AI please use the coalition mechanic

[World Union]

Would I be a bad person if I say coalition mechanic should get more annoying?
In my opinion, nations should be able to join a coalition even they have a truce with the target and besides other requirements, if a new coalition is formed during the first coalition war they should leave the coalition if the target lost the war against the first coalition (maybe this is in the game but I don't know it).
But after a coalition war, the coalition dissolves (as it is) and members can't join a coalition against the target for 15(?) years (today this depends on the peace deal). The reason why I suggest removing the truce as an obstacle for forming or joining a coalition is this system is quite exploitable.
Right now I am playing as 1.33 ironman Ottomans (date 1500), I'm gaining 250 ducats per month (nothing stopped me to get this strong, and yes I like the idea of ai building more forts but I think that is not enough). In this campaign, I cockblocked Iberian dudes' expansion into North Africa as a defender of the faith, burned Italian provinces so many times even the pope committed suicide, ate quarter of Lithuania, hurt Austria's best buddy Hungary(pu) because I was hungry and now I'm kicking Muscoy and France's asses and either Poland or Austria or Iberian dudes or Italian guys (I'm not even talking about eastern buddies) can do nothing because I cycle the truce all the time.
I want nations to get angry with me and unite against me. I want them to rage on me or I don't know, support my rebels or something, but they act like the dog in that's fine meme.
I know Ottomans are super uber strong but still, can't we pave the way for the ai so they can effectively use the coalition mechanic against the player. This problem is not necessarily related to Ottomans, because with most nations, players can snowball quickly and this just bugs me.
This doesn't necessarily have to be like the way I said. I'd like to hear your opinions.

 

[makaramus]

I disagree... they should not be able to form coalition but I say they should be able to form "defensive coalition"
Thats the problem of game right now:It has only 1 type of coalition
there should be 3:
Defensive
Economic
Total

Total coalition is type of coalition that can go to war, defend aganist target and also automaticly "embargo" the target(yes they will have all the maluses if not rival)
Defensive one you guessed it:Only defense. No economic of offensive
Economic coalition is everyone embargos you
I will not talk about economic one too much I just think its needed one and happened in histroy a lot.
but defensive one should not check if you got truce or not.


Also extra thing: Coalition members should join at middle of war. Moment they click to "form coalition" they should join any coalition war that is targetting or targetted by coalition members.

 

[FrogCrusher]

So you play the easiest tag in the game, on a patch not so hard, and you complain nobody can stop you?
Funny. Keep in mind there is people who needs the current mechanic to be able to survive when being on OPM in HRE.

 

[cuendillar]

So you play the easiest tag in the game, on a patch not so hard, and you complain nobody can stop you?
Funny. Keep in mind there is people who needs the current mechanic to be able to survive when being on OPM in HRE.

Agreed, the Ottomans aren't actually meant to be played. Their sole purpose is to make people complain on the forums about how OP they are.

 

[World Union]

So you play the easiest tag in the game, on a patch not so hard, and you complain nobody can stop you?
Funny. Keep in mind there is people who needs the current mechanic to be able to survive when being on OPM in HRE.

Yes exactly! if you read my text again, you will understand what I expect from ai even if I play with the easiest tag.
OPMs in HRE don't need current coalition mechanic to survive. I don't understand what do you mean by that. If you meant OPMs need this mechanic to survive against superior foes then you are mistaken. Ai nations using coalition mechanic against a superior ai nation is quite rare so an OPM player wouldn't use this much, but if you meant that truce cycling can save OPMs getting gang due to rapid expansion then you are right, but I wouldn't consider this as a requirement for survival, since it is something players should consider before expanding fast.

 

[World Union]

I disagree... they should not be able to form coalition but I say they should be able to form "defensive coalition"
Thats the problem of game right now:It has only 1 type of coalition
there should be 3:
Defensive
Economic
Total

Total coalition is type of coalition that can go to war, defend aganist target and also automaticly "embargo" the target(yes they will have all the maluses if not rival)
Defensive one you guessed it:Only defense. No economic of offensive
Economic coalition is everyone embargos you
I will not talk about economic one too much I just think its needed one and happened in histroy a lot.
but defensive one should not check if you got truce or not.


Also extra thing: Coalition members should join at middle of war. Moment they click to "form coalition" they should join any coalition war that is targetting or targetted by coalition members.

The defensive coalition seems like a good idea if ai nations choose it more often.
The economic coalition seems insignificant and I'm sure it would probably hurt coalition members more than the target since the trade mechanic in the game is not trade in reality, it is more like exploitation of poor farmers' work. Maybe for immersion?
I agree with your last idea, seems like a better implement.

