AI allies allying your rivals and break your alliance

[Lor360]

"I play on Hard so there is an additional -20"

I'm sorry, but can we please finally put this idiotic argument to rest?

"Guys I play on hard and the game is hard"
If hard and very hard where normal then they wouldn't be hard now would they?
A) players and nations in real history backstab ten times worse then the AI does
B) if you want alliances to break less don't play on "alliances break more often" mode


Seriously, if the game was balanced on hard, some people would just start asking for ultra hard mode and complaining ultra hard is too hard.

 

[CplKatie]

That doesn't work correctly. Wants your provinces can kick in despite high trust.

Wants your subject's provinces, for example, can hit you extremely often even with 100 trust.

You can't use favors on subjects and their trust has very limited ways of making the thresholds that are needed to prevent rivalry/hostility. Allies however can be maxed with favors and become life long friends you just have to make sure you keep them happy with you. Subjects almost never go over 50 trust and they don't gain favors like allies do.

 

[Dominion]

I think you went off track. I never said anything about using favors on subjects or even interactions with your own subjects in general.

 

[Dominion]

It's working correctly. The threshold is 80 trust

Just to be absolutely sure that we're on the same page here: 80 trust does nothing and they can switch to domineering or hostile whenever they want.

Only used Ming as an example because I'm honestly too tired to search for other screens atm. I should start naming them or at least putting them into folders. But I can assure you that this can easily happen with any other nation as well as long as they have at least one core or claim on you.

Haven't seen it without those, but I wouldn't bet that 80 trust keeps you safe even then.

Negative opinion is an autobreak. You can not prevent it.

If they have a militarist and you share a big enough border with them they will hit you with -200 for wanting your provinces, break the alliance regardless of trust and leave you dumbfounded on the current patch.

 

[gia257]

I do wonder what the rule would be without favours, maybe there isn't even one and the alliance breaks no matter what.

if you have up to common sense theres no favors, theres still trust (defensive wars, return province and rebel cleaning I believe)

 

[atwix]

They will drop that province as a want if you have high trust with them.

80 trust ONLY prevents them from rivalling you out of the blue.

wants your provinces or subject provinces kicks in if your ally gets militaristic ruler personality that wants your land.

and then the modifer puts your opinion at negative or less then 100. And then they still break alliance at 80 trust.

It used to work like that, unless they changed it.

I think you forgot ruler personalities in the equasion.

 

[Dewra]

Just to be absolutely sure that we're on the same page here: 80 trust does nothing and they can switch to domineering or hostile whenever they want.

Meant that they don't switch from ally to hostile, not that they don't go hostile if you're not allied.

If you're allied and have 80 trust they don't go hostile, nor do they get -200 "wants your provinces" it's more like -14 "wants your provinces". Now this doesn't affect subjects provinces.

Here's an example. So the story is I had 82 trust with Russia, but made a separate peace so we are down to 72 trust. Russia is still at war so they can't break alliance. Got relations up to +7 with guarantee and increased trust to 82, they are a happy ally after that.
Note Russia has a militaristic ruler.

Didn't have an after screenshot but here's one after years have passed.

You could also say that we share a border.

 

[Dominion]

Meant that they don't switch from ally to hostile, not that they don't go hostile if you're not allied.

If you're allied and have 80 trust they don't go hostile, nor do they get -200 "wants your provinces" it's more like -14 "wants your provinces". Now this doesn't affect subjects provinces.

Here's an example. So the story is I had 82 trust with Russia, but made a separate peace so we are down to 72 trust. Russia is still at war so they can't break alliance. Got relations up to +7 with guarantee and increased trust to 82, they are a happy ally after that.
Note Russia has a militaristic ruler.
View attachment 302412

Didn't have an after screenshot but here's one after years have passed.
View attachment 302414

You could also say that we share a border.
View attachment 302415

They don't have a militaristic ruler anymore in your second screenshot.

 

[Dewra]

They don't have a militaristic ruler anymore in your second screenshot.

I know, didn't have an after screenshot, but obviously they didn't break the alliance since it's still there 50 years later.

 

[Dominion]

I know, didn't have an after screenshot, but obviously they didn't break the alliance since it's still there 50 years later.

Yes, but not relevant.
You had "wants your provinces" before and still had it despite their non-militaristic ruler.

At any given moment it could've kicked up and killed the alliance. That's why I called it semi-random.

If anything your screenshots should show you that, despite 80+ trust and a non-militaristic ruler, they still had POI on you.

That one was probably because they had the "greedy" trait. Would've looked better with a builder who isn't greedy and a lot worse with a militaristic ruler.

 

[Dewra]

At any given moment it could've kicked up and killed the alliance. That's why I called it semi-random and not a guarantee.

Oh I see where you coming from.
No 80 trust doesn't guarantee that you will have a faithful war dog for the rest of the game that's what vassals (used to be) are for, but it makes it rather unlikely that they break the alliance.
I can't remember it ever happening to me, but yes it can happen for sure.

Honestly I don't mind semi random. At the moment alliances are too stable anyway, Russia should have broken our alliance already and the France-Milan-Naples triple alliance shouldn't have existed for 150-200 years.
This is all due to trust, since even militaristic rulers don't normally break alliances with 80 trust.

