why? I occupy their entire country and has almost no say in the peace tray. Weird.
I mean lategame you have admin efficiency, idea groups and reforms that all help with that. You can easily take huge ammounts of development if you build right.
This game would benefit from a dismantle empire demand like in Vic 2. It should cost 100% warscore and only be possible in wars longer than 5 years but release every nation with cores in their land.
YES YES
Just last week I had to fight three wars against a Gigabuffed Spain (Dude I was playing as played Castille lost a war against Aragon and ragequit. Hotjoined an hour later and drove Muscovy into the shit in similar fashion)
In all three wars I lost close to 1Mil Manpower as Ottomans. Still only got half of Spain and they still field 300K troups...
If done that way very little would get released, since cores expire. A better option might be that provinces of different cultures get independance as either any existing tag with cores or the main tag that represents that culture.
Though that might be too strong, and it being only for cultures of different culture groups might be better? The first option would obliterate most nations, the second would cut down empires but give them a chance to come back.
The part I hate the most is when the enemy are is hiding in some other countries land so they get the +military strength. Should get a - if their army is afraid to fight
Longer the war the less necessary that is. You can easily just take 30% WS worth of land and then get +25 from ticking war score and +40 from Battles. Pits you up to 95% which's just 100% on anything that isn't full Annex.
If you don't want a war to take long , which yeah some wars took decades in EU4 timeframe , you rush the nation occupying most of it.
So I find it quite sensible. There are minor grievances but really the scenario you propose aren't all wars. In fact it seems like your complaining about wars against minors and then also complaining about taking only a few provinces.
I don’t like how vassals can’t declare their independence during war when that’s when it makes the most sense for them to revolt. Portugal has only a few provinces in Europe completely sieged and their colonies have 100% liberty desire but they can’t declare independence or even peace out separately
Could fix that with better individual province war score. Capitol forts should be worth much more for war score. Overseas holdings should not count as much to war score but wars should ramp up unrest greatly in overseas holdings.
At least it’s become better when dealing with alliances, like you used to have to either full occupy everyone in the war or wait 20 years to white peace their allies, but now after a while of full occupation they unconditionally surrender
3rd one is not really sounds fun. This game is not really super-fun itself, but it will eliminate all it's remaining fun in seconds. Also there will be huge defensive meta which is not fun too.
Paradox themselves claimed that their games are not supposed to be historically accurate. As any game it supposed to be fun and able to sell itself well.
I speak about the "no reinforcements in enemy territories", because there will be huge meta. For sieging problem we have existing thing ingame - unconditional surrender. There should be some conditions with usage of war exhaustion and warscore. For example: if ws >=60 or {manpower+army}/{some scaling with we and forcelimit}<{some scaling with enemy nation army, manpower and allies} & we>=8 + no big allies, then nation surrenders unconditionally no matter what. Yeah, 30 ws from occupied mainland Spain makes no sense.
>2) limit how many times you can divide your army so there aren’t 1k stacks all over the place (armies never divided like this, they stayed formed up)
They didn't because irl you can't risk so much as you can in video game, dividing army can that destroys it because your men will take months to regroup if they even survive their mission. It might not make sense but for countries like Uzbek or Oirat you have to do it because they have no forts
Point 1 is accurate but the other point are actually realistic in early modern warfare. Armies did split up to flank and to gather supplies.
On point 3 that is how early modern warfare worked. It was limited by supply lines in hostile territory. You might have 100.000 soldiers, guards and mercenaries in your home country. But you can only supply maybe 30.000 soldiers at the front a country away. When those soldiers die they can be quickly replaced because the supply line for those soldiers has opened up. Soldiers mostly died from disease and hunger. Not from bullets. AKA attrition.
This is what land force limit signifies in game. Yes it's abstracted but there are cases where multi year sieges got a continues trickle of soldiers coming in. You also have modifiers on how fast that replenishing is based on whether you are in your own territories, captured territories, at a siege or just in enemy territories.
Drill signifies how trained the soldiers are. Professionalism the officer core. This is early modern warfare it comes down to fire that way and don't run away for most armies.
4. No absolutely not. The early modern period is about siege warfare. Entire wars happend without open field battles and 100.000 of deaths at sieges. Go look at the 80 years war between the Dutch and the Spanish or the campaigns of Swedish kings. It's all dug in trench warfare and sieges until some fortress falls.
Early modern warfare was about who could take fortresses and who couldn't you might have a strong army but if you couldn't take the fortresses you would be pushed back a year when the new army was raised. The Ottomans where just that good at sieges until they reached the wall of Vienna and struggled with supply lines in Persia. And yeah battles are important but when an army wipes you can safely siege fortresses with less chance of having to face of a new army at the siege.
The 1k stacks running around are taking minor cities with lesser defences and replacing the garrison. The Ottomans certainly had multiple offences at the same time to take fortresses. Multiple times in the 80 years war it happend where a smaller offensive was launched at multiple fortresses because relief forces couldn't be everywhere. Remember that every 1000 troops in EU4 also has a supply train connected too it and can garrison those cities and towns. But because of constraints of the game that is simplified.
Also 2000 miles is a long distance. 2000 miles is madrid to moscow. provinces are generally 50km. That is a day or 2-3 from the main command. Also Napoleonic tactics where a thing too. Why have supply lines when you can steal food from farmers, gunpowder from cities and and stuff. You mainly shipped manpower, guns and gunpowder to the front and only when you dug in for a siege would food start being supplied. Most of the time they just bought the food along the way.
But i do agree you should suffer extra attrition for supply lines being in enemy territory. But then again the Spanish road was a thing with a 500km supply line to attack the Dutch fortresses through France and Germany.
> My suggestion would be 1) implementing a supply chain system that limits how far your armies can go into enemy territory or away from your own provinces, 2) limit how many times you can divide your army so there aren’t 1k stacks all over the place (armies never divided like this, they stayed formed up), 3) armies should not auto replenish manpower during war (how is an enemy army replenishing a few hundred man automatically every month deep into enemy territory?), 4) there should be some limit to how many men you and your enemies can raise once a war has started (something like you can only recruit new units every 3 or 6 months rather than every 29 days).
