Cascading War Leaders

[Guancyto]

Say venice is allied with france but only has venizia left. 15 tax base province = 60 warscore. Would you rather, seige venice's one province then annex for the cost of stab then white peace france, or try to get 60 warscore against france....

There is no "cannot make seperate peace with target of wargoal" when there is no wargoal.

well worth the 60 admin points of a single stab hit (which you get plaugued with anyways).

That is devious!

I like it.

Hrm, is Conquest the only one with a specific nation as war goal? I think Revolutionary War wants you to take their capital, not sure if that can change.

...I suppose it would have to, in case something changes their capital during the war?

 

[unmerged(543649)]

+1 Great suggestions

Another good way to avoid countries in future wars & cascading alliances is the fact that countries cannot join a war against you if they are already fighting another war with you. I find myself constantly abusing this either by starting decoy wars or joining wars I wasn't supposed to.

 

[Dakilla TM]

The same exact thing happened in my Malaya game! I had 3 provinces in Arabia, and I wanted to take Mecca from Hedjaz. The screen says I'll be fighting the Ottomans (very weak), Hedjaz, and Balchuistan.

No biggie right? I got plenty of troops so come at me! WRONG!

As soon as I declared war, Ottomans became war leader, fair enough.

Then, the Ottos calls his allies, which brought in Denmark, Austria, Kazan, a bunch of HRE minors, and Ireland. By this time, Denmark became war leader, which made absolutely no sense.

Oh and my allies? Persia decided to chicken out and said no, Janpur did the same, and only the Mamlukes had some heart and said yes.


It's dumb things like that that makes me mad. The screen says you'll be fighting 3 regional powers, NOT the powerhouses of Europe. :glare:

 

[hauptman]

Use better strategies to win strategy game.

 

[Darkath]

Use better strategies to win strategy game.

Bring better points to win a forum thread

 

[Guancyto]

Use better strategies to win strategy game.

A certain level of transparency in mechanics helps a lot in creating better strategies in strategy games. I've never gotten a massive cascading leader change, but the mechanics behind leader change are pretty unclear (does it work by base tax? Province number? Military strength? Prestige? Score ranking? Some arcane combination of the above?) and there's precious little warning before it actually happens.

It's like playing chess and never being told that castling is a thing. Trial and error are nice but you're going to want to flip the board at your opponent when he pulls that one out on you. :laugh:

(I did make good use of your advice - in reverse. I'm France, everyone's so mad at Austria they elected two-province Brunswick the Emperor. Defending the HRE makes the Emperor war leader, always, and the wargoal country must allow the war leader negotiate for them. 100% war score to dismantle Austria by sieging two provinces hooooooooo!)

 

[Emnel]

I think it's good enough at this point.
You can really predict if cascade will happen 90% of the time.
Just check allies of your war target's biggest ally and you're golden.

 

[possumcorpse]

Yeah I'll get right to using those CBs that can't be used unless a country is bordering me with a different religion or government form and only after I have an idea group I may or may not really need. Skirting the rules of the game because they are applied poorly and illogically isn't strategy and has nothing to do with whether cascading alliances make sense or are a good game mechanic.

 

[Darkath]

Or using no CB at all, which makes zero sense.

 

[hauptman]

Yeah I'll get right to using those CBs that can't be used unless a country is bordering me with a different religion or government form and only after I have an idea group I may or may not really need. Skirting the rules of the game because they are applied poorly and illogically isn't strategy and has nothing to do with whether cascading alliances make sense or are a good game mechanic.

What? really? The CBs are what makes the idea set so good... And its because the CBs are so good, that they require being bordered nations with fixed parameters, else you'd still have the "one CB fits all" issue that is what the OP seemed to think was the case.

NO! One cb does not fit them all, There is 100% a reason that conquest sucks so bad... because it's free. Anyone can use it at any time.

Again I'm not against more information, but the imformation IS THERE! As any experienced Paradox gamer knows, it's all in plain text in the game files. Most seasoned players opened those files to have a look before even starting the game. I am no exception, although it was a very precursory glance.

There will not be a change to the casscading alliances, it is WAD. Nor should it be changed. It's up to you, the player, to actually pay attention to the details. It's all about the details. I know exactly what's going on because I pay attention to those details... "Hey Opem, be careful you dont step in the bullshxt."

The game can be as complicated as you wish, or as simple. For the best experience, and fullest game, paying attention to alliances, waiting for the right moment to strike, using insults, or allowing relations to sink, so you get insulted, can add a whole new dynamic you've been missing, if all you've been doing was playing the simple game of "fabricate, dow" which by the way, is still a viable way to play the game.

I commend paradox for adding the extra level of detail for those who wish to pursue it. Yet the GnuB scrub doesnt have to be so daunted on his first or seventh game.

 

[possumcorpse]

How is it logical for CBs that are for changing a government form and religion to be used as an exploit around cascading alliances? That isn't a high level of detail it is stupidity; you shouldn't even be able to take provinces with those CB. The CB system is illogical and broken and it doesn't matter whether they intended to make it that way. There is no logic to the rules that are in place and that shows a lack of detail and thoughtfulness.

 

[vanzlmalc]

Again I'm not against more information, but the imformation IS THERE! As any experienced Paradox gamer knows, it's all in plain text in the game files. Most seasoned players opened those files to have a look before even starting the game. I am no exception, although it was a very precursory glance.

Information is not there. It's hidden in game files, even if in human readable format, it doesn't count. A lot of content is intentionally mystified, which is fine, but a player should not be required to search trough game files to understand most basic game mechanics.

 

[hauptman]

Information is not there. It's hidden in game files, even if in human readable format, it doesn't count. A lot of content is intentionally mystified, which is fine, but a player should not be required to search trough game files to understand most basic game mechanics.

