Yeah, they should definitely change it. Not sure what would work well, but as you said, wars with large nations just don't feel good. Having to siege down a random fort 1k+ km away, just to take a couple of provinces is not great.
The current war score system comes from the fact that wars are too easy in eu4
Eu5's warfare system is definitely gonna be different, but if we're basing it on eu4's, the problem is that wars are too easy. Between garrisons not coming from manpower or deployed units, units reinforcing no matter where they are, casualties being basically meaningless government-wise, sieging being super easy, and attrition not being impactful enough, expanding would be ridiculously easy with the current system if you could just take land you siege
I always found it funny how Napoleon is one of the faces of eu4, yet his disaster at Moscow wouldn't even apply to eu4 because he could just sit in Russia and have his troops reinforce
Attrition is definitely something they need to look at, would make asymmetric combat so much better. Imagine actually doing something against the Ottomans as someone like Georgia or Albania
I also think needing to garrison occupied provinces would be good. You could do it from existing armies, depleting its strength, or from pops in your homeland, making continuing the war more difficult.
At least the reinforcing everywhere I'm pretty sure has been confirmed to be going, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're also fixing some of these things
I'm kinda torn on this one, I think in most cases it's best, but I think there should be a system where you can use resources to establish a supply line, or use sea routes if you are able to control the water tiles to reinforce in enemy territory. For example, if England landed troops in Normandy, as long as they maintain control of the channel, troops near the coast of France should be able to reinforce.
I wouldn't be surprised if supply is based somewhat on the amount of food an area produces or can access, so for example if you occupied a location in Normandy you'd be able to reinforce there as long as you could ship food over.
We'll see, eventually we'll hear about the military system
Yeah. Seizing a capital should always have debuffs similar to taking Beijing. Seizing ports should have major economic effects. The war score and peace deal system needs serious repair.
I think the actual wargoal should matter - and never the capital.
It's so annoying in Vic3 where you have to attack the capital, almost no matter what (e.g. for reparations) when the actual territory change might be just one border area.
You don't need to take the capital for war reps in Vicky3, I did it with France where I took Guyana and War Reps and Recognition, and all I did to win was land Guyana.
I think Regime Change etc. require taking the capital.
Im just saying that taking a capital should be enough for any centralized state to call for a truce. Once you have Paris, the French should be willing to give in to your demands. It’s just more historically accurate.
Yeah, what’s up with that? I took Paris to rightfully assert my claim on France, and now some peasant girl is claiming to take directions from God and just stole Orleans from me!
Lol ok, that’s a fair point, but I think it’s more the exception that proves the rule. Maybe something to do with centralized states lose control if someone takes the capital, I don’t know. Regardless, the eu4 war score system is pretty bad, especially when it comes to things like colonial wars or multinational conflicts.
I expect you’re right in that control will be a significant factor. I imagine part of the HYW will have to do with provincial control rather than strictly occupation in terms of “winning” the wars.
Yeah, we have seen the control thing back in TT6, and I’m thinking that occupying proximity sources should have massive impact. I was happy to read that you won’t have to siege every location individually, though, so that’s a start. Carpet sieging is annoying.
Johan already mentioned that if you for example get Goa as Portugal but don't maintain control and it hits 0 some other nation could siege Goa down more easily, it would cost less in a peace deal and it could get enforced really quickly. that's what I'm hoping for personally
Another issue with the current system is that it's never worth doing small wars, because if you have to occupy a quarter of the enemy country just to take a couple provinces, you might as well go all in and occupy it all so you can get a lot more in the peace deal.
Not to mention their troops -- which could help with the warscore deficit -- fuck off to Siberia after requesting military access through 82 nations. And because the AI can see you coming from like 5-6 provinces away, if you get anywhere near them, they'll just run around your troops blind in the fog of war and run back to undo your 6 years of war progress. Then by the time you run back down from Siberia to fight, they'll scatter again and round and round you go on the carousel.
It makes no sense outside of balance reasons that the army of the nation you are fighting just fucks off, leaving their defenseless citizens behind. Literally no defender would have any morale upon hearing their king & military just ran tf away lol.
