Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis IV 82744 EUIV: Bug Reports 1325 EUIV: Suggestions 19378 EUIV: Technical Support 6892 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 30
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

EU4 - Development Diary - 24th March 2016

Hello everyone and welcome to another development diary for Europa Univeralis IV. Today we’ll look at a few of new features available for those with the Mare Nostrum DLC.


Whether it’s 10 days or 10 years into a war, there are moments when you know deep down that there is no victory in sight. Currently you might have to wait for your enemy to siege down certain provinces and put your army at great risk before you are able to sign peace, or you are fighting another player who is more interested than your total destruction than simple terms. For these moments, we have added an Unconditional Surrender button.

1.jpg


Upon offering unconditional surrender, all of your currently unoccupied provinces will fall under enemy control and your enemy will gain 100% warscore. Your armies in your own provinces will become exiled and unable to fight in future battles until peace is signed. For the recipient of an unconditional surrender, you will be alerted of your enemy’s surrender and from then on will be able to enforce any possible peace up to 100% warscore cost. If you do not sign peace, then after a couple months you will get Call For Peace giving you monthly war exhaustion which increases faster than normal. The peace you offer will automatically be accepted by the surrendering nation.

For the time being, the AI does not offer unconditional surrender. They will however, gladly accept them.

2.jpg


If you find yourself so busy crushing your enemies to the point of Unconditional Surrender that you have neglected to explore the world around you, Mare Nostrum also bring a new option to the table by way of the Map Share feature.

3.jpg


Map sharing is a new diplomatic action. If you have good relations with a nation who has discovered land which you have not, you can request that they share their maps of a region with you. This will cost you a lump sum of 15 prestige of which 10 will be granted to the kind sharing nation. Colonizing nation are greedy and will not want to share but nations who share a common foe may be more willing to share.

If asking nicely is simply not your thing, you can take the shady path and swipe the maps. It will require the Espionage idea group and cost a moderate amount of Spy Network points, but you will be able to steal the maps right from under their noses.

4.jpg


Stay tuned for more information next week


Mare Nostrum will be available on April 5th for €14:99
 
  • 112
  • 46
  • 12
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
The "Unconditional Surrender" mechanic sounds like a solid improvement. During multiplayer I've experienced players acting badly in both directions:
  • Defeated players refusing to accept a reasonable peace offer, and spiking the game by abusing Paradox's broken pause button. With the new feature they have even less moral authority to refuse to take their loss.
  • Victorious players refusing to send peace terms less than 100% warscore, sometimes spamming 200%+ offers that are ridiculous. The intention being to drive the occupied nation into destruction through WE.
Humans can be real SOBs with internet anonymity, a mechanic that gives them less opportunity to act childish is a good thing. It is often very awkward for a host to enforce sportsmanship, even (or perhaps especially:eek:) among people who you've developed a long-term repertoire with. Because they have invested 8+ hours into a game they are about to get eliminated from, they can get very salty.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
frolix42 said:
The "Unconditional Surrender" mechanic sounds great. During multiplayer I've experienced players acting badly in both directions:
  • Defeated players refusing to accept a reasonable peace offer, and spiking the game by abusing Paradox's broken pause button. With the new feature they have even less moral authority to refuse to take their loss.
  • Victorious players refusing to send peace terms less than 100% warscore, sometimes spamming 200%+ offers that are ridiculous. The intention being to drive the occupied nation into destruction through WE.
It is often very awkward for a host to enforce sportsmanship, when players have invested 8+ hours into a game they can get very sensitive...
Humans can be real SOBs with internet anonymity, a mechanic that gives them less opportunity to act childish is a good thing.
Click to expand...

How does unconditional surrender change anything in either of those scenarios?
In the first the defeated player simply doesn't have to use the unconditional surrender, this is what stabhitting peaceoffers are for.
Second Scenario you're still forced to take a 100% peacedeal albeit in a more timely fashion.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
lotpk said:
How does unconditional surrender change anything in either of those scenarios?
Click to expand...

It's a helpful way to move the game along.

lotpk said:
In the first the defeated player simply doesn't have to use the unconditional surrender, this is what stabhitting peaceoffers are for.
Click to expand...