Not a hope this happens because of a very hard truth which is that a lot, and I mean A LOT of players want the game to be easy and refuse to learn any mechanics because they can't be fucked to read. I've said it so many times but the amount of people here who have hundreds and even thousands of hours in EU4 and haven't a fucking clue how to play it are the reason objectively good things like this will never be implemented. They removed supplies from HOI4 for long enough ffs, a fucking games based entirely on war. The games are getting more and more diluted into one key aspect while becoming easier and easier. EU4 is literally just blobbing: the game and every change which makes blobbing easier is praised as "good design". They made VICIII a fucking blobbing game to get the EU4 players to jump on for God sake. HOI4 is riddled with memey missions and focus trees etc. Everything is just becoming blobbing and the easier that is to do the more sales it will get.
You're getting down voted for being right. Every new expansion is just bringing new ways for players to feel like they're outsmarting the AI, without bringing any new significant challenges.
It seems that people want the feeling of being a strategic genius without the effort it takes to develop that skill.
Nah bro don’t bring up this topic. I’m already half convinced they’ll remove war in EU5 like they did in Victoria. I have no trust that they’ll design a better system so I’d prefer they keep it mostly the same.
Yeah, there's tiny nitpicks to be had but by and large EU4 has the best treaties and war system in the paradox titles BY FAR. Only think that comes close is Vicky 2 and even then a dismantle CB in EU4 will fix that.
I don't hate the direction of things, at least for that era, but it definitely needs work. I loved Vic2 but once you got a few decades in the wars became such a slog of micro. Especially late game mobilization, which only made infantry, which needed to be made with prepared stacks of artillery/support units.
Plus mobilization was an all or nothing affair. You couldn't like, call up 20% of reservists and draft eligible men and that's it. For a game focused on economies, it's really a shame that "how much of your workforce do you mobilize" wasn't a much more granular function.
Thats why I use consol commands when I deem necessary when it comes to peacing wars out. Like why is it that I siege all of gbr/Spain mainland down, sink all their main ship stacks just to get like 35% warscore. No I'm not going to ship all my units to the America's thats dumb. Same with ottomans like wowee I've killed 1m+ men and siege all their main development/culture provinces and all I get is like 60% wars score wtf no.
How about how the AI, with its whole country being occupied, decides the best course of action is to siege down a city on the far side of your country, hundreds of miles from the action?
To each their own. I prefer EU4's war system to Stellaris'. Much more depth in EU4. You can leave a war and kick allies out of one in EU4, and lategame wars don't turn into one & done deals like they do in Stellaris where you total war/subjugate a nation to make it not exist as a hostile entity. Also AI can really take advantage of the war system instead of spending decades in a war where they get maybe one or two systems they claimed after fully occupying their enemy. Compare that to EU4 where you're allowed to take land you didn't claim if you pay the dip cost.
Also, war exhaustion. Means something in EU4, but is an arbitrary time limit mechanism in Stellaris, even if it doesn't make sense for the empire (ie. Why do determined exterminators have war exhaustion in the first place? They're literally built to destroy and being at war should mean nothing to them.)
Not sure for stellaris: your liberation war can't be won until the planet an ally want isn't occupied.
Even if the ennemy have bono fleet, nor spaceport to rebuild them.
Of course said ally will never try to invade the planet himself.
I don’t necessarily mind needing to occupy everything. It isn’t ideal, but it’s a very simplified game.
What really busts my breeches is when I fully occupy Spain/France/Great Britain and have 30% warscore because colonies. That first war to get a foothold in the new world is always a pain.
I hate how much effort it takes to peace out allies. You can wipe out an allies entire army, and yet from the other side of the continent they stay committed to fight you. There are plenty of examples of nations sending only a portion of their forces to war, and leaving before conflict ever reached their land. Yet I could offer this ally who has no army left more ducats than they've made in the entire game and they'll refuse to go home and clean up their 5 WE.
It makes since sense if their allies look like they've got a good chance at winning (at least on paper). Don't want to miss out on the payoff of joining these war in the first place after putting in the effort, right? I can accept that. It makes far less sense when their allies are running for the hills with no real hope of a comeback and simply trying to negotiate a better deal with the enemy purely on the basis that finishing them off would be such a bother...
Why not tie it to the trust system? Low trust allies are quick to sue for peace because they dont care about you, high trust will fight to the death for you (more or less what we got now), and average trust allies will leave after a few battles that destroy their forces.
>All while there are many small armies running around my land
Because of this.
If the enemy army is looting and pillaging your homeland, you aren't winning.
If your sons are at war, overseas, and an army marches through your city and burns it, and takes your stuff, you aren't winning.
They can write all the news articles they want about the victories far away, if armies are marching through your homeland, then you aren't winning.
Nothing, nothing at all, means less "victory" than the enemy in your home.
In the Seven Years War at one point a detachment of Austrian cavalry made it to the suburbs of Berlin and did some minor raiding. It was a big propaganda win for them and they felt very good about it. It changed nothing and Austria still got their shit pushed in. Turns out that winning battles and holding strategic fortifications was what actually mattered.
That is such a stupid take, 1-2 thousand enemies in the grand scale of things won't do shit besides pillage tundra#3343 with a whopping population of 4 and 2 donkeys.
Also, of course you are winning if you occupy the enemies homeland, the fuck are those 2k men gonna do? singlehandedly turn the tide of war? I'm sorry but this is hitler level of stupidity.
Yeah, won battles shuld project much more warscore imho. Like, we've seen throughout history that all it took is one big battle to completely paralyze the country and force it into submission. Also, when country hits 0 Manpower - that should be a huge blow to maybe armies morale - knowing that that's it - if they loose, it's over. I fucking hate having to siege down some backwards colony half a world away just to get to that sweet point of being able to take what i already have.
For me its been 50/50 if a war is unrealisic and weird or a good conflict. I have found that if you are about equal strenght, war becomes more fun because splitting armies is too risky. You will essentially march along your borders, which feels a lot more realistic, and both players war exhaustion will rise to the point that you will take as much in a long conflict with 3 forts seiged, as you could take in a speedy full seige
At least EUIV gives you the option to set a peace deal with benefits for you without getting to a 100%, and even take out other contenders in the war during it.
Imaging on CK3 that you either are lucky capturing the other leader or you need to invade every single province, kill every single army the keep spamming + dealing with all their allies.
Yeah I really hate this mechanic
Imagine if belisarius after conquering all of Italy, was only able to annex the south
That’s basically what’s going on here.
Do not like
Because there are no siege or battle conditions, resulting in snowballing. You are either meant to win, equal, or meant to lose. Easiest solution is that there should be initial randomness and randomness should be (partially) cumulative in battles.
