Some rather strange territorial concessions...

[BossGnome]

I tried a game as France, in the equal 1820 setting. After Russia gets too ambitious and tries to threaten Poland (of which I am the protector) I manage to form a massive coalition of Sweden, Prussia, Turkey and myself to go kick Russia's butt, and hopefully weaken her enough to prevent her from doing much more major harm in the future. As concessions, I grab 1 russian territory to make my Polish state bigger, and demand heavy economical reparations. The prussians demand an adjacent territory to East Prussia, and (this is a little strange) Kiev[&:]. Sweden, on their part, do not demand a finnish Province (like I would have thought, but instead a province two provinces removed from the finnish provinces, essentially in the middle of nowhere![&:][&:]... Turkey (and this is not the first time I have seen the demand this concession from russia) do not demand galicia, or Sevastopol (which would have made sense) but a territory adjacent to poland, 1 hex removed from the turkish border and, also essentially, in the middle of nowhere. I am confused.

Later on, Prussia attacks me, along with Spain and England as allies. I immediately surrender to prussia, knowing that I most likely have the armies to take spain and britain on, and probably obtain a surrender from Spain. Prussia demands, not the liberation of some independant states adjacent to itself, not a province close it itself, but a province next to ile de france!! What the hell? in the event of a declaration of war I could just grab that province easily! And its not like he could reinforce it well...

In another game, totally different this time, as turkey I watch France demand (again) Kiev, of all provinces! And sebastopol as Russian concessions... What is going on here?

From my growing experience I have figured out that computers will "prefer" to obtain several provinces. Kiev and (Volhinya i think), are two prime examples. However I finnd this totally idiotic and unhistorical. In the napoleonic wars, no one asked for a piece of land in the middle of the enemy's country after a settlement! Most of the concessions were made in order to a) extend one's own borders or b) weaken one,s hold over minor powers. Why do the computer's attitudes not reflect this in the game?

[Ralegh]

There has been a bit of a debate about this. In v1.1, you can choose any territory other than the capital - the AI chooses stuff it wants - either because of political goals, or because of its productivity (ie. makes lots of horses or money). Over time, this turns Europe into an unlikely (and ugly) patchwork of ownership.

In v1.2 beta (at the moment, at least), you can't choose "interior" provinces - but you can choose ones on borders with other players.

I am arguing that while you should be able to take any "player" (ie a country with the ethnic dynamism to be able to build troops), you should not be able to choose any non-player province without already having adjacent territory. That would give you an incentive to get control of particular minors, since they would open the door to taking adjacent provinces. I even went to the extent of proposing a number of exceptions (basically, the islands, and a "deemed" adjacency for Dover-Normandy and a few others).

I also believe (as you do) that the AI should be hesitant to take provinces without adjacent territory, since they are difficult to defend.

How do others feel about this?

[Gresbeck]

I agree with BossGnome. I’ve seen something similar playing as France, 1805, difficulty Normal. Austria surrendered to me and to Spain, and Spain obtained the province of Austria. What’s even stranger, I tried to get more realistic peace terms, and I imposed Austria to liberate Veneto. I thought Veneto would have loved me, and I hoped to form a protectorate. On the contrary, Veneto’s attitude toward me is extremely low, and it seems to be rather high toward Austria.
BTW, I would like to understand if the conquer of far provinces is penalized through lowering of morale or something like that. After all, I don’t think Austrian population is very happy under Spanish government. Maybe in these provinces you have a bigger chance of revolts and formation of guerrilla units, but is this enough? Can guerrilla units force a province to return to its homeland even when there’s no state of war (and therefore no peace-traty) between the mother-nations?

P.S.
I’ve read Ralgh’s post only after writing this post, and I think that in any case that taking provinces without adjacent territory should be strongly penalized, but I really don't know how (rebellions? chance to lose control of the province? lowering of morale?). Probably the problem is that, as far as I see, morale is not rated on a province base, but on a national base. The best solution should be a very low morale in a conquered province, and a consequent high chance to lose control of the povince; but probably such a solution is not compatible with the game engine.

[BossGnome]

indeed.

[Windfire]

Historically nations took provinces adjacent to their territory. For example over the years France took Flanders, Tyrolia, Cariollian, Illyria and Magdeburg for their own or to be part of one of the minors friendly to them. Russia took a province or two from Turkey, also along the border. The only exception I can think of in the era, was France freeing some of the Polish provinces to form the Duchy of Warsaw. My thought would be to limit it to adjacent provinces, maybe border provinces with no adjacency and perhaps provinces with a port (actually very reluctant on the border provinces with no adjacency and port ones as historical examples are limited to non existant). Otherwise the player would not be able to qualify for cede province. Possible exception would be to make a new condition to cede a conquered province as a protectorate friendly to the attacker (would allow what happened with Poland). I would be for this last one as it seems realistic to force a power to free a nation as an independent minor loyal to the power who was the conquerer.

[Grand_Armee]

Heck, I like to take some provinces just outside of Moscow. Usually ones that make wine and food, and haven't been overly plundered. Then, I build a 2-corp army there. While Ivan marches to Berlin, I watch him pass to the south then take the short, cossack-free walk.

I see France take Ukraine a lot. And I think that has to do with food shortages in le patrie....or is it la patrie? Personally, I like Novgorod, Tver, and Ingria.

One thing that amazes me in the 1792 game is the distances to which Russian and Sapnish diplomacy will go. Russian-Portugal and Hispanic-Poland.

[BossGnome]

la patrie...

