View Full Version : Why no peace?!!
Here's the situation:
I'm playing the Byzantines on Early, Expert.
The Almohads declare a jihad against me in Egypt. They push me back to Rum. I put enough troops together to push him across north africa and into the Iberian pennisula. I've squeezed him down to one province. Now, all along the way, I've been trying to get a ceasefire because I need to move my troops north to fight the Poles for the 4th time they showed up because some secret, magical heir returned.
The Almohad leader says, "no" to any ceasefire.
Now, can anyone explain to me what kind of an idiot would allow his nation to be pushed from a sprawling empire down to one province without agreeing to a ceasefire so he can re-build his forces and use allied assistance?
Can someone give me historical evidence of a similiar situation?
I mean, come on, these factions play to the death when a ceasfire would be far more logical.
WTF?!!
------------------
Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again. - Marin County newspaper's TV listing for The Wizard of Oz
Pachinko
09-17-2002, 01:17
This is for me anyway. You need to beat him. One time.Thats it. Then you'll have your ceasefire.They think you are a pu$$y! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif I've seen that Byz and all Muslim.
P.
[This message has been edited by Pachinko (edited 09-16-2002).]
Sounds like the English in WW2 http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Hitler overran most of Europe, knocked out France in 6 weeks (a country that arguably had far more resources to fight Germany with than England), and from all indications could have easily conquered England if they'd thrown everything at the island country (instead of prepping for Barbarossa like they did). It's only in 20/20 hindsight do we realize the difficulty in invading England (the English sure as heck weren't convinced). Yet despite all of Hitler's efforts, he could not convince England to come to the peace table.
He *wanted* to make peace with England for several reasons. The first was that he respected the English and didn't have a grudge against them like he did the French. The second was that he really wanted to invade Russia, and having a thorn on his flank would just drain resources from his primary objective.
The British refused. The British were almost conquered as a result. The easy way out would've been to sue for peace and eliminate the risk of complete destruction (for the time being). Fortunately for us, they weren't crushed and built back up their strength. With the US they were able to successfully invade France 4 years later.
If the English didn't accept peace proposals in the face of overwhelming opposition in WW2, why do you think the Almohads should?
Quote Originally posted by hoof:
Sounds like the English in WW2 http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Hitler overran most of Europe, knocked out France in 6 weeks (a country that arguably had far more resources to fight Germany with than England), and from all indications could have easily conquered England if they'd thrown everything at the island country (instead of prepping for Barbarossa like they did). It's only in 20/20 hindsight do we realize the difficulty in invading England (the English sure as heck weren't convinced). Yet despite all of Hitler's efforts, he could not convince England to come to the peace table.
He *wanted* to make peace with England for several reasons. The first was that he respected the English and didn't have a grudge against them like he did the French. The second was that he really wanted to invade Russia, and having a thorn on his flank would just drain resources from his primary objective.
The British refused. The British were almost conquered as a result. The easy way out would've been to sue for peace and eliminate the risk of complete destruction (for the time being). Fortunately for us, they weren't crushed and built back up their strength. With the US they were able to successfully invade France 4 years later.
If the English didn't accept peace proposals in the face of overwhelming opposition in WW2, why do you think the Almohads should? [/QUOTE]
There's a huge difference between the two.
First of all, different centuries. Warfare back in the middle ages did not mean the complete destruction of the enemy power. I twas very hard to accomplish something like that. Hence, that's why in MTW, the Poles can keep returning time after time. I killed the Poles 4 times yet they kept coming back.
If the British had surrendered in WWII, that would have been it for them.
Second, England itself never had its' homeland territory invaded. I stomped all over the Almohad's homeland.
Third, we don't know what would have happened if Germany had taken over London. Would the British have kept on fighting if Wessex was overrun?
So, there is no comparison between the two.
And, my army was the biggest in the world so that should have been enough to make the computer player think twice about continuing a war against a huge empire.
OK, let's address your differences.
First off, of the issue of the Poles returing time and time again. Late in the war (WW2), the Poles rose up against their German occupiers in a mass rebellion. It was crushed, much like most uprisings in MTW get crushed. It was also convinced Hitler to trash Warsaw on the retreat, partly to deny the Russians the city intact, partly as retribution to the rebellion. Much like I sell off every building in MTW when I know I can't keep a territory http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Then there's the French, that waged a rebel war of a different kind. Despite a huge occupation force, despite spies and the Gestapo, there was still a rebellion.
The second thing on your list: England didn't have its homeland invaded. Some could argue that England should have signed a peace treaty *BEFORE* the germans attempted to conquer some of their territory (why not sue for peace and keep all your country instead of risking losing some/all?). But I use the US as an example. Say WW3 had occurred and Russia invaded the US (far-fetched, but bear with me). Say all but the west coast was conquered. What are the odds of the west coast agreeing to a Cease Fire? About zilch.
Third, we have a pretty good idea what would have happened had London been overrun. Look what happened in Poland. Look what happened in France. Rebel activity would be the order of the day.
