AE - A literate and exhaustive rework suggestion

[Beagá]

That would avoid several issues:
a) as an OPM you ate 2 OPMS. France, Austria, Burgundy join coalition. Coalition war. You are DEAD.
b) as burgundy you allied England and Castille, beat the shit out of france. No AE for either england or castille. You beat the shit again. Again no AE. Finally, when you annexed 2/3 of the area castille breaks alliance, england still happy. WTF? a superpower just died and the only important country to care was austria and savoy? nonsense
c) as france you eat and OPM. one province? who cares? no one? while it should immediately rile EVERYONE in the "regional powers" legue and cause a coalition (a big guy beating kids is not nice, not nice at all!!!)
d) as a opm, you become a 10P(not so minor). the regional league hates you, however, the Great Powers also notice you. Any additional moves and you should have both great powers and minors at your throat, upstart.

One day later if your changes are done...

Example of thread title: OMG one province causes coalition?!?! WTF Paradox U playing with fire

Besides please - don´t use hyperbole. Everyone who played the game knows your "OPM eats 2 OPM and gets coalition of France + Áustria" of the example you used doesn´t happen. And from what I´m seeing in my 1.6.1 game coalitions are almost NEVER na issue. Too early to tell, but maybe AE is indeed too low.

On the other hand since the AI really hates players which have claims or cores, maybe even intrinsic diplomatic mechanisms will make the AI more agressive. Got 3 provinces which Muscowy had claims and despite being allied with me they instantly dissolved the aliance.

 

[durvas]

• 
  [1] Instead of having fix AE values, every kind of actions linked to changing the possession of territory should incur AE scaled on the value (BaseTax) of said territory.
  [2] Annexation should cause more AE then Conquest, which should cause more AE then vassalization, which should have it's AE split up to accrue half upon the vassalization, the other half upon annexation of the vassal.
  [3] Taking provinces from a target should additionally scale the AE based upon the target's size: A larger nation losing 1 BT is less of an threatening act then a small 2BT nation losing half of it's territory.
  [4] Culture and religion should have no (or a very minor at best) influence on AE spread (except for special cases like Holy Wars, Crusades and Cleaning of Heresy) and the influence of distance should be reduced as well.
  [5] Instead, AE should be modified by a nations relation to the target and agressor: Allies of the target get more AE, enemies of the target get less AE. Allies of the aggressor get less AE, enemies of the aggressor get more AE. Any nation that desires the provinces which got conquered gets more AE.
  [6] All CB need to be reworked and should give much more AE for demands that aren't actually part of the CB, making expansion with non-conquest CB's extremely AE-heavy.

A lot of these might sound fine as a general idea, but the devils are in the details.

1) I'm thinking this would only further exaggerate the problem of Europe vs. ROTW and the balance between the haves and have nots in general. I agree it should make some difference to the country you are attacking, but representing it with AE would simply cause more problems. There is simply too large a range of base tax to balance effectively.

2) They had AE accrued at the time of annexation based on province count before, and it was terrible. Unexpected changes in the annexation timeline and general randomness could cause real problems. Plus, having AE on annexation at all would be another big nerf to vassal feeding, which is already questionable at best right now after being HEAVILY nerfed in 1.6. Also, as there has been a 'larger country size, higher AE' discussion in the thread, they had that, too. It brought the game to a screeching halt by the 1600s and was removed for that reason.

3) I disagree. That 1 bt province might be more important to that smaller country, but nobody cares about that smaller country either. Maybe its neighbors, but that's already modeled in the game.

4) I greatly disagree. The world was far more localized than it is in game already. Some areas of the world that have a mix of culture groups and religions, especially India, seem like they're too low, but if you try to balance that across the world, other places will be ridiculous.

5) I'm pretty sure most if not all of this already happens.

6) You already eat higher AE on the non-conquest CBs (outside of the NI ones). The change would make most CBs basically worthless. They already took away all loan generated CBs and basically tripled the AE from simply declaring a no CB war. Plus, it would put even more emphasis on the RNG relying, needing to spend thousands of monarch points in bad idea groups to be effective, improper value displaying bs that is fabricating claims.



