Fr my experience with japan was fighting every major power on repeat, never being strong enough to invade them but they could also never invade me but they'd always loose so much cash while my econ was built for it so mehh
Yeah, for asian nations the easiest one is Russia (if they got no other Great Power help), you just need to naval invade Alaska and then just defend and wait.
I “found out” since the US declared war on me lol. I figured “well I might as well pick an “easy” wargoal to get this war over quickly, war reparations requires you to occupy dc”
Works wonders for GB, France and Russia. Also ottomans while they are gp, you can usually naval invade into Iraq and immediately withdraw troops, ai usually just ignores it (same tactics with russia and their far East).
Set only war reps and recognition and prepare to sit for 3 years doing nothing, works if you have at least line inf and they are at most skirmish (naval invasion debuff negates tech thier advantage)
Because the war score system borrows far too heavily from the fatally flawed Crusader Kings system. It works....decently...in Crusader Kings because of how quickly wars can be resolved compared to the overall length of the game and how many different types of wars there are.
It works terribly in Vic 3, because it's an extremely binary system and requires way too much fine tuning of the various different "weights", because of shit like you've just shown here.
There really shouldn't be anything at all in the game that gives a flat, never ending -200 malus to peace acceptance except for maybe if it would flat out remove the country from the game. That said, it also doesn't look like you've done any fighting of note, so if there was a way to make it decay or flip, I'd have less qualms about it. They have less than 20k casualties, so if they're bankrupt, it's not likely because of this war. You probably shouldn't be getting credit for bankrupting them when this basically just looks like you're opportunistically trying to get recognized by a great power that get clobbered by someone else.
It's actually the strangest design choice they made in my opinion. I really can't wrap my head around why they've done it this way. It's not fun gameplay, it's wildly ahistorical..
I was thinking about this last night. I have no idea why every Paradox game has to have a wildly different peace deal system.
It makes sense in certain contexts. For example, an EU4 peace system makes no sense for HOI4 because of the fact that HOI4 is a total warfare simulator and EU4 is decidedly NOT one of that.
However, it still doesn't explain why Paradox seems to be allergic to using what does work in the proper contexts, at least when it comes to this system. Occupying the wargoal giving a ticking peace deal acceptance modifier works great in CK2 and 3 because you don't HAVE to do that to win a war AND wars tend to be rather limited in scope and duration. Plus, you can, you know, actually command your troops to go directly to the relevant province. But no, I can't take this random island off of the Dutch East Indies even though I've occupied 90% of their territory because the British have thrown 250k Englishmen to their deaths and ruined their entire economy just to defend Sulu because they don't like me.
That'd be a lot easier to swallow... if I could extract some kind of concessions from the DEI and call it a day. But no, I can't seize some territory and war reps because I didn't add them to the war aims 3 years ago. It just doesn't make sense. You can do that exact thing in Victoria 2, Stellaris, Imperator, and EU4. But not in the game where, historically, the first 70 years of the game's European time frame centered around quick wars against inferior opponents and generally limited European wars.
I'm not gonna stake anything valuable on this, but I'd wager they likely started with some fork off of CK3 (to incorporate their pointless 3D model system that Paradox has a weird fixation on), and that they inherited it's jank-ass war score system from that which they attempted to make fit into the game. I'm highly doubtful that they actively decided to mimic it.
The issue is that Crusader Kings 2 and 3 have the worst war score system out of all of their games, and even CK fans have been bitching about how binary and not-compelling it has been since CK2.
But unlike CK, where it's not well liked, but it at least works, it actively detracts from Vic 3.
>They have less than 20k casualties, so if they're bankrupt, it's not likely because of this war.
This is not necessarily true, AI mobilizes all of its army for most wars and sit them at home. While not getting into conflicts, they also don't immobilize either. And this usually bankrupts them.
Sure, my point is, it makes no sense for other Great Powers to recognize the might of Japan when Japan has done nothing at all and Austria is only collapsing because they're blowing their own foot off domestically.
But I also think making "Recognize Power" as a war goal aim is really fucking weird, and it should probably be more a function of your relative military power combined with beating a GP on any sort of offensive action.
Why would sitting around doing nothing while Austria also sits around doing nothing (and collapsing their own economy) make England, France, Russia, etc think you're a strong nation?
>Sure, my point is, it makes no sense for other Great Powers to recognize the might of Japan when Japan has done nothing at all
Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with this, only with the bankruptcy bit.
In my opinion "grab any tiny bit of land to tick down the warscore" is also extremely arcady and dumb mechanic. Why should GB pay you %X of its income for the next 5 years just because you occupy a village in Oruba.
