Could someone explain to me the coalition AE logic behind 1.5

[PeterCorless]

Yeah, I just trashed my Great Britain game. I was tired of seeing all the -200 relations with the AE. Fabricating claims -- alone -- is making people join coalitions against me. I haven't even taken anything in the HRE for centuries, but they all still hate me. Meh.

 

[Beagá]

Because they know you would if you had the chance?

Sorry to tell that but the game is meant for countries to expand by Sucession wars, claiming of thrones and vassalization as well. Instead of annexing every Goddamn 4 province nation in one war, vassalize them. Guess why diplomatic reputation exists? EXACTLY to make such strategies more potent. Vassalization also saves you a lot of ADM points.

 

[HansBaer]

But poor Venice :sleep:

 

[Beagá]

Which is why I went as a monarchy as them lol. Made by Tradition plummet on purpose, makes things easier than expected (sure, it IS a trade off, no pun intended)

 

[KamSolusar]

I find it amusing when ppl try to explain this kind of stuff away, like it's just another fun part of the game. Who cares why this country is theoretically interested in this province. The point is...it's not fun to play. It's actually the opposite of fun.

Im starting to think i misplaced my trust in pdox after discovering europa and proceeding to buy every game/dlc they make. This was possibly my favorite video game of all time before 1.4. Then...after i decide screw it and invest hours into 1.4(even tho half the game was literally ruined)...1.5 comes out...

Patch 1.5 pretty much took the least enjoyable parts of all the other patches and combined them. I know i know, i'm not a true fan of the game unless i think it's fun to have to wait an hour in between 5 minute wars. Even tho i didnt have to do that during any of the other patches...

Everyone tells me that this is the best part about a pdox game, all the "support." Well i wish to god they'd make up their minds, the wild swings from one extreme to the other have literally made me ashamed i ever recommended this game to so many friends, because the game now isnt the same game i told them about (this is not an mmo, WHY does it have to change SO much SO often!). Now it's a game mainly designed to frustrate you. Wanna fabricate ONE claim? That will cost you a coalition sir. I predict eventually itll get to the point where if u try to do ANYTHING except stay confined to your starting position, everyone else will dow u instantly. +50 AE cause you were moused over a country for too long. Watch, i bet thats next.

It's like the ppl at pdox dont even want us to enjoy their game (why else would they turn ae up higher than it was in 1.3?). They just want us to buy cosmetic dlc (which i did like a good boy btw). Starting to remind me of EA. And i know im gonna get flamed to hell for that last statement...but it's true. And sad.

 

[Korashy]

I would happily join every serious Anti-Ottoman coalition as a Poland player. Though a mere 9 AE really seems a bit harsh for making the AI to join in.

I've noticed that they joined at the very same instant as Venice (whom they were allied with). Venice couldn't join the coalition against me for a while since they were being trashed by the Mamluks for 5-6 years. So maybe having an ally in the coalition makes countries more likely to join?

I also had Hungary in the coalition with 0 AE. It was a weird game

 

[HansBaer]

I find it amusing when ppl try to explain this kind of stuff away, like it's just another fun part of the game. Who cares why this country is theoretically interested in this province. The point is...it's not fun to play. It's actually the opposite of fun.
...

That's strange, because it is more fun for me. I had, by far, the least fun with 1.4 once i got bored of watching my colonial nations. Just imagine there could be different expectations. Or maybe it's just me.

Which is why I went as a monarchy as them lol. Made by Tradition plummet on purpose, makes things easier than expected (sure, it IS a trade off, no pun intended)

Sadly, that's the only reasonable thing to do with every republic but 1 exception. I really hope they do something about them someday, i usually stay democratic for just until i get my first 30 years old ruler, then 6-6-6 all they way.

 

[brifbates]

One thing people aren't considering here (or at least don't appear to be) is that AE is NOT the sole determinant of whether a nation will join an existing coalition (or leave one for that matter). Relations also matter so while Poland only has 9 AE against those Ottos they also most likely have a nice hefty negative overall relation with them.

