My Thoughts on Treaties

[Marshal Villars]

Before I post this, I want to say that I believe that the CoGEE treaty system is really just the icing on the cake of this game, which has kept me addicted to it since its release. When I first bumped into it, its treaty system was one of a kind and I was hooked.

With about 8 months of play time, I would recommend the following treaty changes...

Treaty Term Adjustments
I do think the treaty system is absolute genius and it is what attracted me to CoG in the first place. However, I highly recommend the following modifications:
a) It should be easier to add "respect neutrality of minor nation" to a treaty. Just today I tried to add this to a treaty of a defeated power and realized that it is almost as expensive to do this as it is to TAKE a province from the defeated nation which has belonged to it for 300 years! I would recommend that respecting any given neutral entity be perhaps 15% as expensive as the removal of a core homeland province would be for the default periods involved.
b) It should be easier to get people to liberate protectorates. Again, today I noticed that it is just as expensive to do this as it is to force the ceding of an ancient homeland province! I recommend this be 1/3 as expensive as the removal of a core homeland province would be. Larger protectorates would cost more to liberate.
ADDIT: Note that part of the problem in giving this a value is the vast differences in the types of situations which are being classified as protectorates. For instance, some of these regions classified as "protectorates" at the beginning of the 1792 game are virtually crown lands legally speaking. Others, during the course of the game, are merely countries seeking out the protection of the major power with absolutely no intention of being added to its list of properties. Of course, the former should be more difficult to remove than the latter, but that is currently beyond the scope of the game.
c) In my strong opinion, one should be able to liberate RECENTLY conquered minor nation territories in a treaty relatively easily. I would recommend making removing such regions 1/5 as expensive as the removal of a core homeland province would be for provinces controlled less than 5 years, 1/3 as expensive for provinces controlled less than 10 years, and 2/3 as expensive for provinces controlled less than 20 years.
d) Case c, above is for the outright liberation of conquered minor neutral provinces. Of course, one can also have them ceded directly to one's own nation in the peace treaty instead of liberated. I would say this should cost two to three times as much as liberation, but not more than the cost for the annexation of a core province of the defeated nation which had belonged to it for more than 20 years.
e) I would recommend that the costs of ceding provinces and liberating provinces should vary more directly with the value of the province and its infrastructure. Probably a mixed scale (500 base points+"value of the land") should be used.
f) would strongly recommend the addition of the ability to remove fortifications/guns in specifically called out provinces, as this was a common term of the era.

Make liberating conquered minor nations as easy as liberating protectorates
Once liberating protectorates has been made easier (see point b above), it should be just as easy to liberate recently conquered minor nations. It seems that it is too difficult to strip a nation of recently won minor neutrals and/or conquered provinces. For instance, If I am France, and am at war with Austria, just before Austria is conquered, Austria can theoretically conquer Venice, with four provinces, and Bavaria, with six provinces. As far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong), these 10 provinces then become part of Austrian "home territory." There is currently a "liberate" treaty term meant to "free" for nations which have declared themselves protectorates of a losing major power. Again, once the cost of liberating protectorates has been dropped in relation to the cost of stripping a hundred year old home province from a power, I feel strongly there should be an equally easy function to liberate recently CONQUERED minors OR minor regions which have been incorporated into that nation for one reason or another. So, if Austria has conquered Bavaria, and France has defeated Austria, France can force Austria to "liberate" Bavaria at roughly the same cost as it would liberate any protectorate. This all makes sense, because the outrage at the outright conquest and annexation of a previously sovereign independent minor would be great! The greater the outrage, the easier it is to put something in a dictated peace treaty.

Perhaps once a region has been in the possession of a major power for 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, the costs to liberate such provinces starts to climb slowly to what it would be for any region which had belonged to it for the last 50 years, as the people there (and in capitals around Europe) accept more and more that these new possessions are, indeed, part of the conqueror's territory.

Note that historically, France took quite some time to build up her European Empire, incorporating Germany to the Rhine, annexing the United Provinces and regions of northern Germany, as well as part of Italy and Dalmatia. When France was forced to the surrender table for the FIRST TIME in 1814, it was stripped of ALL of this and returned to its 1792 borders.