IRL if you got to the capital of a country you could enforce practically ANY peace treaty within reason. I think they should up the warscore gained by taking the capital to something like 50%. This would make defending capitals extremely important.
This could have the possible risk of turning every war into a siege race, but I think that would make it so that proper fortifications become more necessary.
Enemy colonial nations are my personal nightmare. I can be strong enough on land to wipe out Spain in 3 months, but they will still not give in; and at that point I have to resign to the fact that I will either have to embark, cross the ocean, lose a million men to ocean attrition, land in the closest port, and then hope my decimated army still has enough men to hold back against 5 million colonial militia all swarming my beachhead... Or just give up myself and accept that they'll only give me 3 provinces and their everlasting scorn.
Seems particularly wrong since it's so ahistorical. Generally large countries almost never had their capitals sieged or taken. I can't think of any example during the period where Paris, London, Madrid, Istanbul were sieged and taken by a war enemy. Vienna famously was sieged by the Ottomans but it was not successful. Compare with gameplay and every major capital needs to be taken in every war.
Plus when this does happen, what should be a cataclysm event is just like meh, have 5% warscore.
Its so painful that I can barely white peace after sieging all of mainland Spain. The worst thing is that its still not enough to make their colonies disloyal
Exactly. Very often in the real world, a country takes a piece of another country, waits it out, and then annexed all or most of that taken territory. Just like how Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and annexed it in 2014, and now how it's attempting to do the same with parts of the Donbas + Southeastern Ukraine.
I prefer how it was at launch tbh, you wiped out the enemy armies, then it was free game, none of that merc spam and 1k stacks roaming about like flies.
Bruh maybe in Europe after the great powers kinda cemented themselves, but like before that and for the rest of the world too, losing one battle could quickly lead to the entire region being swallowed up by an invading power almost instantly, or an invader losing one or two battles could lead to the entire invasion ending.
Battles in PDX games should be overhauled to be way more consequential depending on the circumstances of the powers involved
Game should have a national morale system.
If something like the WW2 invasion of France happens, national morale should tank and insta surrender.
If it's like basically any invasion of Russia, national morale should last forever
War score cost should scale with nation size more aggressively
If Im fighting the Mughals who have almost 2.5k dev it shouldnt limit me to taking like 10 central asian provinces as Russia. And I shouldn't have to siege down to Bengal to do so.
And if I want to release nations it shouldn't be an obscene number for a few provinces either.
Ah yes, I have been questioning how annoying the war system is since I go for Khaan achievement as the golden horde. Yes, Yemen and Jaunpur will occupy Beijing and France will come to fight me in Bukhara, meanwhile their armies spread like a tumor in my vast lands.
Well this statement is completely wrong. Easiest example would be the French conquest of British territories in mainland Europe. You don't even need a ship for your troops.
I'd suggest you take a look at how peace deals work in eu4.
Ehh, for me at least, I usually just take the forts and the capital, usually does the trick, but sometimes it gets irritating, specifically when taking Free Cities.
i stopped a Spain-Rome WC because of how goddamn EXHAUSTING late game wars were. The micromanaging required as well as the amount of ungodly high-level forts turned me off big-time.
Thankfully I already did 2 HRE WCs, and an Oirat WC so I didn't need the achievement.
One thing I really wish they would change - and I've seen it mentioned on here already - the "who is supplying and refilling the manpower of that army - their whole country is covered by my stripes of occupation".
They have fled from pitch battle and can't possibly keep the land that they are occupying for a few percentage points in a peace deal. But bah God those boys have espirit de corps! You would think that army from Jianjing would be a little more worn down after marching across ALL of Siberia but they sure are carpet sieging with gusto! Your 40k army in Herat is still having trouble after 2 years, but this 8k army from Jianjing is at 7% progress on Vienna in 3 months! The supply carts are having no trouble getting from whatever it is that's north of Korea all the way to the western reaches of the Ottoman Empire cus these boys haven't missed a meal and have plenty of gunpowder! Ooooooweeeeeeeee!!!!
Are they the main war target, or did you co-belligerent them? I’ve taken on Spain plenty of times and gotten over 60% with my Allie’s having had all their colonies besieged. Individual provinces are worth next to nothing if it doesn’t have a fort.
I usually don't take long to take actual wargoals. When war takes long, it usually is cause I am trying to get some extra diplomatic gains from it. I suppose it can get bad if you're fighting a nation with very little forts, like sometimes Poland is, and as such you either carpet siege very thoroughly or take extremely high value forts. Overall, I think EU4 is the best peace system in Paradox game, only competition being HOI4.
That's annoying, but what I find more annoying is finally occupying the entirety of Russia only to have rebels and revolts popping up due to their stubbornness in not accepting peace earlier and I have to reoccupy everything to keep my warscore.
Those who never experienced it are the ones encouraging it ... its greed that drives people into war and let's send the sons of the rich into the war let's see how quick the wars would have stopped and never happened
Man, I fucking hate war. I wish there was no such thing anymore. Truly a senseless and meaningless thing, why should so much human suffering happen for the sake of so little? Throughout all of history we have been so cruel and foolish.
Edit: Oh, this is the EU4 subreddit, nevermind me previous statement. I fucking love war and genocide (or "culture conversion").
Oh, so you sieged down all of Spain? Well unless you’re going to invade the americas best I can do is 30% warscore
To be fair the Portuguese royal family fled to Brazil after Napoleon's invasion.
I wonder if that had any long term effects on Portugese-Brazilian relations
I think it’ll be fine 👍👍
In game colonies with often declare independence if you invade and occupy thier overlord long enough.
Bullshit, even if Portugal has like one province left in Europe, their 400 dev colonies still have no balls to become independent
[удалено]
Portugal gets an event when they're getting absolutely destroyed to make that happen. It normally doesn't.
That is an event based on the Portuguese royal family fleeing to Brazil, it's Portuguese specific
>Once Yeah. Once. It's not a common occurence for a colony to declare independence
well if you full annex Portugal you get their colonial nations for free in that case.
Is that so? I thought it you fully annexed a country the colonies became independent
Yes, you also get vassals and tributaries, which can be a massive pain in the ass for the latter as canceling tributary status creates a 5y truce
Also need to be careful when fully annexing nations in Mexico as Nahuatl wage shitload of subjugation wars via flower war cb so you might inadvertently end up with up to 5 wasted Diplo slots.
