Alliances today are not so good as before.

[emil73]

AI counts and dukes never make real alliances other then simple NAPs. Now if you are count and you are stronk - you demand duchy title from your liege without apprehension. Nobody will help him. Before 2.5 - every duke marry his five daughters to five neighbor dukes and you had to deal with all of them or sit peacefully and wait good opportunity. Or make them love you much more then your liege so they reject his Call to arms. It was more interesting.

 

[Sam L]

I like the current alliance system, I think it's more realistic. But in gameplay, yeah I think it makes things more challenging for vassals.

 

[emil73]

It makes things less challenging for vassals.

 

[Thrake]

Wait... You mean they did not marry lowborns in your games under previous versions?

 

[Heinrich4]

I like the current alliance system, I think it's more realistic.

Why it is more realistic to not be able to decline a call to arms?

I liked the older system more. It was possible to land all your dynasty members with kingdom/empire titles outside of your realm. Now this is useless, because you dont have any advantage by doing this (they are no auto-allies anymore) and they tend to lose their titles while you are unable to do anything.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I like that you now have to formally negotiate an alliance, but as has been noted the AI seems unable to do this.

I don't like that an alliance now forces a CtA, there's no historical basis for this sort of thing, people regularly declined to call their allies into minor wars, and alliances were regularly dishonoured.

There are also issues with certain relationships, irrc you have to negotiate alliances even with close family like siblings - in reality an alliance there would be automatic.

 

[Bernard95]

The whole "NAP before alliance" thing makes sense, though I can't fathom where the idea came from that "you must answer the call to arms no matter what". I can only assume it was meant to make the player participate in AI wars, though so far I've still been able to ignore wars without any penalty I've seen (which is strange, because I remember reading in a dev diary that there would penalties if you did nothing). Meanwhile, you can sit back and your AI allies will do a good chunk if not all the work whenever you declare war.

 

[Azarias59]

It makes things less challenging for vassals.

Correction: it makes it more challenging for *AI* vassals, who paradox has not given the ability to make alliances.

 

[JMensch]

I like that you now have to formally negotiate an alliance, but as has been noted the AI seems unable to do this.

You sure? Cause I got a lot of NAPs and Alliance spam from Frankish kings once I switched from Pagan to Christian as Norse.

 

[Red Earth]

The whole "NAP before alliance" thing makes sense, though I can't fathom where the idea came from that "you must answer the call to arms no matter what". I can only assume it was meant to make the player participate in AI wars, though so far I've still been able to ignore wars without any penalty I've seen (which is strange, because I remember reading in a dev diary that there would penalties if you did nothing). Meanwhile, you can sit back and your AI allies will do a good chunk if not all the work whenever you declare war.

I've had allies cancel the alliance if I go for several years without participating in their war.

I like that you now have to formally negotiate an alliance, but as has been noted the AI seems unable to do this.

I don't like that an alliance now forces a CtA, there's no historical basis for this sort of thing, people regularly declined to call their allies into minor wars, and alliances were regularly dishonoured.

There are also issues with certain relationships, irrc you have to negotiate alliances even with close family like siblings - in reality an alliance there would be automatic.

I get alliance offers all the time. They are usually from NAPs I set up though.

 

[Thrake]

I can only assume it was meant to make the player participate in AI wars, though so far I've still been able to ignore wars without any penalty I've seen

Actually if you don't participate for wars for a given time, there's an event firing for your ally that gives him the option to break your alliance or pretent not to have noticed your inactivity.

 

[psychoak]

Alliances are less common, but the AI definitely can form them or they wouldn't exist. I've seen Muslims with several alliances.

 

[Azarias59]

Alliances are less common, but the AI definitely can form them or they wouldn't exist. I've seen Muslims with several alliances.

AI rulers only form alliances if they are independent for some reason. So if a human player is playing a vassal-ruler, then it is guaranteed that they will win *any* war, simply because a human takes the initiative to form alliances.

This is arguably the greatest failing of the 2.5 patch. If you are going to complain about something, please let it be this - as mod's cannot fix anything to do with the AI.

 

[R'hllor]

Because I never get tired of complaining about the absurdities of the new alliance system, I must agree with this. Alliances post-2.5 are ridiculously exploitable to make things easy for the player, so at least some challenge should be presented to control internal expansion. Why Paradox ever decided to change the old system that worked so much better in this and many other aspects is beyond me, but at least the rules should be the same for everyone. By the way I think I recall someone stating that having the same rules for everyone was a main point in changing the alliances, so this makes even less sense.

 

[Finnway]

AI rulers only form alliances if they are independent for some reason. So if a human player is playing a vassal-ruler, then it is guaranteed that they will win *any* war, simply because a human takes the initiative to form alliances.

LOL.... so basically there is no point in playing a campaign as a vassal now? WTF

 

[emil73]

In my previous play in October 2015 i was count of Neuchatelle, Aargau and somthing else, and i coud not become duke of Upper Burgogne for about 200 years!!! (1066-1230) becouse my liege, duke of Upper Burgogne was allways allied with every f..n duke in that f...n HRE. 2 or 3 times i waged wars when i think it is good moment now. Outcome was allways not very good for me... Now im again count of Neuchatelle in 1066, duke of Upper Burgogne in 1090, king of Burgogne in 1120. Because nobody care....