Hey guys, who's it going? I know there is already a lot of debate about coalition mechanics and I agree with most of the points brought up by TheBloke and others. However, I see that the people who defend the current mechanics usually do so claiming that the mechanic is historical, because "nobody ever conquered the world!" or "if you act like Hitler, expect to be treated like him!!!!!!!!!". And so forth. So I decided to go on a little historical research as to HOW EXACTLY coalitions worked historically.
As demonstrated by several community members, coalition mechanics are currently determinated almost exclusively by AE. The more you expand aggressively, the higher the chance people will join a coalition against you. What I will try to demonstrate here is that historically coalitions were a mix of regional powers uniting against a foreign conqueror + the conqueror's rivals jumping at the opportunity to do the most harm against him. I will try to keep the history lesson short, but I won't promise anything.
Case 1: The League of Venice
Charles VIII of France had a claim to the throne of Naples. He unleashed a bloodbath on Italy, the government of Florence got deposed because of their complicity with the French invaders and Charles made it to Naples almost unopposed. His campaign earned him infamy through the whole Italian region, and thus was born the League of Venice. Venice, Naples, The Papal States, Spain, Milan, HRE, Mantua and England formed a Coalition against France. Some will say "see, COALITIONS ARE HISTORICAL, WAD, L2P, N000B", but we should take a closer look into the game mechanics.
The historical League of Venice involved:
- Several Italian OPM/TPM. Regional powers joining against a foreign conqueror. Perfectly reproduced in EU IV.
- England. France's historical rival. Not so perfectly reproduced in EU IV, as I found that previous attitude towards a country isn't as important as AE. In other words, you rivals are just as likely to join a coalition against you as a random neutral nation is, which is pretty wrong, to say the least.
- The HRE. Italy was always regarded as the HRE's backyard. It makes sense that the Emperor would intervene. This is partially reproduced in EU IV, as regional aggression does travel, but it impacts everyone equally, with no regard for other political concerns. In EU IV Austria would join a coalition against France, but so would Ottomans and Serbia, even though they do not share anything with Naples.
- Spain (Aragon + Castille). Spain joined the coalition not so much because of the bloodbath, but rather because Ferdinand of Aragon had a claim to the Neapolitan Throne, and did indeed become King of Naples in 1504. So Spain joined the coalition because they stood to gain something, rather than because they cared about the French King's blood lust.
Case 2: the League of Cambrai
Pope Julius II, aka "the Warrior Pope", sought to replace Venice as the major influence on Italy. To that end, he brought about a coalition involving the HRE, France and Spain. This coalition had very, very little to do with Venetian expansion and a LOT to do with Julius II ambition to unite Italy under the Papal State. The historical League of Cambrai involved:
- The Papal States, whose reasons for joining were already explained.
- France, who intend to expand her foothold on Italy
- Ferrara, ally of the Papal State
- The HRE, who saw the opportunity to reclaim imperial territories that Venice had seized several years earlier.
- Spain, again with the PU with Naples thing.
Bottom line: the League of Cambrai was born not because several nations felt threatened by Venice, but rather because several nations had converging interests in attacking Venice. Again, AE had very little to do with the coalition forming.
With all said and done, here are my suggestions on how coalitions can be improved:
- AE should only bother regional powers who share the same religion/culture group as the attacked country. Ottomans never cared much about French expansion, they only joined the coalition against France during the Napoleonic period and only after the French crushed the first coalition. AE should only affect distant countries with different culture and religion when the attacking country keeps beating previous coalitions against him and keeps expanding towards said countries.
- Rivals should be highly interested in joining coalitions against you, instead of random far away countries
- Coalitions are very much about mutual interest. Currently the game doesn't seem to take into consideration the relations between coalition countries, resulting in Austria and Ottomans fighting side by side against France because France took 3 territories from Spain, which isn't just anti-fun, it's also a historical abomination.
- Coalitions should be region locked or, at the very least, continent locked. I had a game as England -> GB on which I was the target of a coalition of Ming, Aztec and Mali. Nuff said.
