Ceasefires at low volatility.

[way2co0l]

I'm putting this here more as feedback for tweaking rather than as a real issue. But I'm playing a fresh Cold war sandbox at low volatility and both the Vietnam and Korean wars ended in ceasefire rather abruptly after only a few months of fighting.

On the one hand, I'm absolutely pleased to see ceasefires happening in the first place, and I recognize that it's probably me playing on low volatility which is causing them to peace out so early, but I chose low volatility mostly so fewer new wars would just randomly be started, and I wish it didn't have such a huge impact on how quickly they peaced out.

It's possible that this would be happening regardless of what volatility the game was set on, I'm not positive, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that my volatility settings are playing a part.

Personally, I'd like for those wars to carry on a bit longer before they try to make peace. Somewhere around 6 months seems a reasonable timeframe to me, whereas the Vietnam war ended in about 3 months for me and the Korean war ended in about 1 1/2 months for me with only moderate gains in both cases. I did provide equipment in both wars which had given the North in both cases the advantage and they were in the process of pushes into enemy territory when peace was struck. I think that the advantage they both had secured in the fight would have made them less interested in a quick peace considering they had the opportunity to take a lot more with the advantages they had.

[GIJoe597]

For reference, I started a 1949 game as USA, Volitility: Med, the French won in Vietnam, (no help from me), The South won in Korea, (lot of help from me). The wars lasted at least a year, maybe 2, before each was won. No peace in either war.

*France and West Germany are the largest two countries on the planet now in 1959. They just kept right on pushing the Commie countries, one after another.

[way2co0l]

Yeah, those were the wars I was trying to avoid in my playthrough. But it looks like it also effected the wars that were supposed to occur as well. Either that or it was just RNG playing out that way. It's my first time playing the scenario in at least a year so I can't say with certainty that it's consistent, but my assumption is that it is. I'd like to see the reduced number of wars on lower volatility but closer to traditional length of wars that do break out.

[Zuikaku]

I think that some kind of in game explanation for every volatility level (as mouse pointer hovers over it) and any other game option woul'd solve much of misunderstanding.

[way2co0l]

I think that some kind of in game explanation for every volatility level (as mouse pointer hovers over it) and any other game option woul'd solve much of misunderstanding.

This really isn't about any kind of misunderstanding on my part. I feel like I understand pretty well why it's likely happening. I'm only suggesting that those, like myself, using low volatility are looking for fewer non scripted wars to be started, but still want the wars that do occur to continue through the way you'd expect them to. Something they could potentially tweak as they've been putting a lot of work into volatility settings anyway. I don't want constant random wars in my games which is why I play on lower volatility, but I want the wars that do occur to play out realistically. If that makes sense.

[YoMomma]

I bet half the options wouldnt be used if ppl actually understand them.
I mean electricity sales, well duh why would i want to turn that off and half the ai (China included) got broken economy.
Loyalty penalties, well duh i wanna play a game where i can conquer other countries.
Fixed capitals, why would a player limit himself by this, i dont understand.

[YoMomma]

I think that some kind of in game explanation for every volatility level (as mouse pointer hovers over it) and any other game option woul'd solve much of misunderstanding.

This really isn't about any kind of misunderstanding on my part. I feel like I understand pretty well why it's likely happening. I'm only suggesting that those, like myself, using low volatility are looking for fewer non scripted wars to be started, but still want the wars that do occur to continue through the way you'd expect them to. Something they could potentially tweak as they've been putting a lot of work into volatility settings anyway. I don't want constant random wars in my games which is why I play on lower volatility, but I want the wars that do occur to play out realistically. If that makes sense.

Nah, it's prolly with the new cb system, just saying you can make it harder then nescesarry with all these options. Cant please everyone anyway.

[way2co0l]

I think that some kind of in game explanation for every volatility level (as mouse pointer hovers over it) and any other game option woul'd solve much of misunderstanding.

This really isn't about any kind of misunderstanding on my part. I feel like I understand pretty well why it's likely happening. I'm only suggesting that those, like myself, using low volatility are looking for fewer non scripted wars to be started, but still want the wars that do occur to continue through the way you'd expect them to. Something they could potentially tweak as they've been putting a lot of work into volatility settings anyway. I don't want constant random wars in my games which is why I play on lower volatility, but I want the wars that do occur to play out realistically. If that makes sense.

Nah, it's prolly with the new cb system, just saying you can make it harder then nescesarry with all these options. Cant please everyone anyway.

It's true you can't please everyone. And I can understand the efforts they've put into most of the things they've done. As for the CB system, or more specifically, the changes to volatlity which effect the CB system, the purpose of that is to increase the likelihood of wars occurring between AI regions without player intervention. Keeping the volatility setting lower reduces the number of wars started as a result, and raising volatility increases the odds of wars happening. This seems pretty straightforward to me and I think it serves that purpose very well. Players that want to play on any end of the spectrum have an option available to them. My issue in this particular situation is that I want fewer wars started randomly through the CB system which is why I selected low volatility, but I want the wars that do occur to play out the way they normally would.

