Rather baffling how poorly thought-out intervention is. We keep getting these "features" and "additions" to the game that aren't even balanced or refined before they are thrown into the game.
- 6
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.
The problem is that other GPs sometimes intervene in a war that has literally NOTHING to do with their own nation. Sometimes some GP even betray their own ally (or someone with good relations), and intervene against them, said as a joke: "Why? Just because there is ULM on the other side that I hate and I'm bored."
And as others said: Peacing out some GP early usually just "invites" another fresh Great nation to the enemy team.
And as others said: Peacing out some GP early usually just "invites" another fresh Great nation to the enemy team.
- 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 wrongbut once you introduce your set of conditions nobodys going to understand when they can or cannot intervene rendering the mechanic useless.
What could possibly be complex about "You can only intervene to help the person who is losing, against a country you already have some grievance with"? I summarized the rules in 5 lines, 6 if you count the clearly marked "Optional" "Oh its so complex" version I included. It's basically already the same rules we're dealing with, just instead of basing "Who is Losing" on the incredibly arbitrary and nonsensical standard of 'who has more allies' it is based on 'who has more soldiers'. Y'know, an actual indicator of Strength.
All I added were some sanity checks to make sure the country has an actual reason why they would want to intervene against this hypothetical target. I even kept the ability for GPs to intervene against GPs just 'cause even though that's completely stupid and it would be better if it were just purely based on Rivalry/Coalition.
What is even slightly Complex about this?
- 6
Has anyone seen an ai intervening in an ai war(without any participation from player's side) or is it just intervening in player's wars?
What's really odd too is that it only allows an intervention if at least 1 GP is on EACH side...I'm playing a game as Hesse right now that has #1 Ottomans, #3 France, and #5 Muscovy all fighting an alliance of Austria and its allies (none are GP) and I can't intervene! Possibly the one time an intervention SHOULD occur and it can't be done.
Last edited:
- 1
Yeah. Change that please. More interventions pls. Wait what?... NO!!!
And you can intervene if Austria likes you. Enforce peace...
- 1
Can you still intervene as Ming in european wars and see Europe this way or was it fixed?
It will intervene in AI vs AI wars. It took me a while to figure out how AI Persia got into the Catholic side of the league war in one of my Asian games, but it turns out it was a GP intervention.
- 1
That's funny indeed... Persia in the thirty year war. Never heard of that
Part of the complexity is in surfacing your rules to the player. Then you got to find the other problematic use cases.
"Why the hell cant I intervene! , oh its because the side with the Greater Force(however the hell they measure that) hasn't received 10% Warscore yet".
"What the hell the button just grayed out it was visible a minute ago, oh i guess the forces arn't lopsided anymore that might be it"
"Dear paradox whys your game think my low-tech African empire is the greater force VS Frances high tech units it ruined my game fix it. Its simple you should do it like this..."
- 1
- 1
In a game where everyone and their mother always wants to restore the Roman Empire to glory, I, for one, appreciate Persians invading Europe.
- 1
It's still strange for them to join the "Catholic league", in contrast to staging a proper invasion at an opportune time.
That's the problem with the AI utilization of a lot of these mechanics actually. It's self-harm to deal light damage to a major rival at great expense to yourself in a war that won't even lose it clay, when the alternative is a lot of targeted, rival-specific damage.
I agree. In fact the real problem with great power intervention over and above all others is that it's actually quite idiotic almost every time for the nation doing it.
Historically intervention was often done in large part to get a seat at negotiations or to actually curtail how much the aggressor could take, rather than the game's implementation where it's done purely to spite one side. The intervention just results in a whole lot of missing manpower and even silly loans, usually for nothing. The current system would make more sense if peace deals felt more akin to a HOI deal.
I think I've been arguing for years now the point this has refreshed: AI need to learn to chill the hell out when at war. We have all these favor restrictions to block abuse of AI allies because the AI doesn't know how to fight a limited war or allow a friend to just lose. AI will refuse a call to arms and shatter its diplomatic position because it's in debt and short of men, rather than perhaps accepting the call and doing nothing. AI called into wars have no way of saying we'll accept but we're not doing this for you. AI now intervene in wars and still show that consistent inability to do other than total war, resulting in situations like the Ottomans going all "hold my beer" as they cripple their resources to pummel someone on the far side of a continent, just because.
Historically intervention was often done in large part to get a seat at negotiations or to actually curtail how much the aggressor could take, rather than the game's implementation where it's done purely to spite one side. The intervention just results in a whole lot of missing manpower and even silly loans, usually for nothing. The current system would make more sense if peace deals felt more akin to a HOI deal.
I think I've been arguing for years now the point this has refreshed: AI need to learn to chill the hell out when at war. We have all these favor restrictions to block abuse of AI allies because the AI doesn't know how to fight a limited war or allow a friend to just lose. AI will refuse a call to arms and shatter its diplomatic position because it's in debt and short of men, rather than perhaps accepting the call and doing nothing. AI called into wars have no way of saying we'll accept but we're not doing this for you. AI now intervene in wars and still show that consistent inability to do other than total war, resulting in situations like the Ottomans going all "hold my beer" as they cripple their resources to pummel someone on the far side of a continent, just because.
- 4
@Pile_O_Gunz; What is complex about this? Or more specifically, what is Unintuitive?
I mean all of these are perfectly logical things with natural conclusions that are, as far as I'm concerned, completely logical. They don't require a wiki article, all they require is Basic Situational Awareness.
"Oh I can't intervene because the stronger side isn't winning." What's unintuitive about this? And if it's so Unintuitive, then Why is it Already Used as the Criteria for when you can Enforce Peace?
