Transfer subject war goal

[underprussia]

I’ve just had an immensely frustrating evening. Playing as Portugal on the latest patch, I managed to become a GP by about 1890 or so. France was conquering half the world, and declared on Egypt to capture Sinai. They swayed me with war goals, and I selected Transfer French Senegal, their colony.

Cue about 2hrs of grinding warfare where we gradually chip away at France. After about 7 in game years, I’d occupied all of French Senegal and the southern portion of mainland France. France herself was in a bad way, so the wolves come circling and Sweden declares on her for something. Then, the US starts a diplomatic play to transfer… French Senegal. The same one I was occupying and had fought for hours to capture.

Then France just concedes to the US without a fight. So they get the subject without having to lift a finger, and I get nothing.

I imagine this isn’t a bug, but even so, it was a very dispiriting thing to have happen after so much grinding!

 

[Imp0815]

I also encountered the AI ignoring or violating game rules and treaties.

This sounds less severe than what I experienced, but I must admit my current run is heavily modded, so it could be a side effect on my end.

For example, I had the UK reliably start a play to subjugate Hannover, despite Hannover being in the Zollverein and in a defensive agreement with me — and the UK being in an alliance with me. I think this is a botched event script with badly written scopes or limits.

Same goes later for Russia. Russia refuses to join plays with me, is antagonistic, and then I just call them in as an ally — and they break the alliance, lol.
This one isn't as clear-cut, and I didn’t bother to check why they were mad.

 

[Jamey]

I’d put that in as either a bug or a suggestion.

In my opinion, a nation shouldn’t be able to concede and transfer a subject (or state) that is even partially occupied.

 

[Dragnar]

Yeah, diplomatic demands are "first come, first serve", which leads to a bunch of weird situations. Case in point, if the US actually went to war over that demand and you finished your war first, the "transfer subject" wargoal would just vanish out of the US-French war and the US would the left getting nothing.

You really shouldn't be allowed to start a diplomatic play for something that's already in active contention.

 

[Secret Master]

Yeah, diplomatic demands are "first come, first serve", which leads to a bunch of weird situations.

It really does.

In essence, you can't have three-way wars like in CK3. In Vic3, the Balkan powers can't all decide to grab the same things and come out swinging.

 

[Zander]

I imagine this isn’t a bug, but even so, it was a very dispiriting thing to have happen after so much grinding!

I think it's reasonable to call this a bug - while it's certainly working per spec, it's definitely not the way it should work. Probably there need to be more limits about asking for the same goal an active play is asking for, much as there are limits within the same war.

I also encountered the AI ignoring or violating game rules and treaties.

For example, I had the UK reliably start a play to subjugate Hannover, despite Hannover being in the Zollverein and in a defensive agreement with me — and the UK being in an alliance with me. I think this is a botched event script with badly written scopes or limits.

I don't think the AI declaring on someone pacted with their ally is a *bug* as such. That being said, it's way too common, and probably the diplo calc needs an additional substantial minus for "my ally will join against me".

 

[OxfordNik]

Yeah, diplomatic demands are "first come, first serve", which leads to a bunch of weird situations. Case in point, if the US actually went to war over that demand and you finished your war first, the "transfer subject" wargoal would just vanish out of the US-French war and the US would the left getting nothing.

You really shouldn't be allowed to start a diplomatic play for something that's already in active contention.

I think it's HOI (?) where you have a number of 'claims' that different players can add on the same objective, and the one with the most, in a multi-claim situation.

The same system should probably make it into Vicky3.

I personally also think that Infamy Generation (in counter-claims) - and possibly even the amount of sway/wargoal points you get - should both scale with the original demand and the counter-demand/sway offer you make; this could help limit the crazy all-out wars we can sometimes see way too early.

(so e.g. if one side demands a treaty port, that should only generate a limited amount of sway/claim points, both on their side and the other; it should not be possible to call in half of Europe over a force nationalisation play; and it should cost a different amount of sway points to release Scotland than to release Malta, to give just a few examples).

<...>

I don't think the AI declaring on someone pacted with their ally is a *bug* as such. That being said, it's way too common, and probably the diplo calc needs an additional substantial minus for "my ally will join against me".

Yeah, I had a fairly fraught few in-game weeks where I (as Russia) joined a play opposite a side that Prussia had joined, and was worried Austria (with whom I have maintained a defensive pact since the start of the game - it's c1880 at this point) - would join in on the same side, because of my alliance with them not being factored in beyond 'sympathy for backer' in one of the calculations (which was only a small factor).

Luckily they decided not to, and Prussia alone was weak enough at this point that their side backed down, but still...

AI should factor alliances/defensive pacts more, particularly ones that have been long-established (save where there is a revolution on one side or the other, or something).

 

[Dman1791]

I think it's HOI (?) where you have a number of 'claims' that different players can add on the same objective, and the one with the most, in a multi-claim situation.

I believe it's Stellaris that has (had?) the multi-claim system.