[YoMomma]

Ok thats what you want, then your done playing the wars after 1-2 years and nothing happening?

The issue i guess is the marine pathing, cause there are no battle, cause France is feeding Russia merchant marines. No battle means peace offer. I think your just unlucky and in your game Russia happily killed the merchant marines of France.

Also they should put more brain in the AI, no point for Belarus to declare war on Spain, when they have no transit treaties and no access to water.

[way2co0l]

I agree that there are still a lot of areas of the game that I'd like to see improved on. I'm not denying that, but those issues are entirely separate from what I'm describing here. In this game, I am playing as the USSR and I have moved my forces from along the rivers that the merchant marine try to pass through. My forces have not fired on a single French or allied ship. It's definitely still an issue as I've pointed out in other threads, but I don't see how it's an issue in this game.

There was plenty of battle in Vietnam. The equipment I had just sent them had finally arrived at the front and it appears the majority of the allied forces had begun to arrive as well resulting in the most fighting that had occurred up to this point. Right as the fighting was getting thick, they peaced out. This was somewhere around 3 months into the war after only moderate gains on the North's part though it appeared they were poised to break through the allied forces and take much more.

There was also a lot of fighting in Korea, which again, the equipment I had sent the north had just arrived and they were in the process of cutting a swathe around the major Seoul area, cutting it off, and it looked as if conquest of that area was imminent. I can understand the south wanting to peace out as they were about to effectively lose the war, but I don't believe the north would have been so eager to have given it to them after only a month and a half of fighting and on the precipice of complete victory.

It could have just been unlucky RNG in that game. That much I acknowledge. But I feel it's more likely the result of the recent volatility changes having an effect on a country's willingness to agree to peace terms early. This is the part I'm asking them to look into. I feel as if they're agreeing to peace too early. I'd rather for a war to continue for at least 6 months or so before a country begins looking for peace in order to give the sides time to actually fight. From the examples GIJoe shared, they do fight through the full durations on higher volatility settings and I'd like to see that possible on lower ones as well. It's simply the frequency of random wars that should be reduced by lowering volatility IMO which is the point I was trying to make here.

[YoMomma]

Well maybe thats the issue, because you didnt kill them they didnt try to find another way.

[way2co0l]

I feel as if we're not communicating effectively on some level here. You're someone that I know has played a fair amount of this game, so I'm assuming you're familiar with the merchant marine problem. Killing them does not dissuade them from sending them. Even when the AI is controlling the USSR, they will proceed to kill hundreds of units and yet the allies will continue sending them regardless. I've also played this game for a long while, and while it's been a year or so since I've played the Cold War scenario, it's not my first time with it. Failing to kill the units does nothing. They simply try to send them through the river, get about halfway through and turn back. Whether you kill them or not, those ships will not actually reach Vietnam and have no actual effect on the war there. If anything, killing them would reduce France's MAR and make them more likely to desire peace as it feels it is losing the war. By refusing to kill them, their MAR will be higher and their military will appear stronger on paper and they would be more likely to want to keep fighting.

So I can safely say that my refusal to kill their merchants sailing through my rivers had no effect on their desire to peace out early. Nor have they ever attempted to peace out so early in any of my previous playthroughs. This appears to my understanding to be tied to the recent volatility changes, and the whole point of this thread was to point this effect out to the devs in the hopes that they would consider taking it into account for future changes to the system.

[YoMomma]

Sure, if you want to give some real feedback start a game as Vietnam or any other country not involved in the marine path France should take. Im sure you will be surprised with the troops France are able to send.

9.0.73 among other earlier patches got improvements to merchant marine pathing. One definetely is ai will look for another way if merchant marines are getting killed or hurt. In the beginning of this game you could just play without fog of war, declare war on US and kill all their tanks and inf in 30 min. having a cpl of subs, that's no longer the case.

I will start a game at low volatility and see if cease fire is an issue.

[way2co0l]

I feel like you're just trying to argue with me. lol. Disregard Vietnam if you like. The Korean war ending in less than 6 weeks while the war is still very much in progress is equally an issue. Is merchant marine pathing the issue there too?

Edit: Rereading that I realize it might sound snarky. haha. I meant it playfully.

[YoMomma]

It's not something new. It happens, im just updating you lol.

I have seen N Korea and S Korea at war with eachother without fighting, why dont ask me, that's a side effect of people complaining about no peace offers. Now sometimes they declare war, nothing happens, peace offer comes and BG can say peace offers are working.
So where they actually fighting or they did fight and was nothing happening for a cpl of months?

Everything needs fine tuning, question is, is that really possible without huge effort in every small aspect of the game.
That's why i dont care as much about new features. New features come with new complaints, maybe even more. Lets just make sure game work as it should, finally after 3 years we have ai trying to conquer the world, so that's something.