Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Loss of blood and treasure makes it undeniable that something ain't right. Surrendering as a nation to another nation, and becoming subject to their will without ever having put up a fight seems unlikely to do anything except promote unrest and disapproval with either the ruling regime, the military command, or both.

Not if the current system reflected reality (which it doesn't) and people were able to see that surrendering was the easiest way out of a bad situation and that to continue to resist would only make things worse.

The reality is that the longer the country was able to resist the more war weary their opponents would get and the more likely a peace could be negotiated that both sides could live with.

Anyways, land experience from losing battles is already included.

The land experience you get on surrendering is meant to model military reforms that come about as the result of a lost war. I still contend that land experience gained as a result of surrender is the least substantial factor in the taking of quick surrenders.

It is a consolation prize and balance mechanism where a country suffering defeat becomes only slightly better able to stand up to its attackers over time. The main reasons I see people taking quick surrenders are to limit damage and gain the safety of the enforced peace to rebuild and increase their defenses. Those factors should be focused on more than land experience.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

One other issue here that hasn't been raised is that of the "surrender points" that get generated.

LOL.

OK. Actually it has been raised. By me. Repeatedly.

[>:]

The extremely low number of VPs awarded for a quick surrender is the MAIN reason why it is taken.

Points for "surrendering after a _lost war_" sure maybe that is warranted on top of those for actual battle experience (win, lose or draw).

Surendering after receiving a DoW because of a perception by a player that heavy losses might well be incurred and a recognition that at least it will "buy me time" in the form of 18 months and some XP for troops is hardly "surrendering after a _lost war_."

From my perspective, it is gamey play that I cannot imagine to be an accurate modeling of real social dynamics characteristic of the period. Ideally game engines dissuade or prevent gamey play, because, lets face it: we all want to win, and when we find a 'loophole' anyone who actually wants to win is liable to exploit it. Were I in Lenin's shoes with similar insights to the game engine, I may well have chosen to do it myself. The point here is not to impugn any player for his actions; it is after all, just a freekin' game . . . . The point is that the current system seems to "promote" an unrealistically high frequency of quick surrenders in PBEMs.

LOL.

OK. Actually it has been raised. By me. Repeatedly.

You'll excuse me if I don't read and remember all of your posts Mus . . . I hope this isn't another example of you getting inordinately argumentative about something which, at the end of the day, is only a game, and frankly not worth paying _too_ much attention to [:-]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

You'll excuse me if I don't read and remember all of your posts Mus . . .

Actually I won't, but not because my posts are so important. It is just that paying attention to what other people are saying in a discussion is half of the process.

It is one of the reasons I have been so annoyed with your "contributions" to these kinds of threads in the past. Half the time you reveal you aren't reading the discussion involved, so you have no frame of reference with which to make your comments. The other half your comments reveal either that you are unaware of things happening in games you are purportedly participating in or that you don't know how the rules you are talking about currently work, which are also issues with your frame of reference.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I hope this isn't another example of you getting inordinately argumentative about something which, at the end of the day, is only a game, and frankly not worth paying _too_ much attention to [:-]

Like when I got mad about this kind of contribution from you in a previous discussion about rule changes, it is actually another example of you posting without seeming to know or care what you are talking about.

It isn't worthy of paying *too* much attention to it, but it is worthy enough for you to make rather long and frequent posts about the merits of various rule changes when half the time you don't know how the rules work in the first place.

There is an odd contradiction there.

Anthropoid:

It just seems like, commanders and leaders who failed to put up a fight generally get hammered by any of their peers or rivals who would like to see them undermined or booted. Thus, one could just as easily invision a scenario in which a conspiracy to depose/assassinate/relieve the "cowardly chancellor/king/General responsible for the "pre-emptive" surender.