The losing player has the choice to offer "Unconditional Surrender" or to let the war continue. There should be no pausing the game while bargaining and bickering over what is a "fair" peace. The happens very often and it is obviously very irritating. 100% WS of whatever the victor wants is fair and something I've tried to enforce in game that I host.

lotpk said:
Second Scenario you're still forced to take a 100% peacedeal albeit in a more timely fashion.
Click to expand...

This is not true. In the current meta, a smart human player can prolong a war until another player, who wants to make peace, is ruined. The "Call for Peace" modifier doesn't trigger unless you're above 66.66% WS. Someone could occupy you at +50% WS for a very long time and lol while your nation implodes from WE.

Alternately if someone has fully-occupied you in 1 year, "Call for Peace" doesn't fire until the war had been going on for five years. A bullyish player has four more years where they can sit on your land while you are helpless and can do nothing while your nation is being wrecked. This is a good feature they're adding for multiplayer.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
frolix42 said:
The losing player has the choice to offer "Unconditional Surrender" or to let the war continue. There should be no pausing the game (which irritates everyone) while bargaining and bickering over what is a "fair" peace. 100% WS of whatever the victor wants is fair and something I've tried to enforce in game that I host.
Click to expand...
A fine houserule, but an unsporting player is still free to do whatever he wants.
frolix42 said:
This is not true. In the current meta, a smart human player can prolong a war until another player, who wants to make peace, is ruined. The "Call for Peace" modifier doesn't trigger unless you're above 66.66% WS. I could occupy you at +50% WS for a very long time and lol while your nation implodes from WE.
Click to expand...
This is quite different from what I gathered from your first post, but yes unconditional surrender would certainly help here. I admit my MP experience is limited to friends-only (precisely because I don't have the patience to deal with this kind of behaviour)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Also only 14:99 euros? 0,14 cents? :D

/sarcasm
 
lotpk said:
A fine houserule, but an unsporting player is still free to do whatever he wants.
Click to expand...

I guess, but the "unconditional surrender" feature makes unsporting behavior easier to deal with and this is a good thing. The choice for defeated players is:
  • Unconditional Surrender
  • Continue fighting the war
  • Get kicked from the game (due to unsporting behavior, essentially a ragequit)
Not everyone has the same idea of what is "sportsmanlike", especially since before now there was no rule that peace offers against humans had to be less than 100% WS. In the future there will be no worry about being extorted into accepting a 120% WS offer, which causes a lot of anger between players.

I foresee this saving me a lot of time and headache in Multiplayer.

lotpk said:
This is quite different from what I gathered from your first post, but yes unconditional surrender would certainly help here. I admit my MP experience is limited to friends-only (precisely because I don't have the patience to deal with this kind of behaviour)
Click to expand...

In my experience human players, even friends, when fighting against each other will seek the most effective ways of destroying their opponent. This is just the nature of competition. Often the most efficient way to hurt another player is to refuse to accept peace even when you have maximum WS and the other player would want to peace at 100% WS.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
The AI really needs to learn when to offer an unconditional surrender. There is nothing more annoying than having to ship your armies off to some god forsaken trashy colony after taking all European lands of a European major and they refuse to accept a (in my opinion) fair demand.

The only thing that will happen is that the AI country ends up with more war exhaustion, less man power and more loans while waiting for my armies to get there...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Jorlem said:
My guess is they only came up with the feature very recently, and wanted to add it in to the new patch, but haven't had time yet to teach the AI to use it.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, i sure hope they don't charge for a half-implemented feature. I looks more like a 'filler' to the DLC's feature list, than a meaningfull, thoughtout, tested feature.
 
Jorlem said:
My guess is they only came up with the feature very recently, and wanted to add it in to the new patch, but haven't had time yet to teach the AI to use it.
Click to expand...
They didn't. They came up with this feature way back when they ran into the problem in like the 2nd session of the last developer multiplayer game.
 
