• 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.
Even though they were allied?

That treaty is hardly an alliance it curtailed some reperations in exchange for closing the straits to non Russian ships, the Ottomans didn't even have to send troops, if this game was more indepth in terms of diplomacy it might be able to be represented however using the current system that is hardly an alliance.
 
I see two problems with the actual alliance system.

1) There is no way to force an alliance to break. Alliance should be valid for 5 years and then need to be renew. Making an alliance should not increase your relation.

2) Most alliance during the Victorian era were defensive alliance. Generally, GP were trying to get defensive alliances in order to protect themselves and keep the balance of power in place. It would not help the case of taking E-L from France but at least it would greatly reduce the amount of world war between France and Germany. Making the distinction between a defensive alliance and an offensive alliance (directed against a specific country) would greatly improve the diplomatic system and reduce ridiculous alliances.

Excellent analysis. You hit the nail on the head. Plus your 5 year renewal is also valid. Most "pacts" and "deals" during this era were, in fact, 5 year deals.
 
Believe it or believe it not, the OE and Russia sort of were allied in 1836... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hünkâr_İskelesi

I agree while Britian and France allying with the OE at times is okay (though they should prefer allying with Greece) Russia doing it is just utterly stupid and unrealistic, well at the 1836 start date anyways.

Let's face it. There are issues with diplomacy in AHD, but they aren't of the "The Ottomans ally with Russia!" variety. As RRW's post points out, the Ottomans and Russians had an alliance of sorts in 1836.

When the leadership of the GPs in the period was behaving rationally, then alliances with any other GP were a possibility. It's not like Austria and Prussia were just best friends the whole time. And it's not like the Russians didn't also look upon the possibility of backing their Orthodox cousins against the Austrians. At least one minor war in the period revolved around the Russians backing Balkan powers against the Austrians. I also have a hard time believing that the UK and Germany wouldn't have considered some sort of alliance against France if something different happened in Africa and if Germany hadn't screwed up Bismark's diplomacy after Wilhelm II took the throne. It's not like the UK and France were BFFs; their alliance had only been cemented in 1904.

Basically, I'm saying that even in 1836, there's no such thing as an implausible alliance between GPs. All it takes is an alignment of goals. If Austria is attacking Egypt and France wants to stop them, an alliance with Prussia (who wants hegemony against Austria) makes perfect sense.

What the game lacks is more subtle alliance options. There are no defensive alliances, no "agreements" for partitioning other countries, no non-aggression clauses/alliance exemptions, and no ultimatums. There is also no mechanic for "we're mad that we were screwed at the negotiating table by our ally and we hate them now."

If there is another expansion, I would love to see mechanics for all of these things. Of course, I would also love a crisis mechanic with the same kind of scope found in PoN. :)
 
What's the Crisis Mechanic in PoN? I have always thought that the diplomacy in the Clausewitz games ends up in far too many situations like "Now I'll just finish expanding my stee- oh shit i'm at war with the rest of the globe", and that the lack of representation of history's near-misses is a key weakness of the engine. Certainly, there needs to be a degree of unpredictability and irrationality that the AIs don't exhibit (AIs are stupid, but the decisions they make are not irrational given the lacklustre preferences they have) in order to add some spice to the game.
 
It would take too long to explain here (and I'm not the expert on it since I haven't played PoN for months), but basically, when GPs get their interests crossed in a region, a crisis occurs. All GPs (not just the ones involved) get diplomatic input over the 2-3 turns the crisis. GPs can do everything from deliberately dragging out negotiations, to demanding other concessions/rights, playing mediator to other GPs, to even pressing for a full blown war. The key is that while GPs can press for a war during a crisis, pressing for a war in the crisis might still result in a "diplomatic defeat" and significant loss of prestige. A crisis often ends in no war at all, but with GPs gaining prestige based on how it turns out (who got what during the crisis) and their role (playing mediator nets you prestige during the crisis, even though you aren't one of the primary antagonists).

Note the PoN has much more detailed mechanics related to colonies, spheres, and what is, for lack of a better term, "diplomatic penetration," so there is more at stake in crises. But even if you created a similar mechanic for Vic2, it would be great because right now, GPs don't really act in a "concert" except when the infamy barrier is passed or in Great Wars. It would be nice if tensions in potential spherelings were reflected in crises rather than just "Well, I got banned for the 10th time from Egypt."
 