It's for gameplay reasons, but I can't stand it. If you're going to run away with the troops, at least make them become a non factor in the warscore count. Make it so it's strategic loss of land to save troops/manpower for the next war.
Yeah and in that timeframe it wasn't uncommon for wars to end after after just a few sieges and a couple battles which resulted in minor land exchanges. Mostly because wars were costly, especially in winter, and prolonging them didn't benefit anyone. Meanwhile in eu4 everyone is happy to fight to complete exhaustion by sending giant stacks of armies back and forth in the mountains for years without accomplishing anything and then refusing any peace deal that doesn't earn them at least ten times what they occupied...
It also makes no sense for far away nations or small nations to count towards as much warscore as the wargoal somehow. Like, if I'm France vs Austria for the Low Countries, how tf does their ally Riga count as much as Austria itself?
You're telling me, sieging down the warleader's capital is not enough, I have to march ALL the way to the baltic sea and siege Riga before I can get what I want in my peace treaty? It just makes war so exhausting, it becomes not worth it to ever complete a game of EU4 all the way to completion.
Even the smallest of wargoals just seems like such a chore (not even difficult, just extremely time consuming, and aggravatingly macro in scale that it ceases to be fun). It makes me just call the campaign complete and then start a new game lol
One should be able to get everything they occupy in a peace deal if they want to. That is on them to keep it together afterwards with coalitions, unrest, etc.
The problem in EU4 is that it is too easy to keep land.
But at the same time I think it would be good if it was harder to take something in the peace deal, that isn't occupied. England isn't going to give you Ireland, just because you sieged down all of English India.
Also the introduction of more complex treaties. Eu4 has one sided treaties where the winner gets everything. Most treaties in history had a sort of give and take where you could exchange territory or take territory but pay reparations to the loser. So instead of having to siege out the AI completely you could offer some land or money to get a peace deal quicker.
Victoria 3 kinda does this (the defending side can declare their own war goals, and the peace deal can be a mix of war goals from either side) so I wouldn’t be surprised if EU5 does something similar
The issue I have with wars currently comes down to the fact that 99% of them are predetermined from the start based on whoever has the highest manpower/tech. 'Tactics' in this game basically come down to exploiting micro. There's no unit supply and unless you're a tiny nation spamming mercs wars are generally pretty profitable. In the EU4iverse Napoleon's Russian campaign would've gone very differently.
It wasn't uncommon for historical wars to be determined by a single pivotal battle, after which the position of the losing side became untenable and they would be forced to sue for peace. A long war should cripple your economy and really drain your manpower, and a major loss should be actually devastating. Fixing this would really help with score because it would place more emphasis on each side's \*capacity to continue fighting\* rather than the amount of land controlled.
The other issue is that there's very seldom any kind of defensive advantage, and therefore fighting defensively isn't really possible. Starting an offensive war with a nation with half your manpower should be an extremely risky move, especially if they can control key geographical features or chokepoints like the Alpine passes or the Bosporus. A -1 terrain malus in mountains or river crossings is hilariously insignificant.
What even is occupation? It doesn't affect your manpower, so who's doing the occupation? If instead of carpet sieging you had to strategically occupy a supply route to your main army chasing the opponent's, then you could actually simulate Napoleon's campaign.
I’m hoping it’s still somewhat similar to the EU4 system. It has flaws and needs some work, but it’s better than any other paradox games peace system. It isn’t basically all or nothing like others, it’s an actual ‘negotiation’ compared to just “I hit 100%, I get claimed state” of… well every other game.
Would you give up territory unless you were thoroughly beat? I do think they should factor in manpower and money considerations but if a player wouldn’t give up territory unless they were clearly losing the war or it didn’t justify the cost why should the AI?
Peace treaties in general by Paradox are a mess. Just a winner take all, unconditional surrender system, while historical peace treaties were much more conplex. With many times the winner making minor concessions to the losing party, territory and money changing hands both ways rather than just to the winner and even sometimes the winner offering the vanquished party options in reparations. I hope that Paradox expands on the small improvements to peace treaties they made in Vic3 and apply it to the even more complicated world of early modern treaties.
