• 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.

Darkath

Scholar-Official
93 Badges
Apr 9, 2012
3.439
4.374
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Humble Paradox Bundle
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III Referal
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Prison Architect
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Victoria 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Magicka
  • Magicka 2
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
In EU3 we had an issue with cascading alliances, ie allies calling to arms allies that would call to arms allies etc. often resulting in large nonsensical wars involving half of europe. Thanks to paradox this was fixed in EU4 as junior partners in a war can't call their own allies.

But recently i was faced by a different yet similar issue that i call cascading war leaders, the issue being that the war leaders changes as bigger and bigger allies are being called. While this is not an issue while playing France or Austria, this become apparent when playing, say, italian minors.

Just now i was playing Milan, I declared war on the Papal States to take Romagna, the Pope was allied to Ragusa (basically bosnia+serbia) and Corsica. This should have been an easy war initially thought i could count on my eastern allies (namely poland and hungary), in case things would not go as planned.

1. Upon war declaration, Ragusa and Corsica automatically defend the papal states, fair enough.
2. Ragusa become war leader, call to arms austria, hungary, and some other minors, i'm short one ally which didn't even respond to my call to arms.
3. Austria become war leader, call to arms all its allies, including poland, and a bunch of other.
4. I'm left alone vs my initial ennemies, their allies, and the allies of their allies, and my allies. Obviously i didn't stand a chance.

I'm fine with Ragusa becoming War leader, it was significantly more powerful than the papal state and as its ally it was perfectly understandable it would protect them, but for me austria becoming war leader was too much, and the fact my own allies didn't answer my call to arms before the war leader changed twice.

So basically what would be great and less frustration-inducing would be 2 simple things :
1. Make it so the war leader can only change once. I've seen sometimes the war leader changing 3 times with each war leader calling their allies in turn.
2. Warn the player on the war declaration screen if the war leader is going to change upon war declaration because for now it's not very clear on what condition this happens and seems quite random.
 
Have you just not played deep into the game before? It is the worst part of the game coalitions aren't nearly as bad as this horse shit that makes you fight Russia, France, or Spain in every war no matter what.
 
Have you just not played deep into the game before? It is the worst part of the game coalitions aren't nearly as bad as this horse shit that makes you fight Russia, France, or Spain in every war no matter what.

I'm not talking about coalitions here. Coalitions are fine and work as intended.

This is about alliances. The game tells you are going to fight Ragusa and Corsica, and that Poland and Hungary will answer you call to arms, what happens is you end up up fighting ragusa, corsica, poland, hungary austria et dozens of minors.
 
I'm not talking about coalitions here. Coalitions are fine and work as intended.

This is about alliances. The game tells you are going to fight Ragusa and Corsica, and that Poland and Hungary will answer you call to arms, what happens is you end up up fighting ragusa, corsica, poland, hungary austria et dozens of minors.

I do believe he is agreeing with you.

And on that note, so do I. If cascading war leaders absolutely has to be a thing, then it needs to work a little more sensibly. If my allies indicate they will join my war, then they should, not tell me so and then not join because war leader changes twice. Also, if the HRE is answering a call to defend the Empire, if/when made war leader that position shouldn't change when they call their allies in (had that happen yesterday, wow).
 
Use better casus bellis.

How many times does that have to be stated before people realize Conquest is not the CB you want to use... EVER.


Unless you are trying to get a war with your longtime ally and dont want to hurt relations. Like I recently did vs france.
 
Yes please. So many times I declare war on a German OPM and find myself at war with France(OP) Russia(#infinitemanpower) GB(even though he's allied to me, cause you know, I'm the aggressor) Austria(and his vassals and PU junior) and the rest of Europa.
 
Use better casus bellis.

How many times does that have to be stated before people realize Conquest is not the CB you want to use... EVER.

I'm guessing it must be restated untill one of these happens:

  • Everyone stops playing the game.
  • Everyone currently playing the game knows it, and no further people start playing the game.
  • It's explained in the game.

The problem is mostly that there's no hint of what's happening. Nor does the CB give any hint IN-GAME of war-leader shifts.
 
Had this happen to me in a MP game. Papal states, a player, attacked Venice. Venice was allied to Aragon, Aragon called me in. I then became the WL of the whole war, and could call in all MY allies.

It's ridiculous.
 
Use better casus bellis.

How many times does that have to be stated before people realize Conquest is not the CB you want to use... EVER.


Unless you are trying to get a war with your longtime ally and dont want to hurt relations. Like I recently did vs france.