Note that this would also reduce the temptation to take the "quick surrender" option when attacked by multiple powers (as I have done on occassion and I am seeing happen in a game currently--when historically, the surrender document would have easily removed recently conquered minor nations) because even with small numbers of points, your enemies could free minor nations which you had recently conquered. It seems that it is far too effective (and gamey) to scramble for some minors just before you are conquered, knowing full well you will be able to keep the lion's share of them! An extreme example is Bavaria in the 1792 scenario. Or Poland! Though I have actively employed this strategy a number of times in various situations--and can generally come out "ahead" in any war in which I surrender because of it. You know what? It works. It works because I know my opponents will be forced into an endless cycle of wars to strip away provinces which no one ever even recognized me as having! This is unfortunate.

Had Napoleon had the option of a quick surrender after losing in Russia, I bet he would have taken it, again and again and again, and dragged out the liberation of Europe another 50 years.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong on my understanding of this mechanic as is in CoG:EE. It is possible that I am.

One way this could be done is to keep track of "possession time" for each conquered province. Every month a minor province is incorporated into a nation's actual boundaries (i.e. NOT a protectorate), 1 month of possession status is added to it (i.e. time it was not independent). In the first 1-5 years, the stripping of such provinces in treaties would require relatively few points and it would slowly grow more and more expensive until it hit 20 or 30 years (240 months or 360 months). NOTE: Provinces which were transferred directly between major powers would KEEP their accumulated possession numbers. For example: If Russia invades Poland and takes one of Poland's provinces, holding it for 4 years, and then cedes it to Austria. Along with the province, Austria "gains" the 48 possession months as well (actually, the province simply retains the characteristic that it has not been independent for 48 months). Slowly, the memory of this province being independent falls further and further into the past, making it more and more difficult to liberate with any treaty--and more like any other province of the possessing nation which it has held for decades. Then, whenever liberated, and not directly incorporated into a power, this "possession time" number starts dropping 1 month at a time. Meaning also, that a minor which hasn't been independent very long in the last 20 years, is also more likely to be able to disappear again!

By making the above adjustments, we would also immediately solve the "I am about to lose my protectorate so I will cede it to an ally of mine to prevent its total loss to the coalition". Here is a scenario rife with abuse: Austria defeats Prussia in a war, initiating an 18 month enforced peace. Russia suddenly has gained Poland as a protectorate and is friends with Prussia. Austria decides to invade Poland and moves into Cracow. Russia quickly drafts a treaty handing Poland over to Prussia--not only making it Prussian HOMELAND territory (because protectorates are currently converted into homeland provinces when ceded), requiring then about 10 wars to reduce Prussia to its former size, but basically removes the ability for Austria to conquer Poland. (note that by making sure that protectorates remain protectorates in such a situation, we would only solve half of the problem, since suddenly, Austria would not be able to wage war on Poland...and I doubt at this point a transfer to a power that they had just beaten would convince Vienna to stop--they would probably not even recognize the transfer after the DoW.

Of course we could always add clauses like: "France recognizes the Austrian possession of Baden", which was heavily done in treaties of the time. This would then boost Baden to a "full fledged" Austrian possession for French purposes, making it irrevocably just as difficult to remove as anything Austria has held for 50 years--FOR FRANCE ONLY. I would be for that kind of thing, but I don't know how many other players would be.

Recommended Treaty Addition
A player who has gained points to dictate a peace can impose a "regular treaty" or a "harsh treaty." If imposing a "regular treaty", he gets half the current regular amount of treaty points. If imposing a "harsh" treaty, he gains the regular number (CoG:EE normal or maybe 20% extra) of treaty points to apply as he sees fit (a la Napoleon's harsh treaties)-HOWEVER, the power dictating a harsh treaty takes a significant glory hit for doing this. The power which is subjected to such a "harsh treaty" gains additional motivation to reform and thus gains more experience points. Additionally, the power which has dictated a "harsh" treaty can now have harsh treaties dictated to it if it loses a war in the next 10 years, but there is no glory penalty for those imposing the harsh treaty on it during that time frame (10 years from the last harsh treaty imposed). Things are a bit more complicated than that, but that is the summary. ADDIT: Ideally, when you are dictating a harsh treaty to a nation which has dictated harsh treaties to others, the glory point penalty to you slowly returns to normal "harsh treaty" glory loss over the course of 20 years. In effect, a nation which has dictated a harsh treaty can "regrow" its nice guy status over the course of 20 years.

