• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Alyosha

Commandant
19 Badges
Feb 20, 2002
2.232
1.144
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
I would love the above feature be disabled. I put all of my sphered countries into my alliance in order to protect them from aggression and keep tabs on their foreign adventures. However, I don't always want my allies to immediately jump into a war with me - sometimes their presence impedes the war effort instead of helping (as many have mentioned).

To give an example I'll take my current game as Italy. I unified Italy in 1853, beating Austria and its allies the NGF and the Ottomans. After unification I quickly took two states from Greece (beating the Russians in the process who marched thousands of troops through Austria only to have them destroyed in northern Italy). Prior to unification I had relations with France at 200; I however neglected our relations in the immediate aftermath of unification and did not enact Cavour's Diplomacy, which would have given France the states of Provence and Savoie (on a separate note, shouldn't this decision be disabled after the Avanti Italia decision? I already have Lombardy and don't need cores from the decision; the only benefit is the large infamy reduction).

Long story short, France declared war on me. I planned to have my troops sit in our border provinces (Annecy, Turin, and Nice - where I had level 1 forts) and bleed the French army. However, after the declaration of war the game immediately called my allies, one of whom is Switzerland. By bringing a very weak Switzerland (they have a grand total of two brigades) to the war I doubled the amount of territory I needed to defend. I would prefer to have fought the war on my own, forcing the French into defensive battles in my favor. I will still likely win but imagine the war will take a much larger toll on my economy and soldiers than necessary. I would prefer that when facing a defensive war I be given the choice to "Call all allies" or "Not right now." Thereafter I can choose to call allies one by one as necessary.
 
Last edited:
Look at this from France's perspective: why wouldn't it invade you, as Italy, via Switzerland when Switzerland is your weak spot? In real life, an ally of the defender nation doesn't have to officially declare war on the aggressor nation because it's assumed that by being allied with the defender nation, unless they openly revoke their alliance, they are fair game for the aggressor. This is why the game automatically declares war, to reflect that natural state of "allies are fair game" to the AI. If your two nations, Italy and Switzerland, are in an alliance, what right do you have to tell France "Well, even though Switzerland is allied with us, you have no right to invade them. Why? Because that's problematic for us!"

Of course it's problematic -- it's supposed to be. Pick your friends well, because you just might find that they are more trouble than they are worth. That's part of the art of diplomacy.
 
Look at this from France's perspective: why wouldn't it invade you, as Italy, via Switzerland when Switzerland is your weak spot? In real life, an ally of the defender nation doesn't have to officially declare war on the aggressor nation because it's assumed that by being allied with the defender nation, unless they openly revoke their alliance, they are fair game for the aggressor. This is why the game automatically declares war, to reflect that natural state of "allies are fair game" to the AI. If your two nations, Italy and Switzerland, are in an alliance, what right do you have to tell France "Well, even though Switzerland is allied with us, you have no right to invade them. Why? Because that's problematic for us!"

Of course it's problematic -- it's supposed to be. Pick your friends well, because you just might find that they are more trouble than they are worth. That's part of the art of diplomacy.

I agree with you when the ally is just next to the attacking country, but when, for exemple, you ally is in south africa or any country far away, there is no reason for them to be automatically called if for exemple france declares war to you any european country...
 
It really should be your choice as to which allies you want to request to defend you.

Not idea why this is automatic.
 
In real life, an ally of the defender nation doesn't have to officially declare war on the aggressor nation because it's assumed that by being allied with the defender nation, unless they openly revoke their alliance, they are fair game for the aggressor.

Not necessarily always... there are several historical examples of Allies staying out of some war. In WW2, Finland was allied with Germany, was at war with the USSR, but was technically not at war with the Western Allies. Same war, Japan was allied with Germany, was at war with the Western Allies, but not at war with the USSR (until the Russians jumped on the moving train in 1945) although Berlin desperately wanted that. If I am correct, there was also the case of Bulgaria being allied with Germany but refusing to delcare official war on Russia/USSR either in WW1 or WW2... and for sure you remember the little war in Iraq 2003? Well, France and Germany are still allied to the US, aren´t they?
 
