Lukasz

[nakerfit 14]

Lukasz, I have two questions for you: Firstly, the mechanics of capturing provinces that you added to the game bother me because, for example, in the scenario of the first or second world war, it would be somehow illogical that German troops capture French and Russian the provinces are not along the front, but simply to bring troops to completely different places, even as far as Moscow, and at the same time, along the path of the provinces that were marching, the troops occupied them!; Secondly, those peace conferences that you showed in your new video also remind me that, for example, when an entire alliance is at war with one country or also with an alliance, and when you make peace with a country, it seems that you can only make from myself, and not from the entire alliance and only with one enemy country, and if this is so, then is it possible to give provinces to them for other countries, for example, as in Aoh2?

[aa30388 36]

For your first question, I think for more modern scenarios the siege time is faster because of more advanced technology and troops,so sieges can take less time and it's logical to occupy a big city in 4-5 days in world war two if there is no wall or troops stationed there

[qxz 527]

What I'm thinking is that because the system is heavily tied with fortifications, enabling the player to prevent the capture of a strategic province, will be heavily utilised in the setting of 'modern combat'.

I'm guessing there will be pre-built fortifications in provinces during the modern age scenarios.

[Łukasz Jakowski 8,197]

Only war leaders can make demands and only to another war leader. That should be one of the steps to prevent border gore.

If you want to give province then you can take it for yourself and sell to that civilization

[nakerfit 14]

22 minutes ago, Łukasz Jakowski said:

Only war leaders can make demands and only to another war leader. That should be one of the steps to prevent border gore.

If you want to give province then you can take it for yourself and sell to that civilization

Hoi4 or Aoh3?

[Rodak Polak 538]

57 minutes ago, Łukasz Jakowski said:

Only war leaders can make demands and only to another war leader. That should be one of the steps to prevent border gore.

If you want to give province then you can take it for yourself and sell to that civilization

Does this mean that in each war only one country will gain warscore? Will it be that we will fight in the war for several years and then it will turn out that we will get nothing? We will win the war, but we will still have to pay a lot of money to our ally to get some provinces?

[qxz 527]

4 minutes ago, Rodak Polak said:

Does this mean that in each war only one country will gain warscore? Will it be that we will fight in the war for several years and then it will turn out that we will get nothing? We will win the war, but we will still have to pay a lot of money to our ally to get some provinces?

Same worry here.

[Rodak Polak 538]

Maybe it would be good to create a post about border gore. I think the community might have some great ideas

[ethanorhan 3]

Release date ? I think we die before play this game 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Rodak Polak said:

Maybe it would be good to create a post about border gore. I think the community might have some great ideas

proszę

[Wayne23lololh 1,347]

5 minutes ago, ethanorhan said:

Release date ? I think we die before play this game 

The release date is when is ready 😜

It means that we will still be alive when the game released.

[IKayzerI 155]

50 minutes ago, Rodak Polak said:

Does this mean that in each war only one country will gain warscore? Will it be that we will fight in the war for several years and then it will turn out that we will get nothing? We will win the war, but we will still have to pay a lot of money to our ally to get some provinces?

Yes? For example in Thirty Years Wars, too many countries didnt gain anything but nearly 50% of the German people died, and total nearly 10m died. I liked Lukasz's idea. 

[qxz 527]

6 minutes ago, IKayzerI said:

Yes? For example in Thirty Years Wars, too many countries didnt gain anything but nearly 50% of the German people died, and total nearly 10m died. I liked Lukasz's idea. 

Applying to one scenario is a terrible thought.

In both World Wars, many countries gained something out of the war.

[Wayne23lololh 1,347]

I don't know who to like in this topic 😰

[Wayne23lololh 1,347]

5 minutes ago, qxz said:

Applying to one scenario is a terrible thought.

In both World Wars, many countries gained something out of the war.

But you're right. In ww2, axis countries like Romania and Bulgaria still get territories, but their gov. changed.

[Rodak Polak 538]

38 minutes ago, IKayzerI said:

Yes? For example in Thirty Years Wars, too many countries didnt gain anything but nearly 50% of the German people died, and total nearly 10m died. I liked Lukasz's idea. 

