45 year Ally, fighting wars together then "Me want provinces!" Sigh.

[bbqftw]

Generally:

1) If they have a mission to annex a province its almost always an instant -200 (at least -100) if you hold the province. Recall the infamous "get a presence in India" mission...

2) If you are weaker than they are, generally the "wants your provinces" malus is larger

3) Provinces required for nation forming decisions will almost always be desired - taking Novgorod or Danzig / Marienburg will give you at least -50 with Muscovy and Poland respectively.

Also, presumably Burgundian inheritance fired, I think that gives France a core on Friegrafschaft, what did you expect would happen?

 

[Sernista]

Technically speaking, the French didn't really assent to your war goal at all. They got no say in that. They were willing to join a war with the target once you'd declared it, rather than breaking alliance. That doesn't mean they have to be cool with you taking what's Rightfully Theirs. (It seems that one of the fundamental features of political history is that when something is Rightfully Yours, it really doesn't matter who else have a legitimate or even more legitimate claim on that area - and they feel the same way presented with your own.)

I know I'd be ticked if I had claims/cores on a province, joined an AI in war against the owner, and then they had the gall to jump my claims when I'd pulled my weight in the war.

I honestly cannot wait for HoI IV's peace-conference-y feature that the alpha videos have shown, for exactly this reason.

 

[208]

If you agree to go to war for a specific target, Barrois in this instance, and the War Leader takes that target at the end of the war, with no other cores or claims of the ally being occupied, how is that working as designed if said ally gets a huge malus to relations with the war leader once peace is declared and the war goal attained? I'm trying to see your thought process but I'm struggling, help me out here bud.

Turn it around and look at it from your ally's perspective. Imagine France declared war over, say, Baden which you were yourself planning to attack, and (ignoring the HRE aspect of the situation) called you to arms over it. Would you take the 25 prestige hit to decline, or simply go through with the war and then break the alliance afterwards if France took that province you were after in the resulting peace? Would you be annoyed if your "ally" started taking provinces on your border that are within your own cultural union?

 

[Chat]

Barrois and Freigrafschaft are both within the France region and are accepted cultures. They have every reason to desire those provinces, just as the player would. Just as the player might, they feel that they're strong enough, and desired them enough to break your short alliance (45 years isn't that long)

 

[Vaximillian]

I got a message saying that the new king of France is 'said to be a Diplomat'

The message is actually broken, and refers to the previous monarch instead of the current one.
That's why when a country that never existed before gets released, the ruler is said to have ai_personality, because it's blank for non-ruler.

OT though, „me hungry! me wants yer provinces! yarr!“ makes me sad and confused. They always want all the provinces, all the time.

 

[Incompetent]

The message is actually broken, and refers to the previous monarch instead of the current one.
That's why when a country that never existed before gets released, the ruler is said to have ai_personality, because it's blank for non-ruler.

Ah, that would explain a few things. The old king was extremely passive, letting England keep its enclaves on the continent with no fight (despite having player Castile as a trustworthy ally - somehow I think between the two of us, we wouldn't have had much difficulty in evicting the English), whereas the new guy has immediately got involved in some big wars.

 

[LikeNothing]

Suppose you are France in this situation.

Would you want those two provinces? Would you be ready to break the alliance at the first opportunity?

Another question:

If the AIs in this game are acting more like human players instead of dumbass tools, should we complain?

 

[Wizzington]

Given how much you've grown, how little they have grown, how you apparently didn't even deign to give them an occupied claim last war AND then you take a french province they are claiming... The only thing they did wrong was not ditching you sooner.

 

[Woifee]

I think it's realistic. There are no friends in policy, just intrests.

If necessary your best buddy before coupd be your enemy later.

In this times alliances changed quickly. If I remember correctly in the Italian Wars the italian States, especially the pope changed sides all the time.

 

[MiniaAr]

OP playing Austria and still getting carried by France is a disgrace, you're only getting what you deserve. I hope France crushes you to the grave.

No offense.

 

[JOD]

The AI has issues with priorities.

Breaking a stable alliance with a great power over 2 non-critical provinces doesn't' seem like the best decision though.

Looking at that screen, France hasn't even fully booted the English out of France yet, or finished of Province or Brittany. Meanwhile Austria is allied with Hungary and Poland (who 7/10, has Lithuania under it's thumb.)

I definitely agree that for critical provinces, the AI should be inflexibly hostile. Danzig for Poland, Constantinople for Ottomans, Novgorod for Muscovy etc. Even assuming Castille is allied to France, chances are it's not taking Barrois or Franche-Comt any time soon. It has NOTHING to gain from going hostile here. This makes it harder to expand over all, as now Austria has an interest in actively combating it's growth, as well as assisting coalitions against it.

I would never give up a great power ally for 2 non critical provinces while I still had room left to expand. I don't think the AI should either.

TLDR; The Ai should never go hostile over one or 2 provinces unless they're major, as in required for a form-able nation, a center of trade or unless it intends to imminently declare war. No need to piss Austria off when there's easier prey France could force Austria to help it take.

 

[lolada]

The only problem with this is that its very rough transition, best buddies one day, next day -200 we hate you we want your things.