I agree. Based on my reading I absolutely have to agree and think that there should be a SEVERE national morale hit for a situation like this. I mean one that can put you in rebellion and revolution and/or risk the loss of your government. One prime example is the 1871 Commune in Paris. After the Germans had cleaned the clocks of the French, many felt that their government had sold them out and what occurred was really a small scale revolution and rebellion which forced the government to flee to Versailles while Paris was under the control of the rebels. Another of my favorite examples occurred when the Turks gave away much more than they had to based on their military record with the treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 which unleashed major riots in Istanbul that threatened the government. Losing a war while fighting was bad enough. Losing a war without a fight should have massive consequences (however, this should also be random and NOT a sure thing!... but there should be risk!). I am aware of one instance in which the Austrians threatened to go to war with the Ottomans and the Sultan simply threw in the towel before anything came of it. He surrendered a province in the north around modern day Rumania. It was really the nadir of Ottoman reputation.

However, what I find compelling here is that in all of the reading I did, I can not remember finding even one example of a war which was declared and resolved with an immediate surrender.

Which is why we are having this discussion here.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

However, what I find compelling here is that in all of the reading I did, I can not remember finding even one example of a war which was declared and resolved with an immediate surrender.

Well the reason why you can't find such a case is because reality doesn't work the way the game rules do. If in reality you could immediately surrender in a war and reduce the amount of damage done, you would see it happen. The reason you see it in the game is because the rules make it so that the earlier you surrender in a losing war, the less damage you take.

That is why I said the main reason for quick surrenders is this:

ORIGINAL: Mus

The wild range of Victory Points is the main reason. If the Victory Points awarded were more stable, people would be less likely to surrender without a fight.

A range of somewhere between 4000-6000 VPs regardless of how badly you lost would discourage players from surrendering before they had at least made an effort towards a war changing decisive battle.

Instead, what we have right now is that with a quick surrender you can get off as cheaply as 930 points, whereas depending on the circumstances if you resist to the bitter end you could lose 8,000 (or even more!) VPs per enemy. If you go to the VP formula area in the manual and start imagining scenarios where a country suffered full casualties and lost as an empire to another empire that managed to conquer half of its cities before the surrender the VPs involved get staggering.

One post war scenario is some minor monetary loss, the other is loss of huge tracts of land and crippling feudal reform increases and/or military readiness cuts.

It is easy to see in these circumstances why people take quick surrenders with these rules in place.

I think if we had a good way of leveling the VP equations the other two factors, 18 month enforced peace and land experience, would quickly cease to be important.

Mus:

"The extremely low number of VPs awarded for a quick surrender is the MAIN reason why it is taken."

I agree with this. The more I think about it, the more I lean to this as one of the real problems here. It seems that by surrendering you can reduce your losses by 80% in many cases! Hmmmmmm... thanks Mus. This is really helping.

However, we can't just go with high penalties, which do overly severe damage to a nation (in historical terms)--so it must be avoided if possible. Until Napoleon really, these harsh treaties were really not even contemplated. In my opinion the case of the Prussian annexation of Silesia from Austria was the biggest western European land grab anomaly of the 18th century. Yes, there were massive land transfers after wars. Particularly after the war of Spanish Succession, in which the claimant which the Spanish estates recognized and crowned surrendered the Spanish Netherlands and most of the Spanish-Italian possessions to Austria. However, the recipient of the lands had a reasonably strong claim to the lands. Though not as strong as the new Spanish king's claim. In the case of Prussia and Silesia, Frederick justified his rights to these lands on the flimsiest of claims--making it, IMHO, the largest lands to real claims ratio seizure of 18th century western European history.

However, let's remember that many scenarios played by players in PBEM are the 1792 scenarios because they offer more balance and a more interesting game (IMHO). It is my strong opinion that after reading about dozens and dozens of treaties of the age, that one thing is obvious, it was ridiculously unlikely that a peace would strip the true ancient homelands of any party. This was virtually sacred. Until Frederick II (the Great), you really needed a CLAIM to lands to even have them transferred. And interestingly, now, looking at the "harsh" peace which Napoleon inflicted on Prussia only reduced Prussia to her 1772 borders! All he did was remove territory which Prussia had gobbled off of Poland since then.

