Defensive war-Should Allies get Gold-Compensation? -discussion

[Blodhevn]

So its quite simple my question is why doesnt allies who have a certain amount of participation score who helped win the defensive war get a small portion of the gold the attacker is forced to pay?

The allies are willingly sacrificing their men, their treasury to aid the player (very often) and to go bankrupt just to aid you and they get nothing. The AI as much as we complain about how bad our allies are they help a ton and to their own detriment.

This would also incentivise players to actually help their allies as well and not just cheese accept allies requests of help.

 

[The Shacks]

Wars in general need to be better, like other paradox games and have more dynamic end results. I hate Stellaris and Ck2s utterly static wargoal system

 

[Dunerat]

On a related note, Defensive Wars need a "pullout" button/decision for the non-war leader to leave any ongoing conflict, even at the cost of massive diplomatic penalties in terms of Opinion, Prestige or break of the alliance itself;

It has happened to me above 0 times where I make the "mistake" of helping out AI in their regional landgrabs or civil wars, only to be bogged down by an ever-escalating conflict taking years to resolve, postponing my own plans prior - and as you are merely an Ally and not the War Leader, your side will not Whitepeace on their own ever.

 

[Riaman98]

War will get its own DLC on level with tours and travel by next yr probably

 

[Ttrgw]

I think a hook is a good way to pay for the request to participate. Rulers who cannot win a war without the help of others should be given the subordinate position they deserve.

 

[Silens]

Alliances need an overhaul anyway, so that huge empires or kingdoms from across the world don't jump into huge debt and a year-long war across the continent for the promise of marriage between their 5th daughter and some ugly imbecile that won't inherit more than a duchy at most. They're just too willing to die for nothing and open themselves for their own factions at home.

Let them say no, let them only send a merc company, let deceitful or greedy rulers make promises which they don't keep, or send a bit of gold and call it a day. Or let the ruler use a (strong) hook on a vassal, so that they have to fight in the liege's stead to fulfill the alliance.

And, of course, military assistence should only come after years of such a pact existing. Until then it should be a NAP. Or if it was a (costly) condition in a grand royal wedding.

Maybe one day, when we get trade and resources and an actual economy, protecting economic interests will become a valid reason to ship huge amounts of troops across an ocean. I can see even the kings of England and Iberia helping the ERE defend Cyprus from falling into Muslim hands, to protect the flow of cheaper resources like silk and spice, which everyone needs for their courts one way or another.

Likewise, defensive allies should - as OP wants - assess the overall war situation, their own gold, cut their losses and pull out if it's in their best interest. Maybe a higher share of the win if their side wins, to keep them as allies? Maybe the occasional hook to keep them interested? Or they just go, because there's nothing there for them anymore. Could look like this:

 

[Voy]

What if ally-participation was harder to guarantee for certain wars and you needed to incentivise with a gold cost, hook or another reward?

 

[LeoDiesis]

What if ally-participation was harder to guarantee for certain wars and you needed to incentivise with a gold cost, hook or another reward?

This. Especially in the case of aggressive wars and/or scaling with the cb itself versus the enemy alliance expected power.

But as others mentioned, major changes probably need the future (I hope) rework to alliances. For now even just a share of war reparations scaling with war participation or a weak hook would do.

I wonder if the low flexibility of the warfare system (confirmed by the devs) affects this too. Then even "simple" changes could be already more complex than we think.

 

[Riaman98]

Alliance should indeed be reworked, a simple betrothal should only cause a non-aggression pact, in order to call someone to an offensive war one might either require at least +50 opinion or a hook or a relation like lovers, soulmate, friends etc.

 

[boorkie]

This would also incentivise players to actually help their allies as well and not just cheese accept allies requests of help.

IMHO the main incentive to help your allies would be to preserve their strength (in case of defensive wars) or make them even more powerful (in case of offensive wars)

It would matter more if making alliances was harder and breaking them was a bigger deal than it is at the moment.

In general I think alliances should be more impactful than they are at the moment to incentivise both human and AI players to nurture them as much as possible. I have high hopes of the May patch with vassal stances, heir preferences and other tweaks to make make alliances matter more

 

[Grimmeg]

I think there should be a system of progression in alliances when you marry one of your child/sister/etc.

1- Non-agression pact: Happens when you sign a bethrotal/marriage.

2- Defensive alliance: Happens 5 years after the contract is signed. To be called, the relation must be at least +15 or be a friend/lover/etc.

3- Military alliance: Happens 10 years after the initial contract. To be called, the relation must be at least +30 or be a friend/lover/etc.

Whn an ally is called in your war, he will automatically get a weak hook on you and the A.I will ask for something in return depending on their personnality traits : gold, prestige, piety or renown. The scale of the cost would be dependant on how much troops the ally will provide and it would be paid by an upkeep each month.

For example, if you call out someone with 10 000 troops, you would have to give each month: 10 gold, 10 prestige, 5 piety or 1 renown.

Also, if a war is dragging down and doesn't have a meaningfull progression, anyone could have the option to get out after 5 years if the score is under +10%.

What do you think about the concepts? Would it be too harsh on the player or not?

 

[Riaman98]

I think there should be a system of progression in alliances when you marry one of your child/sister/etc.

1- Non-agression pact: Happens when you sign a bethrotal/marriage.

2- Defensive alliance: Happens 5 years after the contract is signed. To be called, the relation must be at least +15 or be a friend/lover/etc.

3- Military alliance: Happens 10 years after the initial contract. To be called, the relation must be at least +30 or be a friend/lover/etc.

Whn an ally is called in your war, he will automatically get a weak hook on you and the A.I will ask for something in return depending on their personnality traits : gold, prestige, piety or renown. The scale of the cost would be dependant on how much troops the ally will provide and it would be paid by an upkeep each month.

For example, if you call out someone with 10 000 troops, you would have to give each month: 10 gold, 10 prestige, 5 piety or 1 renown.

Also, if a war is dragging down and doesn't have a meaningfull progression, anyone could have the option to get out after 5 years if the score is under +10%.

What do you think about the concepts? Would it be too harsh on the player or not?

Add hooks to your suggestions and it is perfect.

 

[Eltener]

Didn't realise this was a hot take but I don't think you should need a hook for every single character interaction in the game. Allies should happily come to your defence regardless of hook if either they stand to benefit or it fits their traits to do so (e.g. loyal, just, brave)

 

[Ivashanko]

This. Especially in the case of aggressive wars and/or scaling with the cb itself versus the enemy alliance expected power.

But as others mentioned, major changes probably need the future (I hope) rework to alliances. For now even just a share of war reparations scaling with war participation or a weak hook would do.

I wonder if the low flexibility of the warfare system (confirmed by the devs) affects this too. Then even "simple" changes could be already more complex than we think.

From what I understand, programming limited wars is brutally difficult. Which is a shame, since Paradox games would be a lot better if the AI understood how to wage smaller conflicts.