The fact is, the only big differences are the weapons used, and the scale. Every conquerer puzzles over why the enemy won't surrender/quit fighting:
-Why do they keep fighting w/o a chance in heck of winning?
-I will do horrible things to them if they continue fighting, and they know it. Why do they keep fighting?
-Why do they risk destruction when they could simply accept rulership and live out their lives in peace?
Finally, warfare in WW2 didn't mean the complete destruction of the conquered nation, like during the middle ages. Sure the Germans tried like heck to eradicate the Jews, but the majority of the population of Poland survived the war, therefore they were not destroyed. Think about what complete destruction means: Everyone dies. Anything less and you're simply conquering. And with that in mind, is what MTW simulates really all that different than what Germany tried to do?
BTW, I'm not trying to say the Almohads were justified in not accepting a ceasefire. I'm merely answering your question about historical precedent for not accepting a ceasefire in the face of overwhelming force.
Also, England had already been beaten in the field by the Germans in France. The Evacuation of Dunkirk involved 300,000 British soldiers trying to get back to England before the German army arrived. This forced them to leave most of their heavier equipment (tanks, artillery, support equipment, etc) behind. Some argue it was one of Hitler's bigger blunders, since he ordered his army to stop short and let the Luftwaffe have the honor of destroying the British (which they failed horribly in doing). So not only had England fought Germany head-on and lost (even if it was on someone else's territory), but they were forced to leave most of their fighting equiment behind, severely weakening their ability to defend the homeland if the Germans did come over.
Some accept cease fires, some dont.
As the Danes, I started a war with both the Poles and the Russians as part of a land grab... but when I saw France getting crushed by Elmoheads I was able to quickly negotiate a cease fire with the russians and actually got an alliance with the Poles.
So go figure. Maybe, in your case, they decided they'd rather fight to the death than negotiate with the enemy. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
Mine was worse. The Byzantines only have Rhodes, Crete and Cyprus and still refuse to sign a ceasefire. The French declared a crusade on me but got stuck on Spanish territory because the Almohads had 3 stacks in Cordoba. We are also separated by the HRE and Hungary yet they refused to sign a ceasefire with me. They declared war on me, we never fought, we are far away from each other yet he doesn't want a ceasefire. I ended up invading from sea and conquering him.
I attacked the Turks and rejected an alliance with the Byzantines that game. Nobody would ally with me no matter how powerful I am. The Italians got to war with the HRE while I am at war with the HRE so they asked for an alliance which I accepted. They betrayed me while still at war with the HRE and would not accept a ceasefire so I crushed them both while they were still warring with each other.
Also, how come the Byzantines have a big influence while I have low influence. My influence starts at 3 for a new heir and then goes up to around 5-6 after conquering new territories. The Byzantines always have around 6-8 even with only 3 islands and no navy.
One thing I noticed time and again:
check the other alliances/wars of the faction you want to deal with (lets take your example):
If you are allied with another faction that still is at war with Almohad, you will never get a peace (just observation, I do not say it makes sense).
If Almohad is allied with another faction that is still at war with you: no peace.
This is very sad, since your enemies allies wont accept peace, too, so you stay at war untill you crush one of them completely.
The same with alliances:
If you are at war, you get no alliance with any faction allied to your enemies (now this makes sense at least).
Please correct me if you made other observations. Maybe this is not a bug (if I am correct with my assumption), but it should be tweaked (patch ?) IMHO.
I've observed all of those but I've also observed that the stronger you get, the more other factions would declare war on you and not ally with you. After the Almohads betrayed me in my English game and I got a few of their territories, nobody would marry any of my princesses and all my allies betrayed me one after another. Even the ones who sided with me against the Almohads betrayed me quickly.
Vlad The Impaler
09-17-2002, 18:22
well actualy in WWII the british have a big empire behind them ; they werent a single provice; and lets remember that Hitler saw at that times the British Empire as a very important power for the future world that he planned to build;
IMHO can be told that Hitler wants at that time peace with the british;
------------------
One sword to behead the white ruler sitting on the white throne in the Vatican.
One sword for the ruler who will come and unite us under the sign of the cross
with broken arms. Eleven swords to behead eleven lords and rulers of the land
united under the blue banner. A hundred swords to defend our southern
boundaries against black plague and half moon.
And one axe for me to defend my stronghold, and may I call this axe, "Bane of
Christendom" soon.
Guys youre all ignoring the obvious: he is playing on EXPERT.
On expert difficulty, the stupid AI will never agree to anything EVER if youve given them the slightest reason to not like you.
Case in point. As spain I beat the almos down to 1 province, I then sieged it and then retreated OVER and OVER until I had destroyed everything in the province but the castle and the ONLY until left alive was the KING HIMSELF.
So, sitting all alone in his shanty level 1 castle with my army tearing him up over and over (at least 10 times) I leave him once again and send in my emmisary.
And of course he refuses a cease fire........ because you know, he would rather just die like the dog he is than have any hope of rebuilding or ever becoming a threat.
