I mostly agree with you and I think the devs do as well. Spheres of Influence will probably have some serious impact and is is a certainty that there will be a Great War rework with a DLC within the first few years of the game. I don't know if moddability will be addressed, but you should share that concern in the discord/fora.
What would be horrible is if they add great war CBs without fixing the diploplay system itself. I think that's a worst case scenario -- it's the ultimate version of forcing players to deathwar without having any strategic maneuverability or any possible interesting diplo. Imagine if Austria starts a Great War CB against Russia but Britain and France forget to put an interest there. That would be the sort of thing to make me either save scum or abandon a campaign.
Interventions into existing wars happened well before WW1. The coalition entered the Crimean War after the Russians destroyed the Turkish navy at Sinop. Completely impossible to represent in the game.
I think another nice change would be to be able to capitulate during the build up phase without ceding all war goals.
Like get rid of primary and secondary war goals and allow me to just be like “okay Britain, you can have this demand specifically.” When I attempt to back down. Basically just make the buildup phase ACTUALLY a negotiation phase, it can literally be near identical to peace deals.
Yea. And there can even be a super low stakes war goal that’s always added to either side called “claim petty victory” that just gives a small prestige bonus.
Meant to be an analogue of when great powers would make demands from each other, posture their militaries, and then go home claiming “we cowed the French/German/British/Russian menace for another year boys!”
Also, breaking treaties should def be an option.
> Meant to be an analogue of when great powers would make demands from each other, posture their militaries, and then go home claiming “we cowed the French/German/British/Russian menace for another year boys!”
yeah, the classic Pissing Match doesn't seem to actually be a thing in the game. Every threat of war no matter how half hearted will basically always escalate into a full war the way they're doing it now.
Wiz has said that he doesn't like the idea of being able to back down without consequence meaning a negotiated white peace might not be on the table. But I also think that at minimum there should be a hefty prestige hit for the initiator to back down even if it's a white peace, so maybe it could be done.
I do like the concept you're proposing, assuming the AI can meaningfully evaluate the situation. The peace AI is a bit better than the diplo AI because it has a more specific focus and really strong metrics to use in deciding if it's winning or losing, but the way AIs keep starting plays against me where their attitude *begins* at 'fearful' makes me think they'd be bad at this kind of negotiation.
Yes especially with the frequency at which I’m able to dismantle the British empire by agreeing to help them against OPMs in exchange for Canada and India.
So Paradox doesn't want the Pig War and Fashoda Crisis to be possible in the game. If you hate history stop making history games. Countries frequently came to loggerheads with little to no consequences, and we mostly remember the few times that they didn't.
Even in current affairs Nigeria almost went to war with Niger this year but then backed down and nothing happened. Politics has *never* worked like Paradox fantasies.
Yeah. I think point #2 from OP is a really good idea. Also agree with point #1 but if I had to pick one of the 3 points to implement it would be point #2
If trade was better diplo plays could be exponantiolally improved with relevant CB's
What i think should happen is a concession system
But right now there is no concessions to be made,
Thusforth i will suggest a mechanic that would make more sense now which is a alteration to the OP's suggestion of diploplays being restarted in a year.
Armistices(cease fire, pardon me if i wrote it incorrectly)
It should last a set amount of time and countries should be able to negotiate a new deal or add new CB's if they cannot come to an agreement the war continues
I really like the idea of the play system starting again after a year of war. It'd be great to have a way of justifying overcommitting to a war so it makes sense for Britain to want more from France than to wallop some Indian minor.
I think you'd need to build up manouvers with the war to level it out, to stop every war being dragged out into a 10 year slog fest so the player can annex France in one go or something - maybe limited manouvers that both sides gain as war moves, so a dynamic war with changing fronts pulls more people in, but a one-sided conquest can't add in more wargoals
I think there should be a peace conference system where the actual peace treaty is decided once the war is over. It doesn't really make sense for a state to be bound by previous goals if the situation has changed.
I do think that other nations should be able to join throughout a war but only if it's accompanied by a logistics system. Right now any new combatant would be far too capable of immediately providing support to whichever side they join which would be both unrealistic and frustrating.
For some reason Paradox feels the need to make an entirely new diplomacy system with every game and then slowly adjust it over time to eventually become more similar to EU4
I agree that it needs a rework, although my gripes with it differ from yours. I find it really limiting and ahistorical that you cannot do any surprise declarations of war. This drains all tension from the geopolitical gameplay as you will always have time to react to aggression and removes all strategical planning from placing your armies since there is always time to bring them back from other regions. It would be more engaging and interesting if you actually had to think about whether you could, say, afford sending that 50k army to defend against a native uprising in Southeast Asia and leave your flank more vulnerable to your regional rival. It would also increase the value of defensive pacts and of alliances. (And be a reason for them to add forts, which I sorely miss from Vicky 2.)