This goes straight to ONE of my key treaty change desires. And that would be to see true homeland provinces become MUCH harder to strip from a power and also to make stripping conquered lands cost 50% as much!

I would say stripping home territory should be much more expensive, and many other terms (for instance recognizing the neutrality of minors states) should be much cheaper. Indeed, it is almost as expensive to strip a home province as it is to guarantee the neutrality of a minor for a year.

One thing to note is that the Prussian annexation of Silesia really made it an outcast in the international system and it is why, for a time, they fought what seemed to be a crushing international alliance of France-Austria-Russia, with only moderate British support.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

However, we can't just go with high penalties, which do overly severe damage to a nation (in historical terms)--so it must be avoided if possible.

That is why I suggested a 4-6k range. Maybe in playtesting that would get ranged up or down on one or both ends, but the point is to limit it to a moderate range to discourage people quitting without a fight, but to also reduce the chances of being completely hammered by 10,000+ VP surrenders to multiple parties.

Beyond that, the cost of certain very disabling clauses like ceding homeland territory, removal of generals, or increasing Feudal levels, should be adjusted upwards in VP Costs while clauses like liberate protectorate, respect neutrality, enforced peace, give money, etc., should be adjusted downwards in cost.

I also think the taking of cities is weighted too heavily in the VP calculation. The destruction of the opposing army was the goal in Napoleonic warfare, yet this seems to be a lesser factor, other than the casualty thresholds that have to be hit to get full VPs.

Another factor contributing to this is the fact the manual is incorrect in the VP formula area of the rules in that it states (regarding modifying the VP total proportionally according to casualties):

Modified VP cannot fall below the base amount for the type of surrender, nor can it
be modified higher than 25,000.

The base amount is stated to be 4,000 for a normal surrender and 2,000 for a limited surrender. We know from experience that this is not true.

If the actual minimum amount for a surrender was 4,000 VPs I think we would be seeing more attempts to seek 1 or 2 decisive battles and failing that then a surrender.

I think we would also be seeing people surrender to 2-4 parties at a time for 8,000+ VPs each and being crippled in the process. That would leave us talking about splitting VPs between coalition members so I think that idea should be seriously considered as part of any adjustment from the start to prevent creating an imbalance the other way.

I refer to a few books above. They are better summarized below. In the last four months, I have done a lot (UNDERSTATEMENT) of reading on the nature and evolution and revolution of war from 1650 to 1815 or so. While I had done a lot of reading on the period in the past, I can't compare it with what I undertook in the last several months of my life. The books which my opinions will be coming from are:

