AE - A literate and exhaustive rework suggestion

[Sophotrates]

You mean 0-100 from being a vassal, over time, but limit the 'Improve relations' from 200 to 100?
Mhmhmh, I'm afraid that can't be done. Keep in mind you occasionally have to overcome -40 heretic neighbour, -15 has claim modifiers of your own vassals. If you only get 100 for vassal, 100 for diplomats and 25 for a gift, you cannot always reach the 190 necessary for annexation. This means people would have to intentionall declare wars, have their vassal sieged, then unsiege them to get that relation.

The Improve Relation should, at least, give up to 150, or it won't work out in special cases.

My math failed. Yes, improved relations up to 150. It should be possible to reach the same positive modifier we have currently.

Afaik I already described something like this, but I'll go back and make it more clear if it's not that clear.

To be honest, I didn't read the whole thing, as I'm doing other important non-eu4 related stuff here. The topic and TLDR just sparked enough interest to comment and give support. I'll read it later today!

 

[Alblaka]

Yes, improved relations up to 150. It should be possible to reach the same positive modifier we have currently.

Exactly ^^

To be honest, I didn't read the whole thing, as I'm doing other important non-eu4 related stuff here. The topic and TLDR just sparked enough interest to comment and give support. I'll read it later today!

Technically I shouldn't be in this forum right now, too, but I'm the kind of person that must write a complex concept down if it forms, or it will bother me for days onwards. And as long as noone on my workplace notices...
Take your time reading it, I tried throwing in refreshing puns, but it's still very dry and a huge wall of text.
Thanks for your support and suggestions, in any case!

 

[KoviP]

There were a lot of suggestions about AE, coalitions, but i think pdx don't give a damn about them, so don't waste your time.

 

[Alblaka]

There were a lot of suggestions about AE, coalitions, but i think pdx don't give a damn about them, so don't waste your time.

Je, that's what I'm worried about most. But as with all forums (and as a former forum owner), if a threads gets an absurd amount of popularity and activity, 'Someone' is bound to notice. At the very least I will write PM's to Bjorn if this thread reaches 100+ posts

 

[Bragi]

Absolutely fantastic work, that could solve many problems we're currently facing.

100% !!

 

[Alblaka]

Absolutely fantastic work, that could solve many problems we're currently facing.

100% !!

Well, technically it would only solve one of a number of problems, but let's agree that it would indeed be fantastic to see a bit more reasonable complexity and transparency, like this suggestion, in EUIV.

 

[yahiko]

I support this thread.

God bless the Original Poster

 

[Ensiferum]

awesome ideas
I will add some of my own:
- Base AE should be multiplied for countries that belong to the same culture group as the aggressed. Also for countries of opposed religions, for example if castille conquer a bit of morocco, make sense for the north african states to join together to defend the yellow menace, but not for naples, or the papal state to join. after all, they are doing god's work, conquering the heathens, why would good catholics be worried about that? Sure, they can get a bit worried about the increase in power of their neighbour, but not as much as the muslim states neighbouring the new conquests.
- coalitions should be mutual-defence pacts only, not a tool to gang upon a neighbour. Also they should have a leader, a country with enough prestige to convince the smaller states to join. It should not be possible for a small country to join a coalition and then declare a war and drag everybody else in. Why would the kings of castille, austria, aragon and portugal care if mantua is worried because the french conquered lombardia?
- "Great powers" should not be able to join coalitions, unless very high AE is gained by a country. After all, they are great powers and able to fend for themselves.
- it could be more coalitions against a country than just one big blob ready to gank. Using the same Castille example, if they go for italy too, together with their other conquests in north africa, the italian states should form a separate coalition against them, but going to war against them would not mean dragging in the north african states

 

[yahiko]

@OP: you should also include AE decay in your analysis.
Like AE, AE decay should not be static, but dynamic also.

 

[Sophotrates]

awesome ideas
I will add some of my own:
- Base AE should be multiplied for countries that belong to the same culture group as the aggressed. Also for countries of opposed religions, for example if castille conquer a bit of morocco, make sense for the north african states to join together to defend the yellow menace, but not for naples, or the papal state to join. after all, they are doing god's work, conquering the heathens, why would good catholics be worried about that? Sure, they can get a bit worried about the increase in power of their neighbour, but not as much as the muslim states neighbouring the new conquests.
- coalitions should be mutual-defence pacts only, not a tool to gang upon a neighbour. Also they should have a leader, a country with enough prestige to convince the smaller states to join. It should not be possible for a small country to join a coalition and then declare a war and drag everybody else in. Why would the kings of castille, austria, aragon and portugal care if mantua is worried because the french conquered lombardia?
- "Great powers" should not be able to join coalitions, unless very high AE is gained by a country. After all, they are great powers and able to fend for themselves.
- it could be more coalitions against a country than just one big blob ready to gank. Using the same Castille example, if they go for italy too, together with their other conquests in north africa, the italian states should form a separate coalition against them, but going to war against them would not mean dragging in the north african states