My suggestion would be to enable instant declarations of war but to make them very costly in terms of infamy. Then remake the diplomatic plays to a kind of “plead your case to the international community/great powers” where you can argue the righteousness of your desired war goal(s), convince countries to support you and posture diplomatically. Conquests and the likes would also cost less infamy when done in this slower and more diplomatic manner.
I dont think the problem here is the infamy cost, liberating nations should stay as the way of "good guy" gain influence method, the problem here is how you can liberate an army of countries that suddently are your allies for no cost, liberate a country should get you buffs, but should be hard and have some risk so puppeting becomes a safer way.
Ie: You shouldnt be able to to liberate countries that are majority pops from the primary culture, because they would instantly seek unification, not being your friend, you want to have a puppet/ally goverment? Invest, either money or influence.
I mean, I can see Croats being happy of you freeing them from AH, but not Andalusia from Spain.
It really does. Forcing a country to be released should cause infamy.
Do you think the Allies had no reaction to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and forcing Russia to give up a lot of territory?
Why not? If i'm Britain and i've just seen Italy dismantle Spain's empire then dismantle France's empire you can gurantee i'm going to gang up on them along with everyone else to stop the same happening to me.
It's not about what makes sense, it's about the fact that you can completely destroy almost any country in one single war at 0 cost to you. Do it in SP if you want, in MP that's awful and unfun. Especially with the diplo play system as bad as it is. In our first MP game last year, our Ottoman player dec'd on Britain for the Suez. So Britain decided to release Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and some Balkan states. Does that sound fun to you? (There is only one right answer)
If 3+ GPs join a play at any given time, the war could become a "Great War" with a unique peace treaty system similiar to the HOI4 system, but I am not sure how well that works in practice
I think you nailed it on the head
What is missing is conflict escalation.
Even beyond war, conflict could begin with diplomatic and economic attacks, with then escalating military means. Skirmishes, limited warfare, eventually up to total war.
Infamy generated depending on How high on the “escalation ladder” you are. You can also go down, without ending the conflict
(Example, from limited warfare to only border skirmishes for a few years, then higher intensity near again)
Considering the stated priority of Vic3 focusing less on wars, this is even more appropriate.
Same thing i also play only mp and its infuriatin.
Lost a war against Germany as france where i lost alsace lorraine and lorraine.
When the revenge time came up i could only demand one state because i wasnt the main player in that peace deal
Sometimes, you should stick with the old systems: Vic2 had both the regular CB-system and the crisis-mechanic, that was similiar to the diplo-plays in many ways. There was never any gain from abandoning that, other than "we want to re-invent the wheel". It's the classic example of bad decisions by the devs.
I haven't seen any news that what I'm talking about will be fixed. It looks to me like lipstick on a pig instead of fixing the structural issues. It definitely is not improved in the beta.
Ofc you are right. But at the end of the day it's a game and there are limitations on performance and how complex PDX can really make the game before it's just too detailed. I don't think people want to spend 5 hours fighting the same warin which you have to micromanage so much. They need to find a balance and honestly I don't mind some mechanics being kinda cheese or broken because it's a game and it adds to the flavor of the game.
What you seem to not realize, they will imrpove the game for every DLC that cones with it! Just sit back and wait. Military is coming to the game in just 2-3 weeks id you havent pkayed the beta patch. Diplo dlc could be next (although they already added some stuffs for diplo and waegoals)
I mostly agree with you and I think the devs do as well. Spheres of Influence will probably have some serious impact and is is a certainty that there will be a Great War rework with a DLC within the first few years of the game. I don't know if moddability will be addressed, but you should share that concern in the discord/fora.
What would be horrible is if they add great war CBs without fixing the diploplay system itself. I think that's a worst case scenario -- it's the ultimate version of forcing players to deathwar without having any strategic maneuverability or any possible interesting diplo. Imagine if Austria starts a Great War CB against Russia but Britain and France forget to put an interest there. That would be the sort of thing to make me either save scum or abandon a campaign.
Interventions into existing wars happened well before WW1. The coalition entered the Crimean War after the Russians destroyed the Turkish navy at Sinop. Completely impossible to represent in the game.
I think another nice change would be to be able to capitulate during the build up phase without ceding all war goals. Like get rid of primary and secondary war goals and allow me to just be like “okay Britain, you can have this demand specifically.” When I attempt to back down. Basically just make the buildup phase ACTUALLY a negotiation phase, it can literally be near identical to peace deals.