It would take too long to explain here (and I'm not the expert on it since I haven't played PoN for months), but basically, when GPs get their interests crossed in a region, a crisis occurs. All GPs (not just the ones involved) get diplomatic input over the 2-3 turns the crisis. GPs can do everything from deliberately dragging out negotiations, to demanding other concessions/rights, playing mediator to other GPs, to even pressing for a full blown war. The key is that while GPs can press for a war during a crisis, pressing for a war in the crisis might still result in a "diplomatic defeat" and significant loss of prestige. A crisis often ends in no war at all, but with GPs gaining prestige based on how it turns out (who got what during the crisis) and their role (playing mediator nets you prestige during the crisis, even though you aren't one of the primary antagonists).

Note the PoN has much more detailed mechanics related to colonies, spheres, and what is, for lack of a better term, "diplomatic penetration," so there is more at stake in crises. But even if you created a similar mechanic for Vic2, it would be great because right now, GPs don't really act in a "concert" except when the infamy barrier is passed or in Great Wars. It would be nice if tensions in potential spherelings were reflected in crises rather than just "Well, I got banned for the 10th time from Egypt."

so it's kind of like how MP diplomacy works?
 
The crisis system is a must to add in order to get a realistic Victorian diplomatic system. In fact, while war were rare during this period, crisis were not. Requiring you to go trough a crisis in order to able to declare war would greatly help with the constant declaration of war between France and Germany. Plus, it would make declaration of war less random and give a chance to the defender to prepare.

A crisis could be like this.

Nation A have a valid CB or got one from an event against nation B

Nation A pressure the CB on nation B

A crisis begin. All secondary and great power of the region can react. The same interface used to show the result of war could be used to show witch nation is diplomatically winning.

They get the following options:
- Support A claims (loose prestige if they are allied with B)
- Support B (loose prestige if they are allied with A)
- Remain neutral (Loose prestige if they are allied with any of the protagonists)
- Propose mediation (Gain prestige if the crisis is resolved by diplomatic means)

Any nation not taking position after a certain delay will automatically be considered neutral.

In case B lose the diplomatic phase, they can refuse the legitimacy of the diplomatic exchange enabling A to declare war to B. Only nations witch sided with B during the diplomatic phase will be able to answer the call to arm.

In case A lose the diplomatic phase, they still can declare war but it will cost infamy and prestige.
 
The problem is not the magnitude of your opponents allies, it's either the lack of yours or your own weakness.

Playing as Greece (sorry if I seem to be bragging, but it's the case) is easy. You are in the British Sphere of Influence, so you will almost always be able to ally with them. After that, you have the ability to see if they would join your war by clicking Declare War (as you have a core cassus belli) but not actually declaring it.

If there is a low chance of them joining, or you think your enemy is too strong, there is always ways to sabotage.

As Greece, your target of expansion should be Two Sicilies, but only so with the British backing you up.
 
The problem is not the magnitude of your opponents allies, it's either the lack of yours or your own weakness.

Playing as Greece (sorry if I seem to be bragging, but it's the case) is easy. You are in the British Sphere of Influence, so you will almost always be able to ally with them. After that, you have the ability to see if they would join your war by clicking Declare War (as you have a core cassus belli) but not actually declaring it.

If there is a low chance of them joining, or you think your enemy is too strong, there is always ways to sabotage.

As Greece, your target of expansion should be Two Sicilies, but only so with the British backing you up.

You're not looking at the big picture. If you wait too long, then you won't be able to attack the ottos at all, since they'll get sphered. Not to mention that you need to get your cores back before they fill up with turks. And you can't call your allies because they'll take land for themselves and won't enforce your demands. I got some of my cores in one war, then in the next one the ottos were allied with russia again and they were also friendly with Austria. That's because I dropped them to civ status. Do you really this that this is not a problematic situation? As for the Brits, they're the worst possible ally you could have; they don't invade anybody ever, they just blockade (which can be useful when fighting the ottos, as it can block their armies in asia minor, but stilll) and then they still take advantage of your warscore and eff you over.

I think we're kinda looking at this from the wrong point of view. To me, every alliance that occurs at the start of the game and completely blocks an even remotely historical outcome is ridiculous. Now, keep in mind that I do NOT enjoy playing historically, but every once in a while you should see something that did happen IRL occur in-game as well, it's somewhat refreshing. And I've yet to see Texas survive against Mexico, or Greece get a single core back from the ottos (or even egypt for that matter).
 