Although I disagree with your points, I applaud your effort in trying to create a coherent system. Many people have tried and put forth similar proposals before you, but a consistent issue is that you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. You're trying to create a model for a mechanic that is inherently insufficient. Because the game does not model the problems of a larger empire, it tries to prevent those countries from becoming larger in the first place by using AE. But all that does is reduce the strategic nature of the game. It's not trade-off, it's a wall. Even if they tried to expand and focus on it, Paradox will never have a good AE system because they try to test and balance the game in multiplayer where AE is largely irrelevant after the first 50 years, especially with the number of players they use in their games.

 

[Sophotrates]

1) I'm thinking this would only further exaggerate the problem of Europe vs. ROTW and the balance between the haves and have nots in general. I agree it should make some difference to the country you are attacking, but representing it with AE would simply cause more problems. There is simply too large a range of base tax to balance effectively.

Am I correct in saying that your concern is too low AE when Europeans go conquering in America, Asia or similar areas due to lower basetax? I agree that this system might not be perfect, but it's in my opinion an improvement compared to the current static system and I don't see a better solution. Besides, there's been a lot of feedback stating that the ROTW needs a buff, so who knows, they might buff basetax slightly in these regions. One can always hope.

2) They had AE accrued at the time of annexation based on province count before, and it was terrible. Unexpected changes in the annexation timeline and general randomness could cause real problems. Plus, having AE on annexation at all would be another big nerf to vassal feeding, which is already questionable at best right now after being HEAVILY nerfed in 1.6. Also, as there has been a 'larger country size, higher AE' discussion in the thread, they had that, too. It brought the game to a screeching halt by the 1600s and was removed for that reason.

AE on annexation can eventually be reduced over time or with good relations. Many things, even dropping it, are possible. We might also see more changes in the vassal-area as the devs are "taking it to the table" (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...s-deliver!&p=17491563&viewfull=1#post17491563, last sentence of the post) so my guess is that they will be buffed again. The increase in AE for larger countries could work well but shouldn't be massive. Besides, large countries are strong enough to face a coalition once in a while, as long as it's not constantly of course. I won't elaborate on this because I don't like playing large countries so my opinion might not be objective here.

3) I disagree. That 1 bt province might be more important to that smaller country, but nobody cares about that smaller country either. Maybe its neighbors, but that's already modeled in the game.

Arguments can be made for both sides. One suggestion earlier in the thread mentioned that large countries would indeed not care about the struggle of small countries, while the small countries in the area certainly would. On the other hand, it's not illogical that large countries would care. They might have future interest in the area and they certainly prefer a bunch of small states than a big one. And the leaders of big countries shouldn't be an inhuman bunch either, but that's just my opinion.

4) I greatly disagree. The world was far more localized than it is in game already. Some areas of the world that have a mix of culture groups and religions, especially India, seem like they're too low, but if you try to balance that across the world, other places will be ridiculous.

True, but reducing AE over distance partially does what a culture modifier would do, and to add another modifier for same-culture countries will make their AE rise through the roof. About the religion part, it was mentioned earlier that yes, muslims should care if for example Castille invaded Morocco while the christians should rejoice.

5) I'm pretty sure most if not all of this already happens.

Probably most, but this is for completeness sake I think. Important for me is that rivals should receive the full AE no matter the distance.

6) You already eat higher AE on the non-conquest CBs (outside of the NI ones). The change would make most CBs basically worthless. They already took away all loan generated CBs and basically tripled the AE from simply declaring a no CB war. Plus, it would put even more emphasis on the RNG relying, needing to spend thousands of monarch points in bad idea groups to be effective, improper value displaying bs that is fabricating claims.

Well, not all wars should be wages for new territory. At least 50% of my wars are not for direct territorial benefit but rather breaking up enemies, cancelling agreements, instant money, trade power, ... If you do take territory, it should be justified. I do agree that the fabricating claim is tedious, but how else can you claim territory without outright aggressive conquest? And aggressive conquest should be punished with AE.


Balancing this is hard, if not impossible, and whatever they do, some will always think it's bad. This system will be a huge improvement compared to the current system, I think. However, I do think that this system is unfavourable for large countries compared to small countries, though I would actually like that (as long as it's not too much of course). I don't like playing with large countries because it lacks challenge. Painting the map once is fun but doing it every time? Nah. A harsher AE mechanic would make it more interesting to play, no?