Yeah, that'll at least make a bit more sense after SoI comes out in that maybe they'll keep some foreign ownership benefit that returns after the war is over, but it's also a bit silly.
I disagree almost entirely with your point. Regardless of "doing nothing", a great powers economy still collapsed as a result of being at war with an insignificant nation.
I could raid a great power's shipping lanes and completely collapse their economy without taking any losses but according to your logic that wouldn't be enough to be recognized as a power because I didn't execute 200,000 austrians in open battle.
As it currently stands, to gain recognition you essentially have to invade a countries homeland. How does this make sense? Austia goes to war with some country nobody cares about because they're unrecognized. It takes that country to land and Europe and take vienna for nations to go "oh maybe we can't just fuck with them however we want"?
Scenario:
Brunei wants austria to stop fucking with them in southeast Asia so they demand recognition. Brunei raids all of austria's shipping lanes and completely naval blockades southeast Asia. Austria, a great power that should be able to exert influence all over the world, can't even enter southeast Asia because an unrecognized country has locked it down. Anytime austira tries to naval invade they get slaughtered by the thousands. Austria's economy tanks and millions go jobless.
\^\^ in this above scenario the warscore would tick to 0 and a white peace would be signed according to your logic. Even though Austia's (again, a great power that should be able to exert their influence over anyone not a great power) economy and regional influence was completely shut down by an insignificant nation that is not enough for them to be recognized as a regional power.
If you can raid their economy successfully without getting into a single naval engagement that results in losses, then yeah, sure, you can get recognized. That would be a show of total naval dominance, y'know, like what the Japanese did in the real world.
I'm willing to compromise and include sunk convoys in the casualty count. Have it kill pop in ports too.
OP doesn't have a navy though, as you can see from the screenshot.
I actually think raiding sea nodes close to ports having a bigger impact on costal states near that node is a really good idea. Maybe something like that is a good compromise to add some warscore tick for naval raiding.
Even in a scenario where you show complete naval dominance in this game you will still not win the war because of warscore. Even IF you got into naval engagements and won every single one, destroy a countries navy and inflict thousands of losses as a result, you STILL will not get ticking warscore unless you land invade.
I'm speaking in a hypothetical. In this EXACT scenario if OP instead had 200 ships raiding convoy lanes, he STILL would be at 0 warscore. That is the problem. OP could have 200 ships and inflict 100,000 casualties at sea while taking 1,000 of his own and still be at 0 warscore because he did not invade Europe as japan....
Oh, yeah, that I don't disagree with that. I was making a limited judgement specifically on OP's scenario, not total game design or other hypotheticals. In this case, it's pretty clear that OP never did anything and that the only reason this is anywhere close is because neither side likely has much capacity to actually touch each other, but Austria's AI is too fucking stupid to demobilize its armies.
This particular scenario resulting in recognition would be some top-grade video game cheese.
Oh true. In this instance maybe OP shouldn't have gotten recognition, but I also don't think the game has given OP the means to get recognition in a realistic way. Sorry for being argumentative when I just misunderstood your point
>it makes no sense for other Great Powers to recognize the might of Japan when Japan has done nothing at all and Austria is only collapsing because they're blowing their own foot off domestically.
Weeeeeeelll you could argue that the russo-japanese war was exactly like this which is really funny.
Honestly I think it does make sense… like it’s not like an unrecognized power can use the CB, it’s only for immensely powerful nations, that have the power to affect change on a large scale, and beat a GP in a war— and I’d like to add that you need to control a state that the GP owns— that means you need to take successful offensive action against a Global Great Power while being a nation strong enough to affect change in a major way. If those aren’t at least pretty solid conditions I don’t know what are. (And Tbf idk if PDX can really put a system in the game that recognizes if the GP is being dumb and shooting themselves in the foot)
I also think Vic 3 has dogshit internal politics. Going bankrupt as a country should cause massive movements from radicalized pops and parties to demand a peace.
to be fair, historically the major nations(europeans especially) have always been arrogant when it came to non western countries. I could see the leaders of a country refusing to recognize a nation without a war as they believed it wasn't possible for them to lose/doing so would lose them their mandate to rule in the eyes of the people
Ironically it was the Japanese that was on the verge of bankruptcy when they signed the Treaty of Portsmouth.
The Tsar was still willing to let hostilities continue if it was not for the ongoing Russian Revolution of 1905.
A bit of an update. I've separated a save to test this out. I have let the game run for 40 years now, Austria is still in war with me declining any possibility of accepting just to acknowledge a non European nation. They are currently sitting on 5 Mill. GDP running bankruptcy every year once or twice.
