Great power intervention is a bit crazy right now
- Thread starter ahyangyi
- 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.
Also stealing your PP? At least they intervened early. But yeah, those interventions are crazy.This isn't okay behavior:
Happened to me in my Athens games too. I was fighting Ottomans with PLC and small Austria eaten by Ottos on my side and France intervened. Austria was barely a GP. After few battles and ticking warscore I white peaced it.. and then immediately Russia joined on Ottoman side 
I had already 60% warscore since it was holy war so I returned few provinces to Austria and took one for myself. Annoying.
The funny part? France called a crusade against Ottomans.
I had already 60% warscore since it was holy war so I returned few provinces to Austria and took one for myself. Annoying.The funny part? France called a crusade against Ottomans.
The historian in me cringes reading this thread.. It has really put me off getting rights of man any time soon s:
- 3
They joined one or two of my wars as Granada in the latter stages of my Re-reconquista run :-D on my side.
But yeah - I think it's a totally unnecessary mechanic.
But yeah - I think it's a totally unnecessary mechanic.
- 3
- 1
It would be alright if they only ever joined on the weaker side. But it's almost always the stronger side that gets reinforced...
- 4
- 2
France and the Ottomans twice in a row intervened in my Austrian conquest of Venice. I got so mad I made a huge alliance, waited for favors and then punished them severely for their transgressions.
My case, i was playing on very hard, Commonwealth and i (Golden Horde) have 150k troops, Ottomans attack us with 250k and Ming intervenes in war on Ottomans side bringing in their 150k troops.
- 1
What if the "defender" is a massively overpowered first place great power? Your solution doesn't solve this at all. I spend a lot of time waiting for the Ottomans to be weak so my alliance can attack them, under your solution another great power can still intervene.
What if it were points based or development based?
Can interfere on the side with less development?
- 1
- 1
I'd like to add my name to the list of people who don't like this mechanic. It's just not something the game needed. I doubt it will be removed, but hopefully it will change so that great powers can't join on the attacking side at least. I also think there should be some sort of penalty for joining great power wars. Maybe not the stability hit like a no cb declaration, but war exhaustion or something.
- 4
It seemed pretty obvious to me from the moment the system was announced that it was going to be comically flawed. What's sad is that it could be easily fixed if Paradox weren't so ridiculously fixated on arbitrary hard-number limits.
I would say that if the requirements were as follows, the system would not only work much better for GPs but probably make the diplomatic scene much more interesting in general;
A War can be Intervened into IF;
* The war has a lopsided force balance of greater than ~20%.
* The side with Greater Forces has achieved at least 10% Warscore, IE if they can start making demands.
* (Potentially) Alternatively to the above, you could have the War-Score or Force Disparity affect the two above limits. If a War is slanted heavily in favor of one side in terms of Power, then you don't need any positive War-Score for an intervention. If War-Score is heavily slanted towards one size, then you don't need a Force Disparity.
A Country can Intervene into a War that satisfies the above IF;
* They are a Great Power and the war involves at least 1 Great Power.
* They have a Rival on the Winning Side
* They are part of a Coalition that is targeting someone on the Winning Side
There you go. Those are the requirements. The implications of this are staggering, and greatly frees the warfare system to allow more dynamic war participation.
First; It immediately solves the current issue, because now it automatically takes into account the strength of Great Powers by basing the Intervenability of the war on this Strength rather than arbitrary number. If 4 Great Powers are losing against a single stronger Great Power then further interventions will happen on the side of the losing Great Powers, even though there's 4 GPs losing to only a single GP. Problem Solved.
Second; The Rival Intervention system, which I've suggested several times and it was extremely disappointing to see Paradox implement it in the worst way possible, allows these sorts of warfare escalations to happen at levels below the GP Stage. This is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT because it means that now Alliances aren't necessarily the only way you can gain supporters for wars. One great thing would be if EUIV got the ability to Invite to War which Stellaris had, which could effectively be treated as Pre-Negotiated Interventions. So basically you could invite countries to your offensive wars, even if they aren't a direct Ally of your country, so long as they fulfill the requirements to Intervene into the war in question, obviously temporarily ignoring the "Must be above 10% Warscore" requirement, or being dependent on the Potentially More Complicated Criteria I suggest in the third bullet.
This could then allow the game to treat Alliances as a more important thing, making them rarer and harder to gain without completely shafting smaller nations who desperately need support in order to survive.
