How do you give someone else leadership in your war?
How do you give someone else leadership in your war?
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." --H. L. Mencken
Download the Fix-it-Yourself Pack for HoI 1.06c (updated 11/14/05)
Download the Unofficial fixpack for EU3 4.1b 4/29 beta or final 11/24 patch (updated 12/25/10)
Download the text fixpack for EU3 Divine Wind (updated 2/11/11)
I've searched , but i can't find again the peace value occuring after 5+ years occupation ... If i remember it well , it goes down through time , with a minimum of 50% base value , but i don't recall at which rate ...
do you know it?
no more unfinished IN AAR's
Are they also going to fix Hansa missions if they fix the ones of Venice? We all know it's impossible to bring England back into the fold.
is there any way to make 2 AIs cancel an alliance between them? (not counting shogun/daimyo stuff).
is there any way to buy land? I v found out how to sell it.
is there any way to sweaten deals, like offer gold for alliances with big guys or something
I m sorta new at the game, and I cant find any of those.
2. Unfortunately, no.
3. You can try to raise relations by sending gifts and royal marriage offers before sending the alliance one, but there's no guarantee it'll work. The AI tends to get to its 3 alliance limit fairly quickly anyway. so this probably wouldn't help much.
bah. Those seemed to be things one would expect to be able to do.
thanks for the answer though.
would rather have an exploitable ai, than cascading alliances without a means to cancel AI alliances. Besides, what strat game doesnt have exploitable AI to some extent. It took them til 2000 or so to make a chess comp that could beat a human. Its a little unfair to expect something with as many variables as a sandboxy strat game to be able to beat a human on equal terms. I m not asking for that, just a bit more sanity in what they prioritize to implement.
why implement cascading alliances, but choose not to have a way to mess with alliances outside of warfare. Either both or none please.
("hello france, have this massive stack of €€ so you can beat up England, in return, cancel your deal with targetstan plx ")
("hello nobodystan-who-is-allied-to-targetstand-and-bbb-and-friends, please cancel your alliance or I will curbstomp you in 4 seconds flat ")
("hello france, wouldnt you rather be allied with bigbadME instead of silly little targetstan, I promise to help vs England, and I have lotsa €€")
(ye olde horses-head-in-bed usually gets the point across, or oh I dunno plant evidence of betrayal)
("hello sir please help me push this cart. In return carrots and mah spies wont beat you with sticks today")
Last edited by lebigmac; 16-04-2012 at 04:18.
Well, diplomacy is one-sided in EU3. Only one side offers stuff - the other side just chooses to accept it or not. If it was two-sided it would be a lot harder to make the AI do a decent job with it.
There's also the matter of prestige - a country wouldn't just give up its alliance with another country, which may have lasted through several wars and brought the countries close together.
For threats, why would they cancel the alliance? It's their only hope of protecting against you. It's like "I don't like your alliance. If you cancel it and make yourself more vulnerable to me, I won't attack you."
Would this set of countries be balanced in an MP game (planning one with some friends who have bought the game)?
Holland (myself, have been playing the longest by far)
they already have 2 sided negotiation outside of peace talks. Its shown in the interface used when selling provinces. That could be adopted for many other things.
this is where the trading comes into the picture. Prestige vs gold vs whatever. I find it pretty easy to imagine a situation where a threat would work.
if BBB threatens some 1province nobody to cancel their alliance with either burgundy or targetstan, what do you think would be smartest of 1province-nobody? scenario a) refuse and get obliterated, then france fights burgundy a bit and wastes some time/resources before white peace. scenario b) cancel either alliance, perhaps even get some ducats for it and an offer that BBB waits a year before attacking targetstan to let 1provincenobody was his hands of it....
hell you could even sell magistrates or spy services, though that would be really hard to code well.
Since when does selling provinces have 2-sided negotiation? (Even peace talks don't really have it.) You offer some stuff to sell and a price, and they choose to accept it or not.
As for threats, you seem to forget that if the country really doesn't want to get destroyed by you in a war they can always refuse the call to arms.
I imagine that allowing alliance-breaking as a diplomatic option would trigger chaos. There would be tons of complaints every day about how people keep losing their allies to pointless AI bribes, and how their relations and prestige keep being hit until everyone hates eachother.
I vote no. Also, this is NOT a quick question, as a negative answer has to explore why.
I am going to take the arrogant liberty of turning this into a separate thread.
[My apologies for the delay in linking to it, as the thread has been moved to the MP forum.]
Last edited by KarlMonster; 17-04-2012 at 04:30. Reason: added link to thread location
Fair enough. At the time I asked the question I was just thinking a yes/no answer would be fine, but after reading your explanations in the thread you posted, well, that's pretty much what I was looking for
Why do the King Louis 'the sun king' type leaders die in weeks but the George W Bush skilled leaders live for 60 years?