Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Ceasefire Within War - A Mechanic for Realistic and Strategic Long Wars

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.
yangzilata said:
Please @Johan @Pavía just take a bit of time and look through this thread . EU5 is still in development, and what’s discussed here fits perfectly with the simulationist direction you (@Johan , in video) ’ve been talking about.

This isn’t some random wishlist — it’s grounded, it’s thoughtful, and it’s built around exactly the kind of depth and realism a true simulation needs. You can always revise and tweak it later. But please, at least consider building on it early, while there’s still time.

You @Johan keep saying the game will simulate more, go deeper, get more systemic. Well — here’s how. This is how you bring that claim to life. A possibility.

Just… don’t let this get lost in the noise. Read it. Think on it. Please! That’s all I ask.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they will. They've been really good with listening to player feedback. Ok the other hand, I hope that it's something that can be added in a post-release patch if it's of any complexity. I'd much rather sink my teeth into the game with or without these mechanics.
 
InvisibleBison said:
What exactly is the difference between a war fought in several phases, with ceasefires putting a pause to the fighting at the end of each phase, and a series of several wars, with a peace treaty ending each war but not resolving the cause for conflict between the two nations? It seems to me that what you're proposing is not to change what the mechanics are, but just to change what things are called. It seems to me that the benefits you're proposing can be achieved by simply not letting peace treaties be too decisive; if a nation isn't able to achieve a massive, total victory over its opponent, it shouldn't be able to impose hugely punishing peace terms, either.
Click to expand...

Allies etc. can change during truces. I mean, realistically allies and participants would change during a lot of wars anyway but mechanically-speaking there's a difference if a war was started and there was a brief cease-fire and it was then resumed with the same participants.
 
I see how it might sound like a white peace at first glance, but the idea I had in mind is actually a bit different.

In a ceasefire, the provinces that are occupied would stay occupied. That means their status would still be shown with the striped coloring on the map. They’re not returned to the original owner, and they don’t revert to normal control. However, they also wouldn’t be fully integrated into the occupier’s territory. The key point is: control is frozen. This has consequences for both sides:
The occupier gains limited benefits. For example, access to resources or local trade power, depending on the province type.
The original owner, on the other hand, suffers real losses: no tax income, no manpower, and possibly increased unrest or loss of legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects or estates.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the ceasefire idea makes the most sense in two kinds of situations.
1. The first one is when you lose most of your army and you can’t rebuild it quickly, especially with the new system where reinforcements depend on population. In that case, you can’t do much anymore you can’t really fight, can’t siege anything, and you’re not in a position to negotiate either. A ceasefire could give you time to recover without having to end the war completely.

2. The second situation is when something else happens in the region that you want to react to. For example, a neighbor gets attacked by another country and suddenly has no strong allies or they’re weakened and vulnerable. Even if you’re still in another war, you might want to pause that one for now and focus on the new opportunity. The ceasefire lets you do that without giving up what you’ve gained so far. It’s really just about buying time and options.
.
 
XImAdam_AA said:
I think the ceasefire idea makes the most sense in two kinds of situations.
1. The first one is when you lose most of your army and you can’t rebuild it quickly, especially with the new system where reinforcements depend on population. In that case, you can’t do much anymore you can’t really fight, can’t siege anything, and you’re not in a position to negotiate either. A ceasefire could give you time to recover without having to end the war completely.

2. The second situation is when something else happens in the region that you want to react to. For example, a neighbor gets attacked by another country and suddenly has no strong allies or they’re weakened and vulnerable. Even if you’re still in another war, you might want to pause that one for now and focus on the new opportunity. The ceasefire lets you do that without giving up what you’ve gained so far. It’s really just about buying time and options.
.
Click to expand...
In both of those situations, why would the other side agree to a ceasefire?
 
InvisibleBison said:
In both of those situations, why would the other side agree to a ceasefire?
Click to expand...
Similar situation? Running out of food stores. Low money. Perhaps dealing with unrest in other parts of the realm. Allowing you both to agree to pause the war, and keep the war time borders frozen until the war resumes. (And the occupier cannot integrate this occupied territory until a formal peace deal is agreed upon). Allowing the attacker to gain more strength and keep all the territory they worked for.

I'm actually really in favor if this since it would help simulate seasonal campaigns. Ceasefires in the winter. Resumes in the spring. Repeat. Unless of course one side is more than prepared to keep up hostilities throughout winter. Now realistically both sides didn't come together to agree to not fight each other in winter. It just happened naturally. But game mechanic wise, it makes sense I think.

Also in a white peace, the borders go back to original state. Thats not exactly a ceasefire. Then just completely ending all hostilities and agreeing to return to status quo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back