Crazy coalition no peace

[zdlugasz]

Just because he's said that he an Johan decide what is and isn't an exploit doesn't mean that everything that they change is an exploit, balance/gameplay changes happen too you know. Getting 100% from sieging coalition warleaders after five years (if it wasn't bugged and giving 100% instantly) was correct, working as designed and working as intended, they just decided to change it.

and?

I never said it was wrong change. I wrote myself that it was making coalition wars too easy. And it was no sarcasm but fact. The second part of course was sarcasm.

If you are opposing my rhetoric figure, diatribe?, against definition of exploit than I have to inform you that although they have obviously last say about game, it does not make them omni-whatever and does not mean that they are always right (as we can observe via consequences, some of them unintended, of their changes).


Edit: I probably should have used ; instead of , in order to separate both parts through.

 

[zamieo]

It was making coalition wars too easy, so Devs defined it as exploit too. As Wiz' defined exploits in other thread: it is whatever he and Johan say is exploit.

Fair enough.

 

[Thesian]

It will be years before you get anything meaningful. even OPM will take a long time before they can be annexed.(which could lead to more coalition wars)

I could be wrong, but it seems defensive coaltion wars aren't supposed to be a good opportunity to get anything meaningful. Pretty much everything is unjustified demands anyway, so the best course of action seems to be to end the war as quickly as possible and take appropriate measure against the coalition during the following truce (burn down AE or engineer seperate wars against potential members).

 

[Frederick_Will]

I could be wrong, but it seems defensive coaltion wars aren't supposed to be a good opportunity to get anything meaningful. Pretty much everything is unjustified demands anyway, so the best course of action seems to be to end the war as quickly as possible and take appropriate measure against the coalition during the following truce (burn down AE or engineer seperate wars against potential members).

Depends on the situtation. I had a coalition war where I had 50+% warscore but I could only get 6-8% worth of warscore due to all the bonuses.(returning 2 cores i believe) In that same war, I sieged a 2PM crimea within the first war. They got to sit for the next 8 or so years under occupation doing nothing meaningful They got to eat all that war exhaustion for nothing. Several HRE OPM were also sieged up in a similar manner, and there was nothing I could do with them. I wouldn't have minded eating crimea, as no one would of cared except the ottomans(all the surrounding area belonged to me or my vassals)

It may be WAD but I do not think it is right. It will be 5+ years before you can do anything meaningful with them, including white peace. If you take any unjustified land, then you will end up with another coalition war, maybe even bigger than the one you are still fighting. They heavily buffed coalitions, which is a plus, but with those buffs, some of the other limiting factors should be removed or otherwise changed imo.

 

[bbqftw]

with coalition war and ally in war modifiers I don't see any reason why separate peace shouldn't be allowed in coalition war, you have something like 60 reasons you have to overcome just to get a white peace, and that's before length of war modifier.

 

[TheGrouch91]

I think I am missing the point of this thread. What exactly are we supposed to comment/answer here? It is just an ordinary colaition war after someone took "only" 3 high bt provinces in the HRE.

 

[Lot]

19 BT... you can carve out a big piece of Africa and not come close. Also they're hard to peace out because they were making gains, keeping that huge stack on Fyn and unsieging your land should result in fast CD.

 

[bbqftw]

you can carve out a big piece of Africa and not come close.

a culturally and religiously diverse non-Imperial area is harder to get coalitioned in than a culturally and religiously homogeneous region?

damn son I had no idea. Wiz must be out to ruin my ironmans. wake up sheeple

(to actually be helpful, Northern India is a wonderful HRE-esque place, with all the permanent war yet less aggressive expansion issues, if you're cognizant of what religious groups you're beating up on)

 

[Lot]

a culturally and religiously diverse non-Imperial area is harder to get coalitioned in than a culturally and religiously homogeneous region?

damn son I had no idea. Wiz must be out to ruin my ironmans. wake up sheeple

(to actually be helpful, Northern India is a wonderful HRE-esque place, with all the permanent war yet less aggressive expansion issues, if you're cognizant of what religious groups you're beating up on)

I was putting the OP statement of "only taking 3 provinces from the Hansa" in perspective, so i'm not sure why you're being snarky towards me.

