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

[ThatLebowskiDud]

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.

Isn't that just the cynical version of the province desire?

"Look, we are bros, and we still love you, but could you give me that province you built a ton of buildings so we don't start hating you?"

 

[Aquae Sulis]

I'm still at a bit of a loss to what trust actually does...

I have an idea in my head, what it should do, yet it keeps confounding me with the behaviour of high (and low) trust allies.

Does anyone know (preferably mathematically) what effect trust has?

 

[Xinkc]

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

Yes, because I want it and it will be mine. Also, if they're really that useful they deserve to be taken down a peg.

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?

I guess technically none since there are only two examples here for such long lasting alliances and it took more than a day to communicate between France and Scotland or England and Portugal.

 

[misiceman]

I just had this happen with the ottomans in my current run. I am 20 times their size and I had 97 trust with always 200 relations and yet they break the alliance and rival me. Whats funny is they never helped me ever in my game... ever. Guess its time to get the holy lands to convert faster after putting istanbul to the sword of free monarch points.

 

[Krajzen]

I think I won't be buying Cossacks for some time...

Is that reasonable idea?

 

[Arinsar]

How many historical alliances actually lasted for 200 years?

England and Portugal.

 

[Nubnut]

I feel like a lot of people are missing the point of the argument. People aren't upset because it's ahistorical or because it's the AI acting like the player, they're upset because one of the most exciting new features for this patch turns out to be useless.

What's the point of having diplomatic feedback at all when it literally makes no difference whether you're at 40 trust or 100 trust, the AI will react the same way no matter what. It's just (what I'm hoping is) a broken feature, that's what people are upset about.

 

[Jomini]

Yes, because I want it and it will be mine. Also, if they're really that useful they deserve to be taken down a peg.



I guess technically none since there are only two examples here for such long lasting alliances and it took more than a day to communicate between France and Scotland or England and Portugal.

There are many more alliances that lasted quite long periods of time. The Franco-Ottoman alliance, for instance, lasted 250 years. It literally took the largest revolution of the EU era to break it. The number of alliances that broke over territorial disputes, particularly minor ones is exceedingly small. Most of the time alliances lasted until the common threat was broken or neutralized (or one of the participants was decimated).

The real problem is that the AI is terrible at weighing risk vs reward. Rarely does the AI have a new alliance partner lined up; for all the musical chairs of western alliances is was extremely rare for even perfidious England to break an alliance without having a backstop. Sure they might stop supporting Austria and instead back Prussia ... but the AI does not do this. The AI routinely goes ballistic over extremely minor territorial items and they do not adjust their foreign policy, they just say "whelp time to throw away my game".

This is a problem throughout the game, the AI does things for "reasons" which hurt it and make the game easier. Who your allies were have always been far more important than minor territorial concessions.

If you want a backstabbing AI, just make the AI backstabbing. Do not have some opaque mechanism that leads to the AI having inconsistent priorities.

 

[IHateThisCo]

Another horrible aspect of the trust system, is if you call allies into a war, and then THEY separate peace out, it lowers trust. Whether they are called in with favors or for territory. I understand trust dropping if I peace out of their war (even if we are sitting at 70+ WS for 3 years with wargoal and the ai just won't make peace for reasons). Why do they trust me less when they are the ones that abandoned a war.

And dishonoring any call lowers trust with everyone, but accepting a call does not do the same thing. And an alliance being broken by anything removes all trust. Trust needs to apply to more than just allies, which would fix the problem of losing all trust when an alliance breaks due to a peace deal or some other pointless reason. 70 year alliance, 90 or more trust. Why would they suddenly start to trust the country less simply because THEY break the alliance.

The problem with trust is that it does not seem to represent, or more importantly, do anything.

 

[andersonm]

I feel like a lot of people are missing the point of the argument. People aren't upset because it's ahistorical or because it's the AI acting like the player, they're upset because one of the most exciting new features for this patch turns out to be useless.

What's the point of having diplomatic feedback at all when it literally makes no difference whether you're at 40 trust or 100 trust, the AI will react the same way no matter what. It's just (what I'm hoping is) a broken feature, that's what people are upset about.

Actually it seems mostly like the people complaining would rather have the AI just slavishly obey them for the rest of the game because they helped them in a few early wars and gained their trust.

Trust does in fact matter a great deal with all of the diplomatic options... they are way more likely to join your wars offensively and CRUCIALLY defensively. If they trust you they will have your back when you're getting pounced on. However, just because they trust you doesn't mean that they don't have their own agenda and may want to end that alliance at some point. I'd much rather have them break the alliance when a conflict over territory is developing rather than just not come to my defense in a war, they actually are letting you know where they stand.

I feel like the current system actually adds a lot of nuance and depth and people are requesting a step back if they just want an alliance to last the entire game because you maxed out trust to 100. It is not realistic at all however even if you are looking at it purely from a gameplay point it is not very interesting or challenging either.

 

[misiceman]

Actually it seems mostly like the people complaining would rather have the AI just slavishly obey them for the rest of the game because they helped them in a few early wars and gained their trust.

Trust does in fact matter a great deal with all of the diplomatic options... they are way more likely to join your wars offensively and CRUCIALLY defensively. If they trust you they will have your back when you're getting pounced on. However, just because they trust you doesn't mean that they don't have their own agenda and may want to end that alliance at some point. I'd much rather have them break the alliance when a conflict over territory is developing rather than just not come to my defense in a war, they actually are letting you know where they stand.

