That about sums up the trajectory of most of my past relationships I'd say...
- 3
From Wiz's words "You can spend favours on increasing your trust on a particular country if you want
- Thread starter tahlaskerssen
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That about sums up the trajectory of most of my past relationships I'd say...
The bigger problem than Trust with allies, is the numerous ways that Trust with Non-Allies or third parties gets lost, the corresponding lack of ways to boost it, and the glacial return to 50 that allows diplomacy with people again.
At the moment the HRE is a mess diplomacy wise, as after a couple of Multi-OPM wars with separate peaces, annul treaties, honoured OR dishonoured CTAs, changing rivalries etc, everyone has too many Trust maluses to ally with each other for the next 50 years.
At the moment the HRE is a mess diplomacy wise, as after a couple of Multi-OPM wars with separate peaces, annul treaties, honoured OR dishonoured CTAs, changing rivalries etc, everyone has too many Trust maluses to ally with each other for the next 50 years.
- 3
.png){kind=avatar}
A big issue seems to be that the AI will instantly break an alliance when you have one of their provinces of interest overlapping one of theirs. Why not use a cumulative modifier instead. Likewise with the rivalry system, why allow the trusted player country as a choice for AI countries when they have high trust with you?
- 2
Players even don't even bother the fact that certain country is their ally or not. If they want AIs land, hundreds years if alliance wouldn't matter. So AIs do the same, what's the problem?
- 6
It doesnt break on one province.... it CAN break on one but it doesnt every time. I had with the ottomans for 50 years 7 provinces which overlapped and which in fact i owned until they removed them one day. It gave me a -22 (the genoeese provinces in crimea and persian provinces in QQ). I have seen the -200 million for 1 province before and after the patch and i wish i understood the AI logic when it came to this decision but then again i've seen it go -200 then get removed the next month.
As for the rivalry it used to be in 1.12-13 the AI never rivaled their allies AFAIK. I have never seen it happen to me. If the alliance breaks for whatever reason they will but not until that moment. couple hours ago the ottos rivaled me during the alliance and broke everything....They will now be eaten by the mighty golden horde as china and russia is no more
- 1
In my For Odin! game the Ottos broke their alliance and decided to rival me over Persia for... nothing. They didn't even want my territory for the entire time they rivaled me.
They didn't want my clay, they just decided they didn't like me any more.
They didn't want my clay, they just decided they didn't like me any more.
- 1
It can help with diplo-vassalizing if you are right around the cutoff. Sort of. You'd have to ally them and wait years for favors to tick up and you couldn't let them gain any land. but it could help.
If the AI wants your land or needs someone to rival though, you will just be a trustworthy enemy to him.
If the AI wants your land or needs someone to rival though, you will just be a trustworthy enemy to him.
Rough Proposal:
What if there was a "reason for action" mechanic when it comes to diplomatic actions? Like an official reason for breaking an alliance. Your ally didn't give you even a single desired province in that previous war where they easily could have given you? For a limited time, you'll get a "snubbed by ally" option.
At the same time there could be a function where breaking an alliance hurts your relations with your other allies, but then having a better "reason for action" reduces or even eliminates that impact. And ideally the AI will then take it into account, so other allies will be less likely to make the same error if they really do desire to stay in an alliance with you.
What if there was a "reason for action" mechanic when it comes to diplomatic actions? Like an official reason for breaking an alliance. Your ally didn't give you even a single desired province in that previous war where they easily could have given you? For a limited time, you'll get a "snubbed by ally" option.
At the same time there could be a function where breaking an alliance hurts your relations with your other allies, but then having a better "reason for action" reduces or even eliminates that impact. And ideally the AI will then take it into account, so other allies will be less likely to make the same error if they really do desire to stay in an alliance with you.
- 4
well part of the problem is we dont have a history on the trust mechanic like diplo relation or even know how fast it regenerates back to 50 over time. It would be nice to have that history to see what happened and there should be a way to make up for it other than sitting on your butt for 50 years. like does BROT effect it at all? Its "better than it was before but trust is still very clouded in super secret fairy magic.
Also on many of the actions like didnt give provinces and what not you will get the opinion mallus too but, yeah. Same case of just not enough information to the player.
Also on many of the actions like didnt give provinces and what not you will get the opinion mallus too but, yeah. Same case of just not enough information to the player.
Here's how I view it: 0-30 Trust- USSR and the USA/Britain Alliance- alliance of conveniance that will be broken soon.
30-50- two countries who band together, but only when it's beneficial. If they betray, it ain't personal. Athenai and Sparta
51-70- Well thought out Alliance, but can still break.Germany and Italy. One MAY be weaker.
71-90- Cross border marriages. These countries are in it for the thick and thin. Think Prussia and Holland.
91-100- Borders are open. This is almost one nation as they stay together, and work together, almost constantly. Think of Britain and the USA, at least in the past.
I would argue that the higher the trust, the longer the truce should be and there should even be some extra destab if the truce is broken.
30-50- two countries who band together, but only when it's beneficial. If they betray, it ain't personal. Athenai and Sparta
51-70- Well thought out Alliance, but can still break.Germany and Italy. One MAY be weaker.
71-90- Cross border marriages. These countries are in it for the thick and thin. Think Prussia and Holland.
91-100- Borders are open. This is almost one nation as they stay together, and work together, almost constantly. Think of Britain and the USA, at least in the past.