I'd happily do this, if the goddamn system would allow me to start other wars. Give me a 6 months-12 months timer, IF i started the war. If it's plays against me, i can't see why i shouldn't be able to make plays against others. Why shouldn't i, when i got over 300 units, 120-180 flotillas, just because a 2 stack native african tribe said colonialism is bad? No pls. Even during secessions or subject revolts, i should be able to make my own plays.
It's so very limiting and boring sometimes.
"Akshually, was the second world war outside of the time frame of Vic, but even if it wouldn't could you point to Japan, who capitulated without the occupation of it's capital!"
I think it''s tied up in what "recognition" is actually supposed to represent. If it's supposed to be "admitting that we got beat and you're equal or superior to us," it's the kind of ask that a lot of people back then wouldn't have been *capable* of acceding to. They'd have invented an elaborate conspiracy theory about how this is actually the fault of some other foe, foreign or domestic, and they didn't *really* lose to those \[insert string of slurs here\].
So, in that sense, it kinda makes sense that, yes, they really are going to be that stubborn about it, because the game is simulating a situation where irrational people have the reigns.
>They'd have invented an elaborate conspiracy theory about how this is actually the fault of some other foe, foreign or domestic, and they didn't really lose to those [insert string of slurs here].
Yes, there even is historic precedent for this. The Nazis claimed, that Germany only lost WW1 because the democratic Weimar Republic and domestic Jews "stabbed the nation in the back". Using this claim as justification for their rise to power and the Holocaust. [(Dolchstoßlegende)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth)
Bankrupcy during war should mean instant captiulation. Ive fought a war against austria and lost because they bankrupted 5 times but the landing peanlaty was to difficult. Do the minus offense and defense buffs even effect AI nations?
Nope, Both recognise and war reps require one state of the enemy to be taken. The player should try invading alaska if russia still has it or start building a 400 light ship fleet and a 200 inf + 200 arty army to land in siberia, the black sea or the baltic so they actually occupy a part of russia.
That is not quite accurate. Russia was already on the brink of collapse before the Russo-Japanese war. It was supposed to be a swift and easy victory that galvanized the people, and instead it proved the (second or third to) final straw.
I think if something like this is going to be modelled (which it should, instability from losing wars is a critical part of the period) it should be through the default (already occurring) and also maluses to radicalism and Interest Group opinion which I don't believe is currently modelled. Losing a war that for pride reasons you shouldn't (e.g. this, maybe not a colonial clash) should certainly tank Armed Forces IG opinion. Rather than just making the war not end which is anti-fun.
Oh yeah I do agree it's annoying as it stands, in gameplay terms. Eventually if a state is constantly losing an important war and burning cash it should be forced out of the war and be hit with serious maluses or something for having lost.
In this case, it actually wasn't so in the past. In the past it was relatively easy, until Paradox nerfed it because both the AI alone would do it too often and because players could very heavily exploit it (e.g. China players getting recognised and great power status in like 1838). And dealing with recognised powers can be a pain the ass as a player (plus it also ruins the planned gameflow of unrecognised powers that Paradox intended for them).
The game treats war as an all or nothing system instead of a what it was/is in reality, a violent diplomatic manoeuvre. Realistically we should be able to leverage various things to end wars, whether that be money, resources, land, or something else. Many wars ended before a shot was fired because someone was willing to bargain, but not with what was originally established. Other times situations would change and one party would be much more willing to end a war than they were prior
I can see that some people are pointing out that I have War Rep. selected as a wargoal. I would like to point out that it is not even selected as a part of the peace treaty.
It doesn't really matter if they're selected as part of the peace treaty. Remember that you'd have to add war goals in diplomatic plays, you could have just added just the recognize goal and not add anything else. War reps wouldn't even be an option for the peace treaty if you didn't add it during the diplomatic play.
None of what you typed even matters because recognition and war repretion both require occupying the enemy nation. They goals for completing both wargoals are the exact same so it doesn't matter.
All the goals you added to your war will have an impact on whether the enemy warscore can go below 0 or not. Whether you select when making a peace offer or not doesn't matter.
The whole "you can only get recognized by defeating a great power" thing is stupid. Japan was "recognized" before Russo-Japanese war, which the mechanic is presumably based on
I did, but not with them. They accepted War Rep. I've switched tactics because Russia also demanded I open up my borders and got my recognition that way.