Edit: This is all my opinion, Alblaka probably has different views.

 

[Personman09]

Boy do I like these suggestions, now to fix the ungodly mess that's westernization.

 

[durvas]

Am I correct in saying that your concern is too low AE when Europeans go conquering in America, Asia or similar areas due to lower basetax? I agree that this system might not be perfect, but it's in my opinion an improvement compared to the current static system and I don't see a better solution. Besides, there's been a lot of feedback stating that the ROTW needs a buff, so who knows, they might buff basetax slightly in these regions. One can always hope.

Yeah, the base tax combined with the small distances in Europe would make it much harder to expand in that direction and there are so many factors pushing the other way already. It would also help to further cement the powers like Ming and Persia over minor countries in their area. IMO, it's always been a drawback of EU4. The economic base is not only biased towards Europe, but biased towards what it was like in 1800 rather than 1444. It becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A lot of Europe's economic growth should come through buildings built due to their tech advantage rather than outright base tax.

AE on annexation can eventually be reduced over time or with good relations. Many things, even dropping it, are possible. We might also see more changes in the vassal-area as the devs are "taking it to the table" (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...s-deliver!&p=17491563&viewfull=1#post17491563, last sentence of the post) so my guess is that they will be buffed again. The increase in AE for larger countries could work well but shouldn't be massive. Besides, large countries are strong enough to face a coalition once in a while, as long as it's not constantly of course. I won't elaborate on this because I don't like playing large countries so my opinion might not be objective here.

Maybe allowing vassals to be integrated asap but eliminating the AE penalty after a 10 year period would make it balanced and prevent the use to gobble up minors. Or directly giving the province to your vassal in the peace deal, where it would tell you if it would accept it or not, for part of the AE immediately and the rest later at annexation. Another thing that would have to be sorted out is the core returns to vassals and how much AE you would get from a province that costs no AE currently. I would prefer that core return should have a 25% AE modifier to it (like when grabbing your own) and that diploannex should be the old way, but there'd be a dip cost (similar to now) if you wanted it to integrate faster, like for overseas vassals.

Arguments can be made for both sides. One suggestion earlier in the thread mentioned that large countries would indeed not care about the struggle of small countries, while the small countries in the area certainly would. On the other hand, it's not illogical that large countries would care. They might have future interest in the area and they certainly prefer a bunch of small states than a big one. And the leaders of big countries shouldn't be an inhuman bunch either, but that's just my opinion.

Large countries' opinions about much smaller ones' actions should probably be part of the difference in difficulty settings, rather than a straight AE modifier. I think too many things are tied to AE instead of a country's opinion. That too many things would get rolled into the one stat and it'd become impossible to balance. This would have to come with a greater diplomacy update, though.

True, but reducing AE over distance partially does what a culture modifier would do, and to add another modifier for same-culture countries will make their AE rise through the roof. About the religion part, it was mentioned earlier that yes, muslims should care if for example Castille invaded Morocco while the christians should rejoice.

We kind of had that in 1.4 where taking different religion provinces would actually reduce your AE, though people had a lot of problems with the amount of it. There isn't a negative modifier anymore, but I just checked with a no CB war (20 AE base) with Algiers and the only Christians that even cared were Aragon at 1/5th the AE of Morocco.

Probably most, but this is for completeness sake I think. Important for me is that rivals should receive the full AE no matter the distance.

Your rivals would basically be in a permanent coalition rather than a country you compete against. Think of having to fight France every time you took some land somewhere else. The AI will also now accept defensive calls to arms during peace treaty times leading to permanent huge wars.

Well, not all wars should be wages for new territory. At least 50% of my wars are not for direct territorial benefit but rather breaking up enemies, cancelling agreements, instant money, trade power, ... If you do take territory, it should be justified. I do agree that the fabricating claim is tedious, but how else can you claim territory without outright aggressive conquest? And aggressive conquest should be punished with AE.