Please elaborate, or link to a relevant information source, because i have no knowledge of hidden rules concerning CBs and i'm genuinely interested.

And again if different CBs can cause different effects in call to arms mechanics, i believe this should be made clear to the player.
 
I'm guessing it must be restated untill one of these happens:

  • Everyone stops playing the game.
  • Everyone currently playing the game knows it, and no further people start playing the game.
  • It's explained in the game.

The problem is mostly that there's no hint of what's happening. Nor does the CB give any hint IN-GAME of war-leader shifts.

My responses may be crass, or short, but I'm mearly trying to get people to look deeper.

Most every complaint posted on these forums is simply caused from the player "doing it wrong". The game isn't perfect, but it is very well thought out. The devs thought of everything. I didnt have it all spelled out to me, but I payed attention, I tried new things and I learned. I would like everyone else have the chance of the feeling of self satisfaction of figuring it out. If I just told him "use the religious/government CBs" he wouldnt learn anything. Or if I told him when to actually abuse the cascading alliances to his favor, it would take away from his "fun" of learning it himself.

So my short "stop using conquest" answer was mearly a nudge, to get him (and you) to think deeper.
 
Or you could tell "him" what exactly happens behind the scene with these CBs and share your knowledge on that particular matter, because otherwise that's not helping much.
I find satisfaction when i'm getting better as a player, but obscure mechanisms that aren't explained anywhere and made invisible, are more a source of frustration than satisfaction.

But regardless of the obscure CB business you apparently don't want to explain, i still think the cascading war leaders are an issue, and are too punishing for the player, who as, described in the op, can see half of europe turned against him including the allies who should have joined the war on his side, not against him.
 
Conquest is meant to be "poor man's" casus belli. It's easy to manufacture, requires no investment, and as such has seriouse negative drawbacks. If they removed cascading alliances from that CB it would make every other CB worthless. Every CB has different effects, from costs, to warleader locks. That's why there are so many.

It may be listed somewhere, but I doubt it. Trial and error is how I learned.

edit; the only CBs i can think of at the moment that allow cascading alliances, are conquest, reconquest, and holy war. I think even insult locks the warleader, but not possitive.


And dont forget, No cassus belli is also a choosable option, and even it's better than conquest.
 
Last edited:
It may be listed somewhere, but I doubt it. Trial and error is how I learned.

To see which CB allows or disallows changing war leaders you need to look in \Europa Universalis IV\common\wargoal_types\00_wargoal_types.txt

In that file, search for "allow_leader_change = yes"

So my short "stop using conquest" answer was mearly a nudge, to get him (and you) to think deeper.

You're entirely correct both in your analysis of the mechanics and in the need for analysis on each player's part, but that does not change the fact that either the mechanic was designed to not be known, and then acting on knowing it is an exploit or it was designed to be known or knowable, and then the lack of in-game information is an oversight, and rectifying oversights is desireable in and of itself.

still think the cascading war leaders are an issue, and are too punishing for the player, who as, described in the op, can see half of europe turned against him including the allies who should have join the war on his side, not against him.


Agreed. Even after adding additional in-game information, some means of predicting or limiting alliance cascades would seem required. It's far too easy to get into WWI scenarios (not chosen for the level of destruction, but the effect the web of alliances had).
 
Conquest is meant to be "poorm man's" casus belli. It's easy to manufacture, requires no investment, and as such has seriouse negative drawbacks. If they removed cascading alliances from that CB it would make every other CB worthless. Every CB has different effects, from costs, to warleader locks. That's why there are so many.
.

I'd agree with you if at least my allies didn't turn against me because the third war leader called them to arms.
 
00_wargoal_types.txt does list whether a CB has "allow_leader_change = yes" or not. One could cross-reference that with 00_cb_types.txt to figure out which do and which don't.

That being said, it's not particularly reasonable to see chained-alliance wars before 1914 anyway, and there's certainly no reason it should be as opaque to the player as it is now.
 
Isaios said:
@OP: To see which CB allows or disallows changing war leaders you need to look in \Europa Universalis IV\common\wargoal_types\00_wargoal_types.txt

In that file, search for "allow_leader_change"

Thank you for that relevant piece of information.

edit : probably not that useful after all but thanks any way
 
Thank you for that relevant piece of information.

edit : probably not that useful after all but thanks any way

It's been pretty useful to me. For instance the "Annex" CB does not allow a leader change. Good to know. Not does Claim Throne.

EDIT: Maybe I'll go and write this up on the Wiki. Meh. That's gonna be boring in the extreme. >_<