 

[Dominion]

I mind semi-random because in one month they can comfortably sit at +140 and with the next month's tick break your alliance.
Not because of modifiers, which I can calculate, not because of a ruler change, which I can anticipate, but because... because who knows what.

Information needs to be available and useful. Obscuring it or having it trigger randomly gives the player no opportunity or option to counteract.

It rarely ever hurt anyone in any game, that I agree with, because by the time you have enough provinces for it to really have an effect you're also strong enough to just take them out.

That doesn't mean it's not a bad system though and things like it need to disappear from the game.

 

[Siu-King**]

I'm sorry, but can we please finally put this idiotic argument to rest?

if you dont wanna discuss in a forum, get the fuck out. Don't stop people from discussing.

 

[Dewra]

I mind semi-random because in one month they can comfortably sit at +140 and with the next month's tick break your alliance.
Not because of modifiers, which I can calculate, not because of a ruler change, which I can anticipate, but because... because who knows what.

Can you give an example of this (except the OP)? if it's not a ruler change and my example showed 80 trust keeping an alliance even with militaristic ruler and a border.

Now I do agree that the information shouldn't be obscured, like it's in the OPs case.
Still there was probably multiple things that happened here like ruler change + ally your rival (I'm assuming ruler change so they go friendly to old enemy), you can react to that assuming you have favors.
Also this could have the few month grace period (same as breaking for low trust), also adding same grace period and notification for negative relationship would be good.

It's completely sensible for the AI to ally somebody else and break the alliance, I'd hope this would happen more tbh.

 

[Dominion]

Can you give an example of this (except the OP)? if it's not a ruler change and my example showed 80 trust keeping an alliance even with militaristic ruler and a border.

Your own screenshots.
He got down to -3, which is an autobreak.
Especially fun if a babbling buffoon insults you and gets _your_ opinion of them below 0.
These alliances can not be kept. They break by default. Nothing you can do against it.

80 trust wouldn't have mattered there, neither would their stance towards you have mattered.

'cept in your screenshots it at least makes sense.

Better example would be claims and cores, which provoke "wants your provinces" to trigger no matter what.

Same for colonial regions and the greedy trait.

Using Russia as an example: If they get their permanent claims and you own at least one province of theirs they can throw POI on your whole border and then some.

 

[Dewra]

Your own screenshots.

That's 72 trust not 80.
I'm also completely aware that they would break the alliance without 80 trust, there is a reason why I stacked favors early to get it up.
My example was just that 80 trust makes the alliance stable assuming you don't have a vassal on their border.

Especially fun if a babbling buffoon insults you and gets _your_ opinion of them below 0.
These alliances can not be kept. They break by default. Nothing you can do against it.

Oh this I agree with, your opinion dropping below 0 is a pain.

Better example would be claims and cores, which provoke "wants your provinces" to trigger no matter what.

80 trust overcomes claims, dunno about cores. You can see that in my second screenshot (they have a claim).
And yes they do want your provinces even with 80 trust, the modifier is just -20 max (so far in my games) instead of -74 and they don't go hostile if you have positive relations.

CNs maybe they are a subject so it would fit with trust not working with subjects.

But all of this is completely consistent and predictable except for "your opinion of them going below 0" so you can react and plan accordingly.

 

[Lor360]

if you dont wanna discuss in a forum, get the fuck out. Don't stop people from discussing.

The forum is a place to discuss and respectfuly disagree within reason. The point I was attacking is this whole "the game on hard difficulty is too hard in difficulty".

If the creator of this thread had a problem with aliances breaking too often on normal (i dont think they do) that would be a reasonable difference of opinion.
However, pushing this narative that playing a hard and very hard mode is too punishing is dangerous to game balance.
It only caters to players who want to pretend they are good by playing something called "super pro mode" . They actualy want a normal game, just with "im leet i play on hard" bragging rights.

So whats the conclusion to this if devs start to implement these ideas?
Hard will be nerfed until it plays like a normal game, normal will be easy, and honest people actualy looking for a challenge will start demanding a new ultra hard option. And then these same players will start migrating to the newest "ultra hard" mode for prestige and start complaining that its too hard for them.

Read the original post and his first few replies. Ive seen human opponents trucebreak, ally the Ottomans as Papal States and give free condottieri to OPMs.
The AI didnt do anything gamebreaking or outrageous, it just "backstabed" the player in the weakest, mildest way possible.

So okay if you want, lets have a forum discussion if we should make the AI 100% predictable instead of 95% predictable. In hard mode.

 

[TheChrisD]

Just to be absolutely sure that we're on the same page here: 80 trust does nothing and they can switch to domineering or hostile whenever they want.

Only used Ming as an example because I'm honestly too tired to search for other screens atm.

tbf in that example you broke tributary status, and since you border the EoC and are not a tributary of course they're going to see all your land as vital interest.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

WYP and WYSP being treated significantly differently by high-trust allies is a broken mechanic. I hear it's broken by design, but that doesn't make it any less broken given that it's necessarily inconsistent to other game mechanics to treat it this way.

 

[Siu-King**]

The forum is a place to discuss and respectfuly disagree within reason. The point I was attacking is this whole "the game on hard difficulty is too hard in difficulty".

TLDR - condescending assumption /thread