Yes, it was. But the current coalition system is extremely effective in rendering World Conquest impossible and that, for some reason, seems to please a lot of people.
Historical Coalitions v EU IV coalitions
- Thread starter Eyestabber
- 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.
Yes, it was. But the current coalition system is extremely effective in rendering World Conquest impossible and that, for some reason, seems to please a lot of people.
Yeah, Paradox, I demand you rename coalitions to, um, something else! You're confusing the history nerds!
I do think that there should be was of breaking the coalition up during a war, if it is something in the diplomacy or espionage tree I am fine with that. Or they need to allow us to force individual members to surrender, otherwise you just go after the war leader and take what you want.
I did propose leagues as a new mechanic similar to a crusade were rivals of nations can try to cut them down without it being as rock solid as a coalition.
I did propose leagues as a new mechanic similar to a crusade were rivals of nations can try to cut them down without it being as rock solid as a coalition.
I think that if the target of the coalition is able to crush the coalition, he should be greatly rewarded for it at the coalition's expense and vice versa.
AI nations reacting defensively to player ambitions please a lot of people.
No. Countries should genuinely act accordingly when their neighbors start conquering like crazy, may be add harsher AE penalties to countries sharing the same culture group as your victim, but don't make it culture/religion only, this is plain idiotic. As you explained yourself countries of different cultures engaged in coalitions because they shared a mutual interest or mutual threat.
This is already the case if you had not noticed. A rival or outraged nation has a much lower tolerance for you AE than any other country, and will usually join the coalition against you very quickly.
I agree with the fact mutual interests should play a role, but this is not currently supported by how the AI works. As it base it's attitude towards you based mostly on 3 things : The "feeling" (threatened, outraged, friendly etc.), the mutual Opinion (from -200 to +200) and the AE
In yout example though, you forget the AE is a snowball effect, if Ottoman join a coalition becaue you took 3 provinces in spain, it's also because you took many other provinces anywhere before that. Ottoman wouldn't be bothered by just one war against spain as it's too far from them. But if you DOW a country with a bad CB every year, the AE (and tales of your misdeeds) will certainly reach the ottoman that will band with the rest of the coalition to stop you, which is fairly understandable. [/quote]
No that is stupid for powers that are between two continents, and would set idiotic arbitrary borders between continents. It would be an issue for Timurids or Ottomans, for instance, who are likely to have ennemies from different continents at the same time.
Last time I checked, Ottomans were not France's neighbors.
I think you should re-read my first post. Do bother to read the intricacies of history this time.
No. This has been posted many times before: AE is the only thing that really determines the likelihood of coalitions against you. I can testify to that with my latest France Ironman game. Burgundy actually LEFT the coalition against me, for some reason. Fighting a punitive war against Lithuania and Sweden, who I never did any harm, but no Burgundy, which I DOW'ed like 4-7 times made me giggle and realize how broken the mechanics on coalitons are.
So the Aztec, Mali and Ming communicate via...email or something? Your view on history is rather amazing.
The idea of nations ganging up on a nation that they aren't threatened by just because they have something to gain is not represented by coalitions because it is called an alliance.
While the game doesn't really model either of these things perfectly, especially the idea of all nations joining the war expecting and getting gains, that's life.
While the game doesn't really model either of these things perfectly, especially the idea of all nations joining the war expecting and getting gains, that's life.
You forget to mention how coalition dissolved, even during war. They did not make peace or war as one giant blob. If your country lost, it peaked out. You could start a war with half of Europe in a coalition and at the wars end just have it be two countries. In fact, one coalition ended with England being the only member still at war with France. This all or nothing coalition war makes them unnecessarily limiting.
They are already making changes to AE. what else do you want? beeing able to make separate peace deals because it's historical?
then i want that the coalition will be able to reduce you to your starting size (maybe 100 years ago of the coalition forming) if coalition wins. That was also historical (peacetreaty of Napoleon).