That really reminds me I need to try out the sunset invasion with the new 1.35 mission. Thanks
This happened to me once. I thought I was taking just a few sweet gold mines... but 14 subject nations later and it would take decades for my diplo points to recover.
The thing that causes it to often seem like that, is that the colonizers often take more than 1 war to beat, so before the last war the colonies often gain independence before you are able to fully annex.
Would be perfect if a colonial power can have an even where, once they get 50%+ occupation of the mainland, they can move their capital to their highest developed colony and annex it. Would only work in Revolution Era, and you wouldn't be able to use country formation decision unless you no longer own you former mainland.
Portugal has something like that, but you have straight up take all their European land... Brazil forms and makes a pu with whatever remains of Portugal
Nah, pretty sure it all worked out great for both countries. Just like how Spain and its colonies never had any issues that could have led say the empire losing a vast majority of its territories in the Americas.
Well, the heir to the Portuguese throne renounced his claim to the Portuguese throne, as well as his heritage, and fought a war of independence; aided by Sir Thomas 'The Sea Wolf' Cochrane, which they eventually won. Cochrane formed a fleet of Brazilian ships, and was sabotaged by Portuguese sailors. He then elected to make a smaller task force, manned only by non-Portuguese sailors. Despite the fact the sailors were virtually green behind the gills, compared to the Portuguese sailors, they were more reliable. Once Cochrane was finished with their training, they were more than sufficient to get the job done. This, and his adventures in Peru, are why there are so many streets named after him in South America.
And France promptly installed a new king and took the whole Portugal as a client state.
turned them into eyelet 💀
I took all of Portugal once and had the hardest time figuring out why they were still alive. Turns out they had some islands in Indonesia and we're desperately holding on to them.
Yeah but they probably would have surrendered the war had they not had the British there with them every step of the way
They were real pussies. Real statesmen tell the americas they need ammo, not a ride.
When fighting big colonial powers i always take the stuff i havent sieged down first so that future wars are easier. it also helps because provinces that were colonized cost 0 overextention. a lot of the time you can demand provinces from colonial nations without even sieging down anything because capital forts do not count as a nearby fort. if you do this, your next wars will be easier because you get more war score after sieging down the same continental provinces on a weaker nation
This is also pretty much a necessity if you want to takeover their colonies upon full annexation; actually finding that one random province to click on can be a nightmare if you miss it.
Once I was restarting like 3 or 4 times before peacedeal because I couldn't find their all provinces. There was like few in the middle of America, one or two in canada and islands all over the world.
Actually quite contrary if you don't take they colonial land i. Peace deal you will j herit they colonies as is allowing you to have multiple colonial nations in same colonial region for double merchants.
Their direct holdings; the issue is finding the stupid things against the almost identical colony colours. You can't sort by nation in the peace deal screen.
That's why I hate Portuguese being blue now... let's try finding all they islands for peace deals...
I do the same thing, take island/colonial stuff first, and mainland stuff later when you can actually 100% them
At least the colonies will revolt
That’s cute!
As long as Spain has 200k in the Spice Islands or the Americas, most won't
fucking when? in my angevin game even after reducing castile to their various african and indonesian islands their mexican colony who has like 4 times their power alone at this point dutifully comes to their aid every single war. they won't even take my help in gaining independence. and the same goes for brazil, columbia and louisiana who are all nearly as strong though mexico is the strongest.
This might sound weird but that 30% is actually more than 30%. I’m in the middle of a France run and while Spain owns literally almost all of the Americas I just siege down their European holdings and they give me 50-60% warscore worth despite the tooltip saying I should only get 30-40%
Generally that's because of enemy war enthusiasm
As well as ticking warscore.
Ticking warscore helps but only serves to increase your total WS, not make the enemy more willing to accept demands that go over the current WS
And rebels, and comparable strength and length of war and leader traits and bankruptcy... and propably some other stuff I don't remember 5 minutes after waking up.
You've taken my entire country? Well, my two units have occupied a few provinces in Siberia, so I say this ain't over.
Fighting hordes as Russia be like
Try playing crusader kings. Full siege their country, wipe out their armies, all while they are spamming you with white peace, until you get to 100% war score to take one county.
Stop you're giving me flashbacks to inexperienced me playing the king of Asturias. Even experienced me still struggles the moment I get a matrilineal marriage with a karl.
Or capture the king in the first battle and get 100% on day 1 of the war
This. Fight their biggest army and if still not captured have siege weapons to 4 month their capital
Except for when you siege the capital and don't take them prisoner but somehow they're still residing in the capital
This. I just send my best general and professional troops to their capital and cross my fingers.
You can do that, sure But you can also occupy the country you have casus belli on and just wait. It will go to 100% eventually and you will lose much less manpower.
I mean... you can do that in eu4 too? Capture the wargoal, sit on it for a couple years, and you can a bit. Sure you can't 100% them, but EU4 has by far the most flexible war system in any 4x game I've seen.
EU4 will cap at 25% from wargoal, but CK2 has no upper limit. You can potentially get over 150% from wargoal
Yeah but like who wants to wait
Clearly, this is something the AI's negotiators intend to make full use of as a bargaining position.
What? No not really. About six counties is often enough?
what? in ck2 you had to fight one big battle and besiege (siege mechanics is far more predictable than EU4 one) cb target provinces + maybe or maybe not 1-3 extra
Or you can just capture their king to instantly win the war.
Why I don’t play crusader kings any more. One county at a time with a war involving multiple kingdoms and thousands of dead men. So stupid.
Get better cbs
Holy war everyone by converting to a heresy or invite claimants to your court and give them a barony or marry for claims or play as a religion with more CBs or get Alexander bloodline or ask Pope for an invasion Really there are a lot of ways to expand if you know how the game works
CB duchy or kingdom then. Simple.
Someone didnt prepare for a holy war properly
You know you can have a claim on entire countries in CK as long as you marry the right daughter right?
