Friendly ally becoming rival and breaking alliance

[aristocrat]

I thought the stupid AI behaviour on breaking alliances and declaring allies a rival should be passé.

In my game a friendly AI France with over 190 opinion about me is choosing me as rival and breaks their alliance. We even have a royal marriage and no there are no other great power allies for us two. I don't own a province they have a claim or core so why the hell is it happening.

Best thing is it now happend the 2nd time, after the 1st they wanted to restore right after the breakup. Now my opinon about them is to low.

This is not a individual case, it occured many times now, not only for me but also for the AI (like Austria breaking up with Castille and restoring 2 months later, or Timurids rival Crimea [both friendly] one day after the marriage between these 2)

Please solve this stupidity.

 

[Sandmann]

Yea I agree and would like to know why the AI make that move so I could possibly prevent it.

 

[Comradebot]

What stupidity? You've clearly become viewed as a threat to their interests at some point. Even if they don't have a claim currently, you probably have land or are expanding into land that France would rather see under their control. Don't tell me that you'd never consider doing the same if your ally suddenly started annexing and colonizing all that choice land you wanted for yourself.

 

[Hakairyu]

It's to the point where I fear taking land in the trade zone that is named after me as Crimea because I feel like my best buddy the Ottomans might not be so pleased about it. If someone is maintaining really high relations (175+ or something), the AI should not just flip from friendly to rival because there is a border.

Wiz, if you could please specify when the AI decides to flip out...

 

[shaldon]

What nation are you?

 

[Comradebot]

Yea I agree and would like to know why the AI make that move so I could possibly prevent it.

A little transparency wouldn't be bad here, but the general rule of thumb is "Don't take stuff your allies might be interested in". If you're in Germany and start pushing into the Rhineland or Netherlands, France may not be pleased. If you start colonizing, all of the other colonizers (especially those perhaps already in the region you're colonizing) will not be pleased.

I think a prime example is Bohemia and Brandenburg in 1444. They'll both ally one another pretty readily, but if either takes Neumark it'll almost certainly upset the other because Neumark is pretty prime real estate for both countries, and having your ally take it means either losing a county that's of your culture and an easier road to forming Prussia OR it means losing your easiest path to a coast. Why they heck wouldn't a country get upset over that?

 

[LarryLeica]

I've had this too, however, I'm not convinced it's actually broken (as some have suggested) more in need of tweaking.

Playing a game as Hungary (I'm a masochist)... I've successfully sustained an alliance with France since the beginning of the game, fought many wars together, and they 'trust Hungary implicitly'. I'd had a similar thing with Muscovy; however, after Poland integrated Lithuania I supported Ukrainian rebels and they won. I guaranteed them, we married, and allied, then Muscovy (now Russia) broke the alliance and rivaled me.

The Muscovy situation is ok, it fits in the sense that here's a newly independent nation that I have supported right on it's borders, it's a threat as they have no idea what my intentions are. However, a year later, they unrival me, and want to be best friends again, they even make an alliance with Ukraine and we all fight together in a war against a newly independent Lithuania. Straight after the war, poof, rivaled again, I took no territory in this war.

I think the bigger issue here is the flip-flopping, why go from implicit trust to rival so quickly?

One thing I have noticed is that I have guaranteed France (so I get called in as they are usually fighting Austria, or Italian states which is good for me), I did not guarantee Muscovy. Am curious if there is some hidden modifier at play here?

 

[aristocrat]

I am Tuscany and we have a huge border with each other So yeah im a possible threat. But why I rate this as stupid move is because I was a threat even bevor they allied me. My income and army were bigger and I was competing great power but still they want to ally me and have a very good opinion.

There is no change in the situation: I am a competing power and we have a huge border and well opinion is even better.

It leads to the question, why are they doing it? And what is the point of having a ally if he switches his mind so fast?
Okay maybe I should not ally a huge bordering nation you may say, but why should I ally a distant nation? A nation wich is never helping in any wars?

 

[londoner247]

In my experience the weird flip-flop behaviour tends to happen after one of you has finished a particularly tough war creating a significant power imbalance because of depleted manpower reserves and (possibly) low troop levels. I think it is odd that the AI reacts so dramatically and so suddenly to a short term shift in the balance of power and would prefer to see it take a little longer to assess the situation properly.

 

[laijka]

In my experience the weird flip-flop behaviour tends to happen after one of you has finished a particularly tough war creating a significant power imbalance because of depleted manpower reserves and (possibly) low troop levels. I think it is odd that the AI reacts so dramatically and so suddenly to a short term shift in the balance of power and would prefer to see it take a little longer to assess the situation properly.

What makes the decision even more odd is that they react so dramatically and suddenly to the short term shift and then doesn't further act upon it.

 

[Comradebot]

I am Tuscany and we have a huge border with each other So yeah im a possible threat. But why I rate this as stupid move is because I was a threat even bevor they allied me. My income and army were bigger and I was competing great power but still they want to ally me and have a very good opinion.

There is no change in the situation: I am a competing power and we have a huge border and well opinion is even better.