[pricemc1]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

There has been a bit of a debate about this. In v1.1, you can choose any territory other than the capital - the AI chooses stuff it wants - either because of political goals, or because of its productivity (ie. makes lots of horses or money). Over time, this turns Europe into an unlikely (and ugly) patchwork of ownership.

In v1.2 beta (at the moment, at least), you can't choose "interior" provinces - but you can choose ones on borders with other players.

I am arguing that while you should be able to take any "player" (ie a country with the ethnic dynamism to be able to build troops), you should not be able to choose any non-player province without already having adjacent territory. That would give you an incentive to get control of particular minors, since they would open the door to taking adjacent provinces. I even went to the extent of proposing a number of exceptions (basically, the islands, and a "deemed" adjacency for Dover-Normandy and a few others).

I also believe (as you do) that the AI should be hesitant to take provinces without adjacent territory, since they are difficult to defend.

How do others feel about this?

Agreed, ceding should only be allowed for adjacent provinces. With some exceptions of course. I think if you want to cede a chain of provinces from a bordering province this should be ok. For example if I take a province adjacent to my border I should then be able to take a province adjacent to that new province for my 2nd pick and take a province adjacent to that 2nd province for my 3rd pick. Islands should be cedeable in all cases as well as the Gibraltar territory.

Mike

[BossGnome]

we should also consider province adjacency by water. For example: Morocco from Spain, should be considered as adjacent.

[Mathusalem]

You should be allowed to give a protectorate to someone else or transfer protectorship.
It would not be strange, for example, if France transfered it's protectorship to Russia, although Moscou is far away from Amsterdam.

[Gem35]

I don't necessarily agree with Protectorates being used as bargaining chips or victory spoils. The basis of a protectorate is a political agreement that would be impossible to simulate in this game. Specifically, say I am Emperor of France ( cough) and I am a protectorate of Spain ( laugh). Spain is conquered by Russia and wants my country as a protectorate? I don't think so...uh- uh...no can do. I would declare war on Russia for that... [;)]

As for the AI strategically annexing provinces even a 2 year old would not recommend, I would lean towards the adjacent by land and or sea policy.

[suleo]

In my current game, Russia got Portugal as a protectorate, and Spain got Finland (after Sweden lost it to a war with the russians). Of course, after Russia got portugal, a 80k portugese army appeared on my (France's) southern border and attacked me. Nice one AI, couldn't get to me through the straight path so it chooses the back door. Not that it actually succeeded in anything, but still kind of annoying.

[Naomi]

ORIGINAL: suleo

In my current game, Russia got Portugal as a protectorate, and Spain got Finland (after Sweden lost it to a war with the russians). Of course, after Russia got portugal, a 80k portugese army appeared on my (France's) southern border and attacked me. Nice one AI, couldn't get to me through the straight path so it chooses the back door. Not that it actually succeeded in anything, but still kind of annoying.

You should've been grateful to Russia, in that you wouldn't've had to declare war on Portugal before being able to conquer it. I once wanted to conquer Portugal but it then turned to either of those nations I couldn't fight.

[BossGnome]

yet another example of the AI's idiotic province choosing.

As France, I engineer a war between Russia and Sweden. Russia ends up winning. Does it demand the liberation of Finland? NOOOO!! Instead it takes that one swiss province which borders on Zealand. As it would be, ok, sure, it prevents sweden from going anywhere south by land, and their fleet was pretty bashed up, so it basically keeps them in their little country unable to do anything... nice one AI! But then, the Russians MAKE Sweden respect the neutrality of Zealand????[&:] No seriously what the hell? if they were going to use points for making sure Zealand stayed swiss free, then why did they not take Finland?

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I don't necessarily agree with Protectorates being used as bargaining chips or victory spoils. The basis of a protectorate is a political agreement that would be impossible to simulate in this game. Specifically, say I am Emperor of France ( cough) and I am a protectorate of Spain ( laugh). Spain is conquered by Russia and wants my country as a protectorate? I don't think so...uh- uh...no can do. I would declare war on Russia for that... [;)]

As for the AI strategically annexing provinces even a 2 year old would not recommend, I would lean towards the adjacent by land and or sea policy.

I not sure I follow your line of thought here

if you are the protector of Spain, and Russia takes Spain over, I don't think you got much to say to Russia other then, YES SIR, what ever you say SIR

[Naomi]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

yet another example of the AI's idiotic province choosing.

As France, I engineer a war between Russia and Sweden. Russia ends up winning. Does it demand the liberation of Finland? NOOOO!! Instead it takes that one swiss province which borders on Zealand. As it would be, ok, sure, it prevents sweden from going anywhere south by land, and their fleet was pretty bashed up, so it basically keeps them in their little country unable to do anything... nice one AI! But then, the Russians MAKE Sweden respect the neutrality of Zealand????[&:] No seriously what the hell? if they were going to use points for making sure Zealand stayed swiss free, then why did they not take Finland?

Sometimes, an AI nation chooses to ask another to liberate a protectorate that has little or nothing to do with the former, or the former is not going to do about, by dint of a treaty, like Spain entreating France to give free rein to Baden.

[Gem35]

It's like this Hard Sarge. U.S. protects Israel, Palastine Invades and conquers U.S., and as a condition of surrender wants Israel as a protectorate. Think Israel would say...sure of course ! ( that's a sarcastic response from Israel by the way [;)])

[BossGnome]

um, the day palestine invades the US i'll eat my boots... Israel is a much more probable candidate to eventually invade the US, if you ever stop helping them!

[Gem35]

"whispers" BossGnome...it's just an example....[8D]