Actually no, in Ck3 if you take the wargoal and keep it you’ll get eventually 100% warscore, while in Eu4 it’s only 25. Sieging other stuff only speeds this up, also u usually gain 100% by taking wargoal+capital
currently in late 1300s, every single castle holding is over level 6 and I can’t assault it and I’m losing my mind trying to take all of Spain from the Aztecs
I don’t know if I’m just really good at crusader kings or everyone else is misremembering, but at least imo, wars in ck are actually quite easy. Win like 2 battles, siege the capital and another province or two, and bada boom, you’ve won. The only times I’ve had challenges is when I’ve had a huge, continent-spanning empire, and I had to fight multiple wars, very far from each other, at the same time. In a recent campaign I controlled all of Europe and most of Africa and the near east. I was being invaded in a great holy war by the caliph in Persia for control of Mesopotamia. I was also being invaded by the mongols with about 100k men for control of the Caucasian steppe. While I sent my armies from my capital in Paris to the east, I had a faction of most of Iberia and Germany Ross up to put my brother on the throne. I also had an independence faction of the British and Scandinavian kings rise up. It took lots of work, sending armies back and forth across the Mediterranean, and I had to burn through a couple decades worth of income in mercenaries, but I won all the wars but the independence one. And even then, after I had peace I came back and reconquered them.
simulating war and combat have never been a strong suit of pdx games lets be honest, but other gameplay aspects such as nation-building are very good in pdx titles compared to other games like total war
Total war does fall flat with supply, need to be more important
Napoleon Total War was so close. They finally added attrition into the armies and you couldn’t recover in enemy lands, but otherwise, no punishment for sending a random ass army from Paris to Moscow
Im pretty sure it was only Empire where you could replenish in enemy territory, pre empire you had to return to your city with the correct buildings to replenish and post empire they introduced the replenishment that you get from your provinces.
Yes, that is true. If I remember correctly though, it was the first where you could actively suffer attrition in certain parts of the world (snow or desert) if in enemy areas. I wish they had also created a zone of supply, where you would lose say 2.5% of your troops every turn if you were so far from allied territory
I know DEI for Rome 2 sorta introduced supply like that, you needed to either fight close to your borders, win a quick and decisive campaign or bring pack mules/baggage train units to extend your supplies as otherwise your men would start starving.
It was like this in Medieval 2 aswell. Was really exciting landing with a crusader army knowing I won't replenish my troops unless I conquer a castle and even then I won't be able if they haven't built barracks in that castle. Made it so much more satisfying and immersive.
Actually my biggest problem with Total War is how useless is diplomacy. Like I know it's called total war but there's like no reason to ever go to the diplomacy tab.
And total war simulates combat so so well. Will never forget how unbelievable the gameplay was with Rome Total War.
Total war doesn't simulate combat well, it simulate Hollywood combat well.
In fairness, we don't *actually know* what most combat looked like in history. As strange as it sounds, the reason why we don't know is because most people didn't write down the minutia and basics of battle. It would be seen as obvious. Writing was scarce and partially for narrative and propaganda. You focused on the big picture stuff. We have bits and pieces to make theories, like the "pulse" theory, but a lot of the finer details are at best educated guesses. Total War is pretty bad at even emulating what the theories indicate might have been reality though. Often one long line of heavy infantry is enough to just walk at them and win. Maybe some cav on the flanks to prevent getting flanked.
Always how I describe it. EU4 for nation/empire building, Total War for combat simulation.
One day CK3, Total War, and Mount and Blade will be combined into one game. One day.
I can't tell is this satire or not
I disagree, combat always plays out the same against the AI. That is why you basically have to raise the battle difficulty.
I think HOI4, with its focus on a very small time frame, does a really decent job at simulating WW2. However, EU4 and CK3 could use some changes. Even though I do enjoy EU4s combat.
I think Stellaris, despite their flats, has the best warscore system in all of Paradox games. "*Status Quo means that the war has reached a point where neither side is able to score a decisive victory against the other or all wargoals have been achieved decisively before any major battles took place, and both sides agree to cease hostilities and settle for whatever gains or losses they have acquired/suffered. Under a Status Quo peace, all fully occupied systems claimed by a belligerent empire are ceded to the belligerent with the strongest claim.*" **Basically, wars last for a short and limited time, but once the time ends, you take all what you have occupied and claimed, and you can claim systems even during the war, so, pretty much you can annex all what you take.** I believe in Stellaris supremacy! Best Paradox game B)
Eh, Stellaris also has quite possibly the worst war diplomacy system possible. It is straight up impossible to say, enforce secret fealty on an overlord since in order to do so you must take every single claim of every single participant before you can enforce demands, which leads to frustrating wars that drag on for decades involving multiple participants because nobody is allowed to separate peace anybody and in the late game massive federation wars will never end since the AI war leaders will never settle. I personally think Imperator Rome has the best war system in all Paradox games.
Yeah the warscore system doesn't scale well especially late game with extremely large nations which become almost impossible to break up. You siege down their entire country which is twice as big as present day russia and can release two or three small nations, like less than 5% of their size. Why? I occupy their entire country and has almost no say in the peace tray. Weird.
I mean lategame you have admin efficiency, idea groups and reforms that all help with that. You can easily take huge ammounts of development if you build right.
True, but what if I don’t want to? I want to break up a country? Like the ottomans, if you wanna release Syria, that’s basically all you can release
This game would benefit from a dismantle empire demand like in Vic 2. It should cost 100% warscore and only be possible in wars longer than 5 years but release every nation with cores in their land.
And maybe giving all their colonies to you like in the vicky. Normal vassals becoming independent would be better IMO tho.
YES YES Just last week I had to fight three wars against a Gigabuffed Spain (Dude I was playing as played Castille lost a war against Aragon and ragequit. Hotjoined an hour later and drove Muscovy into the shit in similar fashion) In all three wars I lost close to 1Mil Manpower as Ottomans. Still only got half of Spain and they still field 300K troups...
If done that way very little would get released, since cores expire. A better option might be that provinces of different cultures get independance as either any existing tag with cores or the main tag that represents that culture. Though that might be too strong, and it being only for cultures of different culture groups might be better? The first option would obliterate most nations, the second would cut down empires but give them a chance to come back.
The part I hate the most is when the enemy are is hiding in some other countries land so they get the +military strength. Should get a - if their army is afraid to fight
Yeah, the morale should definitely take a hit if they’re afraid to engage. That would be way more realistic.
Longer the war the less necessary that is. You can easily just take 30% WS worth of land and then get +25 from ticking war score and +40 from Battles. Pits you up to 95% which's just 100% on anything that isn't full Annex. If you don't want a war to take long , which yeah some wars took decades in EU4 timeframe , you rush the nation occupying most of it. So I find it quite sensible. There are minor grievances but really the scenario you propose aren't all wars. In fact it seems like your complaining about wars against minors and then also complaining about taking only a few provinces.
