Cascading Alliances?

[SonofWinter]

Really? It was a bad idea in EUIII DW and now its here too? You declare war on one country and all of a sudden its WWI in the ancient world?

My example, I declare war on Illyria. Pontus declares to defend them. They draw in Macedonia, their ally, who is allied with everyone and their grandmother. So instead of a war against Illyria, I've declared war on everyone?

 

[safferli]

It was in EU:R before it was in DW.

 

[nachinus]

In fact it's even worse than in DW. Bug reported here:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?505413-Endless-call-to-arms-chain

 

[unmerged(114757)]

Am I the only one who likes this feature?
Didn't Machiavelli write something that a state should always chose a side in a war because staying neutral was worse and other nations wouldn't then trust the state? Or something like that.
And monarchy's are inter-marrying so why wouldn't they come to their cousins aid.

 

[nachinus]

Mate, this 'feature' can make a country be at war with both sides of the original war at the same time. Also, I've witnessed AI countries offering alliance to a warring faction, then leaving the alliance because they didn't want to fight the war they knew the faction was in, and then offering the same alliance again just to leave it once more when called to arms, repeating the process until the relations dropped so low that they were unable to offer alliance anymore.

There were no OTAN vs Warsaw Pact in the era, btw. Each Ptolemaids vs Seleucids wars didn't turn into a global panmediterranean war. The same goes for Punics wars, etc etc.

The alliance/call to arms thingie and the AI assesment of war, peace and alliances need some serious work.

 

[Cheexsta]

Am I the only one who likes this feature?

One of few people, I imagine I like it sometimes, when I'm strong and am able to tap into a large alliance network. I did it as Rome once, managed to get into a Greek alliance that included the Seleucids. Needless to say, the Sels never received a single province in a war after that and I ended up gaining half a dozen vassals from her various wars.

Didn't Machiavelli write something that a state should always chose a side in a war because staying neutral was worse and other nations wouldn't then trust the state? Or something like that.

I'll admit that I haven't read much Machiavelli, but wasn't The Prince written as a vision of Mach's idealised state? In which case, this idea of nations needing to choose a side is more about what he believes should happen, as opposed to what did happen.

What happened in history was a country that came under attack would ask any friendly country to come to its aid. What didn't happen was for all of the second country's mates to join in, and their mates, and their mates, and so on. When Rome and Carthage went to war, Carthage more than likely called in its (tributary) allies in Spain, but that wouldn't have resulted in all of Spain at war with Rome. When Rome and the Aetolians went to war, the Aetolians called in the Seleucids to help, but the latter didn't call in the rest of the Greek world to help them out.

Plus, as Nachinus pointed out, the cascading alliances issue can result in some absolute absurdities, like a country being involved in both sides at the same time and so on. Not hugely common from what I've seen, but it can still happen.

And monarchy's are inter-marrying so why wouldn't they come to their cousins aid.

Didn't always help, just look at the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Their family tree (which really resembles more of a mosaic circle than anything) didn't stop them from being almost constantly at war during this period.

 

[Hardradi]

I would like to see some ability for nations to flip sides during wars. Every time I read about this period I notice that it happened a lot.

How would you do it is another question.

 

[Altipueri]

The Prince - Chapter XVIII

"A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise"

 

[SonofWinter]

All this quoting of Niccolo is great, but, well.... he wasn't born until 1500 years after this game period, so using him as an example of how things "should" be run in the game is pointless. This was not a time of Machiavelli or his proverbs. It was a time where nations didn't care about balance of power or any of that other stuff. And Rome declaring war on Illyria didn't send Pontus to declare war on Rome, so that Macedonia would declare war on Rome, so that the Selucids would declare war on Rome, so that the Armenians and the Sarmatians would declare war on Rome.

The cascading alliances are crap and they need to go and everyone knows it.

 

[Nuril]

I'll admit that I haven't read much Machiavelli, but wasn't The Prince written as a vision of Mach's idealised state? In which case, this idea of nations needing to choose a side is more about what he believes should happen, as opposed to what did happen.

No no, don't let the adjective "Machiavellian" fool you. It's from a misunderstanding. The Prince was a mocking piece of satire regarding the autocratic monarchs of the period, something Niccolo was firmly against. In all his other writings during his life he was a staunch supporter of Republics and wanted monarchies to go away all together. It's more of an exposé of their tactics behind the scenes, pulling it into the open so people are more cynical about their monarchs.

For a paraphrased example: "a usurper should not air on the side of kindness, rather he should swiftly and ruthlessly kill all his opponents at the very beginning of his reign. After that he can rule unopposed and now able to be generous and kind. Over time this post-usurpation will be considered his true character and the early days as the tragic result of a harsh world.". Knowing that this is pretty much a 'tactic' employed (for a contemporary example, see: Octavian/Augustus, the master of amoral maneuvering) it is easier to criticize this "mild mannered" prince for his obviously illegitimate tyrannical bloodbath a few years back.

It's an important lesson for writers of satire though... Don't be TOO good at playing the Poe.

 

[Cheexsta]

I stand corrected, shows how much I know of Machiavelli

 

[Altipueri]

Why not have alliance honouring as a menu slider between: always dishonour - random - always honour
That way players can have their own style.

Edit:

OT - relevance of Machiavelli - almost every chapter has a reference to events of ancient Rome or Greece.

e.g. Chapter V

"The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by building therein a government consisting of a few people; eventually they lost them both. The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, destroyed them and did not lose them; they wished to hold Greece in almost the same manner as the Spartans held it, making it free and leaving it under its own laws, and they did not succeed; thus, they were obliged to destroy many of the cities in that provinvce in order to retain it."

The entire book is less than 100 pages, so really there is no excuse not to have read it.

 

[Hardradi]

OT - relevance of Machiavelli - almost every chapter has a reference to events of ancient Rome or Greece.

e.g. Chapter V

"The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by building therein a government consisting of a few people; eventually they lost them both. The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, destroyed them and did not lose them; they wished to hold Greece in almost the same manner as the Spartans held it, making it free and leaving it under its own laws, and they did not succeed; thus, they were obliged to destroy many of the cities in that provinvce in order to retain it."

The entire book is less than 100 pages, so really there is no excuse not to have read it.

Agree, if I remember correctly there are many references to the ancients. He uses them to support his points.

He has another book which isnt as interesting.