While it doesn’t happen all that often, whenever I bother to play through the main storyline and deal with the civil war, my choice is to usually broker a peace agreement. Partly because I don’t have any real invested interest in either side. Imperials, Stormcloaks: doesn't really matter all that much to me. There are things I dislike and like about both and in all honesty I like the idea of both sides remaining active in Skyrim.

But what annoys me is the extremely poor peace agreement that you can forge between the two during the Season Unending Quest, which really doesn’t make much sense. Namely: the trading off of holds.

Why exactly would either Tulius or Ulfric agree to such a thing? Essentially most of the civil war revolves around loyalty. Gathering those to your banner who most associated with your cause. For the Empire, its Imperials who remain faithful to the Emperor. While for Ulfric, its “true Nords” fighting for an independent Skyrim. So when both of these leaders not only suggest that trading holds would be a good idea, but actually begin to negotiate for them my immediate thought is “what the [censored]?”

For Ulfric, he’s giving up and entire hold of people (whichever that may be) to the Empire who were willing and able, at great personal risk, to join his rebellion. To fight for him. Essentially throwing them to the mercy of the Empire. So much for any sense of loyalty or sense of kinship.

With regards to Tulius. The Empire is fighting for the protection of Skyrim’s loyal Imperial citizenry. What logic is there is, again, giving an entire hold up to the rebels? Is this how the Empire rewards loyal citizens?

And for both of them, why does it make any sense to trade holds anyway? The reason these holds sided with their respective nations was because their citizenry (and leaders) largely fell on one side of the fence or the other. Which means that controlling and running these settlements they trade off will be all the more difficult. Ulfric seems particularly moronic in asking for Markath (despite its wealth), which would basically become an enclave surrounded by the Empire. He can’t exactly bring in troops or supplies to Markarth easily and unless everyone in that hold sudden finds themselves backing the Stormcloaks, he’s likely to lose it not long after the Empire gives it up. Tulius at least with Riften is able to bring in more supplies from Cyrodiil, and this isn’t all that bad tactically speaking. But its still rather foolish.

But anyway, back to the point. Is anyone else bothered with this rather poor peace/truce agreement? Could the agreement not simply have been “Lets stop fighting and respect current borders.” I get that Bethesda most likely wanted the player to see actual observable changes from the agreement, but perhaps something else could have been thought up than this?

And for that matter, is it simply possible that the war could be resolved this way? Seems like a lot of problems could be done away with if Ulfric and the Empire just agreed to cut their loses and keep what they have. The Empire could remain in control of West Skyrim (keeping their line of contact with Highrock intact), and Ulfric in control of the East. Which would become a new independent state. That's frankly my ideal resolution to the whole matter.

Thoughts?

That's because it's not a peace agreement, it's a temporary truce, and the exchange of holds is one side trying to gain a better strategic position over the other. It allows you as a partisan dragonborn to shift the strategic edge to your favored side, for instance.

The way it works is that whoever is not in control of Whiterun (which by default is an imperial hold) starts out the talks by demanding a concession in land. They're the most insecure strategically, so they want something for even being at the table. From there it goes on to tit for tat.

Yes its a temporary truce, but even still, the idea of trading holds at all seems rather ridiculous. For the reasons I specified. Its essentially a kick in the face to whichever hold Ulfric/Tulius is giving up. It doesn't really go a long way in terms of showing solidarity with whoever sided with you (speaking from the perspective of the Imperials/Stormcloaks). If anything, its seems like it would lead to dissention in the ranks.

"I sided with Ulfric and there's a chance he'll give me up to the Empire? Well screw him then!" Etc.

Given the volatile situation, to me, it would be more logical to keep hold of those most loyal to you, as opposed to trading them away for what could only be a rather minor strategic advantage.

From the perspective of the Dragonborn with a bias, sure its not bad that you can essentially swing the conflict one way or the other, but the idea that Ulfric and Tulius are willing to agree to a negotiation of this sort at all seems rather odd.

What's terrible about this, is that the Empire ends off with less holds than they started with. If you go in neutral without a bias or joining either side, you give two holds to the Stormcloaks all because of how the neutral version works.

By that point, the Empire is left with:

• Solitude
• Falkreath
• Whiterun
• Riften

The Stormcloaks got:

• Windhelm
• Dawnstar
• Winterhold
• Markarth
• Morthal

That was a pretty bad deal.

I'm disappointed with the civil war in general so it's not surprising that the temporary truce brokered by my dragonborn is also disappointing.

Normally when a truce is called it's the 'cessation of immediate hostilities' which means we're not going to fight anymore, while it's not a peace treaty per se the exchanging of territory is often what happens in order to garner the 'truce' in the first place.

Take for instance the Korean War. The U.S and allies had driven deep into North Korea and eventually were pushed back by the Chinese and North Koreans. Fighting continued around the 38th parallel until an armistace was signed. Both sides effectively gave up territory and declared the 38th parallel a DMZ in order for the armistace to be accepted by both sides. Peace has never been declared officially. So you can see how the exchanging of territoy works when it comes to truce arrangements.

Who requests an extra hold depends on whether you let Elenwen stay or not. If Ulfric gets Markarth and Tullius gets Riften then one will always want more, If Elenwen is there Ulfric will want Morthal, if you get rid of her Tullius will want compensation for the massacre at Karthwasten(What massacre and would that even effect gameplay if he gets it?) and then he will want Winterhold.

Or could do what I did as a Stormcloak(I did SU just before taking the oath with my latest character) Get rid of Elenwen, give the Empire Dawnstar in exchange for Markarth and refuse too give anything else.

Very true though both see it as only a temporary thing. They immediately start talking about (demanding) that you help them get their lost holds back. If I were local I wouldn't be happy, for sure.

Also as so many people have pointed out (self included) there is a distinct lack of depth/choice to most quests in Skyrim and this is one of the few (badly done maybe) where you actually have some choice and see some changes from it. In the context of the game as it progresses largely pointless yes but at least they tried.

Of course not everyone wants those choices they just want a "go there kill that recover this" quest.