Any words from Paradox on alliances?

[Maykievic]

Hi guys! I'm really not an historian at all but i thought that often an alliance between big players was to fight a particular common enemy (i.e. France Ottoman alliance).
I know that it would be very difficult to represent in game but right now there are all kinds of strange alliances between Christian and Muslims (i.e. Candar with Trier and such).
But the most unbalanced kind of alliances (IMHO) are the great powers blocs such as untouchable BlobAustria-England-Commonwealth that help each other in almost every war , ending in a neverending bloballiance that takes over Europe. I mean there have been massive wars like the 7 or 30 years war,but now every war where one of those players is involved is a new world war. In 1.13 alliances were more balanced with a GP having one or in rare cases two other great powers.
One could argue that that's how a real player would play, but i think that we should think from a historical perspective made of nationalisms ,rivalries etc... not a Blob free for all multiplayer where everyone wants to take over the world.

So could Paradox tell us if that is something they'll look forward to in patch 1.15 ? also just a reply with a "yes" would be really appreciated since i think they read most of messages

For now this is really disruptive in regards of balance and fun, what do you guys think?

 

[Maykievic]

I guess not

 

[Chaingun]

I will probably look at it as I saw some 'interesting' alliances as well, I'm not fully up-and-running with the AI alliance logic yet however so I can't guarantee results in time for 1.15 patch. My hunch is the problem is not so much religion (except perhaps Papal States) as the AI taking alliances it can't benefit from (your Candar Trier example illustrating this).

 

[Maykievic]

I will probably look at it as I saw some 'interesting' alliances as well, I'm not fully up-and-running with the AI alliance logic yet however so I can't guarantee results in time for 1.15 patch. My hunch is the problem is not so much religion (except perhaps Papal States) as the AI taking alliances it can't benefit from (your Candar Trier example illustrating this).

or can benefit too much like the bloballiances ^^ , anyway thank you very much!!

 

[Thrake]

Yeah, some alliance choice are really weird. I've seen Lithuania/Flanders (2PM). Bloballiance happen but sometimes they just all rival one another, like Ottoman rivaling Mamlukes/Qara Qoyunlu/Timies (Timmies rivaling the other 3, same for Mamlukes,...) and then it makes things interesting.

 

[Rengar39]

From this thread:

The effect of trust needs to be made stronger and more transparent. Countries should never rival you if it's 80+, etc. It's on my todo for 1.15.

 

[Maykievic]

Yeah , not only above 80, even when you have an ally with 200 relations is kinda stupid for him to break alliance and rival you , like blocs of majors that all rival you all of a sudden and want to destroy you
Dunno, maybe i'm wrong

 

[Miravlix]

I hope we will see some religious factor in the future. Also I don't think the AI take DoF anymore, this even more kills the religious element.

What I don't hope we will see, but I think people is agitating for, is the 1444 - 1821 long lasting alliances. It's really important that the current militarist ruler effect stays in game, so you risk losing a good alliance every now and then.

 

[Rengar39]

Yeah , not only above 80, even when you have an ally with 200 relations is kinda stupid for him to break alliance and rival you , like blocs of majors that all rival you all of a sudden and want to destroy you
Dunno, maybe i'm wrong

I would disagree. Opinion with an ally is far too easily raised to +200 for a player, you can do it in two years with improve realations+gifts+access+subsidues+guarantee+transfer trade power.
Trust is a long time commitment that requires you to sacrifice immediate benefits (CTA to offensive wars).