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

[theKLR]

Well, they clearly stated trust would make them less likely to break alliance/wanting your stuff. At least to my understanding. So trust just made them not attack sooner. If so you just get 100 trust and totally remove a future threat.

Just read up on the italian/napoleonic wars to find out how common and realisric this stuff is. I like the way it is, makes for more challenging and realistic gameplay.

What i do agree with is how the current province interest system is bugged, both in how its weighted for AI (1 province is enough to break long alliance) and how stupid their interest is (low-dev provinces far away in allies land). I really think thats the main problem.

Also, breaking alliance with high trust voluntarily should have an severe penalty (stab and prestige) and make all current allies lose lots of trust (except maybe if the country in question is a rival or threat).

And yes, trust shouldnt be reset if forced to break alliance, but maybe slowly decay while not allied.

 

[theKLR]

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...

Think seperate peace deals and offensive CTA's that breaks alliance is bad. Defensive CTA's should be fine

 

[hwoosh]

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...

Being forced to choose between two of your allies if one declares on the other has been a part of EU4 since basically forever. The major thing that's changed is now there's a flat -2000 modifier to re-establishing your alliance if your trust got tanked, and you can now see the trust value displayed directly in the UI.

 

[Ricox]

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, as the player, rarely break long-time alliances with long-time friends that both have helped each other for centuries under normal circumstances. I have been often FORCED to do it, though, because I know the circumstances under which it's almost inevitable that my life-long friend will rival me simply because we're finally bordering each other and might have conflicting ambitions... but not over 1-2 worthless provinces, that's just bad design. If I would purposely fuck over an AI, I would at least do it over a significant reason, such as them becoming way too strong and threatening me, and me wanting to take huge chunks of their land and/or release parts of their empire, not to take a 5 development province that is not even close in its value to the friendship I have with that country.

 

[DukeDayve]

I see no real problem here. All through history this is how it worked. Two nations form an alliance when they have nothing to gain by fighting one another but lots to gain by fighting a common enemy together.

And also, we human players do this to the AI all the time. Use a larger, friendly neighbour as a battering ram until we become larger and more powerful than them, then we take their stuff.

 

[bbqftw]

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.

get played son!

If you want to have a neighbor ally that stays in line, the more important thing is to not be weak.

 

[Brainblow]

I see no real problem here. All through history this is how it worked. Two nations form an alliance when they have nothing to gain by fighting one another but lots to gain by fighting a common enemy together.

And also, we human players do this to the AI all the time. Use a larger, friendly neighbour as a battering ram until we become larger and more powerful than them, then we take their stuff.

The problem here is that the AI has a suicidal tendency to do this when you are stronger than them, and they have no other allies that could beat you.

 

[Will Steel]

How many historical alliances actually lasted for 200 years?

How many strong, trustworthy and longstanding alliances were broken in a single day? How many of them were broken due to one day one side showed a completely wonky behaviour, even though everything was perfectly fine just a few hours ago?

 

[lougarou]

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

Portugal / England alliance ended in 1580 (to be renewed in 1642), so lasted less than 200 years continuously. France / Scotland lasted till 1560, so that's more than 250 years, but only 116 years. Oh the times they are a-changin'.

EU4 is about a time period of the nations consolidating and well, trying to grow. This meant, at some point, leaving allies for others, whether because beaten, broke, shifting...

 

[Liquid Ghost]

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.

Like we players haven't done the exact same thing to the AI.

 

[Quaade]

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.

Even doing RP can do this, imagine getting screwed in the peace deal where ally takes the one province you had claimed

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.

Nope it actually took very little, alliances were mostly done for a specific goal and a specific period not as they were in game. Russia even withdrew their troops from a successful war against Prussia when the ruler died, leaving Austria to be mauled by Prussia, many others simply stopped due to conflicting interest or a change in policy which also usually happened on succession on a side note, England had prior to the war dropped alliance with Austria and allied Prussia instead to protect their interests against France... reality is by far more complicated and interesting than the game

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.

