Victoria II-like peace treaties

[Chlodio]

I find CK2 wars overly simplistic there is only "winner takes it all", "pittance for a successful defender", "reset to status quo". At the same time, I reckon EU4 type peace would be an overkill. Instead, I think Paradox should take inspiration from Vic2, that too has casus belli-linked demands, the difference being that in Victoria II, more war goals can added during the war.

E.g. you declare war with the casus belli to conquer a duchy, you are winning, but during the war, a claimant from the enemy kingdom appears in your court, you now have the option of adding "install X" as an additional war goal. While that decreases your existing war score if you win not only get your duchy but a potential ally.

From the defender's point of view, instead of just making white peace, they too can add war goals. Also, when making peace, instead of just choosing to accept or deny all demands. In addition, the second party might accept certain demands but reject others until certain war score been gained.

 

[ikki]

hope not, the peace treaties & casus belli claim thing aside from the shattered troop building (i so missed an ability to build ready stacks in reasonable time frames) were some of the more horribly bad aspects of the game.

 

[Dragatus]

I suspect it will end up being most similar to the way it's done in Stellaris. There at the start of a war both sides pick a CB from a list of available ones and whoever wins the war gets the benefits of their CB. Status quo can also be significant, because you get to keep any occupied systems that you have a claim on.

 

[2333Vladimir]

when making peace, instead of just choosing to accept or deny all demands

for example, "safe passage of our troops and our allied troops in your land before this war ends"?

 

[Fitzjacob]

Some variation on the Stellaris version sounds pretty good. If the casus belli involves usurping all occupied holdings (invasion and similar) then a stalemate should involve taking holdings whether you've got a claim on them or not. But how would that function with regards to tier? Say that you press your claim on England, occupy the south but can't press on. Should you vassalize all occupied de jure vassals? Maybe something like EU but you can only ever take titles that you have a claim on, and only if you've either occupied them or if they're your primary war goal?

It also be possible to make a claimant aggressor heir to the contested title(s) as part of a settlement without usurping them outright - like the transition between Stephen and Henry of England.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I enjoyed the peace system in ck1, sometimes you could haggle a successful peace for both parties!

 

[Chlodio]

I enjoyed the peace system in ck1, sometimes you could haggle a successful peace for both parties!

How did it work?

 

[Arko]

How did it work?

If you didn't occupy everything, you can for example abandon some claims (or some land directly but i am not sure) and add some gold into the deal to get acceptance.

 

[Denkt]

If you didn't occupy everything, you can for example abandon some claims (or some land directly but i am not sure) and add some gold into the deal to get acceptance.

It was what France did with England to end the hundred year War. Pay alot of money so the english would give up their claims.

 

[Nikolai]

Agreed, some improvements of the CK2 system would be welcome.

 

[Arko]

It was what France did with England to end the hundred year War. Pay alot of money so the english would give up their claims.

I quite like that system, you could sold some claims you don't plan to use, or secure yourself by getting your nasty neighbour abandoning his, or just rescue a war that turned bad or you were to ambitious to achieve.

 

[ikki]

I quite like that system, you could sold some claims you don't plan to use, or secure yourself by getting your nasty neighbour abandoning his, or just rescue a war that turned bad or you were to ambitious to achieve.

Especially as peasant unhappiness is evidently a thing. Wrong culture, wrong religion.. there is only so many rebelscum skulls that can be smashed in while also maintaining a functional army able to throw back invasions as well.
So yeah, even if dominating that could be a thing.

Better that than artificial limits of arbitrary one duchy or one barony or whatever. If it is still too easy, just tune up peasant reactionism anger accumulation. Or too hard, tune it down.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I want all the diplomatic aspects to work like in EU.

 

[Grand Historian]

At the very least there should be actual negotiation instead of 0-99% being no decisive outcome and 100% being full acquiescence.

 

[JJ Rook]

At the very least there should be actual negotiation instead of 0-99% being no decisive outcome and 100% being full acquiescence.

I totally agree. I hated being stuck at 99% left to siege a measly region where I needed to be reinforced only to have the whole war wasted because AI found a way to call in a few major powers last minute while I waited for the siege to roll over. Especially when you release mercenaries to save money and can't afford the new hire costs.

It would be nice if there were layers of war goals and targets that could be planned or negotiated based on points earned or multiple factors like money, releasing claims etc. Or based on a status quo system at the least. Much more dynamic.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

How did it work?

Sorry for late reply.

You had a screen with a gold slider for compesation/tribute, and claims.
You could demand that the attacker recognised your claim as rightful and yield his own, or impose your claim on the land taking it for yourself.

Demands and concessions had a "price" which would compare to the current "warscore" to see wheter your request was seen as reasonable.

You could ask for county you have a claim on and give another county which they claimed. You could even offer to become someone's vassal if they were of higher rank than you, often an easy way out of a difficult situation.

While far from perfect, it was way more interactive than ck2, because in ck2 you start a war specifically for something and under certain conditions.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I'm not against it, but if we're going to have such a system in place, I want total wars to be very rare.
Because if you can just add new claims as the war goes on, you have no reason to just occupy the whole country and take as much as you can. Which would be ahistorical for a game set in medieval times. I also think that most wars not ending with conquest is a defining trait of CK.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I'm not against it, but if we're going to have such a system in place, I want total wars to be very rare.
Because if you can just add new claims as the war goes on, you have no reason to just occupy the whole country and take as much as you can. Which would be ahistorical for a game set in medieval times. I also think that most wars not ending with conquest is a defining trait of CK.

That's exactly what happened when you occupied infidel lands. You received a claim on a successful siege, meaning you could carve huge lands by attacking individual sheiks under the same liege.

No one said it was perfect

 

[Denkt]

No one said it was perfect

I think alot of it have to do with how wars work in paradox games, with even small conflicts turning into massive wars to the Death, which seldom the case in reality

So paradox games try to keep stuff real by limit the Peace treaty when in reality if you conquered a whole nation you could probably annex Everything, like there is nothing called war score in reality

 

[Woifee]

I would love to combine such a mechanic with calling vassals to arms as well. Like I add a CB of my vassal Duke for some county and he adds his personal troops to the war.