Could a Paradox Game with no DoWs be Workable?

[BeyondExpectation]

All the Paradox games I've encountered so far have had a fine distinction between war and peace; you pick another country, select from a menu and declare a war for an objective. But is this an essential feature? From what I understand, the VAST majority of conflicts, even international ones, prior to the modern era were undeclared, to the degree that border conflicts were a routine part of peacetime. Could, for instance, CK3 simply have a realm raise its army and attack another one, which the size of the attack correlated with the enemy's size of response?

I know this would require some pretty radical changes, but would there be anything too radical? The AI would have to be massively rejigged, there would have to be some sort of alert for every ongoing attack and how exactly armies passing through would be dealt with, I don't know; perhaps that realm's permission would be required to stop the AI from considering the armies inevitably hostile.

Note these aren't rhetorical questions; I honestly have no idea. There's likely a serious problem or 20 I have not brought up, but this is only intended to bring people's attention to an option that may simply have never occurred to most.

 

[ozmono2005]

Are you sure the vast majority of conflicts didn't have declarations of war of one kind or another?

I mean you have skirmishes and raids already that don't need declaration of wars and think it was common enough for such things to go without war declarations but I was under the impression that the vast majority of major wars did require some form of mobilization and hence some form of declaration of war. I know the Romans were very ritualistic and particular about it.

As for the subject of doing it in a game, I personally think it's pretty good the way it is. Especially EUs diplomacy system. Nothing else compares really.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Are you sure the vast majority of conflicts didn't have declarations of war of one kind or another?
As for the subject of doing it in a game, I personally think it's pretty good the way it is. Especially EUs diplomacy system. Nothing else compares really.

What exactly do you mean by EU's diplomacy system? The peace deals?

Are you sure the vast majority of conflicts didn't have declarations of war of one kind or another?

I mean you have skirmishes and raids already that don't need declaration of wars and think it was common enough for such things to go without war declarations but I was under the impression that the vast majority of major wars did require some form of mobilization and hence some form of declaration of war.

Did most major wars have a declaration? No idea. Did conflicts lack one? I'm positive. I don't see why mobilisation (something which means totally different things depending on the time period) necessitates declaring war.

 

[ozmono2005]

What exactly do you mean by EU's diplomacy system? The peace deals?



Did most major wars have a declaration? No idea. Did conflicts lack one? I'm positive. I don't see why mobilisation (something which means totally different things depending on the time period) necessitates declaring war.

Generally to mobilize, if it be calling knights to arms, raising an army of peasants or getting a nation to gear up industry for war requires telling people they are at war or so I understand.

As for EU diplomacy, I love how I can indicate to ally forces what land I want. How I can negotiate a coalition for war based on promising them land they want and so on. It's more than that ofcourse but it's a very robust diplomatic system as a whole (better than anything I've tried) and I don't really feel like writing about everything I like about it because I don't feel up to the task.

 

[Otto of england]

At least in medieval western Europe (ie christian vs christian) wars did need a valid justification, and there were dozens of unwritten rules (that you could get sued over if you broke) about what you could loot, when you could loot, when you could fight, when you could run, when you could surrender, etc. So for CK a dow system is a decent approximation of that, and the game is actually nicer than real life as fabricating claims was basically impossible irl and if you got caught it would have really bad consequence (probably get sued or a papal excommunication/interdiction until the falsely claimed land was returned). Frankly, I don't know of an instance where a fabricated claim was *actually* used to take land.

 

[Cagliostro]

The fact that wars weren't formally declared in the modern sense does not mean that they were made without justifications. The Romans made extensive justifications of their wars against other actual states (even if many of their justifications were absurd and/or paranoid). I think that the 'war declaration' is used to cover the sort of 'how do we justify this war to our vassals and our other civilized neighbors' aftermath.

 

[ozmono2005]

The fact that wars weren't formally declared in the modern sense does not mean that they were made without justifications. The Romans made extensive justifications of their wars against other actual states (even if many of their justifications were absurd and/or paranoid). I think that the 'war declaration' is used to cover the sort of 'how do we justify this war to our vassals and our other civilized neighbors' aftermath.

Own people too hence the stability hit.

Just realized it's an EU thing and it's originally about CK

 

[Woifee]

Actually this is a modern thing. It used to be that 2 diplomats met, sheked hands and ine gave another a document with a declaration of war. Then they shaked hands again.

WW1 was one if the last conflicts where this happened.

Frederick 2 occupied Silesiia in the first Silesian war without a DoW. It was a scandal back then. But still Prussia had to have a reason. The still used a claim about 100 years old and gave an ultimatum first.

In medieval times a herald was rhe messenger to transmit the DoW. Also with the CB. And in deudal societies rulers needed a good CB since they needed troops of their vassals. If theu did nit agree they didn't support ruler.
This example isn't exactly medieval but it worked similar in the HRE. After defeating the Ottomans in the first siege ov vienna the Habsburgs wanted to use imperial troops to gain the hungarian land. But the princes didn't agree because it would strenghten the Habsburgs on costs of the princes. So after defeating them in Vienna Austria went for peace instead of a big campaign.