Multiple coalitions against one target with a leader make sense, though who will become leader? Will it transfer when stronger countries join the coalition? Or is it the first country to enter the coalition? And multiple coalitions should be limited to different religions or regions, not every country another coalition because they hate their neighbour.
Same-culture countries probably receive the largest AE already due to proximity. Multiplying this is probably overkill. Religion-based AE on the other hand is something to consider, as your example makes sense.
I'm not so sure about coalitions to act as a mutual-defence pact. After all, England and Burgundy can enter a mutual coalition against France but that should not force England to protect Burgundy against Austria.
Lastly, great powers not being able to join a coalition is not good, I think. First, define "great power". A country in the top 8? Secondly, some great powers are way stronger than others (France compared to England or Castille) so the weaker great powers still have worries.

This being said, increasing AE for great powers (whatever the definition of this is) compared to other great powers is a good idea. Maintaining status quo can be a very powerful motivator.

 

[Alblaka]

- coalitions should be mutual-defence pacts only, not a tool to gang upon a neighbour. Also they should have a leader, a country with enough prestige to convince the smaller states to join. It should not be possible for a small country to join a coalition and then declare a war and drag everybody else in. Why would the kings of castille, austria, aragon and portugal care if mantua is worried because the french conquered lombardia?

The concept of coalitions is that they are an alliance against a certain hostile nation. I think the 'gang upon a neighbour' element is really important here. Otherise you could just expand all you want and merely stop when the coalitions form and let AE die down, since they can't attack you anyways. The very fact THAT a large coalition can DoW you is the reason AE is a threat.
Regarding your last sentence: If they are in a coalition (aka, have already gained AE), then those nations DID already care. Or they wouldn't have joined the coalition.

- "Great powers" should not be able to join coalitions, unless very high AE is gained by a country. After all, they are great powers and able to fend for themselves.

Greater Powers WILL not join a coalition unless they have a high AE against someone. The AI already seems to consider it's own strength when deciding whether to join a coalition.
As well, I think it's important not to rule great powers out, because historically, they made up the only coalition that ever formed (The anti-Napoleon one). As well, if the coalition against a superblob cant contain greater powers, the coalition becomes pointless.

- it could be more coalitions against a country than just one big blob ready to gank. Using the same Castille example, if they go for italy too, together with their other conquests in north africa, the italian states should form a separate coalition against them, but going to war against them would not mean dragging in the north african states

Actually, I would like the idea of having regional coalitions. Less with your example, but a rather annoying fact would be that your colonial conquests in Asia may trigger a coalition war of Ming+France. Changing the Coalitions to a more 'Federation'-like type, would probably help that issue.

 

[Sophotrates]

@OP: you should also include AE decay in your analysis.
Like AE, AE decay should not be static, but dynamic also.

Yes! Though don't ask me how. All this might make the whole system rather complex...

 

[Beagá]

You got it backwards. The size of the TARGET is important, not the attcker. Attacking a smaller target gives more/full AE, attacking a big target gives less AE.
So, France conquers Italian minors? RALLY THE TROOPS!
Tuscany drops the hammer on France? Let's have a sip of wine and watch.

Makes zero sense and would break the game.

So Germany conquering Luxembourg in WW2 is more threathening that they invading Poland? Keep dreaming.

 

[Alblaka]

@OP: you should also include AE decay in your analysis.
Like AE, AE decay should not be static, but dynamic also.

As I've mentioned before, I didn't go into AE decay because a static AE decay is just a number that would need to be figured out by testing and is not something that I could reliable make up.

Though the idea of a dynamic AE might be interesting...
A simple concept coming to my mind would be that you lose a stacking 0.02 AE monthly. So, 0.02 in the first month, 0.04 in the second, etc, which RESETS whenever you DoW something (offensive War). During an offense war, you do not lose any AE. The 1.5 decay was 3 per year, which equls 0.25 per month. Which means that after a full year of peace, you would lose AE at the same speed as in 1.5 Another year later, you would lose it twice as fast and blargh these numbers don't work out.
Let's just say, the speed at which you lose AE increases the longer you are not DoWing someone. This would probably make continious conquest less desireable, but permit 'easy' onetime conquests.