Third; This gives Coalitions another way of being a possible check on the power of Expansionistic Powers, by allowing them to Intervene. Since they woudn't turn the war into a Coalition War you will be able to Individually Peace them out. The biggest advantage is this would allow Coalitions to React to Wars While those Wars are Ongoing. This is the great current flaw of the Coalition System in my eyes, and in particular it means that Paradox has had to resort to comically ahistorical ridiculousness like "Can't Individual Peace Out a Coalition even when the event that Makes a Coalition explicitly mentions that the target of the Coalition survived by Individually Peacing Out the Coalition Members who then intervened on their side.
Think about that for a moment. In the current game, the Italian Wars are COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE, at least as far as getting them to happen the way they did historically. Under my above system; The Papal States could form a Coalition against Venice and draw in a bunch of powers. They declare war, a war which doesn't restrict them from peacing out individually because that's stupid. While in this war, France eventually signs a Peace with Venice and also annexes Milan because they were there. This gives them a great deal of Infamy and, because Venice doesn't actually have Infamy, Spain and Austria instead shift to being in a Coalition against France, and can now Intervene to stop them. And yeah I don't think that's the exact set of shifting alliances that happened but its still a hell of a lot better than the Farce that we have now.
Fourth; This means that the Interventions can be extremely variable. A war might start out as a 1v1 against equal powers and only draw in an Intervention after one side is decisively beaten. So long as both powers maintain a roughly equivalent Force Balance, no Intervention can happen. This, for the first time in any Paradox Game, actually Encourages you to fight Limited Wars rather than arbitrarily forcing you to take limited gains due to numerical limits that cannot be influenced at all. Now there's an actual Strategic Reason to avoid decisively crushing an opponent, because doing so would cause the war to escalate. On the other hand, if you feel confident that you can win even this escalated war, then feel free to push your luck. Imagine that. Strategic Choices in a Strategy Game.
A war could see a 1v1 devolve into a 2v3 brawl as powers enter and leave, escalating to a 1v5 once one of the powers manages to seriously start making gains, and then in the end finish off as a 1v78 as all of the minor powers start throwing their hats in behind the alliance trying to decisively crush this rapidly expanding force.
We might actually get wars that are Interesting!!
I would say that if the requirements were as follows, the system would not only work much better for GPs but probably make the diplomatic scene much more interesting in general;
A War can be Intervened into IF;
* The war has a lopsided force balance of greater than ~20%.
* The side with Greater Forces has achieved at least 10% Warscore, IE if they can start making demands.
* (Potentially) Alternatively to the above, you could have the War-Score or Force Disparity affect the two above limits. If a War is slanted heavily in favor of one side in terms of Power, then you don't need any positive War-Score for an intervention. If War-Score is heavily slanted towards one size, then you don't need a Force Disparity.
A Country can Intervene into a War that satisfies the above IF;
* They are a Great Power and the war involves at least 1 Great Power.
* They have a Rival on the Winning Side
* They are part of a Coalition that is targeting someone on the Winning Side
There you go. Those are the requirements. The implications of this are staggering, and greatly frees the warfare system to allow more dynamic war participation.
First; It immediately solves the current issue, because now it automatically takes into account the strength of Great Powers by basing the Intervenability of the war on this Strength rather than arbitrary number. If 4 Great Powers are losing against a single stronger Great Power then further interventions will happen on the side of the losing Great Powers, even though there's 4 GPs losing to only a single GP. Problem Solved.
Second; The Rival Intervention system, which I've suggested several times and it was extremely disappointing to see Paradox implement it in the worst way possible, allows these sorts of warfare escalations to happen at levels below the GP Stage. This is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT because it means that now Alliances aren't necessarily the only way you can gain supporters for wars. One great thing would be if EUIV got the ability to Invite to War which Stellaris had, which could effectively be treated as Pre-Negotiated Interventions. So basically you could invite countries to your offensive wars, even if they aren't a direct Ally of your country, so long as they fulfill the requirements to Intervene into the war in question, obviously temporarily ignoring the "Must be above 10% Warscore" requirement, or being dependent on the Potentially More Complicated Criteria I suggest in the third bullet.
This could then allow the game to treat Alliances as a more important thing, making them rarer and harder to gain without completely shafting smaller nations who desperately need support in order to survive.