It leads to the question, why are they doing it? And what is the point of having a ally if he switches his mind so fast?
Okay maybe I should not ally a huge bordering nation you may say, but why should I ally a distant nation? A nation wich is never helping in any wars?

Dude, you're splitting hairs. Maybe before you were a threat, but your usefulness outweighed any risk. Clearly that opinion has changed.

I really don't see the problem. If you could border and ally one of the most consistently powerful nations in the world you would essentially win the game the moment that alliance is established.

 

[londoner247]

Dude, you're splitting hairs. Maybe before you were a threat, but your usefulness outweighed any risk. Clearly that opinion has changed.

I really don't see the problem. If you could border and ally one of the most consistently powerful nations in the world you would essentially win the game the moment that alliance is established.

I don't think anyone disagrees with your basic premise (that there is an ongoing assessment of your value as an ally) but what people are complaining about is the violent switch from best buddy to fierce rival. It would make far more sense for the relationship to deteriorate over time than to lurch from one extreme to the other, especially as that sudden shift is very, very rarely accompanied by a backstabbing, opportunistic declaration of war.

 

[aristocrat]

In my experience the weird flip-flop behaviour tends to happen after one of you has finished a particularly tough war creating a significant power imbalance because of depleted manpower reserves and (possibly) low troop levels.

Okay might be the case. I finished a war and had a depleted manpower however it seems stupid because they where sitting in the same boat, having no manpower and some decimated regiments.

And a real politician would not declare someone as potential target just because they have a weak moment (weak but still on par with them). None would ever ally them again because they are traitorous and may stab your back if you don't watch out.

As many said its the flip-flop bothering me.

Edit: For the politician thing: You were big buddies for a long time. I know you can declare somone as target because you have an interest in them and they are weak now but I won't ever do it if I am like BFF.

 

[Ratanka]

not the problem is that it HAPPENS but that there is NO CLUE when it will happen or why ... when it tells me why i am fine with it, but if a nation with +200 and friendly goes rival + breaking alliance ... it sucks ...

 

[aristocrat]

Dude, you're splitting hairs. Maybe before you were a threat, but your usefulness outweighed any risk. Clearly that opinion has changed.

Dude I don't have a problem if they break alliance because its not usefull anymore. But why am I usefull again one month, three month or one year later? Why is there no indicator that the relation is chilling?
Maybe they see me as a target now in my moment of weakness. Why don't they use the moment? Just the splitting no following backstab....

 

[unmerged(755241)]

I am afraid that my friend croatia will someday turn around and becomes my rival after helping it grow bigger.

"We are big now, so we must hate you now"

 

[hwoosh]

I don't think anyone disagrees with your basic premise (that there is an ongoing assessment of your value as an ally) but what people are complaining about is the violent switch from best buddy to fierce rival. It would make far more sense for the relationship to deteriorate over time than to lurch from one extreme to the other, especially as that sudden shift is very, very rarely accompanied by a backstabbing, opportunistic declaration of war.

The mechanic can't accommodate intermediate states between attitudes. And Wiz has edited the AI to be less and less schizophrenic in each of the last few major patches, so things are heading in the right direction, at least.

Also, ruler personality, which can have a big effect on attitude, changes every time the AI gets a new ruler, which makes good sense.

People just ought to go into the game with a different mindset. Don't anthropomorphize the AI; it doesn't have memory, it doesn't have feelings like gratitude or vindictiveness; it's just algorithms. The way to do well in the game is to study those algorithms and learn how to turn them to your advantage; not to try to make friends with them. This will be the case whether or not changes get made such as you want to see.

 

[jonman122]

What stupidity? You've clearly become viewed as a threat to their interests at some point. Even if they don't have a claim currently, you probably have land or are expanding into land that France would rather see under their control. Don't tell me that you'd never consider doing the same if your ally suddenly started annexing and colonizing all that choice land you wanted for yourself.

I've come to find that this argument has absolutely no merit. In a game where as england I took Judea for a mission and saved Byzantium from utter destruction while giving them back all of their cores (as an ally) in a war against the Ottomans, they suddenly considered themselves to be on par with me and I was immediately rivaled and alliances broken, while still being at 200 relations due to the provinces given in peace. They then died horribly to the Ottomans and after being nearly completely annexed, they wanted an alliance again. It's actually really dumb.

 

[wetblowdryer]

I wouldn't have a problem with this, but the AI never seems to do anything after this happens. All they do is send insults, embargo, and do covert actions. The AI will not directly declare war on you if you have a royal marriage (as far as I know. AI doesn't like stability hits) so it's very annoying and unneeded. I cannot remember in any situation where a past ally has directly declared war on me; the one who does that is me. (It hasn't been recent if not at all) I'd be open to this if it had some refinement. This would be, in my opinion, a great mechanic if it worked well like if coalitions worked well. (that's probably going to take at least a few months)

 

[hwoosh]

The AI will not directly declare war on you if you have a royal marriage (as far as I know. AI doesn't like stability hits) so it's very annoying and unneeded.

This is a fair point, but RMs do break on monarch death now (always? often? but it does happen, at any rate). But yes, the comparison with coalitions is apt. Both mechanics are like bulls in china shops.