Not all wars are waged for the conquest outright, but my point was that CBs were nerfed in general and it's hard to get one on the specific country you want unless you border it. I think nerfing the few that do not need contact limits a lot of options for players.

Balancing this is hard, if not impossible, and whatever they do, some will always think it's bad. This system will be a huge improvement compared to the current system, I think. However, I do think that this system is unfavourable for large countries compared to small countries, though I would actually like that (as long as it's not too much of course). I don't like playing with large countries because it lacks challenge. Painting the map once is fun but doing it every time? Nah. A harsher AE mechanic would make it more interesting to play, no?

My point is that harsher AE does not lead to greater strategic challenges, it actually lessens them. The anti-blobbing mechanics should be more about less economic power, stability issues, and military problems. It would be similar to how Paradox has already tried to treat true superpower at the beginning of the game, Ming. Becoming bigger and bigger would have a detrimental effect on your economic provinces, essentially becoming a very low gain by a certain point, based on base tax. Distance, religion, and culture would have a greater degree on the efficiency of your provinces. A tolerant society and accepted cultures would actually mean something, but would put you at odds diplomatically. Militarily, you'd reach a point where you couldn't get enough troops to adequately defend your increased land, thus leaving you less protected and vulnerable and in need of vassals instead. This would mean empires would generally coalesce to a certain size then it would be more efficient to go vertical and anyone who went larger was risking themselves in multiplayer and higher difficulties.

I think Paradox tried to roll too much into AE when combining it with the OE softcap. IMO, alliances and AI aggressiveness/dogpiling should work off of opinion and AE should be that aspect's main governor from expansion, rather than the coalition mechanic as a war score hardcap. While the economic/stability suggestions above with some diplomatic maluses based on size would work to keep larger nations in check, some sort of scaling OE, more rebellious vassals, and harder to acquire/maintain alliances (especially with great powers) would be the limiter to keep smaller nations from blobbing out faster as well.

 

[Alblaka]

To recap what has been said or discussed, as it's quite a hefty topic. Alblaka, please correct me if I'm wrong. Btw, maybe redo the first post and start with the TLDR so new readers know immediatly what's up?


Main proposal
Core:
- AE linked to total basetax of conquered/acquired provinces/vassal

Modifiers:
- Type of acquisition: Annexation gives more AE than Conquest which gives more AE than Vassalization
- Size of defeated country in case of conquest: Taking province from small country gives more AE than taking province from large country
- Relations with 3th party: Your rivals / target / allies of target / province contenders (countries that also have claim/core) receives more AE than neutral countries, who receives more AE than your allies / rivals of target

Extra:
- Distance of AE spread reduced but interested parties like rivals receive full hit, no matter the distance
- Culture has little to no influence, as they will already receive high AE due to proximity with target
- Religion has little to no influence except for Holy Wars/Crusaders/Cleaning of Heresy
- Rework of all CB's to punish non-wargoal demands (like provinces without claim or core and vassalization without mission)


Suggestions discussed in the thread
Size of attacking country:
- Big countries getting more AE when attacking another country because they're greedy/bully/dangerous
- Small countries getting more AE when conquering because they grow big (e.g. +50% size in one war)
--> First one might be too punishing for late-game conquest, last one might be too punishing for early-game conquest

Size of bystander country (other country than attacking or defending):
- Large bystanders compared to attacker getting less AE because why should they care?
- Small bystanders compared to attacker getting more AE because they are threathened.

Reduced/dynamic decay: Reduce current levels and make it dynamic. The longer at peace, the faster the decay.

Balance of power for great powers: Great powers prefer status quo in power and will 'punish' all countries that rise too fast (France eating Burgundy would be an example) or take territory from another Greater Power, no matter the alliance --> Roughly what the rival system does.

Religion-based AE: Ottomans and other Muslims should get increased AE for Castillian conquest in Morocco, but the Pope and other Catholics should get reduced AE.

Multiple religion/region-based coalitions instead of a single coalition against a target: It's not logical that Ming and Poland join against Russia. Ming + Japan + other asian countries make one coalition while Poland + Sweden + other European nations make other coalition. More 'Federation'-like.

Coalition leader: Coalitions have a real leader instead of the first nation that created the coalition or the nation that declared war.