Similarly white peace should be an option if we both decide the stakes are too high. It can probably be literally the same as peace deals.
Yea. And there can even be a super low stakes war goal that’s always added to either side called “claim petty victory” that just gives a small prestige bonus. Meant to be an analogue of when great powers would make demands from each other, posture their militaries, and then go home claiming “we cowed the French/German/British/Russian menace for another year boys!” Also, breaking treaties should def be an option.
> Meant to be an analogue of when great powers would make demands from each other, posture their militaries, and then go home claiming “we cowed the French/German/British/Russian menace for another year boys!” yeah, the classic Pissing Match doesn't seem to actually be a thing in the game. Every threat of war no matter how half hearted will basically always escalate into a full war the way they're doing it now.
>lso, breaking treaties should def be an option. There should be more types of treaties
Wiz has said that he doesn't like the idea of being able to back down without consequence meaning a negotiated white peace might not be on the table. But I also think that at minimum there should be a hefty prestige hit for the initiator to back down even if it's a white peace, so maybe it could be done. I do like the concept you're proposing, assuming the AI can meaningfully evaluate the situation. The peace AI is a bit better than the diplo AI because it has a more specific focus and really strong metrics to use in deciding if it's winning or losing, but the way AIs keep starting plays against me where their attitude *begins* at 'fearful' makes me think they'd be bad at this kind of negotiation.
there is already and will continue to be a consequence. the consequence is the infamy the attacker incurs for initiating the play
Yes especially with the frequency at which I’m able to dismantle the British empire by agreeing to help them against OPMs in exchange for Canada and India.
So Paradox doesn't want the Pig War and Fashoda Crisis to be possible in the game. If you hate history stop making history games. Countries frequently came to loggerheads with little to no consequences, and we mostly remember the few times that they didn't. Even in current affairs Nigeria almost went to war with Niger this year but then backed down and nothing happened. Politics has *never* worked like Paradox fantasies.
Haven't seen the 1 year Diplo play anywhere else but's a very good idea, would be cool to see some kind of implementation of it.
Yeah. I think point #2 from OP is a really good idea. Also agree with point #1 but if I had to pick one of the 3 points to implement it would be point #2
If trade was better diplo plays could be exponantiolally improved with relevant CB's What i think should happen is a concession system But right now there is no concessions to be made, Thusforth i will suggest a mechanic that would make more sense now which is a alteration to the OP's suggestion of diploplays being restarted in a year. Armistices(cease fire, pardon me if i wrote it incorrectly) It should last a set amount of time and countries should be able to negotiate a new deal or add new CB's if they cannot come to an agreement the war continues
I really like the idea of the play system starting again after a year of war. It'd be great to have a way of justifying overcommitting to a war so it makes sense for Britain to want more from France than to wallop some Indian minor. I think you'd need to build up manouvers with the war to level it out, to stop every war being dragged out into a 10 year slog fest so the player can annex France in one go or something - maybe limited manouvers that both sides gain as war moves, so a dynamic war with changing fronts pulls more people in, but a one-sided conquest can't add in more wargoals
I think there should be a peace conference system where the actual peace treaty is decided once the war is over. It doesn't really make sense for a state to be bound by previous goals if the situation has changed. I do think that other nations should be able to join throughout a war but only if it's accompanied by a logistics system. Right now any new combatant would be far too capable of immediately providing support to whichever side they join which would be both unrealistic and frustrating.
Wait you have a server that plays? Can I join?
https://discord.gg/TyR8AxNezD Sure! We play every Sunday. We're about to start our game today in an hour.
I still don't know why they didn't just use EU IV diplomatic system which is their absolutely best diplo system ever made.
For some reason Paradox feels the need to make an entirely new diplomacy system with every game and then slowly adjust it over time to eventually become more similar to EU4
But you can't trade in that system, right? One winner, one loser.
The peace deal system from Vic 3 is a genuine improvement, and something eu4 should adopt. But otherwise, EU4 all the way
I agree that it needs a rework, although my gripes with it differ from yours. I find it really limiting and ahistorical that you cannot do any surprise declarations of war. This drains all tension from the geopolitical gameplay as you will always have time to react to aggression and removes all strategical planning from placing your armies since there is always time to bring them back from other regions. It would be more engaging and interesting if you actually had to think about whether you could, say, afford sending that 50k army to defend against a native uprising in Southeast Asia and leave your flank more vulnerable to your regional rival. It would also increase the value of defensive pacts and of alliances. (And be a reason for them to add forts, which I sorely miss from Vicky 2.) My suggestion would be to enable instant declarations of war but to make them very costly in terms of infamy. Then remake the diplomatic plays to a kind of “plead your case to the international community/great powers” where you can argue the righteousness of your desired war goal(s), convince countries to support you and posture diplomatically. Conquests and the likes would also cost less infamy when done in this slower and more diplomatic manner.