- AI aware of player growing would be nice, complemented with some "We are concerned, you are aggressive and growing more powerful every day" negative modifier, which would turn into this -200 eventually. It should be more transparent to the player that AI is starting to dislike him (experienced players know that this -200 will happen).

Diplomatic relation decay presented to player should be more subtle: instead of -200 we want all your stuff, they could implement somehing like:

1. You aggressively entered our sphere of influence - 5 per year; cap at 25 * no of provinces occupied, max 100.

For example if you took 1 province that France want, you would ger here -25 relations in 5 years. If you took 2 you would get to -50 in 10 years. Plus you will at the same time get "wants your provinces malus".

2. "Wants your provinces malus": -25 per province we want your X and X provinces (limit to 4 first provinces max).
In this case if you hold one province that France wants, max malus is -50, starting at (5+25, growing in 5 years to 50). If you take more you are on your way to -200 in less than 20ish years.

It should be always displayed (and malus active) if country wants your province, not this thing where in split second they just want everything. This sudden wants everything might be linked with new military personality leader coming into power, but still diplomatic relations decay should be more gradual.

 

[PhroX]

From my experience, the problem comes when the AI will throw away an alliance for a province or two that is worth far less to them than the alliance would have been. Now, for the case in the OP, there's some argument that this alliance wasn't benefitting France - as can be seen by the "did not give claims" modifier. But I've had many times when the AI would break an extremely beneficial (for them) alliance because they desired a couple of non even particularly valuable provinces. Sometimes even without them having a claim on those provinces.

Just as an example, I had a game as Buryatia recently where I had been alled with the Oriats from the word go. They had annexed the Mongols, but not much more, while I had conquered Yeren, taken a couple of provinces off of Jianzhou and Haixi, and vassalasied Korchin. Ming, meanwhile, had claims on a couple of the Oriat's provinces, and had tried to take them, only to be beaten back by our combined forces. Suddenly, the Oriats decide they want three provinces from my vassal, Korchin, and break the alliance. Two years later, Ming invades them, and without my support, they lose half their nation. The value to them of those provinces they wanted was tiny compared to the value of having me as an ally - especially as I was a completely trustworthy one, who had backed them whenever they CTA'd me, including in a war against the most powerful nation in the region.

 

[Wizzington]

AI can not reason on human levels. It needs some lines that it won't let an ally cross or else it can just be taken advantage of completely. Taking provinces that it sees as rightfully belonging to it is one of these. More transparency would be good though, and some sort of warning that you're about to cross said line.

 

[gothos]

Sometimes you can foresee thist. If you ally Poland as Brandenburg or Pomerania, the moment you take Danzig they'll turn hostile no matter your relations or trust. Ottoderp will want Constantinople. But every now and again.... yeah, this can get annoying. You should've shared the claimed province tho, or sieged it down before they did.

 

[lolada]

Yup, if you take territory close to them you are in trouble, it just takes some experience and knowledge of the game. Don't take French culture provinces around France, they will dow you its just matter of time. Don't take Anatolian provinces near Ottomans. If you take Danzig Poland will hate you soon enough etc there are countless of these..

 

[PhroX]

AI can not reason on human levels. It needs some lines that it won't let an ally cross or else it can just be taken advantage of completely. Taking provinces that it sees as rightfully belonging to it is one of these. More transparency would be good though, and some sort of warning that you're about to cross said line.

While I do understand that, what exactly is the definition of "rightfully belonging to them"? Because in the example I posted above with the Oriats, I didn't "take" any provinces. I had vassalised Korchin at least 20 years earlier, and they hadn't objected at all. Then suddenly they decide they want three provinces, none of which they have claims on. (sorry, don't have a save, I got Minged after my ex-allies, and restarted, overwriting the save)

Also, is it a completely fixed line that cannot be crossed, or is there some leeway for things like trustworthiness, strength of allies etc? Or at least, would those factors effect how likely an AI is to want provinces that belong to an ally?

 

[Wizzington]

There is leeway, trust matters a lot in bringing down desire for provinces, but if you say take Constantinople the Ottomans are always going to hate you, and France is nearly always going to want the French culture lands sooner or later. I think the problem here is one of lack of transparency more than anything.

 

[PhroX]

There is leeway, trust matters a lot in bringing down desire for provinces, but if you say take Constantinople the Ottomans are always going to hate you, and France is nearly always going to want the French culture lands sooner or later. I think the problem here is one of lack of transparency more than anything.

Yeah, I think the opacity is a big factor in the player annoyance with these things. I'd also say the sudden shift from "we love you and will fight to the death for you" to "you have what we want, DIE DIE DIE" is a bit too abrupt. Perhaps if "desires provinces" was a negative relations over time modifer rather than a single big hit to relations? With the rate of relations drop dependant on the number, relative value, and status (core, claim, geographical position) of the desired provinces. So you have some warning that you're holding lands your allies want, and they're getting more and more annoyed the longer you hold them. If you take something really important to them (e.g Constantinople for the Ottos), it won't take long for them to hit breaking point, but on the other hand, if you take a couple of steppe provinces that Russia was thinking about conquering but didn't even have a claim yet, you would have plenty of time to address the conflict of interests between you and them.

 

[DVF]

More transparency would be good though, and some sort of warning that you're about to cross said line.

This would be great!