Clarifying Coalitions

[R'hllor]

Gee, if only the Pope could do something to people with high infamy that he doesn't approve. Like, I dunno, something like excommunicating them? Oh but the Pope can't have powers like that, sure lets just make him fight a war like all the other non-holy fathers.

 

[R'hllor]

Ok lets all relax here and not threw blind hate against Paradox. As stated in the OP, this is not the thread for it.

Though I admit that currently things are utterly broken about coalitions in many, but not all cases. And the devs would be well advised to be more humble, because apparently some things don't work like they think they do.
However, new features have always been broken in CK2 DLCs for as long as I can remember. Time and patches will heal all wounds, I am sure...
Let's just keep the feedback honest, but civil everyone.

btw I am intentionally keeping this post tiny, so that the rage posters may easier overlook it ^^

The problem here is that coalitions are a bad idea on a fundamental level, regardless of implementation.

 

[epicfail1994]

Ok lets all relax here and not threw blind hate against Paradox. As stated in the OP, this is not the thread for it.

Though I admit that currently things are utterly broken about coalitions in many, but not all cases. And the devs would be well advised to be more humble, because apparently some things don't work like they think they do.
However, new features have always been broken in CK2 DLCs for as long as I can remember. Time and patches will heal all wounds, I am sure...
Let's just keep the feedback honest, but civil everyone.

btw I am intentionally keeping this post tiny, so that the rage posters may easier overlook it ^^

I don't see it as raging, I see it as players pointing out the details of what makes this update so broken and (for me, at least, and certainly some others) not fun. Currently coalitions are broken. I like the idea of them, but in the game's current state it's unplayable for me w/o cheating or fighting half the world every five years.

Edit: typo

 

[Cetan]

Rulers of different religions who are not neighbors should not be in a coalition together, unless they take measures to form alliances through favors like this patch implemented.

I should not have an unconnected Muslim nation, a Pagan nation, and a Christian nation on the same side of a same war against me simply because I am "infamous" and press a claim on a piece of land none of them have any right to.

 

[epicfail1994]

The problem here is that coalitions are a bad idea on a fundamental level, regardless of implementation.

What is your reasoning behind that? To me, coalitions could add some flavor to the game. They aren't unheard of in history, after all- I see it as an update to the alliance system.

Of course, this would require good implementation, not the current state of coalitions where everything turns into a medieval version of WWII.

(I generally agree, just wanted to know the reasoning you had)

 

[EmperorTrump]

He will join the coalition. He wont join the war and he has not in your picture.

I bolded & underlined the important parts.


Imgur isnt uploading pictures for me right now Ill add them later. I just did what you did and he isnt at war with me when Im catholic.

Oh, you're right. I thought we were talking about the pope joining the coalition against you if you gained the infamy through a holy war.

 

[Pornek]

Not just the Pope. It's completely illogical for the Kings and Dukes of Europe to unite in a grand coalition to defend a Muslim Emir against the Eastern Roman Empire. It's a broken mechanic.

Catholics wont join as defender in the holy war aswell.

 

[Ispil]

The biggest problem that I see with coalitions? They take into account that the countries that enter the coalition border the target. They don't take into account that the countries that enter the coalition border a country in the coalition.

 

[Asiak]

Just joined the forums here because I'm so displeased with coalitions. It seems silly to me that pursuing one claim can give you over 100% infamy, and have you fighting the whole world. As the ERE I gave myself a claim to Bulgaria to test out coalitions. After conquering Bulgaria, I had 200% infamy (or 700% I forget exactly), and the whole world joined a coalition against me. Looks like I won't be playing Ironman anytime soon.

Edit: But, seriously, having the whole world fight against you is simply ridiculous, as well as immersion-breaking.

You should post a screenie with the mouse hovering over the ERE emperor's infamy.

This is what we are talking about though. Even one the size of the ERE shouldn't get 100% infamy from just the Kingdom of Bulgaria. Could I see 25 or even higher then 25 sure but not 100.

Additionally, I feel that the devs calling people who disagree with the changes in the patch to be liars as well,

There's a LOT of assumptions and outright lies circulating both here on the Paradox Forums and on Reddit. Here we go:

That's fine that you feel that way except they never called people who disagree with them liars.

He(or she? I don't know) simply stated that there are a lot of lies floating around. You can't deny that lies and incorrect information are indeed circulating.

Turning "lies" into "calling people who disagree with the changes into liars" doesn't help.

 

[durbal]

I also wanted to add that basing coalition range off diplomatic range is inherently broken --if it's based on the agent rather than the target (which it probably is and is broken in and of itself), since diplomatic range increases for same-culture and same-religion then it creates situations like the Miaphysite King of Abyssinia having the Miaphysite Armenians join a coalition against him while the Muslim Andalusians are too far away, even if they're equidistant.

