People should really wait for the next patch... Paradox knows about the problems 
- 3
- 3
Clarifying Coalitions
- Thread starter rageair
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I am a veteran EU4 player and modder, I've played ever since the demo came out, played every patch in single-player and multi-player and I can tell you with absolute certainty that I absolutely hate these additions: cascading alliances (it was removed eventually), aggressive expansion, coalitions, shattered retreat and zones of control. In the current patch it's very sad because there's a lot of developed provinces and if you take one province, you'll get a 4-5-6 country coalition that will instantly DOW you. Lucky I hate playing Ironman and I can reload until they don't actually instantly DOW me and I can get with my army to my fort in the mountains. Nothing was ever done and nothing will ever be done because Paradox hates players expanding. You cannot actually reproduce in this game the historical Ottoman expansion in its historical timeline because 1. it's simply impossible because of the province cost and coring cost and 2. even if it was possible somehow, by minmaxing or saving mana or something, you would get a coalition with half the world, including indians, the pope and orthodox countries in the same offensive coalition.
My most enjoyable game was with Extended Timeline mod where costs are lower.
- 5
- 1
You subjugated "just" a whole kingdom?I just thought I'd drop this here. This was just for subjugating Poland.
That action would have certainly raised some eyebrows in the Middle Ages...
- 10
- 4
I just thought I'd drop this here. This was just for subjugating Poland.
Is this supposed to be weird? You're the strongest power in Europe now, and aside from Francia, which is not even in the coalition, nobody else poses a threat to you. Honestly you could probably manhandle the entire coalition.
- 7
- 3
I just thought I'd drop this here. This was just for subjugating Poland.
Except for that Middle Eastern country, those random French counties and Ireland, this is not such an outrageous coalition.
- 4
- 2
Also the pope. If I had to guess, any realm in diplomatic range that didn't think it could beat them in a one on one fight is what joined the coalition. Which makes sense on one level.
It would probably look far more normal if they restricted it down to all adjacent countries spanning out until the realms in the coalition could match the target's troops by a factor of 1.5 with the cap on that distance being diplomatic range with a heavy factor for realms you have a non-tribuatary CB on to join the coalition regardless of the aforementioned adjacency.
But honestly, at that size, that may be what we're already seeing. Especially since that one inland count in ireland is the only one who couldn't be bothered to join the coalition. Its because he can't declare a conquest war against him.
If they restricted the coalition to something relative to the number of troops you can produce and had the opposing culture, religion, and the smallest and closest realms join first then it would probably always look normal.
To give infamy weight, the relativity could be tied to the infamy value. At 25% infamy they would join til they could match your military numbers. Scale that up to double your military joining the coalition at 100% infamy.
Last edited:
- 1
So, one can work on weaking coalitions through brethoral that gives non-agression pacts. It is still a little bit weird to me inter-religious weddings, but lets say it is ok ...
What about the players like me, that have not bought Conclave, and cannot marry our family with rulers of other religions?
What about the players like me, that have not bought Conclave, and cannot marry our family with rulers of other religions?
- 1
The screenshot is a strong argument in favour of coalitions. It's not like all those countries are fighting you.
Why not roll back to the last patch?
- 5
- 3
I have an Ironman saved game converted to the new patched version on steam cloud.
But yes, once I finish that game, that is what I am forced to do.
Last edited:
which is why when william conquered england, he was faced with a massive coalition. or when knut conquered england and norway he was faced with a massive coalition. or when charlemagne conquered saxony he was faced by a massive coalition. or when temujin came out of the steppes and conquered land after land, he was faced with a massive coalition.
oh wait.
- 10
- 3
So, let's say you conquer England.
You get a coalition against you.
You don't attack anyone else in the next few decades. Coalition is NOT a threat to you.
Maybe you do decide to conquer another kingdom. You pick one that is not part of the coalition against you.
So, coalition is again NOT a threat to you.
- 5
- 3
Which, again, falls apart when conquerors like knut and temujin conquered several in very short amounts of time. with no coalitions in sight.
- 8
- 1
Which is why, like I said many times, we just need some numbers fixed.
And we have devs confirming that they will do it in the next patch.
- 1
What's great is that all this happened within a single day after I won a Holy War for Badajoz. The parts that didn't join the coalition are all revolts and wound up joining with the next few months.
That coalition leader (if I recall correctly, a single province nomadic tribesman) had a great communications setup.
That coalition leader (if I recall correctly, a single province nomadic tribesman) had a great communications setup.
- 5
- 1
I'm sure you could test that out ingame. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get a coalition from a single subjugation war unless you're already big. Nations of equal size can't join a coalition against you.
go try win the 1066 start as the norwegian king harald hardrada during his invasion of england.
Honestly coalitions should only be limited so that it's just realms that border you. Because again, rulers further away than that wouldn't give a shit.
- 4
Hopefully, strong claims on a kingdom will produce much less infamy than Subjugation CBs in the next patch.
After conquering a few provinces in the North of Scotland, the whole world (including the Mongols, before they had a coalition form against them) decides India must be stopped.
I think this is one of the rare examples where it might make some sense, but not much.
In the latter case, even that fails. Indians reacting to the invasion of Iceland should never be a thing, even if the Empire that initiates the attacks borders both. The Europeans bordered the Mongol Empire but only a vague clue that Japan (which the Mongols attacked at nearly the same time) even existed.
- 9
- Status