Third; This gives Coalitions another way of being a possible check on the power of Expansionistic Powers, by allowing them to Intervene. Since they woudn't turn the war into a Coalition War you will be able to Individually Peace them out. The biggest advantage is this would allow Coalitions to React to Wars While those Wars are Ongoing. This is the great current flaw of the Coalition System in my eyes, and in particular it means that Paradox has had to resort to comically ahistorical ridiculousness like "Can't Individual Peace Out a Coalition even when the event that Makes a Coalition explicitly mentions that the target of the Coalition survived by Individually Peacing Out the Coalition Members who then intervened on their side.
Think about that for a moment. In the current game, the Italian Wars are COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE, at least as far as getting them to happen the way they did historically. Under my above system; The Papal States could form a Coalition against Venice and draw in a bunch of powers. They declare war, a war which doesn't restrict them from peacing out individually because that's stupid. While in this war, France eventually signs a Peace with Venice and also annexes Milan because they were there. This gives them a great deal of Infamy and, because Venice doesn't actually have Infamy, Spain and Austria instead shift to being in a Coalition against France, and can now Intervene to stop them. And yeah I don't think that's the exact set of shifting alliances that happened but its still a hell of a lot better than the Farce that we have now.
Fourth; This means that the Interventions can be extremely variable. A war might start out as a 1v1 against equal powers and only draw in an Intervention after one side is decisively beaten. So long as both powers maintain a roughly equivalent Force Balance, no Intervention can happen. This, for the first time in any Paradox Game, actually Encourages you to fight Limited Wars rather than arbitrarily forcing you to take limited gains due to numerical limits that cannot be influenced at all. Now there's an actual Strategic Reason to avoid decisively crushing an opponent, because doing so would cause the war to escalate. On the other hand, if you feel confident that you can win even this escalated war, then feel free to push your luck. Imagine that. Strategic Choices in a Strategy Game.
A war could see a 1v1 devolve into a 2v3 brawl as powers enter and leave, escalating to a 1v5 once one of the powers manages to seriously start making gains, and then in the end finish off as a 1v78 as all of the minor powers start throwing their hats in behind the alliance trying to decisively crush this rapidly expanding force.
We might actually get wars that are Interesting!!
- 8
- 3
- 2
Sure it has its flaws but ts a fun mechanic. Your logic might lead to fairer wars Vishaing(not that i necessarily think wars should be fair) but you need to think of it from a usability point of view are the rules understandable to the player ? Without a wikipedia reference or 20 page long thread(im looking at you PUs)
The current logics very simple, intuitive and probably wrong but once you introduce your set of conditions nobodys going to understand when they can or cannot intervene rendering the mechanic useless.
The current logics very simple, intuitive and probably wrong
but once you introduce your set of conditions nobodys going to understand when they can or cannot intervene rendering the mechanic useless.- 5
Sure it has its flaws but ts a fun mechanic. Your logic might lead to fairer wars Vishaing(not that i necessarily think wars should be fair) but you need to think of it from a usability point of view are the rules understandable to the player ?
The current logics very simple, intuitive and probably wrong
There's a popup that shows wars you can intervene in. Plus, how hard would it be to compare development? They're already listed in the Great Powers window. That alone would be a massive change to fixing the broken aspects of GPI.
You can't strategise around a popup a blackbox is no good people need to understand it. Also measuring using development is likely still too simplistic it doesnt necessarily translate into military strength.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Intervention needs a few limitations, at minimum:
1. The intervention target must be either a great power or the aggressor. A defending non-GP warleader should never be a suitable target for great power intervention merely because they have GP allies, and this should even include the HRE emperor defending. Never.
2. Intervention needs to remember war participants and not create a new slot if a GP makes peace. The current implementation means that war leaders should avoid making a separate peace with any GP (intervening or not) which is both ahistorical and very limiting/detrimental in game, therefore pointless overall.
3. The sanity check for AI GPs needs to be significantly ramped up so that they only ever join when there is a clear good reason for it. In the absence of a clear strategic interest or rivalry, I really can't think of why I should see participation. Fighting a war on someone else's behalf is prohibitive to a nation's own growth and several changes have attempted to limit the abuse of large AI as lapdogs; adding in a mechanic that causes them to willingly throw themselves into other's wars is a backwards step.