1. The New Cambridge Modern History Vol.V: "The Ascendancy of France (1648-1688)" - Read several selected chapters. Primarily dealing with the Mediterranean, Poland, Spain and Portugal, international trade, the evolution of the army and navy in various nations, and the nature and methods of diplomacy.
2. The New Cambridge Modern History Vol.VI: "The Rise of Great Britain and Russia (1688-1725)" - Read several selected chapters. Primarily dealing with the Mediterranean, Poland, Spain and Portugal, international trade, the evolution of the army and navy in various nations, and the nature and methods of diplomacy.
3. The New Cambridge Modern History Vol.VII: "The Old Regime (1713-1763)" - Read several selected chapters . Primarily dealing with the Mediterranean, Poland, Spain and Portugal, international trade, the evolution of the army and navy in various nations, and the nature and methods of diplomacy.
4. "The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State (1688-1783)" by Brewer - Read 4-5 key chapters
5. "The Art of War In the Western World" by Archer Jones - Read all portions pertaining to war until 1815. This is an absolutely 100% essential one volume work on what it is about warfare that changed from one age to the next. So essential, I own two copies. Every human being taking an interest in warfare needs a copy of this book, should read it twice and take copious notes.
6. "Tools of War" by Jeremy Black - Read all portions pertaining to war until 1815
7. "European Armies and the Conduct of War" by Strachan - Read all portions pertaining to war until 1815
8. "Austria's Wars of Emergence: 1683-1797" by Hochedlinger - A fascinating survey of Austrian war and state formation. Read all of this indespensible work.
9. "The Northern Wars: 1558-1721" by Frost - A great summary of warfare and state formation in the Baltic. Read all portions pertaining to post 1648.
10. "Seapower and Naval Warfare: 1650-1830" by Harding - An INCREDIBLE survey of naval operations and strategy of the period, including the effects of state formation on the development of the navy.
11. "Feeding Mars" by Lynn - An incredible book on supplying war by someone who specializes in 17th and 18th century French and "Napoleonic" warfare. Dr. Lynn was kind enough to share his home phone number with me and made himself available to me for interviews and questions. With chapters on supply of navies at sea!
12. "Cromwell's War Machine" by Roberts - A fantastic book dealing with armies of the "Thirty Years War" style. When researching the project I felt I needed to know what came in the century or two before CoGEE "starts" to know what the ground rules were before the changes set in. This book helped me do that.
13. "The Wars of Frederick the Great" by Showalter - Read every page of this incredibly insightful book.
14. "The Wars of Louis XIV" by Lynn - Read every page of this fantastic book on the topic, which is the first book written on the subject in almost 200 years.
15. "The Pursuit of Power" by McNeill - A great book dealing with some of the larger issues of state development and centralization. Read all portions pertaining to 17th-19th centuries.
16. "Ottoman Wars: 1700-1870" by Aksan - Wow. Do they write books on subjects like this? Yes they do! Read the half of the book dealing with period up until 1815 or so.
17. "Command of the Ocean, A Naval History of Britain: 1649-1815" by Rodger - A stunning survey of every aspect of English/British sea power of the time. Simply stunning. Perhaps the best book I read with detail on every page that is simply essential.
18. "The Modernization of Russia: 1676-1825" by Dixon - Read several key chapters.
19. "Feeding Nelson's Navy" by MacDonald - WOW!!! A whole book on feeding and victualling fleets of the Napoleonic Wars! Unbelievable. Read a good 2/3 of the book. (actually includes recipes for some of the food!!!)
20. "Bayonets for Hire" by Urban - A great book covering the greatest trends in mercenary employment and development during the 1600s and 1700s. Read every page.
21. "The War for All the Oceans" by Adkins - A fantastic book covering the naval aspects of the Napoleonic wars. Read every page.
22. "Three Victories and a Defeat" by Simms - Covers English and British foreign policy from late 1600s through the 1700s in incredible detail. Gives insight into decisions which I didn't even know was available. Read about 1/3 of the chapters--mostly to get a very detailed British perspective on several key conflicts/developments.
23. "Iron Kingdom" by Clark - A history of the Prussian state, from 1600s to 1900s. Lots of amazing stuff in here. Read the first several chapters.
24. "The Vauban Fortifications of France" by Grffith - An Osprey title taking a look at the building style and projects of Vauban.
25. "Vauban, La Forteresse Ideale" by Fortimedia - A good introduction to the construction and layout of a "trace italienne" star fort during the age of Vauban.
26. "Princes, Posts, and Partisans" by Satterfield - A history of the "little war" which takes between armies in order to secure forage and contributions from the surrounding countryside. Dr. Lynn (author of "Feeding Mars" and "The Wars of Louis XIV") pointed me to this book, indicating "it is easy to reconstruct the extraordinary in warfare, because a lot of people documented these events. The hard part is reconstructing the every day events." (This book is currently $200 used, and out of print, so I did not buy it but checked it out from my library)
27. "Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great" by Duffy - An INCREDIBLY detailed history of the fortress. Revealing detail about its advancement and use which I didn't even know was available in printed form! (This book also out of print and around $170 used--so I checked it out)