Colonial overlords: Colonial Overlords should get same AE as Colonial Nations because it is an interested party.



Hope I'm not forgetting anything. Some really good suggestions here, keep them coming!

Reeeeeeally good summarization, I will place it in the OP.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Here's an idea that just occurred to me: maybe the size of the attacking nation should also have an effect on AE spread? That way an aggressive HRE minor would only get AE with their immediate neighbors, while a major power like France going on a conquest spree would get most Europe up in arms.

 

[Alblaka]

Here's an idea that just occurred to me: maybe the size of the attacking nation should also have an effect on AE spread? That way an aggressive HRE minor would only get AE with their immediate neighbors, while a major power like France going on a conquest spree would get most Europe up in arms.

This is actually a rather interesting thought...
Actually, this might solve the whole issue that small expansionists should indeed trigger agression only to their surrounding small neighbours, whilst bigger expansionist need to trigger aggression against theri 'neighbouring' blobs (Yes France and Austria, f.e. could actually be 'neighbouring blobs' without ever sharing a border).

As well, this seems fairly more reasonable to me, then just giving larger nations higher AE. We don't make the AE for them higher, we just spread it further.

 

[Mamluke]

This is actually a rather interesting thought...
Actually, this might solve the whole issue that small expansionists should indeed trigger agression only to their surrounding small neighbours, whilst bigger expansionist need to trigger aggression against theri 'neighbouring' blobs (Yes France and Austria, f.e. could actually be 'neighbouring blobs' without ever sharing a border).

As well, this seems fairly more reasonable to me, then just giving larger nations higher AE. We don't make the AE for them higher, we just spread it further.

fu## yes!!!

...............

ho man, this so needs to be adeed! frankly, if Paradox lifts a finger for this, pls let then at LEAST do the CB propusal, PLS!

making a no CB DOW, should not cause hearn in it self. bc really, what is the difrence betwen this and a "insulted CB"?! in realsitic term of course. however, if you do try to expand bc of this, then boy are you going to suffer (AE!).

this should make the game fell quite danamic, the AI still needs to be carefull about the stab hit, but it could still be used.

 

[Hirron]

One aspect that I think needs to be changed is the buffer from having good relations. Historically expansionist concerns existed as much between small and large states as anywhere else. It sundered alliances between great powers when one great power started to expand. For small states however there were often alliances to gain local power.

Presently in the game major powers can often blob uncontrollably because everybody has already decided to be their friend. To alter this the relations buffer could be modified to be something along the lines of AE x relations/ ((base tax aggressor/ base tax of country/ 10). This would hopefully lead to coalitions against major powers throwing their weight rather than minor powers causing a stir with every province taken.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Judging from experience and the defines, I only know for sure that AE is already influenced by allies of you receiving notable less AE.
Everything beyond that would be speculation of mine, but I could imagine that rivals gain more AE and allies of the target gain more AE because they were present in the war. I would dare to claim that actual 'relations' aka, oppinion values, do not influence AE. But given Paradox prefers not to reveal facts about the inner workings, this could actually be just as much true.

Yeah, and allies not getting the same amount of AE on you as others is a big problem in my view. AE should make you lose, or struggle to keep your alliances.

Example: Allying Austria as Brandenburg shouldn't give you a free pass for wild expansion in the HRE (as it almost is now in the current Version of the game).

Alliances wasn't set in stone in this age. They changed when they needed to change. Here the AE can help the AI, but not too much if you get away with less AE on Your allies.

 

[saegoto]

I wonder what Paradox thinks about it...

 

[Alblaka]

Presently in the game major powers can often blob uncontrollably because everybody has already decided to be their friend. To alter this the relations buffer could be modified to be something along the lines of AE x relations/ ((base tax aggressor/ base tax of country/ 10). This would hopefully lead to coalitions against major powers throwing their weight rather than minor powers causing a stir with every province taken.

Yeah, and allies not getting the same amount of AE on you as others is a big problem in my view. AE should make you lose, or struggle to keep your alliances.
Alliances wasn't set in stone in this age. They changed when they needed to change. Here the AE can help the AI, but not too much if you get away with less AE on Your allies.