The question now is, whether that's desireable. Because it would promote 'do X conquest, wait xty years', which is something people actually critizied AE for.

Makes zero sense and would break the game.

So Germany conquering Luxembourg in WW2 is more threathening that they invading Poland? Keep dreaming.

Ok, first of all, please explain how it would break the game?
Secondly, please explain why you compare EUIV, an era of constant warfare, with the 20th century were great wars were single, devasting events and any kind of warfare was actually looked down upon.
Your complaint makes as much sense as if I would say "It would have been totally fine for America to invade Afghanistan for oil if they would have sent a diplomat there first to fabricate a claim on the oilfields."
Comparing completely different time periods is bollocks.

 

[yahiko]

You got it backwards. The size of the TARGET is important, not the attcker. Attacking a smaller target gives more/full AE, attacking a big target gives less AE.
So, France conquers Italian minors? RALLY THE TROOPS!
Tuscany drops the hammer on France? Let's have a sip of wine and watch.

That could be relevant that a 2 province-nation (A) which annexes a province of another 2 province-nation (B) should not have the same AE effect than a big blog (C) which annexes a province of a 2 province-nation (B).

 

[Sophotrates]

So Germany conquering Luxembourg in WW2 is more threathening that they invading Poland? Keep dreaming.

In fact, it is. Germany conquering Luxembourg is more threathening than Germany conquering ONE PROVINCE of Poland. Germany annexing Poland, however, is many times more threathening, of course.

 

[Alblaka]

That could be relevant that a 2 province-nation (A) which annexes a province of another 2 province-nation (B) should not have the same AE effect than a big blog (C) which annexes a province of a 2 province-nation (B).

This is actually a good question. Is it more threatening if a big guy grows a small bit, or if a small guy grows a big bit?
If you penalize big nation expansion by giving it more AE, that actually means that smaller players will have less trouble expanding, which might make it too easy for them.
On the other hand, if you suggest that big nations get more AE, it means that at some point any empire will stall, because even the slightest conquest will trigger massive AE (Russia, f.e.).
I think it's enough to give a AE reduction to low gain wars against big countrys and let everything else run on 'full AE'. Latter should definitely be enough to trigger coalitions, regardless whether a large or small aggressor.

In fact, it is. Germany conquering Luxembourg is more threathening than Germany conquering ONE PROVINCE of Poland. Germany annexing Poland, however, is many times more threathening, of course,

because the size of Poland is trivially much larger then Luxemburg and provides much more of a 'imbalancing power gain' towards Germany.

 

[Freudia]

On the other hand, if you suggest that big nations get more AE, it means that at some point any empire will stall, because even the slightest conquest will trigger massive AE (Russia, f.e.).

This actually makes sense from a logistics standpoint. As you grow larger it becomes increasingly more difficult to govern your empire; I'd imagine once you hit a certain size, growing any larger would cause a collapse.

 

[Sophotrates]

That could be relevant that a 2 province-nation (A) which annexes a province of another 2 province-nation (B) should not have the same AE effect than a big blog (C) which annexes a province of a 2 province-nation (B).

Intuition tells me that countries that attack a small (defenseless) nation should get more AE than if they attack a big (not-so-defenseless) nation.
Intuition also tells me that big countries that attack a nation should get more AE than small countries that attack the same nation, which you are telling if I'm not mistaken.

Whether or not this is a good idea is another matter. All the proposed changes in this thread are basically against great nations, which I like but which many other players apparently dislike.

Edit: I misread. Above is my view, but on the other hand (what you're saying I think), a nation conquering 50% of his size deserves more AE than a nation conquering 1% of his size. They roughly balance each other so maybe the best solution is to ignore the attacker's size and only look at the defender's size.

This actually makes sense from a logistics standpoint. As you grow larger it becomes increasingly more difficult to govern your empire; I'd imagine once you hit a certain size, growing any larger would cause a collapse.

True, but that's more the job of overextension, not AE.

 

[Alblaka]

This actually makes sense from a logistics standpoint. As you grow larger it becomes increasingly more difficult to govern your empire; I'd imagine once you hit a certain size, growing any larger would cause a collapse.

This effect however, has no relation whatsoever to AE. It could be represented in RR, stablity, etc, but the efficiency of an administration (hehe) of a government should not exactly be taken as a reason to say that large Nations seem more agressive to other nations.