 

[makaramus]

The defensive coalition seems like a good idea if ai nations choose it more often.
The economic coalition seems insignificant and I'm sure it would probably hurt coalition members more than the target since the trade mechanic in the game is not trade in reality, it is more like exploitation of poor farmers' work. Maybe for immersion?
I agree with your last idea, seems like a better implement.

again there can be more things at economic coalition I just didn't want to write a wall of text
but it will hurt target more.... yes maybe you hurt yourself more when you alone embargo someone but when 25 different nations embargo same target it may hurt it even more than you alone. There can be other things too but I don't want to think about it.
Defensive coalition will be just a coalition type that requires less aggresive expansion and alternative to total coalition until nation is eligible to join. As example:
Small HRE nations are in "total" coalition aganist france but Austria did not gain enough aggresive expansion to join too. Instead Austria joins defensive coalition so if any coalition member gets targeted by france they will join too even if other nation was at "total coalition"

 

[FrogCrusher]

Yes exactly! if you read my text again, you will understand what I expect from ai even if I play with the easiest tag.
OPMs in HRE don't need current coalition mechanic to survive. I don't understand what do you mean by that. If you meant OPMs need this mechanic to survive against superior foes then you are mistaken. Ai nations using coalition mechanic against a superior ai nation is quite rare so an OPM player wouldn't use this much, but if you meant that truce cycling can save OPMs getting gang due to rapid expansion then you are right, but I wouldn't consider this as a requirement for survival, since it is something players should consider before expanding fast.

You're right, it is not needed to survive strictly speaking. But you get my point ^^

 

[Zander]

Because the current coalition mechanic is based on conquest, and AI will only join if they think they can win, it is chiefly a mechanic to punish small countries expanding.

I certainly understand why that is - if one could NEVER get above a certain size without getting crushed by the rest of the world, a lot of players wouldn't enjoy that - but that's a big part of your problem. The stronger your nation is at start, the less coalitions are actually a problem.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What you are saying might work if coalitions allowed separate peace, and before the game introduced non-cobelligerency as an extra warscore shield.

But since coalitions block separate peace and the warscore magic is in play, having coalitions continuously grow through truces would be cancer. We know this, because it once worked that way.

 

[Runite Drill]

I disagree... they should not be able to form coalition but I say they should be able to form "defensive coalition"
Thats the problem of game right now:It has only 1 type of coalition
there should be 3:
Defensive
Economic
Total

Total coalition is type of coalition that can go to war, defend aganist target and also automaticly "embargo" the target(yes they will have all the maluses if not rival)
Defensive one you guessed it:Only defense. No economic of offensive
Economic coalition is everyone embargos you
I will not talk about economic one too much I just think its needed one and happened in histroy a lot.
but defensive one should not check if you got truce or not.


Also extra thing: Coalition members should join at middle of war. Moment they click to "form coalition" they should join any coalition war that is targetting or targetted by coalition members.

Coalitions definitely need a rework and something like this is a really good start.
I've always wondered if a coalition could operate similar to the League War, where nations can join/leave on both sides, or perhaps with a shared manpower/ducat pool that countries can individually contribute to.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What historical or gameplay basis is being used to generate these coalition ideas?

Right now, a large group of nations can simply...ally and declare war if someone is getting too big. What requires the coalition mechanic as special protection?

 

[Seaweed and Mayonnaise]

The coalition mechanic is fine and if anything is probably too punishable relative to what its supposed to represent historically. I wouldn't mind a softer type of coalition mechanic though to try and represent balance of power diplomacy. The "threatened by" diplomacy modifier is a decent idea, but its actual effect is fairly trivial in the game. They could expand on that I think. The hegemon mechanic could also be tweaked and included here. Right now its mostly just applicable at a point later in the game in which you are already well ahead of the AI (less so on VH). This is because its based on both absolute and relative numbers, but I think it should be based on only on relative numbers. Basically, I want a mechanic that allows the AI to be more proactive than reactive in trying to contain a very powerful player.

 

[Methuen of Melnibone]

Coalitions definitely need a rework and something like this is a really good start.
I've always wondered if a coalition could operate similar to the League War, where nations can join/leave on both sides, or perhaps with a shared manpower/ducat pool that countries can individually contribute to.

Yeah I always thought that the league mechanic was underused - they were forming, having wars, disbanding all through the timeframe of the game. It'd be great to be able to form an 'anti Ottoman league' with whatever nations are left, for example, in the 17th century. It could be a diplomatic option for a great power 'form League with target X', and then it's up to other countries to join via a popup or something.

It'd give the AI an opportunity to form proper global alliances to fight the player, too - French & Indian war style.

 

[Commonblob]

What historical or gameplay basis is being used to generate these coalition ideas?

Right now, a large group of nations can simply...ally and declare war if someone is getting too big. What requires the coalition mechanic as special protection?

1) Diplomatic relations limit.
2) Need a diplomatic relationship that doesn't allow declining CTA. Or else AI coalitions would never be able to get anywhere with a fraction of the members bound to always be in debt, in another war, etc.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1) Diplomatic relations limit.
2) Need a diplomatic relationship that doesn't allow declining CTA. Or else AI coalitions would never be able to get anywhere with a fraction of the members bound to always be in debt, in another war, etc.

But now you're getting away from both historical and gameplay limitations. That's the problem with coalitions in past EU 4 patches, what they supposedly model a) never existed in history and b) arbitrarily wreck what are otherwise-established rules for no apparent reason other than the AI's ability to coordinate.