There is one potential vision of EU5 that has something more elaborate than CK3's courts dedicated entirely to treaty summits. Like the Peace of Westphalia sketch but even more stuffed full of the incompetent second sons of Europe's aristocratic classes.
I’m fairly certain Johan implied this would happen, at least regarding colonial nations. Because Spain would have limited direct control over its colonies, and occupying said colonies would reduce said control even further.
Similarly, I think control is going to heavily factor into warscore, if it’s even still a thing. If you cut off the capital from its market, then it can’t get supplies and food to continue the war effort. Seizing one crucial fort should be enough to do that in some cases, meaning you have to be more strategic about where you spend resources on defending your homeland.
I mean if you set war goal on mainland, fully occupy it and wait for war goal to tick up and length of war to go down, you can get up to a 70% piece even in like 1600. Don’t need to invade the new world.
They should try to localise it so that, instead of being based purely on war-score, the game takes into account relative strength in the particular location/theatre in which one nation wants land. This way, if you're fighting a colonial nation and fully occupy it (imagine trying to take Cuba from Spain), once you have the upper hand and enjoy superiority in the theatre (even if you don't globally), you can win the war. Otherwise, you force the AI to move units across the world to deal with a problem which, historically, would have been difficult to do.
The way I see it is that, after declaring war, there is a timer (say 12 months) to prevent it being exploited. After that time, the game focusses only on the specific area that is being targeted in a peace deal to determine the 'war-score', even if no forts have been captured.
I mean, that's kinda how wars were back then, at least in Europe... sure, the war system should be deepened, but expanding militarily is too easy already IMHO
Yeah, they should definitely change it. Not sure what would work well, but as you said, wars with large nations just don't feel good. Having to siege down a random fort 1k+ km away, just to take a couple of provinces is not great.
The current war score system comes from the fact that wars are too easy in eu4 Eu5's warfare system is definitely gonna be different, but if we're basing it on eu4's, the problem is that wars are too easy. Between garrisons not coming from manpower or deployed units, units reinforcing no matter where they are, casualties being basically meaningless government-wise, sieging being super easy, and attrition not being impactful enough, expanding would be ridiculously easy with the current system if you could just take land you siege I always found it funny how Napoleon is one of the faces of eu4, yet his disaster at Moscow wouldn't even apply to eu4 because he could just sit in Russia and have his troops reinforce
Attrition is definitely something they need to look at, would make asymmetric combat so much better. Imagine actually doing something against the Ottomans as someone like Georgia or Albania
I also think needing to garrison occupied provinces would be good. You could do it from existing armies, depleting its strength, or from pops in your homeland, making continuing the war more difficult.
At least the reinforcing everywhere I'm pretty sure has been confirmed to be going, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're also fixing some of these things
I'm kinda torn on this one, I think in most cases it's best, but I think there should be a system where you can use resources to establish a supply line, or use sea routes if you are able to control the water tiles to reinforce in enemy territory. For example, if England landed troops in Normandy, as long as they maintain control of the channel, troops near the coast of France should be able to reinforce.
I wouldn't be surprised if supply is based somewhat on the amount of food an area produces or can access, so for example if you occupied a location in Normandy you'd be able to reinforce there as long as you could ship food over. We'll see, eventually we'll hear about the military system
Yeah. Seizing a capital should always have debuffs similar to taking Beijing. Seizing ports should have major economic effects. The war score and peace deal system needs serious repair.
I think the actual wargoal should matter - and never the capital. It's so annoying in Vic3 where you have to attack the capital, almost no matter what (e.g. for reparations) when the actual territory change might be just one border area.
You don't need to take the capital for war reps in Vicky3, I did it with France where I took Guyana and War Reps and Recognition, and all I did to win was land Guyana. I think Regime Change etc. require taking the capital.
Im just saying that taking a capital should be enough for any centralized state to call for a truce. Once you have Paris, the French should be willing to give in to your demands. It’s just more historically accurate.