This is a way of simulating the incredibly harsh treaties which Napoleon would impose on his losers, stretching the limits of civilized behavior against Austria and Prussia while allowing other nations at war with each other to maintain the more civilized rules customary for 18th century warfare. Another situation it would work well to reproduce is the willingness of powers to punish Prussia for the uncivilized behavior displayed when annexing all of Silesia in the largest land grab in western European in the 1700s--and the fact that it would have probably been perceived as acceptable to punish Prussia with a harsh treaty in return for some time after this occurred.

Randomize Treaty Points Given
It is my strong opinion that treaty points won should be randomized a bit more. There are soooo many historical factors which could change the nature of negotiations (and we sure as heck aren't going to simulate all of them), that it really should be randomized somewhat. Perhaps even taking the skills of your diplomats into account a bit more. The skill of your diplomats and recent news could have a significant effect on the course of negotiations. What is unfortunate is that people can "game" situations which have developed and then basically predict the number of points they will have to give up in a PBEM treaty because they know virtually for certain what the number of points they have to surrender will be. By adding historically realistic variability, this ability is gone, and is in my opinion an improvement on the game.

Randomize Experience Points Earned Somewhat
The same thing goes for the 100 point advancement bonus following a surrender. The amount of reform a nation went through was never a sure thing, and was, in fact, highly variable. The only thing we can say is that there was a tendency for reform following defeat. I would say you could easily go with a random 0-200 value (or 3d6+3) for advancements--and should. While I am on the subject, I really, really suggest dropping the first loss 300 points for the first war you lose and 100 points for every war after that. I say keep it the same for every war--100 or 150 points (preferably randomized somewhat...say, (2D6+3)*10 points. What makes the first war of a game anything special? (However, one may need to keep it for the 1805 scenario)

Fix the "Quick Surrender" Strategy Loophole
You've probably all seen it in multi player. A player who is surrounded and outnumbered and outgunned by multiple enemies in a sudden DoW quickly takes the surrender option because he knows that he will probably lose anyway and the costs of the loss will only climb as the enemies rack up wins and take territory. I have no problem with surrendering and I have no problem with players taking the best out, but this should be changed and there should be costs to it (and there were). I would strongly recommend that players immediately surrendering in conflicts (turn 1), take 2x normal glory loss and 2x normal national morale loss. There is no doubt that surrendering like this would tarnish reputation even more than an outright loss. Who would take such a power seriously after this? It reminds me of the state of affairs of the Ottoman Empire in the mid and late 1700s. Without putting up a fight, there would very likely been major resistance to the government/monarchy for having sold out the country/estates/people. Rebellions, political instability and unrest weren't unusual following harsh treaties and treaties in which the government gave too much away (see, just for instance the major rebellion in Istanbul after the signing of the treaty of Karlowitz) and the collapse of order in parts of France in reaction to the treaty which would have concluded the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, with the people feeling they had been "betrayed" by their rulers. Letting people just walk all over you and take things could split the country in my opinion. This 2x Glory and 2x NM penalty would slowly drop to regular values as some kind of algorithm decided that they had at least put up some kind of a fight/or a predetermined amount of time had lapsed (perhaps six months?) There should be the possibility of rebellion and even of losing your government IMHO.
ADDIT: In addition to the additional penalties mentioned above, the quick surrender strategy will also be less of an option once the liberation of protectorates and liberation of conquered provinces becomes cheaper in terms of treaty points as mentioned above. Even 1000 point treaties imposed on you by other powers could lead to the loss of protectorates or recently conquered minors which you had overrun in the months before the surrender.
ADDIT2: Mus has also proposed that a way to reduce the temptation for a quick surrender might be to simply reduce or eliminate the variable nature of the surrender penalty (or at least the portion which depends on how many losses have been inflicted/regions taken/NM loss, etc). He may have a point there, and one which I have considered myself. You will note below that I am a fan of randomizing the treaty points somewhat, but this is independent of the losses/regions taken/NM loss. Perhaps it WOULD be a good idea to have surrenders ALWAYS gain the victor a (5D6+N)*100 points (where N is any constant which brings the average total of points close to what they are now).

