Feature request: non-marital alliances

[DerOstkonig]

I think this is something that is sorely missing from the diplomacy aspect of the game. Particularly when you look at fragmented realms like Northern Italy or Greece in the later starts.

Not all alliances in the period were based on marriage, not by a long shot. Basically, I think a logical and historically accurate way to represent alliances would be:

Add a form alliance button to the diplomacy menu, that opens up an offer window, where you can offer skilled courtiers, gold, or provinces in exchange for an alliance for a choice of periods (10, 20, 30 years, all void on death of monarch). Alliances can be voided, offering the cancelling party the choice between returning the payment given for the alliance, or taking a calculated prestige hit based on the value of the alliance and the payment for it. Dishonoring alliances would cost roughly double the marital alliance, since it is a purely military alliance, and you've just dishonored your sole obligation in that regard.

The cost of striking an alliance would count:
the relative strength of the two characters involved.
The strength of anyone with a CB on the offering character.
Traits in common or negative/positive traits.
Prestige

all balanced by the value of the tribute from the offering character.

What does the community think?

 

[Evil Crusader]

My only concern is that right now you have gameplay tension between marrying for eugenetics and marrying for alliances, and a separate option removes part of that need.
Oh, and something that transfers land is something you always have to be wary of.

 

[Garranger]

Maybe you could have something like the same-religion call to arms/offers to join war when you get holy warred/jihad'ed. I think then about a kind of dejure thing where rulers within a fragmented realm might stick together against foreign invaders.

So if the Holy Roman Empire, or France or the ERE (or anyone else outside k_italy) attacks an independant ruler in k_italy de-jure, (assuming either k_italy isn't formed at the minute, or that the dukes and counts are independant of k_italy?) the independant rulers under k_italy are likely to join into the war to defend against the foreign invader. Maybe this would only work for a kingdom title that has already existed, like in k_brittany, or if the owner of the kingdom title is of another religion (it always puzzled me how you can get half of europe to help you out if you get holywarred by the muslims in spain, but not a single neighbour is going to give you a hand if the muslims just go for a dejure claim)

I don't know if this makes sense, or if I've even written this coherently, and keeping in mind my understanding and knowledge of these things is not of an academic nature at all, I hope it makes sense on the off-chance that I have any idea of what I'm writing.

 

[Sustang]

One of the worst parts of the alliance system is that paradox can't even deal with interfaith marriages. So now plenty of historical alliances, even with marriage components at times (Byzantine-Khazar) can't happen because a pagan khazar has some revulsion to "infidels." And a Byzantine emperor would, for some reason, not give his daughter to a khan to crush muslims together.

 

[DerOstkonig]

Maybe you could have something like the same-religion call to arms/offers to join war when you get holy warred/jihad'ed. I think then about a kind of dejure thing where rulers within a fragmented realm might stick together against foreign invaders.

So if the Holy Roman Empire, or France or the ERE (or anyone else outside k_italy) attacks an independant ruler in k_italy de-jure, (assuming either k_italy isn't formed at the minute, or that the dukes and counts are independant of k_italy?) the independant rulers under k_italy are likely to join into the war to defend against the foreign invader. Maybe this would only work for a kingdom title that has already existed, like in k_brittany, or if the owner of the kingdom title is of another religion (it always puzzled me how you can get half of europe to help you out if you get holywarred by the muslims in spain, but not a single neighbour is going to give you a hand if the muslims just go for a dejure claim)

I don't know if this makes sense, or if I've even written this coherently, and keeping in mind my understanding and knowledge of these things is not of an academic nature at all, I hope it makes sense on the off-chance that I have any idea of what I'm writing.

I don't think this kind of system is enough, considering the Dukes of Italy or the Despots of the fragmented Byzantine Empire were just as or more hostile towards each other than they were towards outsiders. Sometimes they strike alliances among each other, but not for long, and this should be modelled.

One of the worst parts of the alliance system is that paradox can't even deal with interfaith marriages. So now plenty of historical alliances, even with marriage components at times (Byzantine-Khazar) can't happen because a pagan khazar has some revulsion to "infidels." And a Byzantine emperor would, for some reason, not give his daughter to a khan to crush muslims together.

Non-marital alliances should not be limited completely by religion, though there should be a reluctance to commit to an cross-religious alliance for sure.

 

[Azarias59]

I'm sure paradox will listen to you. After all, the 129th time's a charm.

 

[DerOstkonig]

I'm sure paradox will listen to you. After all, the 129th time's a charm.

I'm just trying to divert myself from raging about all the bugs. Maybe if we don't request bug fixes, they'll actually happen!

 

[Azarias59]

I'm just trying to divert myself from raging about all the bugs. Maybe if we don't request bug fixes, they'll actually happen!

Good point.

 

[Will Steel]

I would love to see non-marital alliance. This feature was fully present in CK1, I see no reason why they chose to remove it.

It has a historical precedent too. Besides, that would allow us to form alliances with lords of other religions. This happened many times during the wars of Reconquista when some Christian lords would ally with neighbouring Muslims to face off their fellow Christians (usually in case of rebellions of dukes).

 

[Yxklyx]

The game does have non-marital alliances. They're based on culture - I believe it needs to be same culture. In my game as Ireland I was allied with Scotland for a while due to "cultural ties" as we were both Irish.

 

[Will Steel]

The game does have non-marital alliances. They're based on culture - I believe it needs to be same culture. In my game as Ireland I was allied with Scotland for a while due to "cultural ties" as we were both Irish.

I haven't seen that ever, considering that there are so many fellow Germanic kingdoms in my broken-up HRE game and none ever comes to help me out against France. Playing 2.1.6. though.

But still, it is not like that in history, as if HRE Emperor and Castille were unable to ally with each other just because one was German and other was Spanish.

 

[Garranger]

I once attacked the Byzantines to put a countryman with a claim on the throne there, for a while we had a cultural tie so I could help him beat revolts; I think that's how it works. A cultural tie being there so the new conqueror doesn't get wacked immidiately, but then it goes away after a few years or maybe a generation.

 

[eliaspays]

'Common enemy' alliances would also be good.

 

[Michaeldsuarez]

'Common enemy' alliances would also be good.

The problem is that the AI will have trouble finding out who the common enemy is, plus CK2 doesn't have a balance of powers system or a check and balances system with regards to expansion. CK2 doesn't have the Rivalry system, the Aggressive Expansion penalty, or the Coalition reaction system present in EU4. The AI would have to be taught how to recognize a threat and how to distinguish between a state that they want to help expand and a state that they want to prevent expanding.

 

[DerOstkonig]

The problem is that the AI will have trouble finding out who the common enemy is, plus CK2 doesn't have a balance of powers system or a check and balances system with regards to expansion. CK2 doesn't have the Rivalry system, the Aggressive Expansion penalty, or the Coalition reaction system present in EU4. The AI would have to be taught how to recognize a threat and how to distinguish between a state that they want to help expand and a state that they want to prevent expanding.

Well better late then never I say when it comes to the idea of adding some form of badboy mechanic to the game. AE/badboy/infamy is not something that just magically cropped up in 1444, so it should be part of AI disposition calculations (so, present, but not nearly as extensively as in other Pdox titles). In the context of this game, positive disposition for being a benign presence to another leader also seems reasonable to help foster alliances.

 

[loup99]

Under certain specific conditions this should be possible (to avoid the gameplay conflict mentioned above).