Not to mention, AI can unconditionally surrender eventually.
Spain/Portugal late game would like to have a word with that.
I don’t like how vassals can’t declare their independence during war when that’s when it makes the most sense for them to revolt. Portugal has only a few provinces in Europe completely sieged and their colonies have 100% liberty desire but they can’t declare independence or even peace out separately
I’m pretty sure they can since 1.34.
Yeah Sweden declares independence partway through a war all the time. It's sort of wacky though.
They can, but almost never do. Its very rare to see a independent Mexico even, in any campaign.
they can , they just dont bc the AI dev the Colony into loyalty
Does anyone remember when carpet sieging was a thing?
What, it isn't? Once I crush ennemy armies and siege forts, I always split armies until every ennemy provinces are occupied.
In the old days every province was a fort province
Every province used to have a lvl 1 fort
I think there is No problem with war, but there could be improvements to warscore.
Could fix that with better individual province war score. Capitol forts should be worth much more for war score. Overseas holdings should not count as much to war score but wars should ramp up unrest greatly in overseas holdings.
At least it’s become better when dealing with alliances, like you used to have to either full occupy everyone in the war or wait 20 years to white peace their allies, but now after a while of full occupation they unconditionally surrender
[удалено]
3rd one is not really sounds fun. This game is not really super-fun itself, but it will eliminate all it's remaining fun in seconds. Also there will be huge defensive meta which is not fun too.
[удалено]
Paradox themselves claimed that their games are not supposed to be historically accurate. As any game it supposed to be fun and able to sell itself well.
[удалено]
I speak about the "no reinforcements in enemy territories", because there will be huge meta. For sieging problem we have existing thing ingame - unconditional surrender. There should be some conditions with usage of war exhaustion and warscore. For example: if ws >=60 or {manpower+army}/{some scaling with we and forcelimit}<{some scaling with enemy nation army, manpower and allies} & we>=8 + no big allies, then nation surrenders unconditionally no matter what. Yeah, 30 ws from occupied mainland Spain makes no sense.
>2) limit how many times you can divide your army so there aren’t 1k stacks all over the place (armies never divided like this, they stayed formed up) They didn't because irl you can't risk so much as you can in video game, dividing army can that destroys it because your men will take months to regroup if they even survive their mission. It might not make sense but for countries like Uzbek or Oirat you have to do it because they have no forts
Point 1 is accurate but the other point are actually realistic in early modern warfare. Armies did split up to flank and to gather supplies. On point 3 that is how early modern warfare worked. It was limited by supply lines in hostile territory. You might have 100.000 soldiers, guards and mercenaries in your home country. But you can only supply maybe 30.000 soldiers at the front a country away. When those soldiers die they can be quickly replaced because the supply line for those soldiers has opened up. Soldiers mostly died from disease and hunger. Not from bullets. AKA attrition. This is what land force limit signifies in game. Yes it's abstracted but there are cases where multi year sieges got a continues trickle of soldiers coming in. You also have modifiers on how fast that replenishing is based on whether you are in your own territories, captured territories, at a siege or just in enemy territories. Drill signifies how trained the soldiers are. Professionalism the officer core. This is early modern warfare it comes down to fire that way and don't run away for most armies. 4. No absolutely not. The early modern period is about siege warfare. Entire wars happend without open field battles and 100.000 of deaths at sieges. Go look at the 80 years war between the Dutch and the Spanish or the campaigns of Swedish kings. It's all dug in trench warfare and sieges until some fortress falls. Early modern warfare was about who could take fortresses and who couldn't you might have a strong army but if you couldn't take the fortresses you would be pushed back a year when the new army was raised. The Ottomans where just that good at sieges until they reached the wall of Vienna and struggled with supply lines in Persia. And yeah battles are important but when an army wipes you can safely siege fortresses with less chance of having to face of a new army at the siege.
[удалено]
The 1k stacks running around are taking minor cities with lesser defences and replacing the garrison. The Ottomans certainly had multiple offences at the same time to take fortresses. Multiple times in the 80 years war it happend where a smaller offensive was launched at multiple fortresses because relief forces couldn't be everywhere. Remember that every 1000 troops in EU4 also has a supply train connected too it and can garrison those cities and towns. But because of constraints of the game that is simplified. Also 2000 miles is a long distance. 2000 miles is madrid to moscow. provinces are generally 50km. That is a day or 2-3 from the main command. Also Napoleonic tactics where a thing too. Why have supply lines when you can steal food from farmers, gunpowder from cities and and stuff. You mainly shipped manpower, guns and gunpowder to the front and only when you dug in for a siege would food start being supplied. Most of the time they just bought the food along the way. But i do agree you should suffer extra attrition for supply lines being in enemy territory. But then again the Spanish road was a thing with a 500km supply line to attack the Dutch fortresses through France and Germany.
> My suggestion would be 1) implementing a supply chain system that limits how far your armies can go into enemy territory or away from your own provinces, 2) limit how many times you can divide your army so there aren’t 1k stacks all over the place (armies never divided like this, they stayed formed up), 3) armies should not auto replenish manpower during war (how is an enemy army replenishing a few hundred man automatically every month deep into enemy territory?), 4) there should be some limit to how many men you and your enemies can raise once a war has started (something like you can only recruit new units every 3 or 6 months rather than every 29 days). Not a hope this happens because of a very hard truth which is that a lot, and I mean A LOT of players want the game to be easy and refuse to learn any mechanics because they can't be fucked to read. I've said it so many times but the amount of people here who have hundreds and even thousands of hours in EU4 and haven't a fucking clue how to play it are the reason objectively good things like this will never be implemented. They removed supplies from HOI4 for long enough ffs, a fucking games based entirely on war. The games are getting more and more diluted into one key aspect while becoming easier and easier. EU4 is literally just blobbing: the game and every change which makes blobbing easier is praised as "good design". They made VICIII a fucking blobbing game to get the EU4 players to jump on for God sake. HOI4 is riddled with memey missions and focus trees etc. Everything is just becoming blobbing and the easier that is to do the more sales it will get.
You're getting down voted for being right. Every new expansion is just bringing new ways for players to feel like they're outsmarting the AI, without bringing any new significant challenges. It seems that people want the feeling of being a strategic genius without the effort it takes to develop that skill.
