Conclave pacts and alliances make zero sense

[killcreak]

All of the below examples are from a single game, playing as an orthodox King of Bulgaria.

Case 1. ERE is simultaneously in civil war and wars vs Abbasids and two religious uprisings. Its emperor's son is betrothed to my daughter and I'm offered an alliance. So far so good - ERE is in trouble and it seems logical to try to gain an ally. I refuse the offer getting no opinion hit with ERE and immediately offer them the same alliance. This time ERE refuses. Does this make any sense? Is the decision a coin flip? Or was their initial offer same random garbage?

Case 2. The catholic king of Serbia is in trouble too, we have marriage ties and I offer him an alliance. Despite the marriage ties and the "same interests" modifier he too refuses and loses half of his kingdom to Croats and Avars. Cause ... logic.

Case 3. Duke of Wallachia is an independent cousin of mine, we share the same dynasty. I cannot offer him even non-aggression pact let alone an alliance cause he's not my "close relative". Apparently I should marry him to another daughter of mine hoping for an alliance with him and his inbred brats.

Case 4. Out of the blue the petty king of Cornwall offers non-aggression pact. A giant relief for me, I was fearing Cornwall invasion into the Balkans since year 769.

 

[FifthMonarchy]

You laugh now but when it's nothing but pasties, cream teas and tin mining in the Duchy of Moesia how foolish you will look.

 

[Arsonik]

Case 3. Duke of Wallachia is an independent cousin of mine, we share the same dynasty. I cannot offer him even non-aggression pact let alone an alliance cause he's not my "close relative". Apparently I should marry him to another daughter of mine hoping for an alliance with him and his inbred brats.

SOOOOooo many times this.... In one of my current Af Munso games I've taken ol' Sigurdr's dynasty and put it as the head of the merchant republic of Italia. Obviously making sure to wipe out Venice and Amalfi. Well I had conquered every territory in de-jure Scandinavia, North Korea style, before my prepared invasion of Italy. Once the leader of the Invasion died, presumably Ragnar, I had let the realm split under gavelkind. I had 7 sons. I kept everything in Italy and they split the rest, auto-creating the de-jure Kingdoms of Scandinavia.

Needless to say, its a complete shit show up there 100-200 years later. My dynasty still owns the peninsula for the most part, but I have the same problems with diplomacy. Not that I need the non-aggression pacts. But you would think they would be inclined to accept my Alliance. I am indisputably the strongest ruler in the game currently.

Oh well. Such is the conclave. Aside from the auto call-to-arms and gimmicky diplomacy that's going on everything else seems fine.

 

[killcreak]

Case 5. Khagan Soma the Usurper has "cultural bonds" with me (we're both Hungarians). For that reason I am his ally and he's entitled to spam me with "join my wars" messages for -100 prestige if canceled. He's a stubborn guy and likes doing it every week or so. On the other hand he's NOT MY ally. So ... I'm his ally but he's not mine.

 

[Legionary Guard]

Case 6: Georgia has accepted an alliance with me, which is only natural as we're both Orthodox nations threatened by the Turks--and Georgia just declared a suicidal Holy War on the Seljuks, with half of Islam joining them.

 

[Bernard95]

Luckily it's supposed to be fixed in the next patch. It can be amusing when you can sucker somebody like the Karlings, ERE, or Lombardy into fighting your wars for you but of course it's a two-way street. As I've said in the past, the whole "NAP upon betrothal" and "NAP before alliance" doesn't bother me in the slightest but there are plenty of scenarios where both you and AI need to have the option to say "Sorry... can't help you now" like you could previously.

 

[killcreak]

The more you play ...

Playing duke of Barcelona, having Kingdom of Navarra as ally. Navarra calls me in two wars - de jure attacking one vs. Asturias and defensive holy one vs. Umayyads. I win him the holy one (with 88% participation) costing me 2k gold only to get the alliance broken half a year later because I did not participate in the war vs. Asturias. Really Navarra? I'm broken dude, with armies still replenishing, after winning you a war vs. the 800-pound in-game gorilla, which if lost, would've wiped you. WTF?

 

[kmh42]

I added you complains to the list.

 

[evan1119]

Case 7: I'm Louis II of Italy circa Old Gods bookmark. I'm allied to Charles the Bald whose not very popular with his vassals. Claimant faction of nearly every duke in Charles realm declares revolt seeking to put, you guessed it, ME on the throne. Naturally, of course, I'm obliged, as an ally, to put down these pesky upstart nobles who dare to offer me the crown of my ally. Then I die, naturally, fighting these disloyal but charitable traiters offering me a crown resulting in the war invalidating due to my death as the third-party claimant.

Ah Conclave...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Case 7: I'm Louis II of Italy circa Old Gods bookmark. I'm allied to Charles the Bald whose not very popular with his vassals. Claimant faction of nearly every duke in Charles realm declares revolt seeking to put, you guessed it, ME on the throne. Naturally, of course, I'm obliged, as an ally, to put down these pesky upstart nobles who dare to offer me the crown of my ally. Then I die, naturally, fighting these disloyal but charitable traiters offering me a crown resulting in the war invalidating due to my death as the third-party claimant.

Ah Conclave...

IIRC, you're not obliged to send any troops along. However, this isn't a Conclave problem - it's a long standing alliance issue v. I'm the "chosen one" of a faction for the throne. But yeah, feel free to blame everything on Conclave rather than it being an existing problem...

 

[evan1119]

IIRC, you're not obliged to send any troops along. However, this isn't a Conclave problem - it's a long standing alliance issue v. I'm the "chosen one" of a faction for the throne. But yeah, feel free to blame everything on Conclave rather than it being an existing problem...

I fictionalized this account only by making me Louis II. As a human, with a modicum of intelligence, I wouldn't send any troops but the AI does and does so always.

Conclave made allegiances automatic - pre-Conclave, the allies could refuse call to arms based on a variety of factors; such as interest and how much they liked their ally. Whether that would prevent occurrences like this, I don't know but certainly the issue I'm raising is the utter lack of choice - both for the AI and player - in whether to accept an allies call to arms.

Let's not be snippy.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I fictionalized this account only by making me Louis II. As a human, with a modicum of intelligence, I wouldn't send any troops but the AI does and does so always.

Conclave made allegiances automatic - pre-Conclave, the allies could refuse call to arms based on a variety of factors; such as interest and how much they liked their ally. Whether that would prevent occurrences like this, I don't know but certainly the issue I'm raising is the utter lack of choice - both for the AI and player - in whether to accept an allies call to arms.

Let's not be snippy.

Raising the inability to refuse call to arms is a different problem to the main one in what you mentioned though. The clear fault in *that* is that you're joining a war against installing yourself as king.

The AI rarely ever seemed to refuse other AI calls to arms pre-conclave (although that could be partially just my experience, and partially confirmation bias), and I did end up fighting in wars where one of the defenders in the war was in fact the faction claimant - in one case being the sole reason I as defender won...