Fix DoW/Ally Loophole
It is a serious concern of mine that after the defeat of an enemy, that the enforced peace will prevent me from coming to the aid of a nation/ally which I feel NEEDS to be defended. For instance, if I am Russia and have defeated Austria in a war and have achieved an 18 month rock solid enforced peace, Austria MAY in the next several months go to war with a power which has become my ally or may attack a minor neutral along our border which is a major national security interest of mine. It is my opinion--and strong opinion--that the enforced peace should not be so enforced at this point. I suggest that:
a) If Austria were to go to war with anyone who had (at any point) declared themselves to be an ally of Russia (before the DoW), that the enforced peace be liquidated.
b) If Austria were to go to war with any minor which would attempt to become my protectorate, that the enforced peace should be liquidated IF Russia has an "aggressive" policy set in PBEM policies.
Another way to take care of this would be to void an enforced peace ANYTIME a nation which has lost a war declares war on ANY state...major or minor. The winning power could declare war on the losing power, but not the other way around.
ADDIT: On top of all of this, I strongly recommend that the rock solid enforced peace period be randomized to be a period of 3D6+8 months. No one knows exactly when it will end. OR, ideally, that there IS no rock solid enforced peace, but merely a glory penalty/national morale penalty of going to war with someone in the months after the war has been concluded again. This glory penalty (say, 500 points on turn 1 following surrender) slowly falls to zero over the course of 24 months. There is more than one example of a conquering nation threatening to go back to war after a surrender because treaty conditions were not being fulfilled--or risked not being fulfilled. So, it is possible. Again, I feel that the current 18 month limit is in effect, the "regulation of war and human behavior" by WCS (said with all due respect for the people who have put together my favorite gunpowder era game of all time) [&o] --instead of a psychological model. The same principle would be used for dropping the national morale penalty of going to war "early".

Allow for Negotiated Peace (non-Emergency, but would be nice)
Concluding a war in the 18th century was more often a matter of financial exhaustion than it was outright conquest. Parties grew slowly tired of the war and saw the strain it was placing on their financial establishments and sought, and were more willing to accept, negotiated peaces. I recommend adding a new treaty term: "Acceptance of this treaty ends war between X and Y." This way, players can float peace proposals for the exchange of/handing over of lands, protectorates, exchanges of marriage vows, cash payments, etc--BEFORE it comes to the point where someone is forced to surrender to accept a peace (and generally a harsher treaty). Examples abound throughout the late 1600s and 1700s of this type of behavior, and I find it a shame that it isn't in the CoG:EE treaty system currently (though understand that there are programming limits based on budgets which have to be adhered to).

When Protectorates Are Transferred, They Should Stay Protectorates
I have recently discovered that when I transfer a protectorate to another power, that they receive it as a conquered territory! I have a feeling that a nation which has buddied up to someone for purposes of its security would be rather offended at being handed over to another power for incorporation! Among other possible abuses, this is the easiest way to convert a protectorate into directly controlled home territory, namely by giving it to an ally and having him give it back to you. As a result of the thinking which this has stimulated, I recommend:
a) Protectorates stay protectorates when transferred in any kind of treaty.
b) Protectorates may not be dismembered in transfer treaties. You either transfer the whole thing, or nothing at all.

Add the Ability to Absorb Protectorates With A New Diplomatic Function
Okay. This is not a treaty item, but I want to throw it in here anyway. The incorporation of the United Provinces into French territory is one thing which can't be simulated in the game. I propose the following addition to the repertiore of diplomatic actions: "Negotiate Incorporation". To do this, you need to send a diplomat to any portion of the protectorate which you control. Then select the "Negotiate Incorporation" action. Each turn your diplomat is present a check is made. The check is made against "influence", "legal", and the protectorate's liking for you (ideally you can still subsidize to influence this). Also the higher your current glory (or recent victories), the more likely a successful result is. I would say that under optimal conditions this could take up to 2 years to negotiate before a successful role occurs (less if you have recently won large battles).

[Mus]

All they would need to do is make surrenders give a less wildly fluctuating amount of victory points. Somewhere between 4 to 6 thousand no matter how little or how much the defeated power lost in combat.

That would encourage people to "go down fighting" instead of quickly surrendering and make the wars more epic.

I have some ideas regarding surrenders and limited surrenders. I will be posting something when the concept is more concrete.

PS. Some of your suggestions, like the skill of your diplomats effecting the surrender points, are already in the game. RTFM Please!

[;)]

[Marshal Villars]

Mus,

That's an interesting point on simply assigning a set value (with less variability based on intensity of conflict, etc) to reduce the "quick surrender" temptation. Let me think about it.

I would personally prefer some more options with the diplomats, which is what I meant. But I can't go into it here, as it would really be too much--at least for the CoG:EE patches.

-Villars

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars
Randomize Treaty Points Given
Perhaps even taking the skills of your diplomats into account. The skill of your diplomats and recent news could have a significant effect on the course of negotiations.