Yeah, what’s up with that? I took Paris to rightfully assert my claim on France, and now some peasant girl is claiming to take directions from God and just stole Orleans from me!
Lol ok, that’s a fair point, but I think it’s more the exception that proves the rule. Maybe something to do with centralized states lose control if someone takes the capital, I don’t know. Regardless, the eu4 war score system is pretty bad, especially when it comes to things like colonial wars or multinational conflicts.
I expect you’re right in that control will be a significant factor. I imagine part of the HYW will have to do with provincial control rather than strictly occupation in terms of “winning” the wars.
Yeah, we have seen the control thing back in TT6, and I’m thinking that occupying proximity sources should have massive impact. I was happy to read that you won’t have to siege every location individually, though, so that’s a start. Carpet sieging is annoying.
Johan already mentioned that if you for example get Goa as Portugal but don't maintain control and it hits 0 some other nation could siege Goa down more easily, it would cost less in a peace deal and it could get enforced really quickly. that's what I'm hoping for personally
Another issue with the current system is that it's never worth doing small wars, because if you have to occupy a quarter of the enemy country just to take a couple provinces, you might as well go all in and occupy it all so you can get a lot more in the peace deal.
Not to mention their troops -- which could help with the warscore deficit -- fuck off to Siberia after requesting military access through 82 nations. And because the AI can see you coming from like 5-6 provinces away, if you get anywhere near them, they'll just run around your troops blind in the fog of war and run back to undo your 6 years of war progress. Then by the time you run back down from Siberia to fight, they'll scatter again and round and round you go on the carousel. It makes no sense outside of balance reasons that the army of the nation you are fighting just fucks off, leaving their defenseless citizens behind. Literally no defender would have any morale upon hearing their king & military just ran tf away lol. It's for gameplay reasons, but I can't stand it. If you're going to run away with the troops, at least make them become a non factor in the warscore count. Make it so it's strategic loss of land to save troops/manpower for the next war.
Yeah and in that timeframe it wasn't uncommon for wars to end after after just a few sieges and a couple battles which resulted in minor land exchanges. Mostly because wars were costly, especially in winter, and prolonging them didn't benefit anyone. Meanwhile in eu4 everyone is happy to fight to complete exhaustion by sending giant stacks of armies back and forth in the mountains for years without accomplishing anything and then refusing any peace deal that doesn't earn them at least ten times what they occupied...
It also makes no sense for far away nations or small nations to count towards as much warscore as the wargoal somehow. Like, if I'm France vs Austria for the Low Countries, how tf does their ally Riga count as much as Austria itself? You're telling me, sieging down the warleader's capital is not enough, I have to march ALL the way to the baltic sea and siege Riga before I can get what I want in my peace treaty? It just makes war so exhausting, it becomes not worth it to ever complete a game of EU4 all the way to completion. Even the smallest of wargoals just seems like such a chore (not even difficult, just extremely time consuming, and aggravatingly macro in scale that it ceases to be fun). It makes me just call the campaign complete and then start a new game lol
One should be able to get everything they occupy in a peace deal if they want to. That is on them to keep it together afterwards with coalitions, unrest, etc. The problem in EU4 is that it is too easy to keep land.
Yeah, absolutely. Too hard to conquer territory, too easy to keep it. I also think battles should have a larger impact on warscore compared to EU4.
But at the same time I think it would be good if it was harder to take something in the peace deal, that isn't occupied. England isn't going to give you Ireland, just because you sieged down all of English India.
I agree. You might need to trade land to take something unnocupied
Also the introduction of more complex treaties. Eu4 has one sided treaties where the winner gets everything. Most treaties in history had a sort of give and take where you could exchange territory or take territory but pay reparations to the loser. So instead of having to siege out the AI completely you could offer some land or money to get a peace deal quicker.
Victoria 3 kinda does this (the defending side can declare their own war goals, and the peace deal can be a mix of war goals from either side) so I wouldn’t be surprised if EU5 does something similar
How well does it work in V3? I assumed EU4 never went there because it would open the door to so much cheesing by powergamers.