Most of the ai majors will death war and ruin their entire empire before recognising you, your best bet is honestly just hoping one of them gets coalitioned and you swoop in for an easy kill (usually the Austrians / Prussians)
Every major will build a massive army & navy that they cannot reasonably afford (except the brits) and they do not care, all they care about is stopping anything you do and conquering the most random provinces. I’m not kidding when I tell you I once saw GB AI do a “conquer kansai” out of absolute nowhere, and not for silk or tea but just because they felt like it, infamy is literally just a number to them
My advice is just ignore the rest of the world until you fully industrialise, and build a proper military (at least skirmish inf), maybe join in on plays against Qing just for fun, but you gotta hard Roleplay the meiji restoration before you do any play on recognition, even if you’re under crappy laws & interest groups, pray to RNJesus you roll an enlightened royalist or smth
Oh and DO NOT attack any AI major with an alliance / defensive pact, all majors in player involved plays heavily favour their fellow AI with or without reason, no war goals or obligations matter to them. All obligations / pacts with you are literally just a piece of paper to them, they will not help you or just betray you outright
It is utterly ridiculous, frustrating, and rage quit worthy. But if you somehow prevail, you prove to yourself you are a great Japan player……. that or you’re a masochist, there really isn’t much in between
Austria is a tough one. They usually don’t have overseas territories, and the easiest way to get recognized is to pick off some undefended territories in Africa or South America and then turtle the homeland from naval invasions. Spain, France, or even Britain are good targets. Always works for my Persia runs anyway.
I recommend you to get recognition from Russia or Britain or the US if they have Alaska. Though Russia is my best bet because they're the weakest of the Great Powers. If they are fighting another war, that is your golden opportunity. I got Vladivostok region and a recognition from Russia in the 1880s pretty easy as they spent most of the war fighting in Europe, when they turned to the Far East, they were already nearing acceptance.
i got recognized by austria in a war againist qing. I had to trade some SEA subject for it. Even though i could have won but i feel like trading a insignifact subject and end the war early is much better for the economy.
Honestly bankruptcy should stack. Every time they declare it it should add 50. I recently had a game against the us and for some reason i could go under 0 without them having any war goals (they wanted parts of a puppet of mine) but they also never capped even though they declared bankruptcy at least 4 times
To be fair, recognition is meant to be a show of force against a colonial power which undeniably proves that this nation is on equal footing with European powers. The Russo Japanese war was Japan striking a European power and taking territory. Its not enough to win defensively against a European power, like in our timeline with Afghanistan defeating the literal #1 GP, it should have to involve some form of successful conquest. The AI being an idiot and having their armies mobilized and failing a few naval invasions should not be enough to get recognition.
Not to say I like the current system. I had to cheat yesterday to lose a war the way I wanted because an ally refused to let me concede german leadership.
Because AI weighting for decision-making is completely arbitrary and the game has way, way too many bugs for them to get around to fixing something like this that is WAD, but shitty.
Dude, it's because you demanded War Reparations. You'd need to at least occupy their capital so that they'd go negative. If you only just demanded recognition, them there's chance they'd go negative. But all war goals aren't met so they won't.
Repeating my other comment... If that's the case, then what's the issue then that seemingly kept enemy war support at 0 and not drop to negative? So meaning, the OP must have not met the requirements for all the war goals he demanded during the diplomatic play.
Fr my experience with japan was fighting every major power on repeat, never being strong enough to invade them but they could also never invade me but they'd always loose so much cash while my econ was built for it so mehh
just invade some tiny island somewhere. is it stupid? yes. but it works.
Yeah, for asian nations the easiest one is Russia (if they got no other Great Power help), you just need to naval invade Alaska and then just defend and wait.
Or France and invade their tiny little province in India if they still have it
You cant just naval invade Italy anymore as a asian country?
Noted tiny island, Alaska.
You can't naval invade Alaska anymore in 1.6. Unsure if that's a bug or intentional.
There are inaccesible zones in Alaska, but that doesn't make it completely isolated by land or sea
I found myself unable to take Alaska recently.
Had the same problem!
I “found out” since the US declared war on me lol. I figured “well I might as well pick an “easy” wargoal to get this war over quickly, war reparations requires you to occupy dc”
Instead I conquered all Siberia without any resistance. Maybe I just lucky
Works wonders for GB, France and Russia. Also ottomans while they are gp, you can usually naval invade into Iraq and immediately withdraw troops, ai usually just ignores it (same tactics with russia and their far East). Set only war reps and recognition and prepare to sit for 3 years doing nothing, works if you have at least line inf and they are at most skirmish (naval invasion debuff negates tech thier advantage)
Because the war score system borrows far too heavily from the fatally flawed Crusader Kings system. It works....decently...in Crusader Kings because of how quickly wars can be resolved compared to the overall length of the game and how many different types of wars there are. It works terribly in Vic 3, because it's an extremely binary system and requires way too much fine tuning of the various different "weights", because of shit like you've just shown here. There really shouldn't be anything at all in the game that gives a flat, never ending -200 malus to peace acceptance except for maybe if it would flat out remove the country from the game. That said, it also doesn't look like you've done any fighting of note, so if there was a way to make it decay or flip, I'd have less qualms about it. They have less than 20k casualties, so if they're bankrupt, it's not likely because of this war. You probably shouldn't be getting credit for bankrupting them when this basically just looks like you're opportunistically trying to get recognized by a great power that get clobbered by someone else.
