Loving the "Declare War/Offer Peace" option... but...

[kweassa]

The initial implementation seems to be OK, but there seem to be certain circumstances where the system fails to consider. Specifically, a situation like this, sort of presents a problem. ... This overall situation in the pic, is what is (sort of) known as "the failure of the Versailles Treaty" in history. Simply put, there is NO WAY IN HECK THE LOSER OF THE WAR CAN PAY THIS MUCH AMOUNT OF WAR REPARATIONS.

I've not yet confirmed just how exactly that "tribute" is paid. But from prior experiences in paying for peace, it is most likely the tribute money comes directly from the pocket of the ruling clan. Then, what happens in the situation where the ruling clan, cannot pay the tribute to end the war?

The war would probably rage on to the end, with no way for the losing side to deal with the situation.

I think perhaps, this might be behind one of the reasons why some kingdoms get engulfed in wars against multiple opponents, without being able to end the previous war -- and it needs some looking into.

 

[drallim33]

I agree with your point but also, this should never happen in the first place. Sturgia should have given up already and Rag should be looking for a new faction to join.

In situations like this where it would be the "winning" side pushing for peace, the other side should not have to pay. Maybe the "winning" side took a bunch of castles but there are barely defended and declaring peace is a way to buy time to fortify them.

 

[kweassa]

I think it's more about, "in many cases the ruling clan actually cannot stop the war."

For example, in the above situation, Sturgia lost all troops and lands long ago. But now, even after becoming practically non-existent, they still cannot end the war. There's no way for a single clan that lost all troops and land to pay a 214 million in reparations to end the war.

 

[Serk]

Forts and towns should not change hand automaticly when conquered, but occupied only, and ownership transfered at a high cost for the victor during peace negociation.

This would avoid steamrolling a nation in a single war and make expansion more costly.

 

[Kain_99]

Right now its pretty pointless you make peace and the faction you made peace with from my experience just goes to war again in like half a day. They need to add some kind of time limit like the factions can not go back to war for a week or month or whatever.

 

[durbal]

Right now its pretty pointless you make peace and the faction you made peace with from my experience just goes to war again in like half a day. They need to add some kind of time limit like the factions can not go back to war for a week or month or whatever.

They need to add a reason they shouldn't.

 

[King Yngvar]

I think it's more about, "in many cases the ruling clan actually cannot stop the war."

For example, in the above situation, Sturgia lost all troops and lands long ago. But now, even after becoming practically non-existent, they still cannot end the war. There's no way for a single clan that lost all troops and land to pay a 214 million in reparations to end the war.

That's actually 2.1 billion, sums that should never have been heard of in a Medieval setting. Just another showcase of how inflated the currency is, might as well call it Zimbabwe Denar.

 

[GitiUsir]

In the first place there shouldn't be so many wars. If anyone is worried about boring peace time, it could be replaced with skirmishes in the border between 2 kingdoms. Big armies on campaign should be ocasional events.

Second, once a kingdom suffers a big defeat it should buy peace, not necessarily losing land even if enemy took a fief. Like someone said those taken lands are not well defended yet, so in peace negotiations the loser can recover that fief as part of their core lands, and buy peace with money, goods, horses,.... , or another fief not part of their core.

This was common in war because both parts were losing money left and right and they wanted to end the bleeding. This solves the problem of factions wiped out too soon, and factions snowballing too fast.

 

[froggyluv]

Do the Devs even Total War? Just copy basic strategy games techniques

 

[durbal]

In the first place there shouldn't be so many wars. If anyone is worried about boring peace time, it could be replaced with skirmishes in the border between 2 kingdoms. Big armies on campaign should be ocasional events.

Second, once a kingdom suffers a big defeat it should buy peace, not necessarily losing land even if enemy took a fief. Like someone said those taken lands are not well defended yet, so in peace negotiations the loser can recover that fief as part of their core lands, and buy peace with money, goods, horses,.... , or another fief not part of their core.

This was common in war because both parts were losing money left and right and they wanted to end the bleeding. This solves the problem of factions wiped out too soon, and factions snowballing too fast.

Yup.