Postwar Congress

[Regulas021]

AKA how I lost the US UHV despite winning every war

Playing the US, Vassalize Mexico by 1860, midway Spain and her vassals declare war on me. I take San Juan from them around 1890 and thus the Europeans are expelled from America. Spain agrees to give me a world map in exchange for a peace treaty, queue post war congress. I won every battle with Spain, took their city and ended the war on my terms, but somehow theyre allowed to make a claim on a Mexican city and win. Suddenly I have a peace treaty that will carry past 1900 and a well fortified Spanish city in the heart of my new vassal.

This is an immensely frustrating way to lose a UHV.

 

[Hightower]

Former colonizers successfully claiming cities in former colonies through Congresses is something that needs to be fixed in general. Spain in particular tends to get cities back from its former colonies all the time, but the same happens with Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, etc. as well. This is not realistic behavior at all.

 

[rmontaruli]

To try an improvement of Congress, it should define a way to tell who won a previous war.
If a civ lost a city, that civ lost the war.
But when no cities are conquered, who won that war?
As usual, if a civ agrees to pay something for peace, it lost that war, but often i got money for peace, also when i never met that enemy in battle.
Or sometimes an enemy army is approaching, and i ask for peace not to fight it, and i got money anyway.
So, there is something to fix.

First of all define a way to tell who wins a war.
And then, in a following congress, no cities of a winning civ can be reassigned in a congress. IMHO.

 

[phoenixfire7]

If a civ lost a city, that civ lost the war.

What if both civs lost cities

 

[Regulas021]

My understanding of how a war is “won” or lost is tied into war weariness, cities lost, military power (existing and what they’ve lose in the war) and possibly a few other factors, and they’re all weighted differently. So if you wipe out a 50 unit stack of doom from the invading army but they captured one small city, you might still be “winning” the war.

If a civ gives you any concessions at the end of the war (gold, gold per turn, world map, cities, capitulation) they perceive you to be winning AND they don’t want to keep fighting.

 

[rmontaruli]

Ok, but often i have a bigger army because i also have a larger land and more cities to garrison.
A smaller enemy with a stack of some units and cannons can be very annoying and i prefer to make peace, and in that case i got something anyway, and it is wrong.

Instead with Mongols for example, that have a stronger army but i'm far away from their borders, they always ask for a city to make peace, so i have to wait for they collapse, because i don't want to pay.

So, a larger computation is required:
cities lost and gained,
units killed and lost,
but also a condition of danger of invasion.

Moreover, if it is you to declare war, and i suceed in defence because i survive to the siege and you do not conquer my city, i'm the winner even with more casualties, and you must pay for war damage.

 

[Leoreth]

Former colonizers successfully claiming cities in former colonies through Congresses is something that needs to be fixed in general. Spain in particular tends to get cities back from its former colonies all the time, but the same happens with Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, etc. as well. This is not realistic behavior at all.

I agree with this, but just to clarify: are you talking about reclaiming cities from major civilisations (i.e. colonial spawns in the Americas) or also from independents, natives and barbarians? I think the latter should still be allowed. While it could also allow reclaiming your way into the colonies in case a post-colonial civ has collapsed, it is still an important mechanism to allow civs to expand into new colonial areas, such as Africa. Agreed?

If I recall correctly, currently civs get to make claims against cities based on their culture or the settler map value, and there is no specific logic to allow claims against former colonies specifically that I could remove. Determining what is or isn't a former colony claim is therefore nontrivial, but I think there is still something I can do. Let's see what the code actually looks like.

 

[Zaddy]

Right, the problem I often see is colonizers, particularly ones like Spain, will successfully claim even core cities from industrial era American civs.

Another thing I see is that claims to settle a new city are ALWAYS approved. I don't think I've ever seen a request to settle a new city be turned down. I think maybe AIs could resist those requests a bit more.

 

[BaneFire]

I think a blanket-ban on old world civs asking for new world cities in world congress would be appropriate

 

[brett0007]

I think a blanket-ban on old world civs asking for new world cities in world congress would be appropriate

The Falkland's are British :^)

 

[Derdan]

They shouldn't be able to ask for cities that they've already lost to new world civs, regardless of whether it's due to culture flipping, conquest, or decolonization. Argentina would likely have a difficult time getting the Falklands via congress since they'd need to be considered a great power and the islands probably should not be considered part of their historical territory anyway.