Keep in mind that while the sharing maps might seem like exploitable (e.g. discovering virtually all areas earlier than you should)... you will not gain prestige with it like you do with discovering provinces. In fact, you lose prestige and the seller gains them as seen in the screenshot. Now, if prestige is really valuable in the game in terms of its gameplay impact, then it should make players pause and consider the trade-off there.

As an additional deterrence, Paradox Interactive should consider making it cost money as well. I can't imagine anyone willing to give away maps for free and somehow gained prestige from them. The only plausible rationale I can think of this providing prestige gain to them is that the buyer was somehow forced to depend on the seller to discover the areas, giving the seller somewhat a sense of superiority over the buyer. Prestige cost/gain, though, is most likely a gameplay consideration, not a consideration of realism. Maybe the monetary cost was considered at first but dropped for some reason. Either way, I do hope that the cost for map sharing is moddable.
 
They don't need to make it cost money. It can be handled exactly like it was in EU 2 or like all other diplomatic options (mil access, royal marriage, etc) with the help of opinion modifiers. In fact it only needs one extra modifier: "we already know what's there" in case the other country has discovered most of what you know
 
  • 1
Reactions:
i dont understand, if you guys are putting unconditional surrender in HOI4 for the AI, why cant u do the same here. We are going to be targeting specific loacations there, so why cant we do the same here?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Tarskin said:
The AI really needs to learn when to offer an unconditional surrender. There is nothing more annoying than having to ship your armies off to some god forsaken trashy colony after taking all European lands of a European major and they refuse to accept a (in my opinion) fair demand.

The only thing that will happen is that the AI country ends up with more war exhaustion, less man power and more loans while waiting for my armies to get there...
Click to expand...


I'd like to see this solved by linking it to the states, any over seas territories won't contribute to war score (unless they are the war goal), making it important to defend states and homeland territories but avoiding the pointless requirements of sieging down overseas territory to get 100% WS. Overseas states should really give decent warscore as well, more than current oversea territories do.
 
DDRJake said:
Upon offering unconditional surrender, all of your currently unoccupied provinces will fall under enemy control and your enemy will gain 100% warscore. Your armies in your own provinces will become exiled and unable to fight in future battles until peace is signed. For the recipient of an unconditional surrender, you will be alerted of your enemy’s surrender and from then on will be able to enforce any possible peace up to 100% warscore cost.
Click to expand...
I have one problem with that mechanic. The fact that you can't send a demand of more than 100%. Due to that the unconditional surrender button can actually be abused, since if you know you will lose you just use it and the enemy must take 100%; and especially in countries with really expensive provinces he might have wanted to trash part of the country side for the next war to be easier, since due to the high cost of the provinces he wasn't able to take everything he wanted.

Though given that the AI isn't using it I guess it won't really be a problem in SP.

By the way why was the cap of not being able to send more than 100% offers made? I liked how you used to be able to send higher ones; sure they most of the time wasn't accepted, but I actually has experienced the AI taking an offer which was something like 110% to get out of a really bad war. (Was either in late EU3 or early EU4.)
I would really like if unconditional surrender allowed you to take a little more than 110%; with a soft cap of more and more hatred from across the world the more you go over 100%. Because if you unconditionally surrender why should you then be limited to just 100%? After all you have laid down and offered up your entire country.

frolix42 said:
Victorious players refusing to send peace terms less than 100% warscore, sometimes spamming 200%+ offers that are ridiculous. The intention being to drive the occupied nation into destruction through WE.
Click to expand...
You can't demand more than 100%; at least not in SP.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
These are very welcome changes, especially in multiplayer.
 
Isn't the unconditional surrender feature a little useless if the ai can't use it? If I'm in a situation where I'm going to lose a war that badly, the "start new game" button is much more convenient.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
setsunaluvr said:
Isn't the unconditional surrender feature a little useless if the ai can't use it? If I'm in a situation where I'm going to lose a war that badly, the "start new game" button is much more convenient.
Click to expand...

This is true:D An experienced player will generally feel that a war lost is a campaign derailed.

But occasionally a player might want to continue, even if they f***** up. For example, the "unconditional surrender" button would be very useful when the player mismanages AE and get's into an overwhelming coalition war. New players do this a lot and it's very important that new players are given things that eases their learning curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back