Matrix Games Forums

Hello, I am interested in getting as many questions and ideas and comments concerning treaties as possible. Please help me out if you would like improvements/clarifications in the treaty system!!!

I will get the ball rolling...

Issue 1) Who gets a provence if more than one nation pick the same provence in a dictated peace after a nation is defeated. What happens to the points spent for this treaty item if a player doesn't get it because someone else did get it?

Issue 2) Do large, rich regions cost more to remove from another player's control than small, poor regions?

Quick answers
1)
You better agree with your partners before claiming both the same province. Otherwise you risk both loosing those political points.

2)
I believe all cost the same.

I don't think there's a standard rule as to who gets the province.

According to my limited experience with the new CoG EE...
1) as ptan54 said, I don't think there is a rule about the assignation of a disputed province (or maybe it could depends on the fact that a province is included in your political objectives). However, about the points, I think you can receive a monetary compensation or something like that.
2) I think all the provinces have the same value.  

It seems that province always goes to country whose treaty is listed as last one (when you read them in diplo screen). Might something to do with order in which countries take part in turn but I am not sure. For this reason I wait one turn while my allies make claims, read those, then made my own next turn (you do not have to offer surrender treaty the turn war ends).

Here's another one:
 
Suggestion: It would be nice to have a date for transfer of money in the treaties. Currently it only says, "Party A will give Party B X amount of gold".

Question: Do you have to be allies to allow someone to pass over your territories or to allow them to use your depots?

Notes: I think you should be allies to do this... why?  Because then treaty terms which prevent alliances would prevent this kind of behaviour, and there is no other way to do that. At the moment, I am not really sure what forcing a loser to declare war on your enemies does.  At least preventing them from inviting people on to their land to attack you through them would be a great benefit of defeating someone.  Of course, the third party could always violate the loser's neutrality to get at you, but that's another story.

Suggestion: At the moment forcing someone to declare war on your enemies is kind of weak.  Especially if this is a human controlled PBEM opponent.  Or?  What do people think?  Usually this amounts to 1) Breaking treaties, 2) Ending trade (I think...but not sure about that), 3) Battles at sea when the units bump into each other. Perhaps this clause is fine. But I would love to see a "Lend Corps" treaty item (purchased separately) I THINK. What are the thoughts out there?

Suggestion: Allow players to take up to 50% more points than allocated. There is a cost to this! Hate from other European powers. Sure...take it, but you will probably have to pay for it! At the moment, the way the treaty system is set up, it seems to fix the risk taken in the situation to what the designers see as an acceptable level, when I think players should be allowed to adjust the risk level themselves.  Alternately, if you take fewer points than allotted to you, in many conditions, you should perhaps gain liking from European monarchs. Of course, there is no way to control a human being's attitude in PBEM, so I don't know if this one is a good idea in multi-player. Let me think about that one.

Suggestion: Allow players to transfer indivudal fleets as part of treaty terms.

If you are just playing against the computer, set the date backwards by one month for provinces ceded to you by terms of surrender and you will always get them.
 
ie. France agrees to cede Picardy to Austria on Dec. 1803
    change Dec 1803 to Nov 1803 in the treaty clause
 
 

I tried that in COG and it seems the AI knows that trick too?

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Of course, there is no way to control a human being's attitude in PBEM, so I don't know if this one is a good idea in multi-player. Let me think about that one.

Against human opponents their reaction to you after a surrender will depend on the nature of the surrender clauses. If you cripple their country with your surrender terms they are gonna get ticked off bigtime, if you take some money and a couple colonies with some kind of enforced clause of some kind or another, they will be ticked off less.

Just curious if anyone has had the "Feudal Dues" surrender treaty term dictated to them in a peace yet. I did in a PBEM recently. Playing as Sweden, Russia stipulated that my feudal dues level should be at 95 or so. Before and during the war, I had had it around 35 or 40 maximum. At least two turns after the surrender now, and I still have my feudal dues setting at 40 or so on my economy screen, but I am not reading any penalties for not adhering to the peace terms. What gives? Anyone know?