I know this has been discussed before, but i want to bring the ally mechanics back to your attention.
First i want to explain what i am talking about exactly:
Let's say you start as a random Dutch OPM. The basic strategy is to ally France or Austria or both and let them crush Burgundy. In reality, you will dow them or provoke them into attacking you, then hide your army somewhere until Austria and/or France wiped all their stacks. Then your glorious appearance on the battlefield comes in form of sitting on the desired provinces until they are sieged down, always watching France's war enthusiasm so they won't peace out before you can.
You can apply this strategy to almost any minor, e.g. "look for big brother, let him do the heavy lifting, earn the fruits of his endeavors"
For me, this is the biggest problem right now in game, as it takes the challenge of almost all my game starts, unless i start as a doomed one (Grenada, Byzantium, some Vassal). This can be compensated by self imposed restrictions and role playing, but only to a degree.
Don't get me wrong, i love how the games works and i was hooked longer than on most other games, but right now i am at a point where it is hard for me to get fun out of it anymore, because i don't like easy games or artificial houserules, i need my challenge.
Now the thread serves two purposes:
First, am i alone with this opinion?
You could say i am a "powergamer", in absence of a better term. Once a game really gets to me, as EU 4 certainly did and very few others did in recent years, i dive in really deep until i know every detail and am "better" than most (if it is competitive). So maybe if you have a more casual approach to the game, you won't feel the same at all. For me, it is the most pressing gameplay-matter of them all, far more important than the coalition and AE mechanics everyone is so opinionated about.
Second, suggestions and discussions of possible changes to the current mechanics?
The obvious solution would be to give everyone his individual warscore, but this of course sounds far easier than it is in reality. Who ends the war? If everyone takes 3 provinces, what's left of the victim? Who decides who gets what?
A easier and inferior solution would be to just prohibit alliances unless you are x% the size of country A. Of course, this would make many nations doomed from scratch and can be a problem for the HRE especially. Maybe if the AI used "proclaim guarantee" more often, this could be balanced.
I'm excited to hear about your opinions on this matter.
Please note that i don't count the "just don't do it" argument as valid when talking about (computer-)games, so keep it to yourselves if possible. Rules are there for a reason, that's why many people love ironman mode.
First i want to explain what i am talking about exactly:
Let's say you start as a random Dutch OPM. The basic strategy is to ally France or Austria or both and let them crush Burgundy. In reality, you will dow them or provoke them into attacking you, then hide your army somewhere until Austria and/or France wiped all their stacks. Then your glorious appearance on the battlefield comes in form of sitting on the desired provinces until they are sieged down, always watching France's war enthusiasm so they won't peace out before you can.
You can apply this strategy to almost any minor, e.g. "look for big brother, let him do the heavy lifting, earn the fruits of his endeavors"
For me, this is the biggest problem right now in game, as it takes the challenge of almost all my game starts, unless i start as a doomed one (Grenada, Byzantium, some Vassal). This can be compensated by self imposed restrictions and role playing, but only to a degree.
Don't get me wrong, i love how the games works and i was hooked longer than on most other games, but right now i am at a point where it is hard for me to get fun out of it anymore, because i don't like easy games or artificial houserules, i need my challenge.
Now the thread serves two purposes:
First, am i alone with this opinion?
You could say i am a "powergamer", in absence of a better term. Once a game really gets to me, as EU 4 certainly did and very few others did in recent years, i dive in really deep until i know every detail and am "better" than most (if it is competitive). So maybe if you have a more casual approach to the game, you won't feel the same at all. For me, it is the most pressing gameplay-matter of them all, far more important than the coalition and AE mechanics everyone is so opinionated about.
Second, suggestions and discussions of possible changes to the current mechanics?
The obvious solution would be to give everyone his individual warscore, but this of course sounds far easier than it is in reality. Who ends the war? If everyone takes 3 provinces, what's left of the victim? Who decides who gets what?
A easier and inferior solution would be to just prohibit alliances unless you are x% the size of country A. Of course, this would make many nations doomed from scratch and can be a problem for the HRE especially. Maybe if the AI used "proclaim guarantee" more often, this could be balanced.
I'm excited to hear about your opinions on this matter.
Please note that i don't count the "just don't do it" argument as valid when talking about (computer-)games, so keep it to yourselves if possible. Rules are there for a reason, that's why many people love ironman mode.
Last edited:
