From Wiz's words "You can spend favours on increasing your trust on a particular country if you want

[tahlaskerssen]

From Wiz's words "You can spend favours on increasing your trust on a particular country if you want to build a strong alliance that will last for the rest of the game"

Is that what you mean when you have 90 trust with someone i helped in 5 wars and suddenly they desire all my land and break ally and ally my rivals?.

Becuase its prettty stupid, even once i got called as Nepal into 5 consecutive conquest wars of Delhi, i got like 70 favours, increased a lot of trust and i became the next target when they had plenty of enemy neighbours and land to conquer. I FELT USED.

I think adding somekind of malus for AI breaking alliances that have high trust would be nice, because it looks like at the time of measuring their enemies they don't even care about the trust system.

Just to be clear, I welcome smart and clever AI, my concern is about a feature that was included in a big expansion thats useless.

 

[Will Steel]

They need to rework the system of AI desiring land and the connection to trust. It seems to be broken right now.

I had a 120 year-long alliance with Orissa. We helped each other rise. Our relations didn't go down below 200 for last 70 years. We won countless wars together. Trust was around 85-95...and then suddenly one day Orissa decides it wants that one single insignificant corner province of my empire, adds it to the list of areas of vital interest, and immediately breaks this century-long honest and trustworthy alliance and friendship, and then also immediately rivals me.

It felt like I was politically molested.

 

[Pornek]

I prefer to have the AI play like a human. I break an alliance in a heartbeat after I milked it long enough. So I think its fair if the AI does it too. Though I wish it would actually behave like that, break the alliance due to WYP and dow on end of truce. Right now it breaks alliance and happen to not declare on me at all.

 

[Cragspyder]

Now you know how the AI feels.

 

[Will Steel]

I prefer to have the AI play like a human. I break an alliance in a heartbeat after I milked it long enough. So I think its fair if the AI does it too. Though I wish it would actually behave like that, break the alliance due to WYP and dow on end of truce. Right now it breaks alliance and happen to not declare on me at all.

I am a roleplayer, and I never do this. I don't want AI to behave in a gamey fashion like many EU4 players do.

 

[Pornek]

Breaking an alliance is gamey ? alright...

 

[Will Steel]

Breaking an alliance is gamey ? alright...

Even I don't break alliances that I have upheld for past 120 years. Not in the matter of just one day, just because I added some forgotten province as vital interest.

It takes a lot of things for alliances to break in reality, and it takes time. It is gamey if in just a single day someone broke a century long alliance that was perfectly fine last night.

 

[Red Death]

I believe an alliance with very high trust does not represent a simple alliance of convenience, it's closer to sworn brothers. At 100 trust, for the people of your country and nobility, etc. breaking the alliance and attacking is probably inconceivable, since they have grown up with the idea of this other country being their greatest friend. As such, breaking an alliance with very high trust should probably give you a stability hit to properly simulate the outrage among the government and the people. Of course, there should be a way to erode trust of allies over time to give you some more options. I also believe this would make the mechanic a lot more meaningful in multiplayer.

 

[Strangedane]

That's not even the worst working part of the trust/favour system.

I'm BB. Get early BI, and is set.

Alliances with Austria, England, Sweden and some electors.

100 trust with sweden, 75 favour.
Close to perfect.
Sweden decs russia and gets destroyed because he doesn't CTA me.
Russia annuls treaties between me and Sweden.
Trust is reset to 50.

That's just complete bullshit.

 

[Tacticus101]

I am a roleplayer, and I never do this. I don't want AI to behave in a gamey fashion like many EU4 players do.

How many historical alliances actually lasted for 200 years?

 

[Captain Frye]

They need to rework the system of AI desiring land and the connection to trust. It seems to broken right now.

I had a 120 year-long alliance with Orissa. We helped each other rise. Our relations didn't go down below 200 for last 70 years. We won countless wars together. Trust was around 85-95...and then suddenly one day Orissa decides it wants that one single insignificant corner province of my empire, adds it to the list of areas of vital interest, and immediately breaks this century-long honest and trustworthy alliance and friendship, and then also immediately rivals me.

It felt like I was politically molested.

WAD. Friendships weren't meant to last forever. At some point countries hit a crossroad, like IRL.