And yes India is a wonderful change of pace from the HRE.

 

[Aries666]

To the OP unsiege your own land, if your are short of money siege Tirol, then start sieging capitals.

 

[Brylajok]

I am hoping 1.12 has some coalition improvements.

1. Namely I feel Rivals should not be able to join a coalition as a full member.
Rivals should be able to "support" a coalition defensively as isn't that their point? Not join a coalition and offensively bend them to its will because it is losing to it's RIVAL. Isn't that the point of a rival? Someone of similar size/strength?

I find it extremely disappointing when I have 2 rivals that are in 1 coalition and I have to keep beating them both down over and over AND they keep declaring offensively!!!

2. Perhaps make Rivals declare their OWN war alongside a coalition war if they want to declare offensively?

3. Junior partners (AI) should be able to peace out when they are fully occupied AND have a specific war exhaustion. Currently some larger nations sometimes peace out, but others don't at all. There is definitely some additional checks to peace out that should be being made.

4. AE from a rival should be reduced, as again, it is a rival. Perhaps only if it is an enemy? (rivals you?). This would make AI/Players have to choose their rivals more carefully. It would also make it less "gamey" since you couldn't just rival someone weaker and beat them down, they would have to "choose" to rival you back.

This would also allow a change perhaps to full coalition members to be able to defend anyone against offensive wars started by the target, but would be off set by the other nerfs, as this would make them more effective at stopping your overall aggression.

On top of this, coalitions could also have a separate peace deal option from white peace, extending the duration, can be done with junior partners to lengthen the truce period, and perhaps put an extended coaltion duration.


I would also like to see the threatend status expanded. Such that if someone is threatened but "loyal" they treat you mostly as they do now, but if they are threatened but upset they will join a coalition as a defensive member? I personally think the threatened status needs a "loyal" status, because if you did never did anything to directly upset an ally, just outgrow him, they shouldn't naturally be threatened and "upset", but instead threatened and loyal.

 

[Fiddler6291]

While coalitions are bad enough sometimes, I think in a way they do their job. They limit your expansion rate in a certain area not so much by being effective (it's still the same AI) but by making you avoid them cause fighting them over and over again is annoying.

I find it an elegant solution in its own right: if you can't find a good solution to a problem, come up with one that is so annoying to the player that he will try to avoid it as much as possible on his own.

But in a less "I don't like this and that" fashion, game play wise I do think it the game would benefit from a more dynamic coalition mechanic.
For example by increasing AE gains (yeah that's right) but also increasing AE loss rates even more. Also personally I would like to see coalitions that lose a war against the offender lose either a flat amount or percentage of their AE towards that country. Because far to often once your AE and rep penalties are higher than the +100 improved rep (which is not that hard especially in Europe) you're stuck with a perma coalition in practical terms unless you manage to become significantly stronger than it within the 5 years of peace.

Also, maybe it would be nice to restrict countries from "coalition hopping" in some way. If you leave a coalition you should not be able to rejoin it for a couple of years.
These "X left the coalition against us" should mean they're out and that's that. It shouldn't mean "I'm out until you lose 3k troops in some war"

 

[wergy]

This war was actually won. You captured their stack on the isalnd, now you can deal with them any way you wish. And thanks to their massive attrition there, you may as well just sit and wait till their manpower wears off. I always beat the Shogun as a damiyo like this

 

[gall]

I think game lacks some kind of defensive alliances (no dip slot, common enemy far stronger than each member) versus common enemy (say BBB), which would easily turn into coalition (increased AE gain). Of course decrease AE for the rest.
It would nice to have some way of replacing ruler of conquered coalition member to "friendly" one. I would reuse rebel mechanic. If you 100% them, then you have option to replace administration (control changed to pretender rebels? Nobles?). However some kind of timer (5 years?) should be in place to prevent abusing this mechanism too much. Successful revolt should grant usual relation bonus to counter AE + some AE against other coalition members, allies, RM partners.
Nowadays coalition are annoying and this is WAD. Best way to avoid them is waging a lot of wars (cash, reparation + gib prestige options) to have Truces with most of potential coalition members or waging wars in as much fronts as possible (just not all at once) + Influence and using correct CBs.