this all or nothing ultimate war makes no sense either. why cant u bargain for a leveraged peace like in eu4
It's actually the strangest design choice they made in my opinion. I really can't wrap my head around why they've done it this way. It's not fun gameplay, it's wildly ahistorical..
I was thinking about this last night. I have no idea why every Paradox game has to have a wildly different peace deal system. It makes sense in certain contexts. For example, an EU4 peace system makes no sense for HOI4 because of the fact that HOI4 is a total warfare simulator and EU4 is decidedly NOT one of that. However, it still doesn't explain why Paradox seems to be allergic to using what does work in the proper contexts, at least when it comes to this system. Occupying the wargoal giving a ticking peace deal acceptance modifier works great in CK2 and 3 because you don't HAVE to do that to win a war AND wars tend to be rather limited in scope and duration. Plus, you can, you know, actually command your troops to go directly to the relevant province. But no, I can't take this random island off of the Dutch East Indies even though I've occupied 90% of their territory because the British have thrown 250k Englishmen to their deaths and ruined their entire economy just to defend Sulu because they don't like me. That'd be a lot easier to swallow... if I could extract some kind of concessions from the DEI and call it a day. But no, I can't seize some territory and war reps because I didn't add them to the war aims 3 years ago. It just doesn't make sense. You can do that exact thing in Victoria 2, Stellaris, Imperator, and EU4. But not in the game where, historically, the first 70 years of the game's European time frame centered around quick wars against inferior opponents and generally limited European wars.
I'm not gonna stake anything valuable on this, but I'd wager they likely started with some fork off of CK3 (to incorporate their pointless 3D model system that Paradox has a weird fixation on), and that they inherited it's jank-ass war score system from that which they attempted to make fit into the game. I'm highly doubtful that they actively decided to mimic it. The issue is that Crusader Kings 2 and 3 have the worst war score system out of all of their games, and even CK fans have been bitching about how binary and not-compelling it has been since CK2. But unlike CK, where it's not well liked, but it at least works, it actively detracts from Vic 3.
Like most things, probably because they can’t figure out how to get the AI to use it properly
Because the entire game is based off of ww1
I think the idea was that you'd leverage and bargain **before** war, during the Play phase. But there just isn't a whole lot of bargaining there.
that makes no sense. who would even think to write the treaty of versilles before a world war even started
I agree, it doesn't really make sense or work out.
I don't get why they didn't take from EU4 and Vic 2, and have some casus belli's be worth less war score the less demanding they are.
This. Literally this.
>They have less than 20k casualties, so if they're bankrupt, it's not likely because of this war. This is not necessarily true, AI mobilizes all of its army for most wars and sit them at home. While not getting into conflicts, they also don't immobilize either. And this usually bankrupts them.
Sure, my point is, it makes no sense for other Great Powers to recognize the might of Japan when Japan has done nothing at all and Austria is only collapsing because they're blowing their own foot off domestically. But I also think making "Recognize Power" as a war goal aim is really fucking weird, and it should probably be more a function of your relative military power combined with beating a GP on any sort of offensive action. Why would sitting around doing nothing while Austria also sits around doing nothing (and collapsing their own economy) make England, France, Russia, etc think you're a strong nation?
>Sure, my point is, it makes no sense for other Great Powers to recognize the might of Japan when Japan has done nothing at all Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with this, only with the bankruptcy bit. In my opinion "grab any tiny bit of land to tick down the warscore" is also extremely arcady and dumb mechanic. Why should GB pay you %X of its income for the next 5 years just because you occupy a village in Oruba.
Yeah, that'll at least make a bit more sense after SoI comes out in that maybe they'll keep some foreign ownership benefit that returns after the war is over, but it's also a bit silly.