 

[tahlaskerssen]

How many historical alliances actually lasted for 200 years?

Portugal / England, more than 600 years.
France / Scotland


It doesn't matter tho, this is about an implemented feature in an expansion that's being useless.

 

[Tacticus101]

Portugal / England, more than 600 years.
France / Scotland


It doesn't matter tho, this is about an implemented feature in an expansion that's being useless.

Two examples, one of which ended 60 years into Eu4.

I am not arguing against your point that the trust/favours mechanic is undermined by strange AI logic in claiming territory, that I agree with. I just think the claim made that breaking alliances frequently is unrealistic is wrong, alliances very frequently completely reversed in days and diplomacy completely changing when a new leader came to the throne.

Yes, they need to make the AI less likely to rival and unally someone over two 10 development provinces, but at the same time a long term alliance should end if powers find themselves with overlapping zones of interest.

 

[andersonm]

An alliance is not by any means an unbreakable bond.... The Portugal / England alliance is legendary because it is one of the few in history that lasted more than 50-100 years. Other than a few exceptions countries routinely went from alliances to hostility in a matter of decades when the situation changed.

The system is working exactly as intended. You can ally with someone, win a few wars together help each other out but turns out as in the real world if they want the same thing as them you go from allies to enemies. Or maybe they've determined you're going to be a bigger threat to them than their neighbors... if you start small and are rapidly expanding who's to say they're not next?

One thing to consider is that just because they "trust" you to uphold your deals doesn't mean that your goals align or that they want you to achieve them. Nations states are inherently selfish by design, mutual cooperation can be great but in the end you are representing your state above all.

 

[Path]

It'd help if heirs were assigned a personality (or if they are have it visible), as it currently comes down a lot to dumb luck whether you can keep alliances. Knowing whether the next ruler is going to be militaristic might not help you keep the alliance, but at least you won't be surprised when he takes the throne and your ally suddenly desires half of Europe.

 

[Pornek]

Even I don't break alliances that I have upheld for past 120 years. Not in the matter of just one day, just because I added some forgotten province as vital interest.

It takes a lot of things for alliances to break in reality, and it takes time. It is gamey if in just a single day someone broke a century long alliance that was perfectly fine last night.

It gives a 5 year truce now, so it takes "time".

Portugal / England, more than 600 years.
France / Scotland

It doesn't matter tho, this is about an implemented feature in an expansion that's being useless.

I dont think its useless I have alliances that held for over 300 years. Im just not expanding into the direction where my allies and my interest will conflict. Maybe Delhi had diplomatic/ balanced leaders during the entire time of your alliance.

 

[SignedName]

They need to rework the system of AI desiring land and the connection to trust. It seems to broken right now.

I had a 120 year-long alliance with Orissa. We helped each other rise. Our relations didn't go down below 200 for last 70 years. We won countless wars together. Trust was around 85-95...and then suddenly one day Orissa decides it wants that one single insignificant corner province of my empire, adds it to the list of areas of vital interest, and immediately breaks this century-long honest and trustworthy alliance and friendship, and then also immediately rivals me.

It felt like I was politically molested.

Perhaps countries could use favors to request provinces of interest? Refusal might severely hurt trust, and that might make for a more "organic" way of allies getting mad at you.

 

[GC13]

I prefer to have the AI play like a human. I break an alliance in a heartbeat after I milked it long enough.

Do you break off alliances with a useful ally because you want one province from them that doesn't even have a trade bonus?

 

[Ruskhan]

Moscovy stubbed me in the back as Ruthenia! I thought Moscovy was my bruh! I mean they even supported rebels on my territory.

Ok the last part weren't true But seriously i never even use the trust system, i don`t see any point, they attack me regardless. The only way i have managed to keep alliance is by being bigger and meaner.

 

[Crass]

Since we are on the subject, does anyone knows what lowers trust? I was trying to do the "trustworthy" achievment (5 allies with 100 trust).
I had Aragon and Papal States both as 100 trust then Papal States decides to declare on Siena and calls me in.
Problem is that Aragon is allied to Siena so I will break one alliance here no mather what I do, so I honor the call (to not act dishonorble) and Aragons trust drops from 100 to 55. It is pretty annoying to say the least, alot of favors was lost on that day...