I only play with the HIP mod ( which can rightfully be considered as a CK3 – why anyone would still prefer Vanilla over it is beyond me) and I normally only post there. I have abandoned the idea of posting suggestions on the main forum, considering its poor signal to noise ratio.
Sadly, while the HIP crowd are a lot more attentive to coherence and historicity issues, the matter I refer to here is, I was told, hardcoded and there is nothing they can do about it.
I'll bring up the subject here, then.
There has been some widespread dissatisfaction about how alliances used to work with Conclave. The devs reacted to that by removing the automatic call to arms ( a good idea) and by introducing a distinction between non-aggression pacts and alliances.
The huge problem with the way alliances are currently dealt with, that I'm surprised no one really brought up before (on the main forum) is that in the game are treated indiscriminately as defensive alliances and offensive alliances.
And that is a massive non-sense. The HUGE majority of formal historical alliances were defensive in nature. That is, allies swear to protect each other against aggression, regardless of the aggressor. Offensive alliances, on the other hand, are quite systematically circumstantial, that is, they are just an acknowledgement of a common enemy at a certain point, and never entail long-term, automatic, undifferentiated commitment.
There is an IMMENSE difference between subscribing to a moral obligations to protect an ally in the defence of his legitimate possessions against lawless aggression, and signing a blank cheque to join in an attack against ANYONE your ally decides to attack, regardless of how illegitimate it is, how stupid it is regarding the balance of forces, how costly it is. No-one ever did that.
On top of that, and deriving from the circumstantial nature of the alliance offensive allies obviously intended to SHARE the fruits of victory in one way or another.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that not only can you drag your allies in whatever war you decide to spark, but:
- you can actually refrain from committing any forces AT ALL, while your ally obligingly does all the dirt job, and bears alone the cost in blood and gold.
- the ally will hand you over the fruits of the victory (even if you didn't send a single man to the battlefield) without gaining anything in return (except a bit of prestige).
This is actually the easiest way to blob. Just get an alliance with a powerful ally, get into a war he wouldn't have dared start himself for his own benefit but will have no second thoughts about conducting for your own, and reap the rewards, committing the smallest possible proportion of forces to the actual fighting.
Considering there was actually an anti-blobbing policy from the devs ( which is good, in Vanilla you can paint the map your colour in a ridiculously short time), it's a pity this question wasn't addressed, which would have benefited both the direction the devs wanted the game to take and the general historicity and realism of the game.
Alliances should be treated as formal defensive alliances, working one one of the allies is attacked and inflicting significant prestige and opinion penalties to whomever does not comply to his obligations.
Offensively, if the ally is asked to join in, he should join on the basis of his own interest to wage war against that particular enemy, admittedly, with a “sympathy” bonus due to his alliance, but there should be no moral obligation to do it, and therefore no penalties.
since "sharing" the victory would be very difficult to implement, they could at least be owed a favour ( since that mechanism was introduced), or ask for some financing maybe, whatever.
This would very much limit crazy expansionism - with other dudes making their armies and treasuries bleed for your whimsical megalomaniac ambitions just for the pleasure of making you the most powerful guy around.
Of course, I welcome contradictory debate and I would be very happy to see those who are bound to shower me with "respectful disagreements" provide me with a substantiated argument on why, from an historical point of view, alliances should indiscriminately be considered both defensive and offensive, regardless of the target of the aggression.
Sadly, while the HIP crowd are a lot more attentive to coherence and historicity issues, the matter I refer to here is, I was told, hardcoded and there is nothing they can do about it.
I'll bring up the subject here, then.
There has been some widespread dissatisfaction about how alliances used to work with Conclave. The devs reacted to that by removing the automatic call to arms ( a good idea) and by introducing a distinction between non-aggression pacts and alliances.
The huge problem with the way alliances are currently dealt with, that I'm surprised no one really brought up before (on the main forum) is that in the game are treated indiscriminately as defensive alliances and offensive alliances.
And that is a massive non-sense. The HUGE majority of formal historical alliances were defensive in nature. That is, allies swear to protect each other against aggression, regardless of the aggressor. Offensive alliances, on the other hand, are quite systematically circumstantial, that is, they are just an acknowledgement of a common enemy at a certain point, and never entail long-term, automatic, undifferentiated commitment.
There is an IMMENSE difference between subscribing to a moral obligations to protect an ally in the defence of his legitimate possessions against lawless aggression, and signing a blank cheque to join in an attack against ANYONE your ally decides to attack, regardless of how illegitimate it is, how stupid it is regarding the balance of forces, how costly it is. No-one ever did that.
On top of that, and deriving from the circumstantial nature of the alliance offensive allies obviously intended to SHARE the fruits of victory in one way or another.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that not only can you drag your allies in whatever war you decide to spark, but:
- you can actually refrain from committing any forces AT ALL, while your ally obligingly does all the dirt job, and bears alone the cost in blood and gold.
- the ally will hand you over the fruits of the victory (even if you didn't send a single man to the battlefield) without gaining anything in return (except a bit of prestige).
This is actually the easiest way to blob. Just get an alliance with a powerful ally, get into a war he wouldn't have dared start himself for his own benefit but will have no second thoughts about conducting for your own, and reap the rewards, committing the smallest possible proportion of forces to the actual fighting.
Considering there was actually an anti-blobbing policy from the devs ( which is good, in Vanilla you can paint the map your colour in a ridiculously short time), it's a pity this question wasn't addressed, which would have benefited both the direction the devs wanted the game to take and the general historicity and realism of the game.
Alliances should be treated as formal defensive alliances, working one one of the allies is attacked and inflicting significant prestige and opinion penalties to whomever does not comply to his obligations.
Offensively, if the ally is asked to join in, he should join on the basis of his own interest to wage war against that particular enemy, admittedly, with a “sympathy” bonus due to his alliance, but there should be no moral obligation to do it, and therefore no penalties.
since "sharing" the victory would be very difficult to implement, they could at least be owed a favour ( since that mechanism was introduced), or ask for some financing maybe, whatever.
This would very much limit crazy expansionism - with other dudes making their armies and treasuries bleed for your whimsical megalomaniac ambitions just for the pleasure of making you the most powerful guy around.
Of course, I welcome contradictory debate and I would be very happy to see those who are bound to shower me with "respectful disagreements" provide me with a substantiated argument on why, from an historical point of view, alliances should indiscriminately be considered both defensive and offensive, regardless of the target of the aggression.
Last edited:
- 10
- 2