TL; DR: Current coalition mechanics aren't just "anti-fun", they are also failing to simulate history. They aren't fun, they aren't historical and they need to be improved.
As demonstrated by several community members, coalition mechanics are currently determinated almost exclusively by AE. The more you expand aggressively, the higher the chance people will join a coalition against you. What I will try to demonstrate here is that historically coalitions were a mix of regional powers uniting against a foreign conqueror + the conqueror's rivals jumping at the opportunity to do the most harm against him. I will try to keep the history lesson short, but I won't promise anything.
Case 1: The League of Venice
Charles VIII of France had a claim to the throne of Naples. He unleashed a bloodbath on Italy, the government of Florence got deposed because of their complicity with the French invaders and Charles made it to Naples almost unopposed. His campaign earned him infamy through the whole Italian region, and thus was born the League of Venice. Venice, Naples, The Papal States, Spain, Milan, HRE, Mantua and England formed a Coalition against France. Some will say "see, COALITIONS ARE HISTORICAL, WAD, L2P, N000B", but we should take a closer look into the game mechanics.
The historical League of Venice involved:
- Several Italian OPM/TPM. Regional powers joining against a foreign conqueror. Perfectly reproduced in EU IV.
- England. France's historical rival. Not so perfectly reproduced in EU IV, as I found that previous attitude towards a country isn't as important as AE. In other words, you rivals are just as likely to join a coalition against you as a random neutral nation is, which is pretty wrong, to say the least.
- The HRE. Italy was always regarded as the HRE's backyard. It makes sense that the Emperor would intervene. This is partially reproduced in EU IV, as regional aggression does travel, but it impacts everyone equally, with no regard for other political concerns. In EU IV Austria would join a coalition against France, but so would Ottomans and Serbia, even though they do not share anything with Naples.
- Spain (Aragon + Castille). Spain joined the coalition not so much because of the bloodbath, but rather because Ferdinand of Aragon had a claim to the Neapolitan Throne, and did indeed become King of Naples in 1504. So Spain joined the coalition because they stood to gain something, rather than because they cared about the French King's blood lust.
Case 2: the League of Cambrai
Pope Julius II, aka "the Warrior Pope", sought to replace Venice as the major influence on Italy. To that end, he brought about a coalition involving the HRE, France and Spain. This coalition had very, very little to do with Venetian expansion and a LOT to do with Julius II ambition to unite Italy under the Papal State. The historical League of Cambrai involved:
- The Papal States, whose reasons for joining were already explained.
- France, who intend to expand her foothold on Italy
- Ferrara, ally of the Papal State
- The HRE, who saw the opportunity to reclaim imperial territories that Venice had seized several years earlier.
- Spain, again with the PU with Naples thing.
Bottom line: the League of Cambrai was born not because several nations felt threatened by Venice, but rather because several nations had converging interests in attacking Venice. Again, AE had very little to do with the coalition forming.
With all said and done, here are my suggestions on how coalitions can be improved:
- AE should only bother regional powers who share the same religion/culture group as the attacked country. Ottomans never cared much about French expansion, they only joined the coalition against France during the Napoleonic period and only after the French crushed the first coalition. AE should only affect distant countries with different culture and religion when the attacking country keeps beating previous coalitions against him and keeps expanding towards said countries.
- Rivals should be highly interested in joining coalitions against you, instead of random far away countries
- Coalitions are very much about mutual interest. Currently the game doesn't seem to take into consideration the relations between coalition countries, resulting in Austria and Ottomans fighting side by side against France because France took 3 territories from Spain, which isn't just anti-fun, it's also a historical abomination.
- Coalitions should be region locked or, at the very least, continent locked. I had a game as England -> GB on which I was the target of a coalition of Ming, Aztec and Mali. Nuff said.
TL; DR: Current coalition mechanics aren't just "anti-fun", they are also failing to simulate history. They aren't fun, they aren't historical and they need to be improved.