In addition I would personally like:
4. An option to avoid being the target of intervention by agreeing to end the war. I would suggest that this functionally be a block of any GP intervening at the cost of providing a permanent standing offer of white peace to your adversary.
5. Automatic humiliation of any rival GP who intervenes in a war and loses.
6. Massive and slow to decay opinion malus to the targets of intervention. This is straight up bullying and is both infuriating to be the target of in game (obviously) but was also quite seriously resented by powers historically, where many of the deepest grudges in this period and bitterest animosity would stem from the "meddling" of a large neighbor. It is absolutely right for others to hate you for intervening against them.
7. There should be a penalty associated with intervening, and this is only waived if you are the rival of a defending great power. Similar in feel to embargo here. In practice I am thinking +2 war exhaustion would suffice.
8. As above, there should be a cost associated with intervening, and in this it is waived if you are losing the war. Once your team is at >10% warscore I think all WE accrued should be doubled. Historically a lot of this kind of crap was done using professional mercenaries (gunpowder empires a notable exception) until very late in the game period, and Ottos and Mugs get -WE ideas anyway.
Intervention as it currently stands is significantly worse for gameplay than cascading warleaders ever was.
1. The intervention target must be either a great power or the aggressor. A defending non-GP warleader should never be a suitable target for great power intervention merely because they have GP allies, and this should even include the HRE emperor defending. Never.
2. Intervention needs to remember war participants and not create a new slot if a GP makes peace. The current implementation means that war leaders should avoid making a separate peace with any GP (intervening or not) which is both ahistorical and very limiting/detrimental in game, therefore pointless overall.
3. The sanity check for AI GPs needs to be significantly ramped up so that they only ever join when there is a clear good reason for it. In the absence of a clear strategic interest or rivalry, I really can't think of why I should see participation. Fighting a war on someone else's behalf is prohibitive to a nation's own growth and several changes have attempted to limit the abuse of large AI as lapdogs; adding in a mechanic that causes them to willingly throw themselves into other's wars is a backwards step.
In addition I would personally like:
4. An option to avoid being the target of intervention by agreeing to end the war. I would suggest that this functionally be a block of any GP intervening at the cost of providing a permanent standing offer of white peace to your adversary.
5. Automatic humiliation of any rival GP who intervenes in a war and loses.
6. Massive and slow to decay opinion malus to the targets of intervention. This is straight up bullying and is both infuriating to be the target of in game (obviously) but was also quite seriously resented by powers historically, where many of the deepest grudges in this period and bitterest animosity would stem from the "meddling" of a large neighbor. It is absolutely right for others to hate you for intervening against them.
7. There should be a penalty associated with intervening, and this is only waived if you are the rival of a defending great power. Similar in feel to embargo here. In practice I am thinking +2 war exhaustion would suffice.
8. As above, there should be a cost associated with intervening, and in this it is waived if you are losing the war. Once your team is at >10% warscore I think all WE accrued should be doubled. Historically a lot of this kind of crap was done using professional mercenaries (gunpowder empires a notable exception) until very late in the game period, and Ottos and Mugs get -WE ideas anyway.
Intervention as it currently stands is significantly worse for gameplay than cascading warleaders ever was.
- 7
- 3
I was playing a colonial british game. I abandoned my french holdings centuries ago. I declared war against Denmark to annex Fyn and Lolland. Then the PLC decided to "intervene on the war on my side". Denmark was allied with Muscovy. So as a punishment for PLC for joining my war where I started to lose warscore because Muscovy was hurting them badly I offered Muscovy 6-7 PLC provinces to take them out of the war.
This mechanic is completely broken. In my opinion it offers nothing to the game and it can ruin a gameplay because France/Ottomans decided to join a war they don't care about where they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain.
My suggestion is that if someone join one of your wars offer to the nearest enemy 6-7 provinces of the uninvited guest. Next time the AI should think twice about it's warmongering appeal. And if the AI is stupid enough you can create a massive coalition against the uninvited guest.
This mechanic is completely broken. In my opinion it offers nothing to the game and it can ruin a gameplay because France/Ottomans decided to join a war they don't care about where they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain.
My suggestion is that if someone join one of your wars offer to the nearest enemy 6-7 provinces of the uninvited guest. Next time the AI should think twice about it's warmongering appeal. And if the AI is stupid enough you can create a massive coalition against the uninvited guest.
- 4