What I mean is that it makes no sense that you win the battle, but your ally gets the warscore for that battle. You talking about situation when you win one battle and lose the other one and your warscore is zero after this, you get nothing. In this situation its logical that you lost a lot of people but gain nothing. But I understood that Mr. Łukasz said that if you win 10 battles and occupy 10 provinces of your enemy and your warscore is 49% (and you lost 700 000 soldierds) you will get nothing because your ally won 11 batles and occupy 10 provinces and get 51% (but lost only 10 000 soldiers). This seems very unfair

[Денис Живков 622]

10 minutes ago, Rodak Polak said:

Я имею в виду, что нет никакого смысла в том, что вы выигрываете битву, но ваш союзник получает боевой балл за эту битву. Вы говорите о ситуации, когда вы выигрываете одно сражение и проигрываете другое, а ваш боевой счет равен нулю, после этого вы ничего не получаете. В этой ситуации логично, что вы потеряли много людей, но ничего не приобрели. Но я понял, что мистер Лукаш сказал, что если вы выиграете 10 сражений и оккупируете 10 провинций вашего врага, и ваш боевой рейтинг составит 49% (и вы потеряли 700 000 солдат), вы ничего не получите, потому что ваш союзник выиграл 11 сражений, занял 10 провинций и получил 51% (но потерял только 10 000 солдат). Это кажется очень несправедливым

logical, brilliant, amazing

[Mov 101]

4 hours ago, Rodak Polak said:

Does this mean that in each war only one country will gain warscore? Will it be that we will fight in the war for several years and then it will turn out that we will get nothing? We will win the war, but we will still have to pay a lot of money to our ally to get some provinces?

Just check Victoria 2

[Anyone 16]

5 hours ago, nakerfit said:

Hoi4 or Aoh3?

Gta 7

Edited March 3 by Anyone

[Łukasz Jakowski 8,197]

3 hours ago, Rodak Polak said:

But I understood that Mr. Łukasz said that if you win 10 battles and occupy 10 provinces of your enemy and your warscore is 49% (and you lost 700 000 soldierds) you will get nothing because your ally won 11 batles and occupy 10 provinces and get 51% (but lost only 10 000 soldiers). This seems very unfair

The warscore is only one for the war, in this case the warscore will be 100%.

Only war leader will make demands in a peace treaty. The war leader for each side will be Civ that declared war and Civ that this war was declared on.

It doesn't matter if ally got 51% warscore in peace treaty.

[qxz 527]

4 minutes ago, Łukasz Jakowski said:

The warscore is only one for the war, in this case the warscore will be 100%.

Only war leader will make demands in a peace treaty. The war leader for each side will be Civ that declared war and Civ that this war was declared on.

It doesn't matter if ally got 51% warscore in peace treaty.

So here's a situation:

I join a war which my ally (AI) is currently waging. I join it because I want to get some profit out of it.

Eventually, my ally and I win, and let's say I contributed 50% of warscore by losing men or occupying provinces.

Judging by the current explanation, I will get absolutely nothing out of the war because I am not the 'war leader', meanwhile my ally will make all the demands and take everything to themselves. 

Is that right?
 

[Łukasz Jakowski 8,197]

5 minutes ago, qxz said:

So here's a situation:

I join a war which my ally (AI) is currently waging. I join it because I want to get some profit out of it.

Eventually, my ally and I win, and let's say I contributed 50% of warscore by losing men or occupying provinces.

Judging by the current explanation, I will get absolutely nothing out of the war because I am not the 'war leader', meanwhile my ally will make all the demands and take everything to themselves. 

Is that right?
 

Yes, maybe there will be something like Legacy points for participation in the war

[Rodak Polak 538]

19 minutes ago, Łukasz Jakowski said:

The warscore is only one for the war, in this case the warscore will be 100%.

Only war leader will make demands in a peace treaty. The war leader for each side will be Civ that declared war and Civ that this war was declared on.

It doesn't matter if ally got 51% warscore in peace treaty.

Okay. But I wonder if someone declares war on our ally, will it make sense to help him and accept the call to war? Is there a chance to gain something from the war in such a situation or will we just waste time and troops?

Okay, you just asnwered above

Edited March 3 by Rodak Polak

[Rodak Polak 538]

8 minutes ago, Łukasz Jakowski said:

Yes, maybe there will be something like Legacy points for participation in the war

Will it be the same with guaranteeing independence and the defense pact?

[Łukasz Jakowski 8,197]

Otherwise you will lose legacy points, if you don't want to help ally. You sign alliance for some reason