Diplomacy queries
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:21 am
I have a few diplomacy oddities I would like to question to see if I understand properly (and maybe get some change?), I apologise if any of my surmsies are wrong about how diplomacy works:
1. You are at war with a nation and it has a client state, you massacre the client state building up a huge positive war score BUT this gets ignored when you try to make peace, correct? So you might be the Maurya at war with the Seleucids & Bactria, take every Bactrian region/province but can't get any of them in peace negotiations because the Seleucid will ignore your war score versus Bactria when judging if your request is reasonable. You can't even get them by wiping out Bactria because they stay alive despite having no regions because they are a Seleucid ally.
2. I have had a situation where I face a medium sized enemy field army (say 15-20 units) in battle in one of their regions and lose narrowly for the loss of, say, 2 units. The other side gets some positive war score which is fine. I send in a much larger army and this time my opponent decides discretion is the better part of valour: their field army doesn't offer battle and joins the garrison behind the walls of the city in the region. I sit down and besiege them until every single unit is dead by siege casualties, taking the city and region. I have completely exterminated the enemy field army yet seem to get no credit for that in the war score because it was done by siege rather than open battle. So it is possible that after completely wiping out my enemy's field army and capturing the region they were defending, I have a net negative war score due to the loss of a few units early on in that region. If I am correct that this is the current method for calculating war scores, could it be please be adjusted so that killing non-garrison units in a successful siege earns positive war score, like it would in a battle?
3. I am not sure about this one but I am trying to figure out how I ended up with the warscores I have playing Maurya (M) with a war against the Seleucids (S) and their client Bactria (B). In a single war M has taken every region of B (13 I think) and many from S (14?), + wiped out out all B armies and most S armies it has encountered although losing some battles against them on the way. M's war score against S is -6 (!!) and against B is +109 (okay but completely ignored), so despite owning about 26 of their regions and wiping out many armies, M can only make peace if it offers something to S and gives up all 26 regions it has gained. Anyway, I suspect the following might have happened a number of times and contributed to this situation:
(a) an army of M walks into a region of S and captures it so war score versus S is adjusted (+5 for example) - which is fine.
(b) The M army wanders off and an army from B captures the region. Then the game gives a warscore boost to both B for capturing it AND to S because its region is no longer owned by M. So although the net change from the start in regions owned by M is nothing it has a 0 war score versus S and a -5 war score versus B.
(c)Then the B army goes away and M recaptures the region and this time doesn't lose it. However, only the war score versus B is adjusted. That means that M has captured a region originally owned by S but has a 0 war score with both S and B - no chance of requesting the region in a peace proposal.
Normally, to get around the shortcomings in the peace negotiation process, in my game M would just keep going until it captured the remaining 25 S regions and all of its gains are automatically granted. But one is surrounded by Antigonid regions and another by Saka, and thus not accessible without declaring war on or allying those third parties.
I apologise if my surmises above about the war score calculations are inaccurate. But if they are even vaguely close to correct, could we get some changes please?
It would also be nice to have a bit more information about how war scores are determined since they are so important to the peace and diplomacy process.
1. You are at war with a nation and it has a client state, you massacre the client state building up a huge positive war score BUT this gets ignored when you try to make peace, correct? So you might be the Maurya at war with the Seleucids & Bactria, take every Bactrian region/province but can't get any of them in peace negotiations because the Seleucid will ignore your war score versus Bactria when judging if your request is reasonable. You can't even get them by wiping out Bactria because they stay alive despite having no regions because they are a Seleucid ally.
2. I have had a situation where I face a medium sized enemy field army (say 15-20 units) in battle in one of their regions and lose narrowly for the loss of, say, 2 units. The other side gets some positive war score which is fine. I send in a much larger army and this time my opponent decides discretion is the better part of valour: their field army doesn't offer battle and joins the garrison behind the walls of the city in the region. I sit down and besiege them until every single unit is dead by siege casualties, taking the city and region. I have completely exterminated the enemy field army yet seem to get no credit for that in the war score because it was done by siege rather than open battle. So it is possible that after completely wiping out my enemy's field army and capturing the region they were defending, I have a net negative war score due to the loss of a few units early on in that region. If I am correct that this is the current method for calculating war scores, could it be please be adjusted so that killing non-garrison units in a successful siege earns positive war score, like it would in a battle?
3. I am not sure about this one but I am trying to figure out how I ended up with the warscores I have playing Maurya (M) with a war against the Seleucids (S) and their client Bactria (B). In a single war M has taken every region of B (13 I think) and many from S (14?), + wiped out out all B armies and most S armies it has encountered although losing some battles against them on the way. M's war score against S is -6 (!!) and against B is +109 (okay but completely ignored), so despite owning about 26 of their regions and wiping out many armies, M can only make peace if it offers something to S and gives up all 26 regions it has gained. Anyway, I suspect the following might have happened a number of times and contributed to this situation:
(a) an army of M walks into a region of S and captures it so war score versus S is adjusted (+5 for example) - which is fine.
(b) The M army wanders off and an army from B captures the region. Then the game gives a warscore boost to both B for capturing it AND to S because its region is no longer owned by M. So although the net change from the start in regions owned by M is nothing it has a 0 war score versus S and a -5 war score versus B.
(c)Then the B army goes away and M recaptures the region and this time doesn't lose it. However, only the war score versus B is adjusted. That means that M has captured a region originally owned by S but has a 0 war score with both S and B - no chance of requesting the region in a peace proposal.
Normally, to get around the shortcomings in the peace negotiation process, in my game M would just keep going until it captured the remaining 25 S regions and all of its gains are automatically granted. But one is surrounded by Antigonid regions and another by Saka, and thus not accessible without declaring war on or allying those third parties.
I apologise if my surmises above about the war score calculations are inaccurate. But if they are even vaguely close to correct, could we get some changes please?
It would also be nice to have a bit more information about how war scores are determined since they are so important to the peace and diplomacy process.