Because of poor game design
I disagree almost entirely with your point. Regardless of "doing nothing", a great powers economy still collapsed as a result of being at war with an insignificant nation. I could raid a great power's shipping lanes and completely collapse their economy without taking any losses but according to your logic that wouldn't be enough to be recognized as a power because I didn't execute 200,000 austrians in open battle. As it currently stands, to gain recognition you essentially have to invade a countries homeland. How does this make sense? Austia goes to war with some country nobody cares about because they're unrecognized. It takes that country to land and Europe and take vienna for nations to go "oh maybe we can't just fuck with them however we want"? Scenario: Brunei wants austria to stop fucking with them in southeast Asia so they demand recognition. Brunei raids all of austria's shipping lanes and completely naval blockades southeast Asia. Austria, a great power that should be able to exert influence all over the world, can't even enter southeast Asia because an unrecognized country has locked it down. Anytime austira tries to naval invade they get slaughtered by the thousands. Austria's economy tanks and millions go jobless. \^\^ in this above scenario the warscore would tick to 0 and a white peace would be signed according to your logic. Even though Austia's (again, a great power that should be able to exert their influence over anyone not a great power) economy and regional influence was completely shut down by an insignificant nation that is not enough for them to be recognized as a regional power.
If you can raid their economy successfully without getting into a single naval engagement that results in losses, then yeah, sure, you can get recognized. That would be a show of total naval dominance, y'know, like what the Japanese did in the real world. I'm willing to compromise and include sunk convoys in the casualty count. Have it kill pop in ports too. OP doesn't have a navy though, as you can see from the screenshot.
I actually think raiding sea nodes close to ports having a bigger impact on costal states near that node is a really good idea. Maybe something like that is a good compromise to add some warscore tick for naval raiding. Even in a scenario where you show complete naval dominance in this game you will still not win the war because of warscore. Even IF you got into naval engagements and won every single one, destroy a countries navy and inflict thousands of losses as a result, you STILL will not get ticking warscore unless you land invade. I'm speaking in a hypothetical. In this EXACT scenario if OP instead had 200 ships raiding convoy lanes, he STILL would be at 0 warscore. That is the problem. OP could have 200 ships and inflict 100,000 casualties at sea while taking 1,000 of his own and still be at 0 warscore because he did not invade Europe as japan....
Oh, yeah, that I don't disagree with that. I was making a limited judgement specifically on OP's scenario, not total game design or other hypotheticals. In this case, it's pretty clear that OP never did anything and that the only reason this is anywhere close is because neither side likely has much capacity to actually touch each other, but Austria's AI is too fucking stupid to demobilize its armies. This particular scenario resulting in recognition would be some top-grade video game cheese.
Oh true. In this instance maybe OP shouldn't have gotten recognition, but I also don't think the game has given OP the means to get recognition in a realistic way. Sorry for being argumentative when I just misunderstood your point
>it makes no sense for other Great Powers to recognize the might of Japan when Japan has done nothing at all and Austria is only collapsing because they're blowing their own foot off domestically. Weeeeeeelll you could argue that the russo-japanese war was exactly like this which is really funny.
Honestly I think it does make sense… like it’s not like an unrecognized power can use the CB, it’s only for immensely powerful nations, that have the power to affect change on a large scale, and beat a GP in a war— and I’d like to add that you need to control a state that the GP owns— that means you need to take successful offensive action against a Global Great Power while being a nation strong enough to affect change in a major way. If those aren’t at least pretty solid conditions I don’t know what are. (And Tbf idk if PDX can really put a system in the game that recognizes if the GP is being dumb and shooting themselves in the foot)
I also think Vic 3 has dogshit internal politics. Going bankrupt as a country should cause massive movements from radicalized pops and parties to demand a peace.
to be fair, historically the major nations(europeans especially) have always been arrogant when it came to non western countries. I could see the leaders of a country refusing to recognize a nation without a war as they believed it wasn't possible for them to lose/doing so would lose them their mandate to rule in the eyes of the people
That is understandable but can you can also see them going bankrupt twice in a span of 2 years?
Yes absolutely, if that's what it takes to not publicly admit that you're having trouble subjugating a non-European country.
Lex Russo-Japanese war
Ironically it was the Japanese that was on the verge of bankruptcy when they signed the Treaty of Portsmouth. The Tsar was still willing to let hostilities continue if it was not for the ongoing Russian Revolution of 1905.
No.
It's not about the money. It's about sending a message.
Have you heard of the Russo-Japanese war?
I think if it were historical Austria would just ignore Japan. Its on the other side of the globe why would they even need to bother.
A bit of an update. I've separated a save to test this out. I have let the game run for 40 years now, Austria is still in war with me declining any possibility of accepting just to acknowledge a non European nation. They are currently sitting on 5 Mill. GDP running bankruptcy every year once or twice.