A more complex idea to solve this direction, would be to uncouple AE and relations. As in, AE doesn't affect relations anymore, but the AI's behavior.
If an ally gains too much AE, he will refuse any CTA, even defensive ones (or break the alliance on extremely high AE), naturally the 'reasoned refuse' shouldn't cause prestige hits. Likewise, high AE means nations join a coalition against you, EVEN if they like you.
On the other hand, this would open up an interesting gate towards more diplomatic interaction: One could add some events which fire if you have an ally, who has high relations with you, yet gained a lot of AE, causing an event where a representative of the allied nation requests you to stop the expansion. If you agree, you lose AE, gain oppinion, but gain a -50% morale modifier 'demilitarization' for X years or until you are being DOW'd (it isn't removed by DOWing yourself, though). Kinda a "Hey, you have been expanding rather aggressively lately, mind to stop that?" "Oh je, sorry, won't do it again (in near future)." Refusing the request would damage the relations and probably give a temporary diplomatic reputation reduction or suchlike.
Naturally, if we truly oncouple relations and AE, this is technically a nerf to AE (because it has less direct impact, and even permits you to diplovassalize nations that have AE on you). To counter this, above mentioned events could be added "OE-style". This means, negative events regarding your aggressive policy which fire more often with a high AE to other states. Within reasonable bounds.

Was just a thought so.

Back to the original point, currently AE for allies is VASTLY reduced. However, with the new suggested system, it would 'only be reduced', not completely cut. Additionally, if you expand into territory your ally desires, the desire boost will cancel out the alliance reduction, meaning they get full AE, just to bring up an example. (Even better, if you try to break a 3way alliance by attacking the ally of your ally whilst being in a war with latter one, they will gain -50 from being your ally, but as well +50 from being the target's ally, again cancelling it out. Or even resulting in 150% if they wanted the provinces, etc.)

I wonder what Paradox thinks about it...

Me, too. But as I've mentioned in the beginning, I'll directly approach Bjorn in case this thread reaches 100 posts. I would consider that popular enough to warrant a statement from Paradox.



Btw, we totally forgot about the HRE.
Currently, if you are part of the HRE and perform an aggressive action against anything near the HRE, you gain the full AE boost.
This should be changed completely, into Any kind of aggression against a HRE member spreads 25% (50% might be harsh) of the AE additionally to all HRE states.
This would have 2 main effects: If you are inside the HRE, expanding into other states will be a pain (realistic and good!). If you are inside the HRE and expand into non-HRE states (France, Burgundy, Poland, Skandinavia, etc), you gain no AE boost (though your neighbours get normal AE for being neighbours). If a foreign state expands into the HRE, this will cause additional AE again (THIS is what bothers me most. Currently, Burgundy/France can happyly nom into the HRE because the minors will never ever react with coalitions).

 

[Alblaka]

I took the freedome to update the OP with some of the recent suggestions in this thread, namely the rework of AE decay into dynamic. Additionally added a few lines on HRE, we completely left that out.

 

[Balota Grigore]

great idea if paradox won't use it , someone mod this and become god.

 

[Freudia]

This should be changed completely, into Any kind of aggression against a HRE member spreads 25% (50% might be harsh) of the AE additionally to all HRE states.

I mostly dislike this from a straight gameplay balance point. It's possible to pick a nation in the HRE who only has HRE members to spread into. Furthermore, certain openers (like Savoy vassalizing Switzerland) will cause most of the empire to dogpile you under your system, plus it totally ignores the whole "decays over distance" thing which tries to mitigate the whole "I'm in Iberia and I took something from France and now Russia is in a coalition against me" thing. If anything, HRE minors shouldn't be allowed to join coalitions against other HRE states, as it's up to the emperor to defend the status quo of the empire, not the other states. Or at least anyone beyond neighbors + the emperor. Saxe-Lauenburg up there in Northern Germany shouldn't have an opinion against me when I vassalize Switzerland; he should be mad at the emperor for not taking responsibility for the jobs his position entails: namely, defending the status quo of the empire and protecting it from foreign invasion.