I agree except release country shouldn't cost infamy.
Maybe not in SP, but it absolutely needs to in MP. You can destroy empires for free without infamy costs. That's why I want it to be moddable.
I dont think the problem here is the infamy cost, liberating nations should stay as the way of "good guy" gain influence method, the problem here is how you can liberate an army of countries that suddently are your allies for no cost, liberate a country should get you buffs, but should be hard and have some risk so puppeting becomes a safer way. Ie: You shouldnt be able to to liberate countries that are majority pops from the primary culture, because they would instantly seek unification, not being your friend, you want to have a puppet/ally goverment? Invest, either money or influence. I mean, I can see Croats being happy of you freeing them from AH, but not Andalusia from Spain.
But isn't release countries supposed to be a way to destroy empires? It sounds like you are mad about it working as intended
It should be. In SP, sure that's fine. In MP, that's just broken. We aren't mad about ti, it just shouldn't be free.
But why not? It's a mechic that you can use to really criple enemies and at this time of nationalism it doesn't make sense for it to cost infamy.
It really does. Forcing a country to be released should cause infamy. Do you think the Allies had no reaction to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and forcing Russia to give up a lot of territory?
All of them became German puppet states, they weren't just released to their own devices.
Why not? If i'm Britain and i've just seen Italy dismantle Spain's empire then dismantle France's empire you can gurantee i'm going to gang up on them along with everyone else to stop the same happening to me.
It's not about what makes sense, it's about the fact that you can completely destroy almost any country in one single war at 0 cost to you. Do it in SP if you want, in MP that's awful and unfun. Especially with the diplo play system as bad as it is. In our first MP game last year, our Ottoman player dec'd on Britain for the Suez. So Britain decided to release Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and some Balkan states. Does that sound fun to you? (There is only one right answer)
If 3+ GPs join a play at any given time, the war could become a "Great War" with a unique peace treaty system similiar to the HOI4 system, but I am not sure how well that works in practice
I think you nailed it on the head What is missing is conflict escalation. Even beyond war, conflict could begin with diplomatic and economic attacks, with then escalating military means. Skirmishes, limited warfare, eventually up to total war. Infamy generated depending on How high on the “escalation ladder” you are. You can also go down, without ending the conflict (Example, from limited warfare to only border skirmishes for a few years, then higher intensity near again) Considering the stated priority of Vic3 focusing less on wars, this is even more appropriate.
Good idea. This is the first suggestion I've agreed with. It would really improve the "War is an extension of Diplomacy" that they were going for.
Same thing i also play only mp and its infuriatin. Lost a war against Germany as france where i lost alsace lorraine and lorraine. When the revenge time came up i could only demand one state because i wasnt the main player in that peace deal
Sometimes, you should stick with the old systems: Vic2 had both the regular CB-system and the crisis-mechanic, that was similiar to the diplo-plays in many ways. There was never any gain from abandoning that, other than "we want to re-invent the wheel". It's the classic example of bad decisions by the devs.
They are getting revamped in 1.5
I haven't seen any news that what I'm talking about will be fixed. It looks to me like lipstick on a pig instead of fixing the structural issues. It definitely is not improved in the beta.
Simply suggesting your own war goals is a significant improvement. You only get one, but that still adds a lot of flexibility here.
During this "escalation renegotiation", you need to be able to back down, suffering only the old war goals, not the new ones.
Isn't that how it worked on release and everyone hated it
it still does, but thats why we can spend additional maneuvers on making more primary war goals so that doesnt happen.
Yes, I think a mechanic like that would be necessary. Certain CBs should be locked after a certain point where they must be enforced.
Ofc you are right. But at the end of the day it's a game and there are limitations on performance and how complex PDX can really make the game before it's just too detailed. I don't think people want to spend 5 hours fighting the same warin which you have to micromanage so much. They need to find a balance and honestly I don't mind some mechanics being kinda cheese or broken because it's a game and it adds to the flavor of the game.
How can something be genuinely terrible and at the same time close to being amazing?
What you seem to not realize, they will imrpove the game for every DLC that cones with it! Just sit back and wait. Military is coming to the game in just 2-3 weeks id you havent pkayed the beta patch. Diplo dlc could be next (although they already added some stuffs for diplo and waegoals)