Other books moderately/heavily referenced:
28. "War of Wars" by Harvey - Yes, I know it is riddled with errors, but it was useful to point to events which I needed to learn more about.
29. "Frigates, Sloops, and Brigs" by Henderson - lots of valuable info in here on the useage of these ships and the adjustments of Napoleonic navies around them.
30. "The Pursuit of Glory" by Blanning - mostly for population statistics and speed of travel and transportation improvements.
31. "The Art of War" by Jomini - Everyone who loves Napoleonics should read this, a detailed book on operations by a Napoleonic general trying to explain the wars to us...WOW!
32. "Imperial Spain" by Elliot - Just dipped into this one to understand the transition from Habsburg Spain to a Bourbon Spain.
To this list could be added several Napoleonic titles, including some of the best works from Chandler. However, as much as I used to read them because of my fascination with "Napoleonic" warfare, I did not read them in the last 4 months, so they do not appear on the above list. Especially since most Napoleonic fans will be familiar with them. I have added the list above, simply so people reviewing my recommendations do at least know I haven't dreamt them up.

@ Mus: IMO, you are (once again) getting a little out of line. If you disagree with me or feel I have spoken in error, just say so. There is no need to attack me as a person or a contributor for you to get your point across. You often make excellent points, and much of your contribution to these forums is quite insightful and valuable to the community (e.g., your analysis of the VPs as the main issue motivating the Quick Surrenders seems salient) . . . but, well . . . I'll finish my message to you via a PM because the public forums are simply not the place for petty bickering and sniping.
 
@ Marshal: WCS is lucky to have you [;)]
 
About the whole "problem" with Quick Surrenders. Having read more of what is actually transipring (Lenin's posts about his losses of Glory, NM etc.), much like the sudden dramatic clamor about the insurrections, I think that the problem(s) here may be far less significant than some of us initially thought. Because of the roleplaying, mind-farking, trash-talk, disinformation, blackops, etc., that is an inevitable and valued part of any PBEM, and in particular when a group of guys are all new to a game, it is easy to overreact to what one may perceive as an exploit or imbalance in a game which in fact is not so imbalanced after all. Lots of good ideas coming together, and I have no doubt WCS will cherry-pick the best and adjust the system to "fix" the imbalances in an upcoming patch.

@ Anthropoid...WCS is lucky to have Eric, Gil, and Mr. Z. Without them, I would have never bumped into this incredible game.

The reason I did all of this reading in matters of the 17th and 18th century was because the "Napoleonic" wars were not fought in a vacuum. Even though aspects of the wars were indeed new, much of the fighting and diplomacy was heavily influenced by all that came before them. I learned a tremendous amount about the Napoleonic wars by comparing and contrasting them with the wars (and the peaces) in the 150 years that came before. Dr. Lynn and several books listed above (including the book on fortifications by Duffy) made this process of understanding through comparison and contrast much, much easier.

I had had some of my own ideas on what made the "Napoleonic" wars different than what came before them. Some of them were right, and some of them were either wrong, or people like Duffy and Lynn disagree. When I do get around to working on a project for WCS I will assume that the published authors are to be believed and not a few of my notions which I previously held, but am willing to part with for the most part. However, the subject of the game cannot and will not be revealed here! Sorry. For that you will have to wait.

At the moment:

1. I am starting to think CoG:EE would need to assign more points for lost BATTLES. Lost battles could be as earth shattering as a lost war. The amount of learning that went on in Austria's army after each defeat by Prussia was a very interesting aspect of the reading I recently did.
2. I think that Mus is correct when he says that perhaps what we need is less variation which is dependent on the actual "level of defeat" in the number of surrender points given up-- making it depend less on the circumstances of the end situation of the war. I personally, am for increasing the randomness of the points assigned as victory points to be used for treaties--this would not be dependent on anything but would represent historical "noise" which simply beyond modeling.
3. I think that stripping people of true homeland provinces needs to be made much more expensive, and other costs (for instance forcing someone to respect neutrality) should be made less expensive.
4. I think there need to be greater internal social and political penalties for quick surrenders.
5. I think that the number of "experience/reform" points received after a surrender needs to be randomized somewhat.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

@ Mus: IMO, you are (once again) getting a little out of line. If you disagree with me or feel I have spoken in error, just say so.