That Allies/vassels can switch to the coalition side (bavaria and rhine states vs Napoleon)
That surpressed nations can rise and start fighting with the coaliton (prussia vs napoleon)
that you/AI can join coalition wars regardless when they started (austria vs napoleon)
higher Revoltrisk, reduced recruiting(lower manpower?) and worse soldiers(decreasing armytradition?) (again napoleon)
then i want that the coalition will be able to reduce you to your starting size (maybe 100 years ago of the coalition forming) if coalition wins. That was also historical (peacetreaty of Napoleon).
That Allies/vassels can switch to the coalition side (bavaria and rhine states vs Napoleon)
That surpressed nations can rise and start fighting with the coaliton (prussia vs napoleon)
that you/AI can join coalition wars regardless when they started (austria vs napoleon)
higher Revoltrisk, reduced recruiting(lower manpower?) and worse soldiers(decreasing armytradition?) (again napoleon)
While I'm by no means a supporter of the current state of coalitions, I don't see valid complaints regarding a large coalition forming in response to France conquering Spain; it's sort of comparable to this whole episode. What I despise is that as a TPM conquering just a couple provinces can designate you as the guy who everyone else will drop what they were doing to cut you down to size with a coalition (except coalitions never really succeed in doing this, at least against blobs).
Cambrai was a league, an alliance, not a coalition in a EUIV sense.
If anything Pope Alexander VI allied "local" powers after deciding to expand in the Romagna region, to prevent AE from skyrocketing, using the war on Venice (and the remaining others after) as a relation boost / AE cooldown towards those italian and french powers that might have gotten a bit uppity at the Papal States gaining so much land.
Given how everybody was envious or straight up hated Venice, it wasn't hard getting people to join a war on her.
They didn't fight Venice due to aggressive expansion tho.
If anything Pope Alexander VI allied "local" powers after deciding to expand in the Romagna region, to prevent AE from skyrocketing, using the war on Venice (and the remaining others after) as a relation boost / AE cooldown towards those italian and french powers that might have gotten a bit uppity at the Papal States gaining so much land.
Given how everybody was envious or straight up hated Venice, it wasn't hard getting people to join a war on her.
They didn't fight Venice due to aggressive expansion tho.
I feel the treshold for coalitions starting up is way too low, especially in the early game this feel wierd.
The easiest example to show is a start as France, finishing the war with Engalnd and geting as many of your cores back as you can in the peacedeal. This has a pretty good chance of starting a coalition against you. This usally isnt any threat as you can use some diplomacy and wait it out until the 5 years until the nation can leave the coalition. But so strange to watch some Italin minors that you had no intention bothering with for ages yet starts up the coalition, while England that you had intended to fight to get the rest of your cores back stays out of the coalition.
You can make the argument that the neighbours should feel threathened by a large France growing (although i am not sure how Venice counts as neighbour). But this should be solved by strategic alliances first. Coalitions should be reserved for when a nation gets so agressive that the alliance web cant hold it. Now it seems coalitions is the first resort not the last.
And in this example France is a big nation that can handle itself if a inconvenient big coalition forms, a smaller nation at gamestart making any gains is at a lot more risk of coalitions turning nasty in the early game.
The easiest example to show is a start as France, finishing the war with Engalnd and geting as many of your cores back as you can in the peacedeal. This has a pretty good chance of starting a coalition against you. This usally isnt any threat as you can use some diplomacy and wait it out until the 5 years until the nation can leave the coalition. But so strange to watch some Italin minors that you had no intention bothering with for ages yet starts up the coalition, while England that you had intended to fight to get the rest of your cores back stays out of the coalition.
You can make the argument that the neighbours should feel threathened by a large France growing (although i am not sure how Venice counts as neighbour). But this should be solved by strategic alliances first. Coalitions should be reserved for when a nation gets so agressive that the alliance web cant hold it. Now it seems coalitions is the first resort not the last.
And in this example France is a big nation that can handle itself if a inconvenient big coalition forms, a smaller nation at gamestart making any gains is at a lot more risk of coalitions turning nasty in the early game.
the French problem is a general problem with regaining cores in defensive wars. They always generate 100% AE as defense means "No Casus Belli".it would be better to harm England in a different way and after the truce ends use reconquest CB for 25% AE if you want to avoid coalitions.