And the reason the AI does this on expert is, you guessed it, to make the players life harder.
THE END.
hoof:
Quote First off, of the issue of the Poles returing time and time again. Late in the war (WW2), the Poles rose up against their German occupiers in a mass rebellion.[/QUOTE]
That was late in WWII when the Nazis were in retreat. And it was not some huge organized rebellion, it was partisan activity. If you have proof to the contrary, post a source. Plus, that is not a good analogy because I was on the advance, not on the retreat.
Quote Then there's the French, that waged a rebel war of a different kind. Despite a huge occupation force, despite spies and the Gestapo, there was still a rebellion.[/QUOTE]
No, there wasn't. It was partisan activity so wrong again.
Quote The second thing on your list: England didn't have its homeland invaded. Some could argue that England should have signed a peace treaty *BEFORE* the germans attempted to conquer some of their territory (why not sue for peace and keep all your country instead of risking losing some/all?).[/QUOTE]
England was not the agressor, she was the defender and was allied with the French who just had their shorts pulled up between the crack of their asses. England had no choice because adding England to the Third Reich was part of Hitler's plan. I was the defender, I had no plans to invade the Almohads, and I never had a war with them in the past.
So once again, your analogy is wrong. 3 for 3 so far.
Quote But I use the US as an example. Say WW3 had occurred and Russia invaded the US (far-fetched, but bear with me). Say all but the west coast was conquered. What are the odds of the west coast agreeing to a Cease Fire? About zilch.[/QUOTE]
Again, see above.
Quote Third, we have a pretty good idea what would have happened had London been overrun. Look what happened in Poland. Look what happened in France. Rebel activity would be the order of the day.[/QUOTE]
Rebel activity is one thing but that's not what I'm talking about.
Quote The fact is, the only big differences are the weapons used, and the scale. Every conquerer puzzles over why the enemy won't surrender/quit fighting:[/QUOTE]
Again, I was not the "conqueror" so bad analogy.
Quote And with that in mind, is what MTW simulates really all that different than what Germany tried to do?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is.
Kalt:
Quote And the reason the AI does this on expert is, you guessed it, to make the players life harder.
THE END.[/QUOTE]
Harder is great but ridiculously stupid is not fun and it's not reasonable. Logic should have some place in all this. If like the example above you have one guy sitting in a castle in one last province and you are requested to ceasefire, how does it make any sense that the king would not accept it? At least if the king accepted he would continue to live, have a chance to re-build his forces, and possibly have allies help him. If he's dead, he can't do any of those things.
Unless the guy has "suicidal" as a Vice or virtue, the AI should allow him to accept a ceasefire.
------------------
Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again. - Marin County newspaper's TV listing for The Wizard of Oz
Andrewt...
You asked about the Byzantine Emperor having great Influence.
That is one of the bonusses of being Byzantine, they get at least two events that ups the Influence, but it helps pretty much nothing.
In my Byzantine campaign I had very few successful negotiated alliances and cease-fires. Normally they came to me, some times the very next round I asked for the same.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Soapyfrog
09-17-2002, 21:55
I suspect that if you had been at peace with everyone else, the Almohads would have asked for a ceasefire... as it is they were probably hoping soomeone else you were at war with would distract you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Emperor Theodoripiklos IV
09-17-2002, 22:10
I play the Byzantines on Expert...and diplomacy is not my strenght.
They Attack me , I crush them, they Rebel I crush them again , they rebel again I commit Genocide.
Its all fun and dandy.
I like keeping the Turks alive with one province and i invade them every 2 years just for the fun of it.
Over and over again http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Believe what you wish Paladin. I suspect even if I quoted you a historical example that exactly mirrored your situation, even set in the Middle Ages with the sides you were talking about, you'd still not agree with me. So I'm quitting this discussion, since you obviously want to be confrontational when all I was trying to do was give an example of another situation where a weaker power refused a cease-fire in a situation where it was in their best interest to accept it (at least from the bigger power's perspective).
Actually, the example I gave above from playing as the Danes was on expert difficulty.
mikecoch
09-18-2002, 00:01
quote...
And of course he refuses a cease fire........ because you know, he would rather just die like the dog he is than have any hope of rebuilding or ever becoming a threat.
And the reason the AI does this on expert is, you guessed it, to make the players life harder.
THE END.
-----------------------------------
Actually, the king is smarter than he appears. He knows you will eventually tire of his foolishness and kill him. He also knows in a couple of years a long lost heir to the throne will reappear will an extremely good army and try to avenge his ancestor. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
hoof:
Quote Believe what you wish Paladin. I suspect even if I quoted you a historical example that exactly mirrored your situation, even set in the Middle Ages with the sides you were talking about, you'd still not agree with me. So I'm quitting this discussion, since you obviously want to be confrontational when all I was trying to do was give an example of another situation where a weaker power refused a cease-fire in a situation where it was in their best interest to accept it (at least from the bigger power's perspective).[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your info but I was just commenting that it was not comparable to what we have in the middle ages. If you have something else, I would appreciate hearing about it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.