Look at this from France's perspective: why wouldn't it invade you, as Italy, via Switzerland when Switzerland is your weak spot? In real life, an ally of the defender nation doesn't have to officially declare war on the aggressor nation because it's assumed that by being allied with the defender nation, unless they openly revoke their alliance, they are fair game for the aggressor. This is why the game automatically declares war, to reflect that natural state of "allies are fair game" to the AI. If your two nations, Italy and Switzerland, are in an alliance, what right do you have to tell France "Well, even though Switzerland is allied with us, you have no right to invade them. Why? Because that's problematic for us!"
So if the UK wishes to defend Belgium's neutrality it should have to call that country to war whenever the UK is attacked? We have only one type of alliance with which to work in this game, whereas in reality there were varying alliances suited to specific needs. To take a related example, if one were to read the Treaty of London (1839) literally, it required signatories to guard Belgium's independence. However, although the Netherlands signed the Treaty it remained neutral in WWI.

As a short term solution, I will simply remove the alliance after the war and intervene should the Swiss be attacked. In many ways this however is less historical than automatically calling allies to war, as I can sit and watch Switzerland get beaten up if I find its opponent too strong while avoiding the prestige hit should I decline the alliance.
 
Not necessarily always... there are several historical examples of Allies staying out of some war. In WW2, Finland was allied with Germany, was at war with the USSR, but was technically not at war with the Western Allies. Same war, Japan was allied with Germany, was at war with the Western Allies, but not at war with the USSR (until the Russians jumped on the moving train in 1945) although Berlin desperately wanted that. If I am correct, there was also the case of Bulgaria being allied with Germany but refusing to delcare official war on Russia/USSR either in WW1 or WW2... and for sure you remember the little war in Iraq 2003? Well, France and Germany are still allied to the US, aren´t they?

None of what you said refuted my point. I said that allied nations are "fair game" for the enemy. I never said than any and all alliances had to result in inevitable warfare between each and every one of its members.

So if the UK wishes to defend Belgium's neutrality it should have to call that country to war whenever the UK is attacked?

That would be up to the nation pitted against the alliance. After all, in your example, if France had declared war against the UK, it would be in France's best interest to invade Belgium and prevent the flow of troops coming from there, or to potentially use as a bargaining tool in a peace settlement. My point is that you don't get to decide for the enemy what you feel is reasonable based on your convenience. War isn't like that. If there's a good reason for the AI to attack an ally of yours, then it most certainly should do it -- and having automatic declarations of war is just for that reason: so the AI can know what its options are and so that it doesn't have to pile up needless infamy. After all, why should you acquire more infamy for attacking the ally of your enemy? If the ally didn't want to get attacked, maybe it should have picked its friends better.
 
None of what you said refuted my point. I said that allied nations are "fair game" for the enemy. I never said than any and all alliances had to result in inevitable warfare between each and every one of its members.
Except this is not the case in-game - a belligerent does not get an 'enemy affiliate' cassus belli against your allies or anything similar (whereupon France can decide which nation 'is in its interest' to attack through), they automatically enter into 'inevitable warfare between each and every one of [your allies]'.

What is being asked for here is a system either controlled by the player or the AI that makes defensive alliances a little more flexible for strategic purposes or realistic in terms of distant allies being called.
 
they automatically enter into 'inevitable warfare between each and every one of [your allies]'.

No, they don't. Just because war is declared does not mean warfare will neccessarily ensue. I've had plenty of wars where my allies went uninvaded by my enemies due to distance, inconvenience, and so on.
 
No, they don't. Just because war is declared does not mean warfare will neccessarily ensue. I've had plenty of wars where my allies went uninvaded by my enemies due to distance, inconvenience, and so on.
You seem to be being deliberately obtuse - the original poster talks about all allied nations regardless of location or strength being called into a state of war on your side, and this is the problem. The A.I. obviously has difficulty understanding what is a 'far off' war, as evidenced by allies landing troops at the other side of the planet or trudging across continents, drawing massive attrition en route. Having a 'call to arms' system like in offensive wars would be a far simpler fix.
 
The call for allies should be entirely in the hands of the AI or Player attacked. The AI or Player subject to aggression should be given a checklist of allies to call upon. The AI needs some criteria with which to make good choices. Those allies called upon then get to choose if it is in their interest to honor the alliance. That's what the process should be and I emphasize that you should be able to choose which allies to call upon, and at any time during hostilities.

Other countries still have the option to join the war based upon their own interests.
 
You seem to be being deliberately obtuse - the original poster talks about all allied nations regardless of location or strength being called into a state of war on your side, and this is the problem.

