large nation wars

[Oubley]

Curious how you all handle large nation wars....
The dilemma I'm having for large nations is to essentially get them to sue for peace you need to take land. However the more land take your authority gets overloaded.

So even though you are winning you reach a point you are losing.

So i haven't had the cards yet, but are you able to cheese the mechanics and release the conquered territory with form independent event/decision cards?

It doesn't seem like you are able to do anything via vassals/peer of realm

Instead of winning some land feel being forced to just conquer the entire nation and absorb them.

It seems like you get double punished as there appears to be a hidden War Exhaustion value that will eventually appear in the nation details/overview section that hits your economy and equipment...

[kezthezek]

Indeed, you lose authority when conquering land. Along with money, manpower, eventually loyalty etc...

Those make sense and they are common mechanics in a lot of strategy games.

You can't release conquered territory, it's an economic burden but a political gain. You just have to know when it's time to end to war.

The best and easiest way to conquer a large nation is to Royal Marriage them. You can also go the conquest route but pacifying conquered land is not trivial in this game, at least on higher difficulties.

[prenticea]

Its reflects the realities of conquest in Medieval Europe - how long were the conflicts between England and France (100 years)? how long was the reconquista in Spain? when did Constantinople fall (hundreds of years after our time period)?

Once I am leading in legacy, I accept peace that gives me territory, concessions or both against big nations. Smaller ones , you can gobble up.

[Oubley]

Dudes I don't want to get into arguments about validity... why would you winning in most cases cause you to have less authority and side losing get more? In most cases that not going to happen . I can go on as already mentioned there is war attrition already baked into game, question was is there a way to drop regions conquered while still at war, as no it doesn't mimick war you're mixing logistics and politcs. .....

so let's assume royal marriage isn't an option... so why do you guys settle when can absorb and dump afterwards?

[Oubley]

Originally posted by prenticea:

Its reflects the realities of conquest in Medieval Europe - how long were the conflicts between England and France (100 years)? how long was the reconquista in Spain? when did Constantinople fall (hundreds of years after our time period)?

.. .

We can start a separate thread about why can't put people to the sword and torch the buildings, and why there isnt just an option to pass on through/not govern after taking castle/village...

[prenticea]

There is the option to raid, and you can keep moving through enemy territory, bypassing sieges, and let 'owned' regions just fall to unrest if you don't want to conquer them.

[Zombiehampster]

Playing as France, in the early game I got roped into a massive war with the HRE thru one of my allies/vassals and I didn't even fight them directly, but did defeat their vassals armies that tried to invade me and my allies/vassals. After playing completely defensively and fending off their attacks, the HRE eventually sued for peace and I took none of their land.

Taking land is important bec it contributes to the WS, but so does winning battles.

[Oubley]

Originally posted by prenticea:

There is the option to raid, and you can keep moving through enemy territory, bypassing sieges, and let 'owned' regions just fall to unrest if you don't want to conquer them.

raid is different then raze. I have "conquered" like 20 regions and they have like 100 (slight exaggerations but close when counting all there vassals), I want to raze all the buildings to the ground to prevent the enemy from being able to use it's war machine against me and force them to use resources to rebuild.

Yes, you are able to move through. I sort of miss the older AGEOD system where it was a bit easier to scout and put horses in passive position. It doesn't work as well here, it extremely hard to get a lone horse deep into territory even if you were to sacrifice it.

" let 'owned' regions just fall to unrest if you don't want to conquer them" yep as I was playing Empires was thinking that might what I have to try if the cards don't work. The probablem is there is a 3 turn time limit which is sort of extreme. then have to hope they revolt to non original owner.

"Taking land is important bec it contributes to the WS, but so does winning battles."

ya, you are correct about winning battles, this is how I theorized that if I blitz and time the authority right I could just absorb the large nation. As for every negative a winning battle was offsetting the loss.

This gets into why feel there should be more "options" to break up nations.
I really dislike the "warscore" system that games use, I don't think it mirrors the eve and flow of what goes on in reality.... the average peasant probably doesn't care who is in charge if they can go on about there day.

To me an option to set a new boss upon conqueror and let them do there thing, or raze buildings, or try to influencing loyalty by being lineant or threatening.... Like AGEOD Civil War games had both military control and loyalty that did different things.

It might have got kind of crazy but also kind of cool if had like up to like dozen nations or so split loyalty. Split military control probably would have mirrored the time period a bit better too, because even between vassals and liege there was probably different allegiances

"fter playing completely defensively and fending off their attacks, the HRE eventually sued for peace and I took none of their land."
that is great suggestion, that was my plan b plan if plan A went to crap, I guess miss spoke,

my main goal was to start to break up England.

I was utterly destroying them when noticed that my authority was getting all out of wack. I was able to make corrective action by just targeting their armies and crush them in the field.

But then was like this sort of sucks that can't raze half these buildings on the spot.

This is where I think games war exhaustion/region control doesn't work either, should be able to just go home and if a country wants there land back they can come and get it. I get that there mental exhaustion in addition to resource exhaustion. Sort of like how hearts of Iron IV War Support works in this regard (at least earlier versions), it operates a bit more on the mental state; and if you're not losing battles/troops it doesn't really fluctuate that much even if 'at war'.

[PocusFR]

Note that losing Authority from war issues also represents the chaos in the newly acquired lands. Yes, your central Authority as a king can be bolstered by these successes, but in significant parts of your land, it's a mess because of war. That's the rationale. The in-game reason is to act as a brake on rampant conquests, as you guessed.

As for 'no instant razing,' it's also a protection measure against exploits, either against the AI or in multiplayer. Scorched earth tactics would have to be finely designed and crafted to avoid being exploitive. So, you get a delay and a loyalty penalty for doing this.

The game rules are an exercise in balance, with each rule pulling and pushing in many directions.