Last edited:
An other problem with the actual alliance system is the alliance between sphered nations and their master. It doesn't make sense for a sphered nation to ally it's master since their master should normally already protect them. It make the Franco-Prussian impossible since France will generally have a lots of sphered nations in Europe like Spain, S-P, Belgium, Switzerland and even sometime Ottoman.

It should also be possible to provoke a war with someone like the " send insult" CB in Europa.
 
An other problem with the actual alliance system is the alliance between sphered nations and their master. It doesn't make sense for a sphered nation to ally it's master since their master should normally already protect them. It make the Franco-Prussian impossible since France will generally have a lots of sphered nations in Europe like Spain, S-P, Belgium, Switzerland and even sometime Ottoman.

It should also be possible to provoke a war with someone like the " send insult" CB in Europa.

Well, the spehereling may want to do an offensive war to regain cores(Greece). IRL, the Brits allied with sphereling Panjab because they actually gained from not having to worry about their strong army on the frontier.
 
This is how the computer makes Alliances.

If I play Serbia, then Ottomans, Russia, and Austria are allied.
If I play Russia, then Ottomans, Austria, and Prussia are allied.
If I play Prussia, then Ottomans, Austria, Russia, and France are allied.
If I play Switzerland, then France and Germany are allied.
If I play Sweden, then France, Russia, and UK are allied.

Point is, the computer surrounds you ... practically all the time.
 
This is how the computer makes Alliances.

If I play Serbia, then Ottomans, Russia, and Austria are allied.
If I play Russia, then Ottomans, Austria, and Prussia are allied.
If I play Prussia, then Ottomans, Austria, Russia, and France are allied.
If I play Switzerland, then France and Germany are allied.
If I play Sweden, then France, Russia, and UK are allied.

Point is, the computer surrounds you ... practically all the time.

Nah.

Here's how my last games have gone:
As the Ottomans, I had an alliance with Austria and Russia.
As Germany, I allied with France late in the game. France. You know, the same country that I took Alsace and Lorraine from. (France was diplomatically isolated after a Great War and I was the only one to offer them a hand in open friendship!)
As Japan, I pursued and eventually got an Anglo-Russo-Japanese Alliance to block a militant USA.
As Persia, I managed to maintain a cordial "Asian" Alliance consisting of Russia, the UK, and eventually China. (The UK dropped out soon thereafter.)
As Austria, I allied with Prussia and Russia... After dismembering Prussia in two wars so I could form SGF. :)

I used to think the AI simply would never ally if you owned its cores, but as my examples demonstrate, GPs are willing to overlook the ownership of cores IF they are alone and unloved in the world.
 
Nah.

Here's how my last games have gone:
As the Ottomans, I had an alliance with Austria and Russia.
As Germany, I allied with France late in the game. France. You know, the same country that I took Alsace and Lorraine from. (France was diplomatically isolated after a Great War and I was the only one to offer them a hand in open friendship!)
As Japan, I pursued and eventually got an Anglo-Russo-Japanese Alliance to block a militant USA.
As Persia, I managed to maintain a cordial "Asian" Alliance consisting of Russia, the UK, and eventually China. (The UK dropped out soon thereafter.)
As Austria, I allied with Prussia and Russia... After dismembering Prussia in two wars so I could form SGF. :)

I used to think the AI simply would never ally if you owned its cores, but as my examples demonstrate, GPs are willing to overlook the ownership of cores IF they are alone and unloved in the world.
In my games, he would be 100% correct. AI will never ally with me if I have their cores, regardless of their diplomatic situation. The game needs to tell you why alliances won't happen. Just saying it's impossible is unacceptable.
 
In my games, he would be 100% correct. AI will never ally with me if I have their cores, regardless of
their diplomatic situation. The game needs to tell you why alliances won't happen. Just saying it's impossible is unacceptable.

I agree. Some feedback would be really nice. It's one of the things I like about CK2 and its current interface. When trying to get people to join plots, I can at least see what factors are at play before spending huge amounts of money on bribes to characters that are morally opposed to the plot or who fear my political power more than the victim.
 
This is how the computer makes Alliances.

If I play Serbia, then Ottomans, Russia, and Austria are allied.
If I play Russia, then Ottomans, Austria, and Prussia are allied.
If I play Prussia, then Ottomans, Austria, Russia, and France are allied.
If I play Switzerland, then France and Germany are allied.
If I play Sweden, then France, Russia, and UK are allied.

Point is, the computer surrounds you ... practically all the time.

What happens when you play the UK?