 

[Korashy]

One thing people aren't considering here (or at least don't appear to be) is that AE is NOT the sole determinant of whether a nation will join an existing coalition (or leave one for that matter). Relations also matter so while Poland only has 9 AE against those Ottos they also most likely have a nice hefty negative overall relation with them.

nope relations were at -20.

-10 different religion
-9 AE

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would happily join every serious Anti-Ottoman coalition as a Poland player. Though a mere 9 AE really seems a bit harsh for making the AI to join in.

If a good player had the Ottomans I'd join a coalition against them as Manchu.

Something very wonky here though. I've had members leave with massive AE after abusing their neighbors, which kind of defeats the purpose. We're seeing nations join with 9 and leave with 73. It makes me wonder if what we're seeing in practice was even intended...the nation that left in my case for example was not one that liked me. usually -150 or more and huge AE = coalition, not leave the coalition and stay out of it even in the face of more AE, despite being among the more competent powers left alive in the area.

It's definitely not AE only, or even just AE + relations.

 

[KamSolusar]

That's strange, because it is more fun for me. I had, by far, the least fun with 1.4 once i got bored of watching my colonial nations. Just imagine there could be different expectations. Or maybe it's just me.

I understand what you're saying. Coming from total war, infamy and then AE seemed like nothing more than anti-fun mechanics to me. However, after playing 1.3 for oh i dunno about 600 hours, i came to not only comprehend it's purpose on many different levels, but i even grew to like the concept. It's one of the many things about EU that make it chess and make total war checkers. And to be totally honest...i cant play total war any more. EU4 literally ruined those games for me lol, it's like going back and listening to new kids on the block after you've discovered the beatles. You're appalled that you ever found it "great," ya know.

I guess what im saying is that i grew used to it, learned to love it even. Then 1.4 comes along and turns a pure sandbox of earth into a sandbox of most of earth + a colonial overlord mini-game. Ruined a japan game for me that i had like 100 hours invested in. So yeah i was unhappy... but the game is too good to boycott for long, right. Clearly they over did ae reduction, but again...i got used to it.

So how many times are they gonna pull the rug out from under my feet? I comprehend that pdox games change greatly over time thanks to the never ending stream of dlc's, and like everyone else i can see the clear advantages to replay value this provides. But...for a game that is not a mmorpg... dear god they change the base mechanics in this game SO MUCH! Shouldnt things like AE have been "right" when the game launched? And if months after launch they decide it needs a tweak...shouldnt it just be that, a tweak? But man, the wild 180 degree turns with these base, core mechanics, so long after launch. Insanely high 1.5 AE, insanely low 1.4 AE...whatever. Just wish they'd make up their friggin minds ffs.

It's not the off-the-charts AE that annoys me per se. Its the way it changes so drastically month to month. When i wanna enjoy the beatles, i can any time, any where. When i wanna enjoy EU4...it depends on how badly they screwed up with this months patch. If they wanna make additions to it then great, but please allow me to enjoy the base game that i bought without constantly changing the core mechanics that make the game what it is at a fundamental level. /endrant

 

[Seelmeister]

Watch the language in here folks - no profanity

 

[HansBaer]

I understand what you're saying. Coming from total war, infamy and then AE seemed like nothing more than anti-fun mechanics to me. However, after playing 1.3 for oh i dunno about 600 hours, i came to not only comprehend it's purpose on many different levels, but i even grew to like the concept. It's one of the many things about EU that make it chess and make total war checkers. And to be totally honest...i cant play total war any more. EU4 literally ruined those games for me lol, it's like going back and listening to new kids on the block after you've discovered the beatles. You're appalled that you ever found it "great," ya know.