Yeah, when people use pure history as a basis for arguments, they should know it Works both ways.
These suggestions are actually quite awesome. I was always bothered by the fact that vassals are ALWAYS loyal on this game. The last one is already in-game, tho.
Wait, you do realize these changes make war even MORE effective...right?
The target of the coalition should maybe then be buffed, his armies fighting with their backs to the wall could be awarded with no less than +25%discipline and +20%morale. If anything, what is suggested above would kill any target of a coalition. It seems it would make it... too effective not? You could argue that a coalition puts a nation with its back against the wall and makes it rally to the ruler, like France under Louix XIV who ultimately beat the odds in the 1700-1713 and France during the Revolution and under Napoleon.
I would be fine with these, as by the time I get coalitions, I am already an unstoppable blob. I have yet to lose a coalition war. My one today was me (Austria), versus all of the HRE, all of Italy, France, all of Scandinavia, and the Ottomans, in 3 separate wars. I captured part of Greece (releasing Byzantium), I released a bunch of HRE members giving me points, and I got another province for my French vassal.
During this coalition war, my ruler died and put me into a regency. This regency cause most of my territory to revolt. Despite losing 20+ ducats a month having no manpower, I still won. I could have even done better if allowing for separate peace. As I could have negated almost the entire HRE in one go instead of 3.
You also forgot a few things in your list:
1) Napoleon and his wars weren't the only coalitions that existed, in fact most coalitions of this period had nothing to do with how the Napoleonic wars went. Most were over trade and religion.
2) Napoleon subjugated part of the HRE he was originally fighting (your southern Germany states example makes no sense as they started the war against France, ended up fighting with France when they initially lost, then the ones that were freed ended up fighting France again), using their troops to fight everyone else. In fact, the troops with the highest losses were those of the HRE members, as they were often used for cannon fodder. So suppressed/subjugated nations works both ways, fighting for and against the coalition.
3) When Napoleon came back after having almost none of his army return from Russia, he went and raised another army to wreak havoc again. Manpower in real life was not as finite and slow regaining as it is represented in the game. The equivalent would be losing your army, then getting a +manpower event span with a massive decrease in recruitment time.
4) Once you become the size of half of Europe, you often fight a few coalition wars at once (there seems to be a limit on how many countries in one war). In essence they can join a coalition war midway through (within how the game mechanics are represented). On top of that, if a new member joins the coalition, they can redraw in all the members that ended up being removed when part of the coalition peaked out, essentially putting you into a near never ending coalition war.
i know that these changes would make the game unfun - too easy to exploit the AI, no chalenge anymore and so on.
Just join ongoing wars on the winning side. make individual peacedeal with some gains but little lose.
last point only has higher revoltrisk afaik. reduced recruiting is dependant on WE. Not sure about the worse soldiers though. But i also never ran into these problems. Well got increased WE once with a low Manpowerpool was a bit nasty. But you only make such mistakes once.
my biggest issue is that there is a coalition CB , coalitions are defensive treaties not offensive , so how can you gain a CB to "Attack", so annoying as in a Brandenburg game i was swallowing up OPMs in the north of germany and a coalition of
bohemia,Hansa,Mainz(6/7province mainz), Bavaria and OPM Brunswick , Brunswick declared war via coalition Cb and brought in the other countries whom outnumbered me 2:1 and as it was only early 1500 i didnt have my morale bonus or defensive (took economic first), Diplomatic second) , obviously they won the war and i had to return Lubeck back to Hansa and Potzan to Poland
p.s gained coalition as i took just Lubeck of the Hansa
bohemia,Hansa,Mainz(6/7province mainz), Bavaria and OPM Brunswick , Brunswick declared war via coalition Cb and brought in the other countries whom outnumbered me 2:1 and as it was only early 1500 i didnt have my morale bonus or defensive (took economic first), Diplomatic second) , obviously they won the war and i had to return Lubeck back to Hansa and Potzan to Poland
p.s gained coalition as i took just Lubeck of the Hansa