That is exactly what I did. So instead of wasting time sending me long hate mails through the PM system next time, spend those few minutes reading some of the posts in the discussions you are allegedly participating in or familiarizing yourself with the rules you are proposing changes to.

My comments were not as personal as you are taking them.

@Anthropoid and @Mus...

I think you're both incredibly valuable to this discussion. So, just move along and keep helping me! [8D]

Just something to keep in mind when talking about surrenders and calculating surrender points to combat: small countries.

In Danish Too PBEM, I play Denmark. Recently, Denmark was part of a coalition against France. As part of coalition operations, the entire Danish Army was deployed to Bavaria as both the British and Prussia Armies lay between the French Armies in Paris and Denmark itself.

Then, the French, in a daring move, attacked the seperated British Army and defeated it. Over the next two months, the French pounded on the British, driving them from the gates of Paris all the way back to Hannover while avoiding the Prussian Army. The British Army was only saved from destruction by the arrival of strong reinforcements, which led to a French defeat in Hannover.

It could have easily have gone the other way, with the FRENCH emerging victorious. They could have then marched to the Danish capitol unopposed. They would have then forced a surrender without ever engaging the Danish Army. (Even if I had marched the army back, it would have been outnumbered almost 2:1).

The smallest countries (Sweden, Denmark, etc.) may not have armies AVAILABLE to fight combats (ie. they may be deployed elsewhere). Such a situation would tend to make my proposed "upside down bell curve" VERY harsh on them. Of course, if such a change was NOT limited to casualties but things like time at war (I had been at was for six months or so at the time) it would not hurt as much.

In effect, each month at war drops the amount of surrender points X amount per turn. Casualties increased the rate of drop until it hit a certain minimum, where it begins to increase again.

As far as provinces and surrender points, I think that cost should be (in order from few points required to most points required) 1) Liberate a protectorate (make neutral), 2) Cede a protectorate, 3) Liberate a country currently in conquered status (ie. has ability to become a minor state), 4) Cede a home nation province

Evwalt:

"As far as provinces and surrender points, I think that cost should be (in order from few points required to most points required) 1) Liberate a protectorate (make neutral), 2) Cede a protectorate, 3) Liberate a country currently in conquered status (ie. has ability to become a minor state), 4) Cede a home nation province."

@Evwalt: I am right there with you. Believe me this is something I am working on getting done. And thanks for the other comments. It helps to hear about situations coming up that I could never dream up myself.

Just curious if people here would think that if someone surrenders that the minimum treaty points their enemies should receive should be set at 3000 or 4000 or perhaps even 5000--however, the cost to take a TRUE home province would be doubled.

Additionally, protectorates could be liberated even if you did not border on them.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Just curious if people here would think that if someone surrenders that the minimum treaty points their enemies should receive should be set at 3000 or 4000 or perhaps even 5000--however, the cost to take a TRUE home province would be doubled.

Additionally, protectorates could be liberated even if you did not border on them.

Right now it seems the bare min "Treaty Points" that someone can get against you is about 930 or 960. I would think that multiplying that by a factor of 3 or 4 might be reasonable. If you stand to automatically have 3000 or 4000 Treaty Points to be used against you, Quick Surrender would certainly not be such an automatically "appealing" option. I think setting the absolute bare min of surrender points for a Quick Surrender at 2250 might be a bit less risky of creating imbalance, obviously it should (if possible) fluctuate as a function of various factors already mentioned. This "bare min" should fluctuate down with time since DoW, with fighting back and achieving reasonable casualty ratios (1.3 to 1 and above?) and with successful resistance to sieges, but fluctuate up with the stuff that is already set up to increase Treaty Pts.

Why allow protectorates that are not adjacent to be taken? Would that be to better reflect history? If so, then sure; if it is just for game-mechanics reasons, I don't see how it is necessary.

ADDIT: another thing . . . I'm not sure if the app recognizes who DoWed and who was the "target" of aggression or not. I would think it does . . . Anyway I think that time since DoW should correlate negatively with Treaty Points for the "target" of a DoW, but correlate POSITIVELY for the aggressor.