A good post, and I agree with you in most, THIS however is allready in the game.

add Winning nation legal score of his diplomats x10
subtract Losing nation legal score of his diplomats x5

(atleast I believe it is x10 and x5)

*edit* Ah see that Mus allready mentioned this
(and you get 50 points for every surrender after the first, not 100 [;)])

Terje

[montesaurus]

In regards to surrenders, I think it would be worthwhile considerring the following:

Perhaps one should be allowed to surrender to just one member of an alliance that you are facing? If this party accepts your surrender he would be automatically kicked out of the alliance he started with, in addition of acquiring the enmity of his former allies!
For example: AU and RU have ganged up on Prussia. Prussia manages to surrender to Russia seperately from AU. Because Russia has betrayed his ally AU he could then take a hit of -500 to his National Morale for the shamefullness of his activity!
I think the possibility of breaking an alliance should always be a possibility for those people underhanded enough to consider doing it! Historically alliances/treaties have been broken in the past. It didn't help Napoleon when he married an Austrian princess to keep the Austrians at bay towards the end of his career!

Also, In the surrender process why are minor nations as expensive to acquire as are core provinces/provinces that start out conquered, but controlled by a major power?

For example, if Spain defeats TU in a war, and then claims something like Bosnia, which begins as a conquered nation for Turkey, it might cost as much as say a Cyrenaica, which would have been conquered by Turkey after the game has commenced.
To me recently conquered nations should not cost as many points as say a core province/a conquered province that has been with a nation for a long time.
Anyone else have an opnion on this?
Thanks.

[Marshal Villars]

I like your idea on that surrendering to individual parties.

However, I think you can do that in the game as is. Simply float a treaty proposal and do the work to offer and accept a cease fire--however, really CONNECTING the two is the problem. I can see situations arise where someone takes the deal, but keeps the war going. To fix that, I really think that an additional treaty term should be, "Upon ratification of this treaty, the war between nation X and nation Y is ended".

[Mus]

As I mentioned in some PMs I have some ideas regarding negotiated or limited surrender. I have been thinking about when I am stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.

[:'(]

If not in this game, in some other WCS product it would be nice to see something like this:

The gist of the idea would be that limited surrender would open a "parley" period between the countries that would constitute a seperate cease fire lasting as long as the countries were proposing and counterproposing treaties back and forth, plus the normal 2 round cease fire when negotiations are canceled (when one party or the other rejected a treaty rather than counterproposing).

If the limited surrender ends up getting accepted the demands are not based off accumulated VPs (although perhaps the "value" of the demands involved would still be displayed by selecting "party accepts these demands as part of a limited surrender"). Only the clauses of the negotiated settlement would be involved, but military reforms and 18 month enforced peace would still be in effect as with a regular surrender, as would the normal glory and nm ramifications of a limited surrender.

Seperate peaces would be allowed, but I like the idea brought up by Montesaurus that some kind of glory/NM hit should be involved to reflect tarnished honor.

[Marshal Villars]

What I like is the notion of being able to surrender to individual members of a coalition, but it should not be forced! That is, every ally should have a choice as to whether to accept the surrender or not. That is what the additional treaty term I mentioned above is good for, the "Upon ratitification of this treaty, the war between nation X and nation Y is ended"--an "URTTWBNXNYE" treaty.

The tricky thing is knowing whether to penalize people for one sided deals in these "war ending" treaties. I know that I don't want lopsided treaties to always tarnish reputation and glory. But a lopsided peace deal in such a situation should. So, if someone makes a deal with this "URTTWBNXNYE" term, the AI should calculate the value of the deal to the various parties (tricky at best), and penalize/reward the sides accordingly.

There is room for abuse, as people can make deals to end the war and keep certain clauses out of the "URTTWBNXNYE" treaty and put them in other treaties to avoid having any bad effects from lopsided "URTTWBNXNYE" treaties. However, I suppose these other deals do not explicitly lock the end of the war to the acceptance, so if people want to do favors like that (i.e. putting emberrassing clauses into other treaties) then I guess fine--what people would have to realize is that if they would like to circumvent the "URTTWBNXNYE" treaty, they can always be screwed over and those deals might not be accepted--or offered if taken care of after the "URTTWBNXNYE" peace treaty.

I would be very much against a defender "forcing" an allied participant out of a war with any kind of surrender. That should be up to the ally to decide in all cases.