"Oh the war isn't lopsided anymore." Again, this Already Happens with GP Intervention, it's just currently based on the idiotic "Number of Great Powers" aspect instead of actually checking the power balance between the sides.
"My Soldiers shouldn't count for as much as this other power's". Hey that's actually a good point! Of course, if you're so far behind in tech compared to the other powers I don't see how you could actually be a GP or a Rival to them in the first place so the second set of perfectly rational and intuitive requirements already handles this. But sure, incorporate some modifier based on Technology, kinda like What Already Happens for GP Position in the first place. Perhaps something like what happened in Victoria 2 where each country had a Military Power Rating and Technology provided a pretty major modifier to that perhaps? Hardly a difficult thing to understand.
I'm not seeing a single Unintuitive or "Complex" thing about even a single aspect of this system.
Now granted, yes, Paradox could royally screw up the Tooltips. I wouldn't put it past them considering how terrible they are at UI Design in the first place, I mean just look at the Kerfuffle that the Infamy Gained part of the Peace Screen has always been. But its not the fault of the system that Paradox hasn't managed to conclude that displaying information on the Map is endlessly superior to putting it into some arbitrary window that's completely removed from any explanatory context.
Lookin' at you, Stellaris Diplomacy Window. At least it allows me to sort by Relative Power. But its still Terrible.
I mean all of these are perfectly logical things with natural conclusions that are, as far as I'm concerned, completely logical. They don't require a wiki article, all they require is Basic Situational Awareness.
"Oh I can't intervene because the stronger side isn't winning." What's unintuitive about this? And if it's so Unintuitive, then Why is it Already Used as the Criteria for when you can Enforce Peace?
"Oh the war isn't lopsided anymore." Again, this Already Happens with GP Intervention, it's just currently based on the idiotic "Number of Great Powers" aspect instead of actually checking the power balance between the sides.
"My Soldiers shouldn't count for as much as this other power's". Hey that's actually a good point! Of course, if you're so far behind in tech compared to the other powers I don't see how you could actually be a GP or a Rival to them in the first place so the second set of perfectly rational and intuitive requirements already handles this. But sure, incorporate some modifier based on Technology, kinda like What Already Happens for GP Position in the first place. Perhaps something like what happened in Victoria 2 where each country had a Military Power Rating and Technology provided a pretty major modifier to that perhaps? Hardly a difficult thing to understand.
I'm not seeing a single Unintuitive or "Complex" thing about even a single aspect of this system.
Now granted, yes, Paradox could royally screw up the Tooltips. I wouldn't put it past them considering how terrible they are at UI Design in the first place, I mean just look at the Kerfuffle that the Infamy Gained part of the Peace Screen has always been. But its not the fault of the system that Paradox hasn't managed to conclude that displaying information on the Map is endlessly superior to putting it into some arbitrary window that's completely removed from any explanatory context.
Lookin' at you, Stellaris Diplomacy Window. At least it allows me to sort by Relative Power. But its still Terrible.
- 3
I see a problem.
(These are the screenshots from what I mentioned before -- a vastly outnumbered alliance under attack from three of the biggest great powers and nothing can be done to intervene -- even on the side of the HRE which is under attack!)
(These are the screenshots from what I mentioned before -- a vastly outnumbered alliance under attack from three of the biggest great powers and nothing can be done to intervene -- even on the side of the HRE which is under attack!)
- 1
- 1
- 1
You could enforce peace on Ottomans I believe if your relations with Austria are good.
- 1
This is more a problem of the ottomans being horribly ridiculously overpowered (and don't give me the "it's realistic" horsecrap, no it's not). Actually, that appears to be the problem in this thread for most people and also in my experience of this mechanic.
- 4
- 2
Oh yes, designing game mechanics around the assumption that players are idiots always produces great games.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
All the player has to "know" is that they can intervene when one side is a certain amount weaker and fulfills certain other conditions. That IS intuitive, if someone sees a war that looks like something they'd want to intervene in, they could intervene in it. What is not intuitive is that if you get declared war on by the #2 great power who outclasses your side hard, that the #1 great power can "intervene" on their side to make it even more unfair.
I mean, even something as simple as making interventions cost some penalty to the warleader and great powers of the side being joined (perhaps a prestige and stability hit would make the most sense since you're basically admitting your nation is weak), and make it something that has to accepted, might help. Although really, players don't need to be treated like idiots. Something can behave intuitively even if you don't understand the EXACT mechanics behind it.
- 2
Nope, I'm Protestant and border them (-40).
This is to highlight the ridiculousness of the problem: the HRE is under attack by 3 Great Powers, all non-HRE foreigners, and the only GP in the HRE can't defend it because...NOBODY ELSE IN THE HRE IS A GREAT POWER!
I think Paradox needs to bring in the crisis system from Heart of Darkness rather than being allowed to intervene in wars. Big-ass wars were fought over successions, rebellions, Estates, military access, etc. (In Europe at least) Straight-up wars of conquest between Christian nations were rare during the Early Modern period, and attracted international condemnation. If you had to play the game like this it would be boring, but I'd like things like succession crises, rebellions, etc. to trigger a crisis and if you're a great power you can intervene.
Some examples from history off the top of my head are:
Some examples from history off the top of my head are:
- Bohemian revolt (Thirty Years War), as well as the Dutch, Transylvanian, and Austrian revolts.
- War of Spanish Succession
- War of Austrian Succession
- Glorious Revolution
- First and Second Partition of Poland
- Time of Troubles
- 1