I mainly just dislike it because if you do something like "vassalize Switzerland and take Liguria from Genoa", you'll spawn a coalition against you that encompasses the entire empire as Savoy, and that just feels like railroaded gameplay specifically designed to hit the player (because the AI generates less AE to begin with).

 

[Alblaka]

great idea if paradox won't use it , someone mod this and become god.

If this could be done with a simple mod, I would already have done that ^^.

I mostly dislike this from a straight gameplay balance point. It's possible to pick a nation in the HRE who only has HRE members to spread into. Furthermore, certain openers (like Savoy vassalizing Switzerland) will cause most of the empire to dogpile you under your system, plus it totally ignores the whole "decays over distance" thing which tries to mitigate the whole "I'm in Iberia and I took something from France and now Russia is in a coalition against me" thing. If anything, HRE minors shouldn't be allowed to join coalitions against other HRE states, as it's up to the emperor to defend the status quo of the empire, not the other states. Or at least anyone beyond neighbors + the emperor. Saxe-Lauenburg up there in Northern Germany shouldn't have an opinion against me when I vassalize Switzerland; he should be mad at the emperor for not taking responsibility for the jobs his position entails: namely, defending the status quo of the empire and protecting it from foreign invasion.

I mainly just dislike it because if you do something like "vassalize Switzerland and take Liguria from Genoa", you'll spawn a coalition against you that encompasses the entire empire as Savoy, and that just feels like railroaded gameplay specifically designed to hit the player (because the AI generates less AE to begin with).

But you DID read the part about it being only 25% Means, if you really produce enough AE for the entirety of HRE to coalition against you, you have already been coalition'd and DOW'd by your neighbours before that.

Whilst I see your point about the Emperor thing, it just isn't feasible, because, unless you are the Emperor, said Emperor is a rather inssuficient AI. Means, from a gameplay perspective, we really need a bit of additional HRE-defense mechanics. Which could be realized nicely by the HRE princes allying in a coalition against a very aggressive expansionist.

 

[Freudia]

But you DID read the part about it being only 25% Means, if you really produce enough AE for the entirety of HRE to coalition against you, you have already been coalition'd and DOW'd by your neighbours before that.

It was more a stab at how low the base point of AE you have to get before people join coalitions against you, more than anything else. I get that people should be mad about me vassalizing Switzerland, for example, but I don't agree with someone in northern Germany caring about Italian affairs.

Whilst I see your point about the Emperor thing, it just isn't feasible, because, unless you are the Emperor, said Emperor is a rather inssuficient AI. Means, from a gameplay perspective, we really need a bit of additional HRE-defense mechanics. Which could be realized nicely by the HRE princes allying in a coalition against a very aggressive expansionist.

Which is why I said neighbors + emperor. After I typed out emperor only, I realized that the emperor is usually the player or an insufficient AI, so I expanded that to say neighbors too. Neighbors should care; their existence is being threatened by my expansion. But again, if I'm playing in Italy, North Germany shouldn't care because it doesn't affect them. If they should care, they should care that the emperor isn't doing his job.

I'm not sure how to fix it.

 

[Alblaka]

I'm not sure how to fix it.

How about changing how coalitions form and limit distant nations from joining them?
As in, obviously Hansa KNOWS you ate up Italy. But they don't really care or intend to act up themselves, because that's what the Emperor is there for.
However, if you form a border to them, and they are still worried about your expansion (have AE), it would be legit for them to join the coalition, right?

 

[Freudia]

How about changing how coalitions form and limit distant nations from joining them?
As in, obviously Hansa KNOWS you ate up Italy. But they don't really care or intend to act up themselves, because that's what the Emperor is there for.
However, if you form a border to them, and they are still worried about your expansion (have AE), it would be legit for them to join the coalition, right?

Right. If I suddenly border the Hansa, then I fully accept them joining a coalition aginst me, because at that point their existence is threatened. That much makes sense. If I don't border the Hansa, then I don't expect the Hansa to join one because it should be the emperor's job to break me up. If the Hansa becomes involved in that war, it should be because the Hansa is allied to the emperor and the emperor declared a war against me and the Hansa accepted a call to arms. I can probably accept the Hansa getting mad at me for other reasons too (I'm disrupting their trade, for example), but those reasons should be independent of joining a coalition against me.