I feel like the current system actually adds a lot of nuance and depth and people are requesting a step back if they just want an alliance to last the entire game because you maxed out trust to 100. It is not realistic at all however even if you are looking at it purely from a gameplay point it is not very interesting or challenging either.

My problem isn't the breaking of the Alliance. It the no warning to it. A triggered flag would be nice if an ally marks something as important that you also mark, especially after you've had it marked for a long time, which might give you time to do something about it. Before an alliance your checking that tab to make decisions but after the alliance and especially if you've dumped favors into trust I don't look at that page again cause it can change on a moments notice. I've had Ottomans be completely fine to -50 to the next month tick remove all those provinces and be fine again.

As it stands right now it can be a 1 second decision from the AI that a) doesn't make sense and b) you cant respond to as the player. I thought this was supposed to fix the issue of an ally randomly breaking alliances but i feel its exactly the same.

Its better, don't get me wrong but there is still some nuances missing that are crucial.

 

[theKLR]

I feel like a lot of people are missing the point of the argument. People aren't upset because it's ahistorical or because it's the AI acting like the player, they're upset because one of the most exciting new features for this patch turns out to be useless.

What's the point of having diplomatic feedback at all when it literally makes no difference whether you're at 40 trust or 100 trust, the AI will react the same way no matter what. It's just (what I'm hoping is) a broken feature, that's what people are upset about.

They stated AI is less likely to want your stuff/cancel alliance. So if it werent for high trust they would have backstabbed the player a long time ago , apparantly. Or that it needs a better reason than before.

But yes, its one of the main caveats of EU4 that is back ; a modifier that is shrouded in mistory without a proper tooltip/explanation. Or that paradox likes to hide things so its a challenge to figure out through many games.

Or, its just bugged as its kinda new

 

[misiceman]

They stated AI is less likely to want your stuff/cancel alliance. So if it werent for high trust they would have backstabbed the player a long time ago , apparantly. Or that it needs a better reason than before.

But yes, its one of the main caveats of EU4 that is back ; a modifier that is shrouded in mistory without a proper tooltip/explanation. Or that paradox likes to hide things so its a challenge to figure out through many games.

Or, its just bugged as its kinda new

Wasn't the point to bring the "trust" metric out of the shadows of background crazy and give you opertunities to directly effect it instead of magical fairy reasons. I think there is a bug somewhere.

The more i think about it, it would be nice if trust gave you a relations boost as well. Up to say +25/50 at 100 trust, as it takes alot of work to get up there and would minimize crazy. not stop it but minimize it.

 

[PhoenixDown]

I'm still at a bit of a loss to what trust actually does...

I have an idea in my head, what it should do, yet it keeps confounding me with the behaviour of high (and low) trust allies.

Does anyone know (preferably mathematically) what effect trust has?

Can't present any numbers atm, but it gives higher chance of AI accepting defensive CtA. Even if AI has huge debt and WE if another AI/player has high(80+) trust with them they will accept. Other than that...

 

[misiceman]

Offensive as well. If you hover over the x in the CTA screen trust will show up there if positive or negative. This also effects Royal marriage and other things that use reputation and not relations, again hover over the x or check mark for the details.

I wish there was a hover list when you hovered your mouse pointer over trust like prestige or legitimacy. then again more of those in more places would be cool

 

[Aquae Sulis]

Can't present any numbers atm, but it gives higher chance of AI accepting defensive CtA. Even if AI has huge debt and WE if another AI/player has high(80+) trust with them they will accept. Other than that...

Offensive as well. If you hover over the x in the CTA screen trust will show up there if positive or negative. This also effects Royal marriage and other things that use reputation and not relations, again hover over the x or check mark for the details.

I wish there was a hover list when you hovered your mouse pointer over trust like prestige or legitimacy. then again more of those in more places would be cool

Wow, thanks for the responses. I hadn't noticed them so will take trust a little more seriously now.

Still feels a little opaque and definitely second that a tool top would be great. Does it have any impact on the rate you gain favours?

 

[Will Steel]

Some people in this thread never got the problem - it is not about long alliances that would last forever, it is about why AI is extremely happy one day and then suddenly cursing your guts, dissolving the alliance, rivaling you the other day...just because it added some insignificant province of your empire to his want list.

 

[misiceman]

no only your size compare to your allies changes the rate of favors and I've never seen it faster then 1/year. What "size" means... well I have no idea cause i dont think its develpment to development but it sure does mean most of it. I was 1200 dev to an ottoman 600 dev and it was only 1 favor /2 years. probably takes autonamy into consideration to now that i think about it. But like most Paradox Maths unless its been publshied we have no idea what it is.... until Arumba streams 6 hours of spreadsheets due to attrition bugs.

 

[Will Steel]

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

You and other players, probably. I never do that, as firstly this is against the roleplay, and secondly I am not that good at backstabbing.

 

[misiceman]

Some people in this thread never got the problem - it is not about long alliances that would last forever, it is about why AI is extremely happy one day and then suddenly cursing your guts, dissolving the alliance, rivaling you the other day...just because it added some insignificant province of your empire to his want list.

For me thats been an issue in this game that isnt new. I hate it with such fevor its insane. Just ask my wife about it, it litteraly makes me go nuts at the computer screen. Its more visible now, but yeah....