What made them so toxic was the war score shield. I can't emphasize enough how bad that was for gameplay, especially back when "full annexation" always meant 100% even for OPMs. At its worst, a 2 OPM coalition could prevent you from taking more than 1 province in the war.

Even now, with cheaper provinces, coalition members are non-cobell when you declare (I appreciate the UI bug about that being fixed BTW). Just by existing, a coalition can reduce the losses of the losing side by a factor of 10x or more, while stalling out the war with "can't negotiate peace" in a way that has no historical examples, ever + makes no sense for the in-game country. Eventually, players were given truces as a means to mitigate that, with the need to keep up the aggression/not overextend too much or they'll get piled.

What OP suggests amounts to a fake tenfold+ increase of province warscore cost, irrespective of how the actual coalition war goes. If it were possible to peace out/annex/flip members by occupying them, it would be a different matter.

 

[Commonblob]

But now you're getting away from both historical and gameplay limitations. That's the problem with coalitions in past EU 4 patches, what they supposedly model a) never existed in history and b) arbitrarily wreck what are otherwise-established rules for no apparent reason other than the AI's ability to coordinate.

What made them so toxic was the war score shield. I can't emphasize enough how bad that was for gameplay, especially back when "full annexation" always meant 100% even for OPMs. At its worst, a 2 OPM coalition could prevent you from taking more than 1 province in the war.

Even now, with cheaper provinces, coalition members are non-cobell when you declare (I appreciate the UI bug about that being fixed BTW). Just by existing, a coalition can reduce the losses of the losing side by a factor of 10x or more, while stalling out the war with "can't negotiate peace" in a way that has no historical examples, ever + makes no sense for the in-game country. Eventually, players were given truces as a means to mitigate that, with the need to keep up the aggression/not overextend too much or they'll get piled.

What OP suggests amounts to a fake tenfold+ increase of province warscore cost, irrespective of how the actual coalition war goes. If it were possible to peace out/annex/flip members by occupying them, it would be a different matter.

I think Paradox should make the change that is most in line with historical behaviour - make coalitions easier to peace out but remove true locking. Peacing out a coalition should only be slightly harder than peacing out in a regular war. So I would propose reducing the negotiation penalty during a coalition to 10 for the entire coalition and maybe 25 for separate peaces.

I kind of understand why they blocked separate peaces because I've played on old patches where it was possible, and it made coalitions into just a fun opportunity to take more land. But at the same time it's ridiculous for a fully occupied country to refuse to negotiate. Maybe make it so that countries with 3 or fewer provinces are very reluctant to join coalitions.

Meanwhile, the truce locking strategy just seems gamey (even if it can be argued that it takes skill). No one cared about truces during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[jonjowett]

I think that coalitions could be better if we made a few of the changes suggested so far, all at once:

• Nations can join coalitions regardless of truce status
  • I agree that juggling truce status feels very gamey
• Nations that are in a coalition but truced with the coalition target cannot participate an offensive coalition war (but see next point)
• During an offensive coalition war, any nation that joins the coalition or that has its truce run out with the coalition target will join the war
• During a defensive coalition war, any nation that joins the coalition will join the war
• Coalition members can separate peace
  • This can be balanced by adding a large penalty to acceptance of peace terms
• Add a peace term (like the existing annul alliances) that prevents a nation from joining coalitions against you for 10 years
  • Otherwise, there's nothing to stop nations that separate peace in a defensive war from rejoining the coalition and re-entering the war

My inspirations here are the various Napoleonic Wars and the Great Northern War, which are rather far towards the end of EU4's timespan, so I'd be interested to hear if anyone can point to examples of coalition-type wars during the 15th and 16th centuries.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No one cared about truces during the Napoleonic Wars.

This should also cut both ways then, however. Currently, "breaking" a truce is enormously expensive, in both monarch points and AE. Truces in EU 4 are 5 years min, 15 years max. Both of these are much longer than history suggests should be the case on average, and are game balancing factors every bit as gamey as truce-locking coalitions (which would not be viable but for the existence ahistorical truce lengths).

Otherwise, there's nothing to stop nations that separate peace in a defensive war from rejoining the coalition and re-entering the war

If there is also nothing stopping coring of said nation's territory, maybe...

 

[makaramus]

This should also cut both ways then, however. Currently, "breaking" a truce is enormously expensive, in both monarch points and AE. Truces in EU 4 are 5 years min, 15 years max. Both of these are much longer than history suggests should be the case on average, and are game balancing factors every bit as gamey as truce-locking coalitions (which would not be viable but for the existence ahistorical truce lengths).



If there is also nothing stopping coring of said nation's territory, maybe...

I think he added that to my suggestion because that would be abusable when combined with seperate peace since you can do this:
Ottoman joins coalition aganist you, you occupy all the land it has and then make seperate peace
ottoman gets a truce but truces do not prevent you from joining coalitions so he joins back, immediatly joining back to war and you siege his lands again, taking his lands again and again... until you fully annex him.
I think he suggested it for someting like that
I didn't mention such thing because... well I didn't suggest changing seperate peace thing so it was not a factor for me... there should be a coalition truce too if there will be seperate peaces