Also they are good for gameplay. Snowballing will be slowed down and not every war is a total war like in TW games. There every war is fought till one side is wiped out.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Generally to mobilize, if it be calling knights to arms, raising an army of peasants or getting a nation to gear up industry for war requires telling people they are at war or so I understand.

As for EU diplomacy, I love how I can indicate to ally forces what land I want. How I can negotiate a coalition for war based on promising them land they want and so on. It's more than that ofcourse but it's a very robust diplomatic system as a whole (better than anything I've tried) and I don't really feel like writing about everything I like about it because I don't feel up to the task.

I see what you mean. From my knowledge, this is a very rough approximation of coalition wars in early modern Europe like the War of the Spanish Succession (and from what I've seen of dev clashes it works very well vis-a-vis gameplay) but it wouldn't be at all historical for any other period.

At least in medieval western Europe (ie christian vs christian) wars did need a valid justification, and there were dozens of unwritten rules (that you could get sued over if you broke) about what you could loot, when you could loot, when you could fight, when you could run, when you could surrender, etc. So for CK a dow system is a decent approximation of that, and the game is actually nicer than real life as fabricating claims was basically impossible irl and if you got caught it would have really bad consequence (probably get sued or a papal excommunication/interdiction until the falsely claimed land was returned). Frankly, I don't know of an instance where a fabricated claim was *actually* used to take land.

Sued? What do you mean by that? Btw I know that wars needed justification, but punishment for not justifying could be done by other means; loss of piety, excommunication, opinion loss from neighbours, ect.

Snowballing will be slowed down and not every war is a total war like in TW games. There every war is fought till one side is wiped out.

Snowballing has been the bane of many a Paradox game, but perhaps it can be solved with more realism; the reason almost every premodern inter-religious war ended was because attackers IRL run out of steam; even if you destroy a state's government totally, it doesn't mean you own all its territory.

While I'm thinking of CK, this topic also applies to, for instance, a migration period game.

 

[Otto of england]

I see what you mean. From my knowledge, this is a very rough approximation of coalition wars in early modern Europe like the War of the Spanish Succession (and from what I've seen of dev clashes it works very well vis-a-vis gameplay) but it wouldn't be at all historical for any other period.



Sued? What do you mean by that? Btw I know that wars needed justification, but punishment for not justifying could be done by other means; loss of piety, excommunication, opinion loss from neighbours, ect.



Snowballing has been the bane of many a Paradox game, but perhaps it can be solved with more realism; the reason almost every premodern inter-religious war ended was because attackers IRL run out of steam; even if you destroy a state's government totally, it doesn't mean you own all its territory.

While I'm thinking of CK, this topic also applies to, for instance, a migration period game.

Sued, ie take legal action in courts of Honour under the law of arms against the person who wronged you. This was fairly common for things like surrendering forts to earlier, attacking people who's banners werent unfurled, commenced siege without first demanding surrender, etc.

While I'm no expert on it, there was a huge amount of things covered by law of arms and more or less everyone tried to follow it.

 

[Chlodio]

How is this: If you enter to a foreign country without permission you automatically declare war on them, after which you can assign a war justification . If you don't have such justification all neighbouring countries get "Enemy of Mankind" casus belli and are eager to exercise it.

 

[FOARP]

All the Paradox games I've encountered so far have had a fine distinction between war and peace; you pick another country, select from a menu and declare a war for an objective. But is this an essential feature? From what I understand, the VAST majority of conflicts, even international ones, prior to the modern era were undeclared, to the degree that border conflicts were a routine part of peacetime. Could, for instance, CK3 simply have a realm raise its army and attack another one, which the size of the attack correlated with the enemy's size of response?

I know this would require some pretty radical changes, but would there be anything too radical? The AI would have to be massively rejigged, there would have to be some sort of alert for every ongoing attack and how exactly armies passing through would be dealt with, I don't know; perhaps that realm's permission would be required to stop the AI from considering the armies inevitably hostile.

Note these aren't rhetorical questions; I honestly have no idea. There's likely a serious problem or 20 I have not brought up, but this is only intended to bring people's attention to an option that may simply have never occurred to most.

You could do that in HOI1 as far as I remember. It didn't make for great gameplay. Maybe Vicky 1 as well but I'm not sure.

Paradox introduced the CB requirement because simply attacking your enemies without warning or justification made the game too easy.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

You could do that in HOI1 as far as I remember. It didn't make for great gameplay. Maybe Vicky 1 as well but I'm not sure.

Paradox introduced the CB requirement because simply attacking your enemies without warning or justification made the game too easy.

Was not requiring players to have a CB partly balanced by the AI not needing one? Were there any consequences for warmongering?

How is this: If you enter to a foreign country without permission you automatically declare war on them, after which you can assign a war justification . If you don't have such justification all neighbouring countries get "Enemy of Mankind" casus belli and are eager to exercise it.

Maybe not quite "Enemy of Mankind", but dislike by your neighbours, whom are then likely to do the same to you, excommunication if you're Christian, loss of prestige, ect.