 

[R'hllor]

What is your reasoning behind that? To me, coalitions could add some flavor to the game. They aren't unheard of in history, after all- I see it as an update to the alliance system.

Of course, this would require good implementation, not the current state of coalitions where everything turns into a medieval version of WWII.

Simply for the reason that there were no coalitions during middle ages, and balance of power didn't exist as a concept. During this timeperiod, realms should fall apart due to internal factors, rather than stay as blobs while their neighbours all magically communicate with each other and are able to know when one is attacked. In other words, the mechanic is an ahistorical and artificial limit that doesn't stop blobbing, but only slows it.

 

[LordPeter]

The problem here is that coalitions are a bad idea on a fundamental level, regardless of implementation.

Okay, that I disagree with. I personally just feel it should be limited to the utmost extreme cases, like e.g. the Mongols or Aztecs overrunning the entire known world. I can see Muslim Iberia and Christian France fight the Azetecs together, but not the ERE emperor getting crushed by the Pope and Caliph alright. However, that would then be (arguably massive) tuing imo, and not render the entire idea bad.
I have to admit though, that I mostly play with the CK2+ mod on, which has the entire vanilla decadence thing completely disabled because it didn't work properly. So I am not defending coalitions blindly, I am just saying "let's first see if they can be brought to order".

But that is our personal opinion, and while I don't want to imply that everyone here is raging, I am rather suggesting to put those things in a seperate thread, which I wouldn't call "United players against Coalitions", but rather "Feedback: Why Coalitions are broken".

 

[Asiak]

Catholics wont join as defender in the holy war aswell.

This appears to be a regular offensive holy war declared by the Emperor for Kartli, with the infamy map in the background. I don't think even same religion can offer join an aggressor in a holy war only a defender.

 

[MrNibbles]

Ok peeps, let's try to keep it civil here. Regardless if you like the mechanic or not, please try when giving feedback to keep it as constructive as possible. I can assure you all, constructive feedback gets heard way better than anything else.

 

[epicfail1994]

I'm gonna take some time to clarify some misconceptions regarding coalitions. There's a LOT of assumptions and outright lies circulating both here on the Paradox Forums and on Reddit.

That's fine that you feel that way except they never called people who disagree with them liars.

He(or she? I don't know) simply stated that there are a lot of lies floating around. You can't deny that lies and incorrect information are indeed circulating.

Turning "lies" into "calling people who disagree with the changes into liars" doesn't help.

That was my interpretation of it, which was a bit of a rash judgement on my part. I haven't seen any "outright lies", however, but I also haven't read many threads on these forums deeply. Screenie coming up.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

I do think the map mode has very poor presentation. If it's very unlikely a ruler would join a coalition war, they shouldn't join a coalition together. The Pope and the Umayyads vs Charlemagne shouldn't appear on the map mode. The Pope and a Finno-Urgic high chief shouldn't appear for distance.

I'd prefer to see separate coalitions opposed to one giant one.

 

[R'hllor]

The biggest problem that I see with coalitions? They take into account that the countries that enter the coalition border the target. They don't take into account that the countries that enter the coalition border a country in the coalition.

This. So much this.

 

[Zolotaya]

They're still both christian. Why would the pope ever join in a defensive coalition with muslims against the byzies. It just doesn't make any sense. I would understand if Antioch joined in a coalition with some local muslim rulers if the Byzies were eating up the holy land, but this I don't particularly get.

Why would Catholic troops sent to help the emperor sack his capital and establish a Catholic realm in the place if the existing Orthodox realm?

 

[epicfail1994]

Simply for the reason that there were no coalitions during middle ages, and balance of power didn't exist as a concept. During this timeperiod, realms should fall apart due to internal factors, rather than stay as blobs while their neighbours all magically communicate with each other and are able to know when one is attacked. In other words, the mechanic is an ahistorical and artificial limit that doesn't stop blobbing, but only slows it.

Agreed- while I think coalitions have potential by expanding upon the existing alliance mechanic, as things stand now they are only detrimental to playing the game.

 

[Pornek]

I do think the map mode has very poor presentation. If it's very unlikely a ruler would join a coalition war, they shouldn't join a coalition together. The Pope and the Umayyads vs Charlemagne shouldn't appear on the map mode. The Pope and a Finno-Urgic high chief shouldn't appear for distance.

I'd prefer to see separate coalitions opposed to one giant one.

Yeah agree. Seems to be the biggest problem. People see all the map in red -> whole world is in a coalition -> not necessarily like that.