Alliance breaking did not make a truce

[MauserM98]

Multiplayer game.
Day 1 Venice allies Austria
Week 2 or so, Austria tells he wants a Venice prov, Venice refuses.
Week 3 Austria Breaks Alliance, rivals Venice, and declares war WITHOUT penalties.
So is this a bug, or what did cause it to not be a truce here?

Thx for replys

 

[Pepsi_max]

Usual "exploit" used by players, and austrian player knew it.

If you rival someone even when allied, there will be no truce when the alliance breaks.

 

[MauserM98]

Well, should be fixed i guess? I can see no reason not to

 

[ForzaA]

Known issue, should be fixed for 1.15

Thanks for the report.

 

[Dakka]

Known issue, should be fixed for 1.15

Thanks for the report.

Darn, that was really nice for surprise attacks in MP

 

[hashinshin]

Darn, that was really nice for surprise attacks in MP

I think the entire rival system needs a rework for MP. NOBODY rivals their enemies, since their enemies might be useful at some point. The only time to rival someone is if they're getting partitioned. Everyone rivals the english and whoever is far enough away.

 

[Dakka]

I think the entire rival system needs a rework for MP. NOBODY rivals their enemies, since their enemies might be useful at some point. The only time to rival someone is if they're getting partitioned. Everyone rivals the english and whoever is far enough away.

Perhaps something with a toggle in MP options? Works-as-is for SP, but you have the option to change it to the original system in MP?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The real "known issue" is the concept of a truce between nations that have never fought a battle AND are now each stating active dislike for each other ^_^.

I didn't realize "no rush 20" was part of the "sim" experience...or was that supposed to be for "balance", whatever balance is taken to mean at this point ?

 

[Kagemin]

The real "known issue" is the concept of a truce between nations that have never fought a battle AND are now each stating active dislike for each other ^_^.

Since the important part is that they were allied up to that point, a timed truce sounds fine for me there, really. It's not like it lasts forever after all.
Backstabbing did happen of course, but that's still easily possible if you're allied to two enemy nations. Plus truce brealing is an option too, even if it's very situational.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Since the important part is that they were allied up to that point, a timed truce sounds fine for me there, really. It's not like it lasts forever after all.
Backstabbing did happen of course, but that's still easily possible if you're allied to two enemy nations. Plus truce brealing is an option too, even if it's very situational.

You still haven't put forth a reasonable balance or historical justification for the existence of truces from nowhere with no conflict . I don't think you can do it to be fair, but maybe I'll be surprised.

 

[Kagemin]

If you're just bent on term of "truce" and want an addition non-aggression- and/or neutrality pact in-game then I guess it's your point, even if mechanically that's be pretty much the same.
If this would come together with advanced diplomacy options allowing more in-depth negotiations between 2 nations at peace to get pacts like that it would be pretty awesome of course, but I can't imagine the AI being up for something on that scale anytime soon.

Just in case you meant such pacts in general, history is ripe with them. For example together with payments to keep a nation neutral for a period of time, in conjunction with all kinds of trade agreements, and especially later on just out of mutual interest ("carving up" regions). To me it also makes sense that you can't just go from ally to war within a month without major repercussions.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Historically, "non-aggression" for 5 years is more typically preposterous than not, even for actual post-war truces.

From a balance perspective, the penalties for violating these "truces" are enormous enough to make it a non-option in most cases and being added in an increasing number of scenarios. My main problem is that it adds more waiting to a game that has spent way too much design into adding more waiting.

 

[Sernista]

Historically, "non-aggression" for 5 years is more typically preposterous than not, even for actual post-war truces.

From a balance perspective, the penalties for violating these "truces" are enormous enough to make it a non-option in most cases and being added in an increasing number of scenarios. My main problem is that it adds more waiting to a game that has spent way too much design into adding more waiting.

Sure, but rapid warring under present mechanics adds more blobbing to a game that already has a heck of a lot of blobbing. You have to make compromises somewhere.

 

[Vaximillian]

Known issue, should be fixed for 1.15

Thanks for the report.

Breaking alliances shouldn't have caused truces in the first place.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sure, but rapid warring under present mechanics adds more blobbing to a game that already has a heck of a lot of blobbing. You have to make compromises somewhere.

"Do nothing" is not a valid gameplay "compromise". "Do nothing" is not gameplay. This was done to stop perceived "exploits" presumably, without credible basis.

 

[Kagemin]

"Do nothing" is not a valid gameplay "compromise". "Do nothing" is not gameplay. This was done to stop perceived "exploits" presumably, without credible basis.

At least when it comes to this topic I'm completely fine with it, since it's entirely the players own doing.
And it's far from being a "do nothing" situation as well. It's one nation you can't directly declare on without a penalty, and even that only if you had an alliance right before.
It's so a brief and limited, and solely based on your own actions, that I really don't see the problem in planning with it.

 

[Vaximillian]

The game isn't forcing you to do nothing. The problem is your game-y playstyle preventing you from doing something.

It's a freaking game. Everything you do is gamey. Unless you do nothing. Oh wait~

 

[TheMeInTeam]

At least when it comes to this topic I'm completely fine with it, since it's entirely the players own doing.
And it's far from being a "do nothing" situation as well. It's one nation you can't directly declare on without a penalty, and even that only if you had an alliance right before.
It's so a brief and limited, and solely based on your own actions, that I really don't see the problem in planning with it.

It doesn't force do nothing by itself, it does add a little more on average to a game with too much.

But this change, like several others, is an utter joke from a realism perspective and doesn't really mesh with balance. The devs, best I can tell, simply didn't like people declaring on their allies so quickly after breaking the alliance...actual history be **** .