I would argue that the higher the trust, the longer the truce should be and there should even be some extra destab if the truce is broken.
- 4
Yeah or I dont ally them in the first place, which is hard for the AI I assume. I mean If I want a particular border I take every province even if that would be a 000 development one.
The AI breaking an alliance with me because they desire my provinces has happend to me too. In my Zorastrian game Vija started to mark on provinces as vital interest after we were allies for 100 years. Broke alliance and went hostile. Bengal and me were the only viable enemies at that point in the game (India was partioned between us). Its also likely that Vija got an event that gave a claim on my provinces, which always seems to result in the province being of vital interest.
Why shouldnt the AI be allowed to be ambitious? Somehow a lot of people sound like they want a 100 trust AI to become a bystander to the player and under no circumstances desire player land. If you want the AI country to follow your every command go ahead and vassalize them.
Edit: I do like the AI of a popup with shared provinces of vital interest between allies though.
Nice. For your latter, Her Madge's Commonwealth might be a better analogy. There's not a Brit in the world who doesn't hold dear to their hearts Australia New Zealand and Canada to their last corners and you can count me in on it. Today, as always, each country shares and shares alike all manner of things. It doesn't get the universal press, but it's fairly solid still.
Betrayal is fine, but it should be rationally motivated. The AI is not rational, it's schizophrenic.
- 9
Why should there be any truce at all when an alliance is broken? It's definitely not historical... in fact it's contradictory to the definition of truce.
- 3
Any trust at equal 30 or below gives a -2000 modifier to Alliance, so can't exist in your system. 30-35 is extremely unlikely to be able to ally (depending on modifiers), even if Friendly and Zero chance if neutral. 40 is difficult enough, with a -20 penalty to Alliance chance. Surprisingly easy to get below 40 too with a lot of nations around, even when trying your best to be honourable. I got rolling Trust maluses with England for accepting CTAs defending Denmark in Sweden's neverending attempted Independence Wars (England were supporting Swedish Independence) . Funny thing is i would also have been penalised globally had i dishonoured too. Can't win.
Last edited:
- 1
One of the problems is that alliances are not dynamic. You can have 3 big nations rivalazing you while also having rival of my rival positive modifier. And none of them will ally you for the sake of gaining leverage against the others or just amounting enough power even to just maintain the status quo in the region. I had a game as Scandinavia where I had Russia and Lithuania as rivals, while they were rivals between themselves. Obviously the one who got the Ottomans by their side "won" (I somehow got their dynasty, unrivalized them, left a permanent diplomat there and hoped for the want you land mallus get away. Russia wasn't so lucky).
Largely because it makes the AI moronic and easy prey for the human. Right now the AI appears to just up and say "nuts, I just now hate this guy" and then break the alliance. This means that when AIs have friction (as unlike humans they cannot manage land gains and such to boost relations) major AI blocks evaporate for no reason and often the AI will go without a major useful ally. E.g. I have seen Austria break its French alliance when the BI fires, not replace them with somebody like Venice or Denmark, and then get flattened by AI Hungary & Poland.
The AI should have some sort of sliding scale where it looks at what it hopes to gain with the betrayal against the caliber of potential replacement allies. Historically "backstabbing" nations always had new allies waiting to reward them for their perfidy. It does not make sense to lose a huge amount of your deterrent threat to gain triflingly minor territorial gains.
I haven't had that in my last playthrough, as France I own parts of Spain that I took from Aragon before it got absorbed and 200 years later we are still best of friends.
But I have seen when the AI stops a very good alliance and I can slap it down. Also I do love a good cheat of the coalition mechanic, using it before all nations join to smahs my neighours and keep my enemies as small clumps and get around the HRE mechanics.
But I have seen when the AI stops a very good alliance and I can slap it down. Also I do love a good cheat of the coalition mechanic, using it before all nations join to smahs my neighours and keep my enemies as small clumps and get around the HRE mechanics.
Yep, they said they'd fix it before, they said they fix it again with this new DLC, and yet again they fail.
I've got a game where I'm literally all of Europe (as the HRE) from Lisboa and the Western Isles to the Urals and Caucasia... yet Persia my ally (since raping the Ottomans ~100 years ago) decides to break with me over (formerly) horde land that they border me.
My forcelimit is in the millions. Theirs is barely 100.
Clearly there needs to be an ally strength modifier.
I've got a game where I'm literally all of Europe (as the HRE) from Lisboa and the Western Isles to the Urals and Caucasia... yet Persia my ally (since raping the Ottomans ~100 years ago) decides to break with me over (formerly) horde land that they border me.
My forcelimit is in the millions. Theirs is barely 100.
Clearly there needs to be an ally strength modifier.
- 1
Yes.
Just desiring your provinces shouldn't immediatly cause them to break the alliance. The AI should first consider if there's any way they can actually take them before that.
I've repeatedly seen ten province AI nations break alliance with my world spanning empirs, only for them to realise two months later they are all alone with no allies completely surrounded by my lands. For extra irony that will sometimes make them turn threatened and willing to ally for another year.
Just desiring your provinces shouldn't immediatly cause them to break the alliance. The AI should first consider if there's any way they can actually take them before that.
I've repeatedly seen ten province AI nations break alliance with my world spanning empirs, only for them to realise two months later they are all alone with no allies completely surrounded by my lands. For extra irony that will sometimes make them turn threatened and willing to ally for another year.
- 1