Let me explain. Russia declares war on Prusia in May 1804. Next turn, April 1804, if Prussia surrenders he will automatically get a fairly sizeable Treaty Pt (TP) slam (2250 or maybe even as high as you suggest 3000 or 4000 points). With 3K or 4K points, you can do some fairly serious harm to another nation, though one thing I'm not clear on is if you can force them to cede a province that you have not successfully sieged, I'm guessing that you cannot. However, feudal ref, demlitar, $$ penalties, enforced peace, etc., etc. are all viable costs of quick surrendering.

So if Prussia decides to wait, (for example) May auto TP cost goes down 8 or 9%?? June it goes down 8 or 9 again, etc., etc. Successfully fighting Russia and achieving reasonabl casualty ratios would also reduce TPs that Russia would have against Prussia.

Now reverse the viewpoint> with each passing month since Russia DoWed Prussia, the amount of TPs that Prussia could exact on Russia were Russia to surrender to Prussia would bo UP. If the % reduction for the target were 8 or 9 % then the % increase for the aggressor should be slightly more per month 10% maybe. Also the rate at which the TP increases for casualties, should be more for the aggressor.

I have no idea if it works anything like this at present, but the point here is: if you DoW, and you do not achieve a surrender quickly enough, or if you target manages to cause relatively large casualties in defending or "hold out" against your sieges, then you could conceivably get into a situation where YOU the aggressor are at risk of being heavily penalized in TPs if you do not manage to best your target.

I am curious what everyone thinks about the following quick adjustments to the surrender mechanics which could possibly be added by Eric in time for the next patch until a more comprehensive solution is found:
1. Calculate surrender points as usual, but after the calculation, in a 1 v 1 war, the minimum number of treaty points received by a victor is 4000 (alternatives: 3000/5000)? I am not sure what this will do in 2 v 1 and 3 v 1 situations. Mus, you are a freaking expert at surrender point calculations.
2. The cost of annexing true home provinces increases to double their current value--the cost of stripping conquered minors stays the same.
3. Protectorates anywhere can be liberated. You don't need to border on them.
4. The advantages of capturing provinces for treaty points following surrender would be dropped to 700 per province for the victor and 350 per province for the loser (this would create less of a penalty for deciding to stand and fight if "outgunned").
5. (PERHAPS) No surrenders before 3 months of time have elapsed?
If people like them, I will try to call Eric on this today or tomorrow with these proposals. Again, these are just quick solutions which I don't think should take too much programming time but would dramatically improve game play.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

I am curious what everyone thinks about the following quick adjustments to the surrender mechanics which could possibly be added by Eric in time for the next patch until a more comprehensive solution is found:
1. Calculate surrender points as usual, but after the calculation, in a 1 v 1 war, the minimum number of treaty points received by a victor is 4000 (alternatives: 3000/5000)? I am not sure what this will do in 2 v 1 and 3 v 1 situations.

What it will do in 2 v 1 and 3 v 1 situations is result in more seriously injurious peaces than would probably be warranted.

Instead of each country earning VPs individually, I think the coalition member who achieves the most in the war should be used to calculate the VPs, some multiplier like 1+.1x (as an example, where X is the number of allied aggressors beyond the intial aggressor). Then divide the VPs among the coalition members based on their percentage of casualties inflicted, or if no casualties are inflicted the size of the their troops or fleets in the field as compared to other coalition members.

I like the protectorates anywhere can be liberated.

Agree with Mus about the increasing VP by so much, a defeated country could be destroyed if attacked by 3 or 4 powers.

Think that DOUBLING the current VP to annex true home provinces a little much. Maybe a 50% increase?

Something else to keep in mind, fighting a long war also carries NM penalties, which have their own effects, as it just happened to France in Danish Too. When a country's NM is driven low, conquered minor country provinces have a chance to declare their independence (Lorraine, in France's case). Is there also a chance for protectorates to become neutral?