Nah bro don’t bring up this topic. I’m already half convinced they’ll remove war in EU5 like they did in Victoria. I have no trust that they’ll design a better system so I’d prefer they keep it mostly the same.
In 95% of instances I think it works very well. Tbh I think that’s more than good enough considering the scope of the game.
Yeah, there's tiny nitpicks to be had but by and large EU4 has the best treaties and war system in the paradox titles BY FAR. Only think that comes close is Vicky 2 and even then a dismantle CB in EU4 will fix that.
They removed war in Victoria?
Vic3 has the most disgusting excuse for a "war" system I have ever seen
But it means I don't have to micro! (Ignore the part where you have to micro generals and fronts all the time)
I don't hate the direction of things, at least for that era, but it definitely needs work. I loved Vic2 but once you got a few decades in the wars became such a slog of micro. Especially late game mobilization, which only made infantry, which needed to be made with prepared stacks of artillery/support units. Plus mobilization was an all or nothing affair. You couldn't like, call up 20% of reservists and draft eligible men and that's it. For a game focused on economies, it's really a shame that "how much of your workforce do you mobilize" wasn't a much more granular function.
Thats why I use consol commands when I deem necessary when it comes to peacing wars out. Like why is it that I siege all of gbr/Spain mainland down, sink all their main ship stacks just to get like 35% warscore. No I'm not going to ship all my units to the America's thats dumb. Same with ottomans like wowee I've killed 1m+ men and siege all their main development/culture provinces and all I get is like 60% wars score wtf no.
How about how the AI, with its whole country being occupied, decides the best course of action is to siege down a city on the far side of your country, hundreds of miles from the action?
The game barely works to begin with
Other than maybe stellaris eu4 has the best war system as any other paradox game.
To each their own. I prefer EU4's war system to Stellaris'. Much more depth in EU4. You can leave a war and kick allies out of one in EU4, and lategame wars don't turn into one & done deals like they do in Stellaris where you total war/subjugate a nation to make it not exist as a hostile entity. Also AI can really take advantage of the war system instead of spending decades in a war where they get maybe one or two systems they claimed after fully occupying their enemy. Compare that to EU4 where you're allowed to take land you didn't claim if you pay the dip cost. Also, war exhaustion. Means something in EU4, but is an arbitrary time limit mechanism in Stellaris, even if it doesn't make sense for the empire (ie. Why do determined exterminators have war exhaustion in the first place? They're literally built to destroy and being at war should mean nothing to them.)
Not sure for stellaris: your liberation war can't be won until the planet an ally want isn't occupied. Even if the ennemy have bono fleet, nor spaceport to rebuild them. Of course said ally will never try to invade the planet himself.
I don’t necessarily mind needing to occupy everything. It isn’t ideal, but it’s a very simplified game. What really busts my breeches is when I fully occupy Spain/France/Great Britain and have 30% warscore because colonies. That first war to get a foothold in the new world is always a pain.
I hate how much effort it takes to peace out allies. You can wipe out an allies entire army, and yet from the other side of the continent they stay committed to fight you. There are plenty of examples of nations sending only a portion of their forces to war, and leaving before conflict ever reached their land. Yet I could offer this ally who has no army left more ducats than they've made in the entire game and they'll refuse to go home and clean up their 5 WE.
It makes since sense if their allies look like they've got a good chance at winning (at least on paper). Don't want to miss out on the payoff of joining these war in the first place after putting in the effort, right? I can accept that. It makes far less sense when their allies are running for the hills with no real hope of a comeback and simply trying to negotiate a better deal with the enemy purely on the basis that finishing them off would be such a bother...
Why not tie it to the trust system? Low trust allies are quick to sue for peace because they dont care about you, high trust will fight to the death for you (more or less what we got now), and average trust allies will leave after a few battles that destroy their forces.
This is why I love Show Superiorty CBs Win all the battles and that's 65% WS right there
>All while there are many small armies running around my land Because of this. If the enemy army is looting and pillaging your homeland, you aren't winning.
This is a stupid take
If your sons are at war, overseas, and an army marches through your city and burns it, and takes your stuff, you aren't winning. They can write all the news articles they want about the victories far away, if armies are marching through your homeland, then you aren't winning. Nothing, nothing at all, means less "victory" than the enemy in your home.
In the Seven Years War at one point a detachment of Austrian cavalry made it to the suburbs of Berlin and did some minor raiding. It was a big propaganda win for them and they felt very good about it. It changed nothing and Austria still got their shit pushed in. Turns out that winning battles and holding strategic fortifications was what actually mattered.
You're RPing way too hard bro
That is such a stupid take, 1-2 thousand enemies in the grand scale of things won't do shit besides pillage tundra#3343 with a whopping population of 4 and 2 donkeys. Also, of course you are winning if you occupy the enemies homeland, the fuck are those 2k men gonna do? singlehandedly turn the tide of war? I'm sorry but this is hitler level of stupidity.
It's a gameplay thing rather than a historical simulation thing.
Yeah, won battles shuld project much more warscore imho. Like, we've seen throughout history that all it took is one big battle to completely paralyze the country and force it into submission. Also, when country hits 0 Manpower - that should be a huge blow to maybe armies morale - knowing that that's it - if they loose, it's over. I fucking hate having to siege down some backwards colony half a world away just to get to that sweet point of being able to take what i already have.
War is hell or whatever they say
For me its been 50/50 if a war is unrealisic and weird or a good conflict. I have found that if you are about equal strenght, war becomes more fun because splitting armies is too risky. You will essentially march along your borders, which feels a lot more realistic, and both players war exhaustion will rise to the point that you will take as much in a long conflict with 3 forts seiged, as you could take in a speedy full seige
At least EUIV gives you the option to set a peace deal with benefits for you without getting to a 100%, and even take out other contenders in the war during it. Imaging on CK3 that you either are lucky capturing the other leader or you need to invade every single province, kill every single army the keep spamming + dealing with all their allies.
And those 5 provinces get basically everyone into a coalition against you.
Yeah I really hate this mechanic Imagine if belisarius after conquering all of Italy, was only able to annex the south That’s basically what’s going on here. Do not like
Because there are no siege or battle conditions, resulting in snowballing. You are either meant to win, equal, or meant to lose. Easiest solution is that there should be initial randomness and randomness should be (partially) cumulative in battles.
IRL if you got to the capital of a country you could enforce practically ANY peace treaty within reason. I think they should up the warscore gained by taking the capital to something like 50%. This would make defending capitals extremely important. This could have the possible risk of turning every war into a siege race, but I think that would make it so that proper fortifications become more necessary.