Haha, i get what you are saying. I preordered rome but bought EU 4 two weeks before it came out. I have played it for 2 hours since and those where 2 historical battles, EU can't give me that
My point is, i don't get what all the moaning is about. You can't have any serious discussion in these forum anymore because every thread gets hijacked by a "AE and game is broken"-guy sooner or later.
There are countless good threads with well thought of suggestions in the depths of forum page 5+, but they all vanish soon or get ignored from scratch because they don't have a "OMG" or "Broken" in their title.
I think there is a wide consensus that coalitions and AE add to the game rather than destroy it. It is far from perfect, but the direction seems about right if long term motivation is what they are aiming for. 1.4 was a misstep to allow everybody his WC if he wanted, now it's again time to get the balance right.
At least that's how i want it to be, we'll see. They'll probably reintroduce the PU CB on everyone back from 1.0

 

[petrocksteve]

It seems like AE is not the only thing that causes a coalition to form. I would be pretty interested in how, but do not have the time to test. For instance, I have heard claims in other threads that having good relations affects a nation joining a coalition.

I would also suspect that a nation's decision to join the coalition is not independent of others doing so. Are there similarities between the countries that start the coalition (and join on day 1-2) and those that join later? If there is, and you can predict it, it could mean added depth on the diplomatic side both before and after wars to minimize coalitions from small land grabs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It seems like AE is not the only thing that causes a coalition to form. I would be pretty interested in how, but do not have the time to test. For instance, I have heard claims in other threads that having good relations affects a nation joining a coalition.

I would also suspect that a nation's decision to join the coalition is not independent of others doing so. Are there similarities between the countries that start the coalition (and join on day 1-2) and those that join later? If there is, and you can predict it, it could mean added depth on the diplomatic side both before and after wars to minimize coalitions from small land grabs.

You can break any coalition instantly with an alliance, which is often possible. Nations won't necessarily leave with positive relations though, nor will they necessarily stay in with huge AE + negative.

 

[petrocksteve]

You can break any coalition instantly with an alliance, which is often possible. Nations won't necessarily leave with positive relations though, nor will they necessarily stay in with huge AE + negative.

True, but I am curious what other circumstances would cause them to leave a coalition. However, I am more curious in what would cause them to join the coalition. If they made it so an AI that is allied to a another nation that is in a coalition makes them more likely to join the coalition, that would be important and somewhat close the loophole that you mentioned.

 

[unmerged(811747)]

I hope I'm not stating the obvious but from what I've experienced in 1.3, if your relations are under 0 and they are outraged, they will start to join coalitions. If you increase relations to over +50, they start to leave the coalition. These changes are not always instant, as it depends whether they are at peace/war, their strength/loans?, whether they have a diplomat spare to join/leave etc.

I'm not sure if they join at threatened, and if they do, maybe its at a different relation value? e.g. under 0 or under -50?

Use your diplomats to get enemies out of coalitions, or better still, keep your relations with them above 0 (factor in the AE hit to come) to prevent them joining coalitions.

And hope like hell that your not the only country with AE against you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I hope I'm not stating the obvious but from what I've experienced in 1.3, if your relations are under 0 and they are outraged, they will start to join coalitions. If you increase relations to over +50, they start to leave the coalition. These changes are not always instant, as it depends whether they are at peace/war, their strength/loans?, whether they have a diplomat spare to join/leave etc.

I'm not sure if they join at threatened, and if they do, maybe its at a different relation value? e.g. under 0 or under -50?

Use your diplomats to get enemies out of coalitions, or better still, keep your relations with them above 0 (factor in the AE hit to come) to prevent them joining coalitions.

And hope like hell that your not the only country with AE against you.

No, I'm telling you, there is more to it than just relations. I deliberately chained on a coalition while using Tibet. In one of the wars, the coalition leader was Malwa (just joined), and since I wanted to vassal Jaunpur (just took land off them), I declared on Malwa. Malwa was coalition leader, so I full-on carpeted them + Jaunpur while my giant Mingvassals slapped the small portions of Ming left alive. This was a de-facto trucebreak on Jaunpur, using coalitions against themselves.

After taking Jaunpur as a vassal, accruing more AE right next to Malwa, Malwa left the coalition with 73 AE and a rival (not threatened) attitude. Nobody else they knew could possibly have more than me, so it's not like they left for another coalition. They never rejoined after 30 years, even when I full annexed another 4 provinces 2-3 years later. Literally everyone other than allied Ayuthaya abhors me, but coalitions aren't sticking in this situation, when it's precisely the most critical situation for them to exist.