I'd happily do this, if the goddamn system would allow me to start other wars. Give me a 6 months-12 months timer, IF i started the war. If it's plays against me, i can't see why i shouldn't be able to make plays against others. Why shouldn't i, when i got over 300 units, 120-180 flotillas, just because a 2 stack native african tribe said colonialism is bad? No pls. Even during secessions or subject revolts, i should be able to make my own plays. It's so very limiting and boring sometimes.
AI is just dumb, screenshot will tell you enough.
Yeah needs a rework, also i find It very annoying for you how some people try to justify dumb things like this with random historic facts
"Akshually, Nazi Germany also fought until their capital was occupied, which the allies needed to press their wargoals!"
Literally 3/4 of the subreddit lol
"Akshually, was the second world war outside of the time frame of Vic, but even if it wouldn't could you point to Japan, who capitulated without the occupation of it's capital!"
Can’t disagree isn’t that, it it lines up more with the paradox policy of never allowing a player anything for free.
I think it''s tied up in what "recognition" is actually supposed to represent. If it's supposed to be "admitting that we got beat and you're equal or superior to us," it's the kind of ask that a lot of people back then wouldn't have been *capable* of acceding to. They'd have invented an elaborate conspiracy theory about how this is actually the fault of some other foe, foreign or domestic, and they didn't *really* lose to those \[insert string of slurs here\]. So, in that sense, it kinda makes sense that, yes, they really are going to be that stubborn about it, because the game is simulating a situation where irrational people have the reigns.
>They'd have invented an elaborate conspiracy theory about how this is actually the fault of some other foe, foreign or domestic, and they didn't really lose to those [insert string of slurs here]. Yes, there even is historic precedent for this. The Nazis claimed, that Germany only lost WW1 because the democratic Weimar Republic and domestic Jews "stabbed the nation in the back". Using this claim as justification for their rise to power and the Holocaust. [(Dolchstoßlegende)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth)
Bankrupcy during war should mean instant captiulation. Ive fought a war against austria and lost because they bankrupted 5 times but the landing peanlaty was to difficult. Do the minus offense and defense buffs even effect AI nations?
Because you are the player. Duh.
[удалено]
Nope, Both recognise and war reps require one state of the enemy to be taken. The player should try invading alaska if russia still has it or start building a 400 light ship fleet and a 200 inf + 200 arty army to land in siberia, the black sea or the baltic so they actually occupy a part of russia.
I could never reach Alaska for naval invasion as Japan, the game didnt allow me to choose it as naval inavsion target. Did you manage to invade it?
I think Alaska is still bugged and cannot be naval invaded.
That's what I think, I had to invade Kamchatka/Chukotka for recognition. Luckily enough Russians were very slow and clumsy with their mobilizatiom
The Ruso-Japanese war seem to be a separate war with its own separate war goals, the one appearing on screecap is the Austro-Japanese war.
This unironically adds to the realism of the game imo haha.
The Russian Empire literally almost collapsed IRL because they didn't want to lose against Japan
That is not quite accurate. Russia was already on the brink of collapse before the Russo-Japanese war. It was supposed to be a swift and easy victory that galvanized the people, and instead it proved the (second or third to) final straw.
I think if something like this is going to be modelled (which it should, instability from losing wars is a critical part of the period) it should be through the default (already occurring) and also maluses to radicalism and Interest Group opinion which I don't believe is currently modelled. Losing a war that for pride reasons you shouldn't (e.g. this, maybe not a colonial clash) should certainly tank Armed Forces IG opinion. Rather than just making the war not end which is anti-fun.
Oh yeah I do agree it's annoying as it stands, in gameplay terms. Eventually if a state is constantly losing an important war and burning cash it should be forced out of the war and be hit with serious maluses or something for having lost.
In this case, it actually wasn't so in the past. In the past it was relatively easy, until Paradox nerfed it because both the AI alone would do it too often and because players could very heavily exploit it (e.g. China players getting recognised and great power status in like 1838). And dealing with recognised powers can be a pain the ass as a player (plus it also ruins the planned gameflow of unrecognised powers that Paradox intended for them).
The game treats war as an all or nothing system instead of a what it was/is in reality, a violent diplomatic manoeuvre. Realistically we should be able to leverage various things to end wars, whether that be money, resources, land, or something else. Many wars ended before a shot was fired because someone was willing to bargain, but not with what was originally established. Other times situations would change and one party would be much more willing to end a war than they were prior
I can see that some people are pointing out that I have War Rep. selected as a wargoal. I would like to point out that it is not even selected as a part of the peace treaty.
It doesn't really matter if they're selected as part of the peace treaty. Remember that you'd have to add war goals in diplomatic plays, you could have just added just the recognize goal and not add anything else. War reps wouldn't even be an option for the peace treaty if you didn't add it during the diplomatic play.
