AI "Not willing to join another offensive war until...."?

[ruzen]

AI helps me a great deal? have you used "attach to unit" or set objectives for them? most of the times they take a little while to come up with their move, but they are willing to band together both to siege and to offer assistance in battle (later can be a bit of annoying since AI when sieging and almost done, lift siege because there is a battle which is easily won alone only to prolong the siege)

But also that feature cant be used by other multiplayer players. Only host can use It.

 

[Quaade]

I believe it was changed in the beta patch, will check it, at least it was mentioned so they are aware of the problem.

edit: - Fixed so that allied objectives can be set by clients in MP games

from the beta patch changelog, but that doesn´t say anything about attaching though

 

[Brylajok]

I played a few hours of the new patch last night, and I have to say overall I like the feel of this. It definitely adds a lot more strategy to when I actually call in allies for my wars. Before it was "France, you got me bro? Now it is, "well I can get by without their assistance in this war, so won't call them here".

I do agree that it probably shouldn't be -1000, but instead each war have a stacking -50 or something that instead lasts 15 years or so. Then if you give them something that -50 becomes lowered if they get what they wanted from the war.

For instance, I am about to war Sweden(most of Scandinavia), England, Scotland, Castile all at the same time. England has been taking the coast and I don't mind giving France some land for their assistance. However. I feel there should be a way to avoid this malus entirely. Perhaps a "Co-offensive" war?

I mean it's clear France wants their stuff back, I want Calais, and to weaken Sweden, etc.

PS. Definitely loving the extra diplomat as Bohemia, even though I didn't get the burgundian inheritance, definitely my best game ever. I never know what to do when HRE Emperor and want to go Protestant though :/

PSS. Loving the new Papal options, now it isn't a mindless stack Mercantilism or Stability. I always want all of the benefits!!!

 

[lolada]

I played a few hours of the new patch last night, and I have to say overall I like the feel of this. It definitely adds a lot more strategy to when I actually call in allies for my wars. Before it was "France, you got me bro? Now it is, "well I can get by without their assistance in this war, so won't call them here".

I do agree that it probably shouldn't be -1000, but instead each war have a stacking -50 or something that instead lasts 15 years or so. Then if you give them something that -50 becomes lowered if they get what they wanted from the war.

For instance, I am about to war Sweden(most of Scandinavia), England, Scotland, Castile all at the same time. England has been taking the coast and I don't mind giving France some land for their assistance. However. I feel there should be a way to avoid this malus entirely. Perhaps a "Co-offensive" war?

I mean it's clear France wants their stuff back, I want Calais, and to weaken Sweden, etc.

PS. Definitely loving the extra diplomat as Bohemia, even though I didn't get the burgundian inheritance, definitely my best game ever. I never know what to do when HRE Emperor and want to go Protestant though :/

PSS. Loving the new Papal options, now it isn't a mindless stack Mercantilism or Stability. I always want all of the benefits!!!

It would be logical to make exception in wars versus their rivals and countries that hold their cores. They would expect their cores and claims ofcourse, stealing them or denying them in peace deal should be very negative.

 

[Koivin]

Why would the AI need an ally which either is not capable of helping or is not willing of helping it?

Huge opinion malus should be given if player is not using manpower to help the AI, if player nation is transfering subsidies opinion malus should be reduced but manpower needs to be the biggest concern.

And what if you are Venice or Burgundy and rely mostly on mercs...?

 

[Atlanteax]

Just give the AI a negative willingness modifier "Didn't give claim/core in previous war" of -200 or so, which ticks down over time. I'd say that makes a lot more sense than having the AI refuse any wars for an arbitrary number of years.

THIS.

From the previous war ... the following factors are added to the AI's unwillingness #
War Exhaustion accrued
Debt accrued
Value of lost territory

The following factors detract from the AI's unwillingness #
Gained Cores/Claims
Rival lost territory
Value of subsidies given by Player

Then the AI's unwillingness # naturally decays over time.

This way, if you 'abuse' an AI ally for 2-3 wars for no gain to the AI, it will be unwilling for a very long time (decades).
However, 2-3 years after a mutually beneficial war, the AI may be willing to join in (despite being so soon) because it is a war of aggression against a Rival/etc (the positive modifiers were still greater than the negative modifiers accumulated).

 

[Atlanteax]

I want to add an 'ask to join war' option as a reverse CtA.

*Please* do.

 

[Sabotage13]

So AI ally actually gets to do some wars of its own instead of being player's/another ai's wrecking ball 24/7.

It wouldn't be EU if the player wasn't constantly dragged into one of its AI allies' dozens of self-destructive wars over nothing.

 

[AlexMart]

So AI ally actually gets to do some wars of its own instead of being player's/another ai's wrecking ball 24/7.

Very good idea

 

[melkor88]

At first when it happened I was really mad, but after a hundred years of it it does make much more sense, and it really adds a lot to the game. It means I don't call in allies when it is only against smaller nations which I can beat myself, and I stagger calling in allies so I can use an ally most of the time.
I do agree that if we give them something in the piece deal then they should waive the 10 year limit though. As that would make me more interested in helping out the AI in their wars if I was actually going to get something in return.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Another case were it would make sense for this modifier to end early is if you help the AI in one of its war. Where they take it in turns to help one another in offensive wars.

Even better, I think it would be neat if declining to join an offensive war never ends your alliance with the target nation and either has a very small prestige hit (~10) or none at all. Instead they just get a negative modifier for you not joining their war. Only if you fail to join them in a defensive war will the alliance be terminated on the spot. That said, an AI nation is rather likely to seek other alliances if you make a habit of ignoring their requests.

 

[Ccd9]

Now you have to get forts on boarders and let your allies do some heavy lifting in hard wars, while you take care some lesser enemies. Going to drag out big wars for 5 years+ every time while sniping small countries. Not sure if that is the best option.
I would really like if you had to give allies something every war instead.

 

[Cryonist]

I am playing as Austria as Holy Roman Empereror and found it to be alot harder to play with this change. As the roman empire im at war constantly at the beginning to release states annexed by other members. Otherwise the empire would fall apart eventually. One tactic to deal with this which, i think, this change is meant for is to ally like poland or france and and let them win those wars for you all the time. Preventing that is a good change but i wasn't really relying on that anyway. I make most of my allies within the empire, usually the electors, and we fight together against the nation that annexed the empire member to liberate it. I think its appropiate member states of the empire can't refuse a war call from the emperor, especially when its made with a imperial CB.

Anyways just my thoughts hope you can do something with them, skål.