Yeah, we should totally create this game mechanics upon one long lived alliance that wasn't the norm
The Auld alliance was purely a defensive alliance against England, not a mutual alliance against all in offensive and defensive war, the reason it kept going was that the balance never changed particularly so the need for it continued. When one was attacked, the other would invade

The problem here is that the AI has a suicidal tendency to do this when you are stronger than them, and they have no other allies that could beat you.

Id argue that they should have done so before, when they still had a chance to ally and surpass you... that would be more realistic and add a challenge to the game, why should they wait until you are ready to eat them next?

How many strong, trustworthy and longstanding alliances were broken in a single day? How many of them were broken due to one day one side showed a completely wonky behaviour, even though everything was perfectly fine just a few hours ago?

this happened plenty of times, sometimes it was as simple as a disagreement at the peace table, sometimes the king simply died, other times the war came at a time where the interest outweighed the alliance... that also why there isn't any number in particular where alliances lasted for an extended period

 

[Barbarossa66]

I don't even know how to use this favor stuff. Is it accessible only through some DLC or something? It doesn't show up for me on the diplomacy screen.

 

[Theruss]

In my Korea game, I supported the independence of Mongolia from the Oriats. The war of independence was successful. Then immediately afterwards Mongolia breaks the alliance cause they tagged one of my provinces as vital interest after the war. They went from hostile to threatened in one month after breaking the alliance. The diplomacy in this game has gotten really silly after the Cossacks and the 1.14 patch.

 

[bbqftw]

In my Korea game, I supported the independence of Mongolia from the Oriats. The war of independence was successful. Then immediately afterwards Mongolia breaks the alliance cause they tagged one of my provinces as vital interest after the war. They went from hostile to threatened in one month after breaking the alliance. The diplomacy in this game has gotten really silly after the Cossacks and the 1.14 patch.

this happens in 1.13. start as norway, ally sweden, declare independence, sweden will hostile you after, of course that's not going to be a long lasting relationship.

 

[Theruss]

this happens in 1.13. start as norway, ally sweden, declare independence, sweden will hostile you after, of course that's not going to be a long lasting relationship.

Yes, but Sweden is strong and will stay hostile. They won't change to threatened by Norway. Mongolia breaks the alliance and then literally a month after, feels threatened and willing to ally again. Meanwhile, Korea's opinion of them is really bad for breaking the alliance in the first place. That is really silly.

 

[gronak]

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.

The alliance with portugal is still in force today, so it has not ended.

Also France / Scotland lasted until 1560 give or take a few years, making it last over 100 years in the EU4 timeline, rather than it being 60 years.

 

[Mudcrab]

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.

Russia would never stab Ruthenians in the back nor have any territorial designs upon it; they've been kith, kin and Bros since the beginning of time. It is inconceivable.






Right?

 

[StatikShocker]

This France never even considered breaking our alliance. I built them up from nothing, they were practically my vassal. We were allied for 300+ years, with 100 trust being accumulated very early on and maintained. We would do anything for each other. Even with what should be significant Muslim-Christian border friction.

As it should be. They were horrible, dying to Britanny, Dauphine, Provence, Burgundy, England... I gave them their Empire. I tolerated them being Revolutionary and messing up my country. And accordingly they showed up to all my wars if I asked them, asking for nothing in return.

Let me point something out: if you put any of your ally's provinces as "vital interest", they will instantly shatter the alliance. Are you sure you didn't do that?

 

[Rider_of_Doom]

Just play a game as the emperor of the HRE and you will see, how bad the system is. You get attacked from every side and sometimes you can't help, even, if you want. Enjoy the - trust with everyone in the HRE... oh and outside of course. Always wondered why Austria/Bohemia had only me or something like Portugal, Ottomans or Muscovy/Russia as ally left or a two or three minors.

And sometimes the whole system isn't logical: Poland is my ally as Brandenburg. We declared war against the Teutonic Order. I needed to peace out, because France and Burgundy waged war for my small members. So I claimed a province for me and one for my ally. The text stated: "Poland would be happy with it and you will gain X favor." Okay, everything fine, I will do it. Bam, trust went from 50 to 36.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Misrepresentations of the game mechanics are not fun times, no matter whether then come from DD, dev posts, or the game's UI :/.