Give 1000 reasons for a country giving military access if you're at war with another country which is also the aggressor in a war against them.

[ifffrt]

Example: You're Dai Viet who has rivaled Lan Xang and Ayutthaya. Ayutthaya is also the enemy of Lan Xang, but Lan Xang doesn't rival them back. And because Ayutthaya is by far the strongest nation in Indochina at the start of the game, they eventually declare war on Lan Xang and without your input they will almost certainly win. However, you're 1 mil tech ahead, which means that if you declare a humiliate rival war right now, you could severely weaken Ayutthaya to the point where Lan Xang and their allies could have a fighting chance. Except for one small issue: Lan Xang idiotically just won't give you military access to their land, because you're their rival, while Ayutthaya is not. So now you're forced to watch Ayutthaya siege down Vientiane which is one province away while your 1 mil tech ahead army stands there uselessly and Lan Xang's army which is at least 40 percent weaker than Ayutthaya's nopes deep into China.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

A +10 or +20 is more plausible, I think.

They are still your rivals, but sometimes nations you are at odds with may send you money if you are at war with their enemy, so giving you passage while they are at war with whomever you are at war with makes enough sense.
Yet, you are still at odds eith them.

The way Rivals/Enemies work should be less extreme, at least as far as rivals go. Enemies make enough sense.

 

[ifffrt]

A +10 or +20 is more plausible, I think.

They are still your rivals, but sometimes nations you are at odds with may send you money if you are at war with their enemy, so giving you passage while they are at war with whomever you are at war with makes enough sense.
Yet, you are still at odds eith them.

The way Rivals/Enemies work should be less extreme, at least as far as rivals go. Enemies make enough sense.

+10 or +20 is too low for the scenario I'm talking about, I think. Remember that Ayutthaya was almost certainly going to curb stomp my rival. Maybe there could be a sliding scale to this, where enemies of enemies (including allies of aggressors, like when you're in a war with one of Ayutthaya's smaller allies but not Ayutthaya themselves) get a +10/20 as a base, enemies of enemies which are at least 10% stronger than the country's allies stack get a +50, enemies of enemies which are 50% stronger gets +100, and 100% stronger gets +1000, because obviously you'd still be hating your rival's gut but you value being able to survive as an independent polity more, so of course you'd give them military access to help out. I mean, just ask yourself what an MP player's thought process would be in that scenario.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

+10 or +20 is too low for the scenario I'm talking about, I think. Remember that Ayutthaya was almost certainly going to curb stomp my rival. Maybe there could be a sliding scale to this, where enemies of enemies (including allies of aggressors, like when you're in a war with one of Ayutthaya's smaller allies but not Ayutthaya themselves) get a +10/20 as a base, enemies of enemies which are at least 10% stronger than the country's allies stack get a +50, enemies of enemies which are 50% stronger gets +100, and 100% stronger gets +1000, because obviously you'd still be hating your rival's gut but you value being able to survive as an independent polity more, so of course you'd give them military access to help out. I mean, just ask yourself what an MP player's thought process would be in that scenario.

Back to the issue of the Rival/Enemies mechanics operating in a too strong and heavy-handed way, it seems. The issue probably really is bigger than just adding one bonus and the way said bonus is calculated.

 

[Jespoke]

It would need to be something like "At war with aggressor against us" giving a bonus as big as the existing "At war with neighboring rival", that being +150 to offset the -100 from rival and up to -100 from terrible opinion.
This doesn't cover an offensive war that backfired, but I don't know if it should anyway. Maybe a smaller version for "At war with a common enemy".