The problem with rivals

[LAF1994]

The rival mechanic in EU4 is rather silly. Essentially, it means that certain countries are arbitrarily locked to hate one another for no reason, which severely restricts the diplomatic mechanics of the game. It's also unrealistic; arbitrary long-term hatred wasn't a thing IRL in the Early Modern period.
On a related note, the AI should not 'want' provinces it doesn't have a claim on, or at least the 'Hostile' attitude should be far less of a straightjacket than it currently is.

 

[st360]

On a related note, the AI should not 'want' provinces it doesn't have a claim on, or at least the 'Hostile' attitude should be far less of a straightjacket than it currently is.

Should players be able to take provinces in a war they don't have claims on?

 

[Crazymalian]

There are inherent conflicts of interests when countries compete for power, and are neighbouring. But also in a gameplay sense, rivals is an excellent tool to make sure the AI is agressive enough and not sitting passively in large alliance chains with other strong powers. The game would be much worse without the rival mechanic.

 

[LAF1994]

There are inherent conflicts of interests when countries compete for power, and are neighbouring. But also in a gameplay sense, rivals is an excellent tool to make sure the AI is agressive enough and not sitting passively in large alliance chains with other strong powers. The game would be much worse without the rival mechanic.

But that shouldn't make them hostile per se, especially if both parties are threatened by a larger third party. The diplomacy mechanics in EU4 (rivalries, favours, trust etc) generally favour long-term associations, which isn't really accurate for Early Modern diplomacy which was dominated by short-term circumstantial relations. There are plenty of IRL examples of alliances between 'rival' countries.

Should players be able to take provinces in a war they don't have claims on?

Except the AI is prone to 'wanting' provinces for entirely arbitrary reasons.

To illustrate the problem, consider Burgundy's situation in 1444 as an example. Their most pressing immediate threat is France, so you would expect that England (still locked in a prolonged conflict with France) would be an obvious ally. Except pretty much invariably this is impossible because England arbitraily hates Burgundy, and for some reason is determined to conquer the Low Countries.

 

[Opanashc]

To illustrate the problem, consider Burgundy's situation in 1444 as an example. Their most pressing immediate threat is France, so you would expect that England (still locked in a prolonged conflict with France) would be an obvious ally. Except pretty much invariably this is impossible because England arbitraily hates Burgundy, and for some reason is determined to conquer the Low Countries.

Low Countries compete for the rich end trade node, which the England wants, so logically it wants those lands.

 

[LAF1994]

Low Countries compete for the rich end trade node, which the England wants, so logically it wants those lands.

That seems to expose a bit of a flaw in the game design though, if it sets England to invariably pursue something it never tried to do historically.

 

[William the Merry]

But that shouldn't make them hostile per se, especially if both parties are threatened by a larger third party. The diplomacy mechanics in EU4 (rivalries, favours, trust etc) generally favour long-term associations, which isn't really accurate for Early Modern diplomacy which was dominated by short-term circumstantial relations. There are plenty of IRL examples of alliances between 'rival' countries.


Except the AI is prone to 'wanting' provinces for entirely arbitrary reasons.

To illustrate the problem, consider Burgundy's situation in 1444 as an example. Their most pressing immediate threat is France, so you would expect that England (still locked in a prolonged conflict with France) would be an obvious ally. Except pretty much invariably this is impossible because England arbitraily hates Burgundy, and for some reason is determined to conquer the Low Countries.

The diplomacy that makes sense isnt always the diplomacy that happened irl, charles the bold attacking both france, the empire, the swiss, and lorraine probably wssnt a good idea

 

[Opanashc]

That seems to expose a bit of a flaw in the game design though, if it sets England to invariably pursue something it never tried to do historically.

England never tried to control the trade from Low Countries?

 

[LAF1994]

England never tried to control the trade from Low Countries?

They never tried to conquer it directly, and they certainly weren't going to attempt it in 1444.

The other problem that rivalry/hostility will often do is make AI countries hostile to all their neighbours at once even in situations where that is a really stupid idea.

 

[William the Merry]

They never tried to conquer it directly, and they certainly weren't going to attempt it in 1444.

The other problem that rivalry/hostility will often do is make AI countries hostile to all their neighbours at once even in situations where that is a really stupid idea.

You see attempts by Charles II to conquer it, Mary of Burgundy received English suitors. As Philip the Good had betrayed the anglo burgundian allaince, you mightve seen a resurgent England try to take lands from Burgundy just as land had been permanently taken from the French Crown before Henry V reunifies the crowns, but alas Henry VI was insane

 

[LAF1994]

A similar problem with the way diplomacy works in EU4 is that there isn't really any possibility for a smaller power to maintain its independence by playing two larger powers off against one another (as happened historically on several occasions e.g. with Wallachia and Moldova or the North African states) because both larger powers will be permanently fixed to hostile and refuse to engage in diplomacy.

You see attempts by Charles II to conquer it, Mary of Burgundy received English suitors. As Philip the Good had betrayed the anglo burgundian allaince, you mightve seen a resurgent England try to take lands from Burgundy just as land had been permanently taken from the French Crown before Henry V reunifies the crowns, but alas Henry VI was insane

Mary receiving English suitors is more indicative of seeking an alliance, something England will not do in game. They will be arbitrarily hostile to Burgundy because they want to conquer the Low Countries even if they have no realistic prospect of doing so.

 

[William the Merry]

A similar problem with the way diplomacy works in EU4 is that there isn't really any possibility for a smaller power to maintain its independence by playing two larger powers off against one another (as happened historically on several occasions e.g. with Wallachia and Moldova or the North African states) because both larger powers will be permanently fixed to hostile and refuse to engage in diplomacy.


Mary receiving English suitors is more indicative of seeking an alliance, something England will not do in game. They will be arbitrarily hostile to Burgundy because they want to conquer the Low Countries even if they have no realistic prospect of doing so.

England can be neutral to Burgundy on certain loads. Marrying Mary would be more than just an allaince but a wedding of the Burgundian state to England

 

[LAF1994]

England can be neutral to Burgundy on certain loads. Marrying Mary would be more than just an allaince but a wedding of the Burgundian state to England

That would depend somewhat on who she married exactly, especially as personal or dynastic unions were often considerably less tight than the quasi-vassalage they work as in EU4.