In a perfect world...

I am stupified by the amount of information tooltips we now have. How the hell did I even play eu3??? They've gotten much better in eu4, but sure, some stuff got missed. Dont expect miracles man!~


And i'd hardly call leaving out finer nuances of different CBs as "leaving out the most basic game mechanics". That's an advanced mechanic. I mean every CB causes the same basic effect. it causes WAR.

 

[hauptman]

How is it logical for CBs that are for changing a government form and religion to be used as an exploit around cascading alliances? That isn't a high level of detail it is stupidity; you shouldn't even be able to take provinces with those CB. The CB system is illogical and broken and it doesn't matter whether they intended to make it that way. There is no logic to the rules that are in place and that shows a lack of detail and thoughtfulness.

How is using a better CB, which you had to buy an idea set, and spend 400 pints on that cb an exploit? It's simply a better tool, because it requires investment.

Just because you dont understand the logic atm, does not mean it's illogical. It is most logical to make a CB that costs an actual investment, better than a free one. Period. It would be ILLOGICAL if they were all the same.

Cascading alliances become the REASON to invest in a better CB.

 

[Guancyto]

There will not be a change to the casscading alliances, it is WAD. Nor should it be changed.

I don't think anybody in this thread is suggesting they be removed.

Some warning would be lovely, though; the wardec screen is pretty exhaustive in listing the immediate consequences of war, it just can't anticipate leader changes. (As you mention, an icon indicating that your CB type disallows leader changes would be lovely as well.) There are some really clear cases where you should see it coming (I declare on Riga they call superDenmark, of course Riga's not going to be war leader; I declare Austria and Brunswick is the Emperor, Holy Roman Emperor is always war leader if he answers the call to defend the Empire), and others where it's... less clear. Why should the Ottomans cede leadership to Denmark, for instance?

I dunno, I'm a little new to Paradox games, I hail from strategy games where they document their mechanics instead of requiring you to go poking around in game files. (On the other hand, said games also don't let you poke around in their game files...)

 

[Darkath]

In the OP i was suggesting the cascading mechanic to be limited to one war leader change as well as informing the player if such a change will occur upon war declaration (ie : As X is a member of the HRE, Austria will join the war and become warleader)

It doesn't makes sense nor in term of gameplay, nor in term historical relevance, that the war leader change 2 or 3 times in a single day resulting in wars involving all of europe while it should have been a mere local conflict.

Having different CB limiting the cascading mechanic would also be fine, if it was actually practical. And by practical i mean not using cb such as Restoration of the Union to gain a few provinces, or attacking without casus belli an opm in india to annex an italian province.

 

[hauptman]

In the OP i was suggesting the cascading mechanic to be limited to one war leader change as well as informing the player if such a change will occur upon war declaration (ie : As X is a member of the HRE, Austria will join the war and become warleader)

It doesn't makes sense nor in term of gameplay, nor in term historical relevance, that the war leader change 2 or 3 times in a single day resulting in wars involving all of europe while it should have been a mere local conflict.

Having different CB limiting the cascading mechanic would also be fine, if it was actually practical. And by practical i mean not using cb such as Restoration of the Union to gain a few provinces, or attacking without casus belli an opm in india to annex an italian province.

If they limited it, you could easily manufature wars against france, where FRANCE was not the warleader, but saxony was... seige 2 provinces, 100 warscore vs france. So no. You cannot limit the number of changes.

Also as a player, I dont want some 3 or 4 province minor that hates my guts deciding my fate because we shared an ally.

 

[Roelath]

If they limited it, you could easily manufature wars against france, where FRANCE was not the warleader, but saxony was... seige 2 provinces, 100 warscore vs france. So no. You cannot limit the number of changes.

Also as a player, I dont want some 3 or 4 province minor that hates my guts deciding my fate because we shared an ally.

I'm fairly certain that WS at 100% doesn't give you a 100% WS against countries who haven't lost anything and the nations who are in the war can refuse to be a part of the peace deal (They typically are).

 

[Darkath]

I'm fairly certain that WS at 100% doesn't give you a 100% WS against countries who haven't lost anything and the nations who are in the war can refuse to be a part of the peace deal (They typically are).

Yes. If Saxony is the war leader and france is in the war, even if you have 100% warscore from occupying saxony, france will not give you shit, because there's an individual warscore for every country involved in the war, and if you don't occupy a single french province the warscore against france will be 0% (even if you slaughtered their men somehow)

Also as you said bigger countries tend to prevent the war leader to negociate for them, so you wouldnt be able to occupy a few french provinces and ask saxony to give them to you.

 

[hauptman]

Yes. If Saxony is the war leader and france is in the war, even if you have 100% warscore from occupying saxony, france will not give you shit, because there's an individual warscore for every country involved in the war, and if you don't occupy a single french province the warscore against france will be 0% (even if you slaughtered their men somehow)

Also as you said bigger countries tend to prevent the war leader to negociate for them, so you wouldnt be able to occupy a few french provinces and ask saxony to give them to you.

Typically yes, always, NO. They often allow it until they start loosing... when you have something they want. If you ever paid attention. So with that I could use a war against saxony as a way to utterly cripple France or steal important provinces with out doing more than seiging key provinces. 100 warscore buys an awful lot of colonies, that france may not be defending with armies, and since our armies never meet, he may never consider himself loosing, and leave it unchecked because he has seiged half my empire. But as soon as saxony is finished seiging I could steal every single colony from him, even though he has 99 warscore vs me. Does that not seem broken?


If you doubt the validity of this try it, Use a leader lock CB vs lorraine, with a country that borders france in the netherlands, and check. France will carpet seige you, and allow lorrain to negotiate. I guarantee it.