The OP discusses a case where AI France used Switzerland to attack player-controlled Italy. To me, that is just a reflection of a tactic that is perfectly plausible and realistic. If the AI has difficulty prioritizing far-away targets instead of nearby ones, then that means the AI needs tweaking, not the diplomatic system.

To me, it makes no sense to tell an enemy nation what is and what is not off limits when it comes to one's alliance. It is they who will decide. This is the crux of our different positions here: you and the OP are prioritizing your own priorities while I am prioritizing that of the enemy's. Why? Because that makes the most sense. By being allied, a de facto state of war exists between one's allies and one's enemies; whether the enemy nations decide to act on that state of affairs is up to them, not you.

That is the crux of my position and it's nothing more than common sense. Perhaps a good compromise would be to allow enemy nations to declare war on one's allies without acquiring infamy, but if that's the case, it would be no different than being at war but opting not to pursue open warfare. In short, it would be no different from the current state of affairs.
 
Again, you're entering a diatribe about the situation France faces when it is at war with both Switzerland and Italy when the problem lies with the event immediately preceding this situation - when France declares war and Switzerland is automatically called. The game's A.I. can barely handle warfare as the stronger nation, and it is laughable when it is the smaller one required to fight defensively. Offering a simple mechanism to the diplomatic side of things is actually simpler than recoding the A.I., because as things stand, it would have to be pretty much from the bottom up.

The OP discusses a case where AI France used Switzerland to attack player-controlled Italy. [...]
The clue of the what original poster is asking for is revealed in the thread title and his first sentence:

Automatically calling allies to war
I would love the above feature be disabled.
The thread title is not 'I wish France would ignore attacking my weaker allies for my sake' or anything similar.

To me, it makes no sense to tell an enemy nation what is and what is not off limits when it comes to one's alliance. It is they who will decide.
An affiliation cassus belli fulfills exactly what you've described here.

This is the crux of our different positions here: you and the OP are prioritizing your own priorities while I am prioritizing that of the enemy's. Why? Because that makes the most sense. By being allied, a de facto state of war exists between one's allies and one's enemies; whether the enemy nations decide to act on that state of affairs is up to them, not you.
Your entire entry here seems almost redundant given it does not apply to offensive wars and you still have to draw the distinction between the two.
 
Again, you're entering a diatribe about the situation France faces when it is at war with both Switzerland and Italy when the problem lies with the event immediately preceding this situation - when France declares war and Switzerland is automatically called.

You are not seeing the forest from the trees. Yes, I am well aware that the situation being discussed is about the automatic declaration of war for allies in a defensive war. But once we have established that the automatic declaration of war for allies takes place, which it certainly does, we must then proceed to discussing what sort of implications such a feature has on the gameplay -- which is where in-game examples come in. You know, ones just like that which the OP felt the need to mention.

The game's A.I. can barely handle warfare as the stronger nation, and it is laughable when it is the smaller one required to fight defensively. Offering a simple mechanism to the diplomatic side of things is actually simpler than recoding the A.I., because as things stand, it would have to be pretty much from the bottom up.

What you say might be pragmatic, but if the AI is truly as bad as you paint it to be, then it only affirms what I said: the root of the problem lies with tweaking the AI, not the diplomatic system. If you want to slap a band-aid on a gaping wound, feel free to. I'd rather have stitches. Which is to say, I'd prefer a solution that directly addresses the problem.

The thread title is not 'I wish France would ignore attacking my weaker allies for my sake' or anything similar.

Again, read the paragraph that begins with your inability to see the forest from the trees.

Your entire entry here seems almost redundant given it does not apply to offensive wars and you still have to draw the distinction between the two.

Out of all your posts on this issue, this has been your only legitimate point. And I agree with you on it. I haven't discussed the offensive side of this matter because, as you are so keen to point out, the title of this thread is "Automatically calling allies to war". I'd officially quote it for you, just to arrogantly pile on what's obvious, but you've already done that for me in your previous post, so thank you for saving me the trouble.

Now, how do I address this issue? The automatic declaration of war should apply to offensive wars as well as defensive ones, or in the case of the compromise that we discussed, the one with the 'affiliation casus belli', it too should apply to both offensive and defensive wars.
 
So basically you're assuming the request the original poster has made is already refused when discussing the request the original poster has made. Makes sense.

And yes, obviously we would all like semi-sentient A.I. instead of a quick-fix to the proceedure of defensive wars, but which is more likely in a patch?