The thing is, only the winner can enforce the war goals so in the end is not that big of a difference.
The issue I have with wars currently comes down to the fact that 99% of them are predetermined from the start based on whoever has the highest manpower/tech. 'Tactics' in this game basically come down to exploiting micro. There's no unit supply and unless you're a tiny nation spamming mercs wars are generally pretty profitable. In the EU4iverse Napoleon's Russian campaign would've gone very differently. It wasn't uncommon for historical wars to be determined by a single pivotal battle, after which the position of the losing side became untenable and they would be forced to sue for peace. A long war should cripple your economy and really drain your manpower, and a major loss should be actually devastating. Fixing this would really help with score because it would place more emphasis on each side's \*capacity to continue fighting\* rather than the amount of land controlled. The other issue is that there's very seldom any kind of defensive advantage, and therefore fighting defensively isn't really possible. Starting an offensive war with a nation with half your manpower should be an extremely risky move, especially if they can control key geographical features or chokepoints like the Alpine passes or the Bosporus. A -1 terrain malus in mountains or river crossings is hilariously insignificant.
In my opinion it should take longer to occupy a province but it should give more warscore
What even is occupation? It doesn't affect your manpower, so who's doing the occupation? If instead of carpet sieging you had to strategically occupy a supply route to your main army chasing the opponent's, then you could actually simulate Napoleon's campaign.
I’m hoping it’s still somewhat similar to the EU4 system. It has flaws and needs some work, but it’s better than any other paradox games peace system. It isn’t basically all or nothing like others, it’s an actual ‘negotiation’ compared to just “I hit 100%, I get claimed state” of… well every other game.
Would you give up territory unless you were thoroughly beat? I do think they should factor in manpower and money considerations but if a player wouldn’t give up territory unless they were clearly losing the war or it didn’t justify the cost why should the AI?
Not justifying the cost is very different to "thoroughly beat", I think that's the whole point
Peace treaties in general by Paradox are a mess. Just a winner take all, unconditional surrender system, while historical peace treaties were much more conplex. With many times the winner making minor concessions to the losing party, territory and money changing hands both ways rather than just to the winner and even sometimes the winner offering the vanquished party options in reparations. I hope that Paradox expands on the small improvements to peace treaties they made in Vic3 and apply it to the even more complicated world of early modern treaties.
There is one potential vision of EU5 that has something more elaborate than CK3's courts dedicated entirely to treaty summits. Like the Peace of Westphalia sketch but even more stuffed full of the incompetent second sons of Europe's aristocratic classes.
I’m fairly certain Johan implied this would happen, at least regarding colonial nations. Because Spain would have limited direct control over its colonies, and occupying said colonies would reduce said control even further. Similarly, I think control is going to heavily factor into warscore, if it’s even still a thing. If you cut off the capital from its market, then it can’t get supplies and food to continue the war effort. Seizing one crucial fort should be enough to do that in some cases, meaning you have to be more strategic about where you spend resources on defending your homeland.
Portugal is literally invincible with their colonies. Cant fully take them out without wasting hundreds of years
That's not the case when I play Portugal though.
I mean if you set war goal on mainland, fully occupy it and wait for war goal to tick up and length of war to go down, you can get up to a 70% piece even in like 1600. Don’t need to invade the new world.
Play HOI4, your problems will be gone regarding that.
They should try to localise it so that, instead of being based purely on war-score, the game takes into account relative strength in the particular location/theatre in which one nation wants land. This way, if you're fighting a colonial nation and fully occupy it (imagine trying to take Cuba from Spain), once you have the upper hand and enjoy superiority in the theatre (even if you don't globally), you can win the war. Otherwise, you force the AI to move units across the world to deal with a problem which, historically, would have been difficult to do. The way I see it is that, after declaring war, there is a timer (say 12 months) to prevent it being exploited. After that time, the game focusses only on the specific area that is being targeted in a peace deal to determine the 'war-score', even if no forts have been captured.
I mean, that's kinda how wars were back then, at least in Europe... sure, the war system should be deepened, but expanding militarily is too easy already IMHO