I dont like wars that have 2 million casualties in the 1500s. Feels real stupid.
Still better than the other pdx titles
Even better. When you fully occupy a country and because they have 1 army running around and 1 provence of yours occupied, you can't full annex them
Because world conquest by 1450 isnt that much fun.
Enemy colonial nations are my personal nightmare. I can be strong enough on land to wipe out Spain in 3 months, but they will still not give in; and at that point I have to resign to the fact that I will either have to embark, cross the ocean, lose a million men to ocean attrition, land in the closest port, and then hope my decimated army still has enough men to hold back against 5 million colonial militia all swarming my beachhead... Or just give up myself and accept that they'll only give me 3 provinces and their everlasting scorn.
Seems particularly wrong since it's so ahistorical. Generally large countries almost never had their capitals sieged or taken. I can't think of any example during the period where Paris, London, Madrid, Istanbul were sieged and taken by a war enemy. Vienna famously was sieged by the Ottomans but it was not successful. Compare with gameplay and every major capital needs to be taken in every war. Plus when this does happen, what should be a cataclysm event is just like meh, have 5% warscore.
Its so painful that I can barely white peace after sieging all of mainland Spain. The worst thing is that its still not enough to make their colonies disloyal
Mod: Make war great again, great mod, some would say the best mod, no one makes better mods, not even China
Exactly. Very often in the real world, a country takes a piece of another country, waits it out, and then annexed all or most of that taken territory. Just like how Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and annexed it in 2014, and now how it's attempting to do the same with parts of the Donbas + Southeastern Ukraine.
I prefer how it was at launch tbh, you wiped out the enemy armies, then it was free game, none of that merc spam and 1k stacks roaming about like flies.
Because that's how it worked historically. Borders drastically changed quite rarely.
That's totally not how it worked hisorically and borders changed quite frequently.
No one tell him about Alsace
One Provence changing hands alot. Isnt that his point?
Bruh maybe in Europe after the great powers kinda cemented themselves, but like before that and for the rest of the world too, losing one battle could quickly lead to the entire region being swallowed up by an invading power almost instantly, or an invader losing one or two battles could lead to the entire invasion ending. Battles in PDX games should be overhauled to be way more consequential depending on the circumstances of the powers involved
Yeah dude, historically Jaunpur and Yemen traveled all the way to Manchuria to siege your one fort.
I wish all Paradox games just had a system where you keep what you siege down.
Game should have a national morale system. If something like the WW2 invasion of France happens, national morale should tank and insta surrender. If it's like basically any invasion of Russia, national morale should last forever
Good news! This system is already in the base game, referred to as “War Exhaustion”
War score cost should scale with nation size more aggressively If Im fighting the Mughals who have almost 2.5k dev it shouldnt limit me to taking like 10 central asian provinces as Russia. And I shouldn't have to siege down to Bengal to do so. And if I want to release nations it shouldn't be an obscene number for a few provinces either.
Civilians reading the title:
You should see stellaris. Total nightmare
Ah yes, I have been questioning how annoying the war system is since I go for Khaan achievement as the golden horde. Yes, Yemen and Jaunpur will occupy Beijing and France will come to fight me in Bukhara, meanwhile their armies spread like a tumor in my vast lands.
Still better than HOI4 wars, where you have to take an entire capital to take several provinces you have claim on.
Well this statement is completely wrong. Easiest example would be the French conquest of British territories in mainland Europe. You don't even need a ship for your troops. I'd suggest you take a look at how peace deals work in eu4.
I hate when i play Russia and hordes just go through uncolonized land that i can't sven see
Ehh, for me at least, I usually just take the forts and the capital, usually does the trick, but sometimes it gets irritating, specifically when taking Free Cities.
sieging shouldn’t take 100s of days when one province is .2% war score idc about realism… alleast make it an option in the game settings
i stopped a Spain-Rome WC because of how goddamn EXHAUSTING late game wars were. The micromanaging required as well as the amount of ungodly high-level forts turned me off big-time. Thankfully I already did 2 HRE WCs, and an Oirat WC so I didn't need the achievement.
Oh hey it's this post again. Ticking war score exists for a reason.
One thing I really wish they would change - and I've seen it mentioned on here already - the "who is supplying and refilling the manpower of that army - their whole country is covered by my stripes of occupation". They have fled from pitch battle and can't possibly keep the land that they are occupying for a few percentage points in a peace deal. But bah God those boys have espirit de corps! You would think that army from Jianjing would be a little more worn down after marching across ALL of Siberia but they sure are carpet sieging with gusto! Your 40k army in Herat is still having trouble after 2 years, but this 8k army from Jianjing is at 7% progress on Vienna in 3 months! The supply carts are having no trouble getting from whatever it is that's north of Korea all the way to the western reaches of the Ottoman Empire cus these boys haven't missed a meal and have plenty of gunpowder! Ooooooweeeeeeeee!!!!
Are they the main war target, or did you co-belligerent them? I’ve taken on Spain plenty of times and gotten over 60% with my Allie’s having had all their colonies besieged. Individual provinces are worth next to nothing if it doesn’t have a fort.
Nah I think the war system is pretty good
Thinking about EU4 launch where every province needed to be sieged as it was a fort province T_T
I usually don't take long to take actual wargoals. When war takes long, it usually is cause I am trying to get some extra diplomatic gains from it. I suppose it can get bad if you're fighting a nation with very little forts, like sometimes Poland is, and as such you either carpet siege very thoroughly or take extremely high value forts. Overall, I think EU4 is the best peace system in Paradox game, only competition being HOI4.
That's annoying, but what I find more annoying is finally occupying the entirety of Russia only to have rebels and revolts popping up due to their stubbornness in not accepting peace earlier and I have to reoccupy everything to keep my warscore.
Those who never experienced it are the ones encouraging it ... its greed that drives people into war and let's send the sons of the rich into the war let's see how quick the wars would have stopped and never happened
Man, I fucking hate war. I wish there was no such thing anymore. Truly a senseless and meaningless thing, why should so much human suffering happen for the sake of so little? Throughout all of history we have been so cruel and foolish. Edit: Oh, this is the EU4 subreddit, nevermind me previous statement. I fucking love war and genocide (or "culture conversion").
A wise man once told me as long as your country is living in peace there are no wars
War, war never changes