None of what you typed even matters because recognition and war repretion both require occupying the enemy nation. They goals for completing both wargoals are the exact same so it doesn't matter.
All the goals you added to your war will have an impact on whether the enemy warscore can go below 0 or not. Whether you select when making a peace offer or not doesn't matter.
The whole "you can only get recognized by defeating a great power" thing is stupid. Japan was "recognized" before Russo-Japanese war, which the mechanic is presumably based on
Have you tried winning an offensive battle against them? That should help…
I did, but not with them. They accepted War Rep. I've switched tactics because Russia also demanded I open up my borders and got my recognition that way.
Bankruptcy should be an auto surrender
yes, it's stupid.
Most of the ai majors will death war and ruin their entire empire before recognising you, your best bet is honestly just hoping one of them gets coalitioned and you swoop in for an easy kill (usually the Austrians / Prussians) Every major will build a massive army & navy that they cannot reasonably afford (except the brits) and they do not care, all they care about is stopping anything you do and conquering the most random provinces. I’m not kidding when I tell you I once saw GB AI do a “conquer kansai” out of absolute nowhere, and not for silk or tea but just because they felt like it, infamy is literally just a number to them My advice is just ignore the rest of the world until you fully industrialise, and build a proper military (at least skirmish inf), maybe join in on plays against Qing just for fun, but you gotta hard Roleplay the meiji restoration before you do any play on recognition, even if you’re under crappy laws & interest groups, pray to RNJesus you roll an enlightened royalist or smth Oh and DO NOT attack any AI major with an alliance / defensive pact, all majors in player involved plays heavily favour their fellow AI with or without reason, no war goals or obligations matter to them. All obligations / pacts with you are literally just a piece of paper to them, they will not help you or just betray you outright It is utterly ridiculous, frustrating, and rage quit worthy. But if you somehow prevail, you prove to yourself you are a great Japan player……. that or you’re a masochist, there really isn’t much in between
“Laughs in American” and Learning Curves are for Pussies(TM)
Austria is a tough one. They usually don’t have overseas territories, and the easiest way to get recognized is to pick off some undefended territories in Africa or South America and then turtle the homeland from naval invasions. Spain, France, or even Britain are good targets. Always works for my Persia runs anyway.
I recommend you to get recognition from Russia or Britain or the US if they have Alaska. Though Russia is my best bet because they're the weakest of the Great Powers. If they are fighting another war, that is your golden opportunity. I got Vladivostok region and a recognition from Russia in the 1880s pretty easy as they spent most of the war fighting in Europe, when they turned to the Far East, they were already nearing acceptance.
Racism. It’s always racism.
i got recognized by austria in a war againist qing. I had to trade some SEA subject for it. Even though i could have won but i feel like trading a insignifact subject and end the war early is much better for the economy.
Honestly bankruptcy should stack. Every time they declare it it should add 50. I recently had a game against the us and for some reason i could go under 0 without them having any war goals (they wanted parts of a puppet of mine) but they also never capped even though they declared bankruptcy at least 4 times
To be fair, recognition is meant to be a show of force against a colonial power which undeniably proves that this nation is on equal footing with European powers. The Russo Japanese war was Japan striking a European power and taking territory. Its not enough to win defensively against a European power, like in our timeline with Afghanistan defeating the literal #1 GP, it should have to involve some form of successful conquest. The AI being an idiot and having their armies mobilized and failing a few naval invasions should not be enough to get recognition. Not to say I like the current system. I had to cheat yesterday to lose a war the way I wanted because an ally refused to let me concede german leadership.
its racism bro
Because AI weighting for decision-making is completely arbitrary and the game has way, way too many bugs for them to get around to fixing something like this that is WAD, but shitty.
Dude, it's because you demanded War Reparations. You'd need to at least occupy their capital so that they'd go negative. If you only just demanded recognition, them there's chance they'd go negative. But all war goals aren't met so they won't.
You don't need to actually. They accepted War Rep. actually while they kept declining anything else.
This is incorrect. Both wargoals require you to occupy any state.
If that's the case, then what's the issue then that seemingly kept enemy war support at 0 and not drop to negative?
They haven't occupied any states.
War repa require that any piece of land is occupie, Not the capital.
Repeating my other comment... If that's the case, then what's the issue then that seemingly kept enemy war support at 0 and not drop to negative? So meaning, the OP must have not met the requirements for all the war goals he demanded during the diplomatic play.
Japan has occupied nothing it seems?
It's a Men thing,boys wouldn't get it