Historical Coalitions v EU IV coalitions

[gaius valerius]

I just lost my first coalition war yesterday as France in 1475. Took 4 provinces of Burgundy in a row and shortly afterwards 2 3 seperate punitive wars were launched against me, spearheaded by the Papacy, Denmark and Castile. Beat the first 2 but and though I was yet to lose any land to Castile and had beaten there armies several times exhaustion seemed to finaly caught up and my army seemed unable to recoup from a succesive defeat. I didn't quite understand the latter, my armies were victorious along the way yet suddenly I lose one major engagement (perhaps time between the battles was to short to allow morale to recoup?). Threw in the towel and gave in to the wishes of both remaining coalitions still in the war. Lost 5 provinces and had to release one vassal, in effect sending me back pre-1470. All in all a hard pill to swallow, but since I'd cored everything I could reconquer it within the span of a decade.

Who laughs last...

Coalitions pop up before you're an unstoppable blob don't they?

 

[tapewormlondon]

I bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that changes will be made to coalitions, AE (already being done) and expanding in general, to make WC not only possible but much easier, due to all these threads.

I then declare that a lot of the same people will complain about the game being boring, the AI offering no resistance and the effect of snowballing being too OP.

 

[gaius valerius]

Lol if any developer would read these threads in full I doubt he'd change anything profoundly. Of the many thousands players who play the game why would the developers have to tend to the needs of the few dozens who incessantly spam the forum with coalition threads and all have an opinion, for to quote The Dude "yeah, well... that's just like... your opinion man" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ). What they might pay attention to is to the most broken aspects of coalitions, but to wholly concede to the whims of a few who think this is a Total War game. I'm pretty sure that won't happen.

 

[zodium]

I bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that changes will be made to coalitions, AE (already being done) and expanding in general, to make WC not only possible but much easier, due to all these threads.

I then declare that a lot of the same people will complain about the game being boring, the AI offering no resistance and the effect of snowballing being too OP.

So basically, you think Paradox is incapable of coming up with a game design solution that adequately balances the need for preserving the size of the strategic space with the need for snowball inhibition?

 

[tapewormlondon]

So basically, you think Paradox is incapable of coming up with a game design solution that adequately balances the need for preserving the size of the strategic space with the need for snowball inhibition?

To the extent that a OPM (Ryuku) can do a WC?

YES.

 

[Eyestabber]

If think I know a solution that would please everyone who thinks the coalition mechanics are a-ok. Paradox should add a "Maximum Conquest Progress bar", an indicator showing the maximum amount of warfare one is a allowed to do on a single playtrough. This is usually about forming a nation, MAYBE taking like 3-5 extra provinces but that's IT. No destroying major powers and certainly no hijacking the HRE via vassalization of electors.

If you ever go over the "Maximum Conquest Limit" the game uninstalls itself, your CD-Key gets permabanned and your address is given to the guy that started a thread with the sole purpose of calling everyone who attempts WC noobs. He will then proceed to stab you in the face repeatedly while screaming "STOP TRYING TO TURN EU IV INTO A WAR GAME, YOU N00B! YOU'RE PLAYING WROOOOOOOONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111". World Conquest in a game is very much impossible when you've got steel on your face, and that's a FACT right there, fellas.

 

[Shushen]

Finally a sensible and realistic suggestion

 

[zodium]

To the extent that a OPM (Ryuku) can do a WC?

YES.

This is a reasonable gut feeling, but it doesn't really stand up to analysis. There's nothing special about Ryukyu once you look past the rough start. The extra time to consolidate your power base is time you would have spent waiting to westernize anyway, so by the time you're ready to make a move on The World in force, you'll be in mostly the same position you would have been as, say, Vijaynagar.

 

[tapewormlondon]

This is a reasonable gut feeling, but it doesn't really stand up to analysis. There's nothing special about Ryukyu once you look past the rough start. The extra time to consolidate your power base is time you would have spent waiting to westernize anyway, so by the time you're ready to make a move on The World in force, you'll be in mostly the same position you would have been as, say, Vijaynagar.

Ok, point taken and yes I agree with what I believe your trying to point out in that the barrier is currently at the stage of Mega Blob into WC. However in the above example you would have run out of time with the current mechanics or start feeling the pain of coalitions at the medium sized country phase, rather than at mega blob.

This is a game where you are supposed to choose your own goals for each separate country. However I do not believe that you should be able to achieve the same goals with every country. Should Castille, Austria, France or Ottos be able to achieve WC - yes I will concede that with a grueling mega difficult game, wracked with OE, Rebellions and viable threats and micro hell management....yes if a player can pull it off. But it should be stupidly hard.

Should Ryuku be able to pull of a WC. No, sorry not in my opinion, remove the achievement already. They should be able to become a world/ regional power, but not WC within the time constraints of the game. Horses for courses. What DDR Jake did with Ryuku was commendable, exploits be damned. Exploits should be needed to pull something like that off. I wish Pdox had left them in to be honest, as if someone wants to go through the tedium of that, then fair play.

To be honest the sheer tedium of a WC puts me well off even bothering, so there is next to zero chance of me even trying, so as long as the game doesn't become boring by 1600 like EU3, with any country I choose to play as, then im not too fussed what they do.

 

[HansBaer]

Lol if any developer would read these threads in full I doubt he'd change anything profoundly. Of the many thousands players who play the game why would the developers have to tend to the needs of the few dozens who incessantly spam the forum with coalition threads and all have an opinion, for to quote The Dude "yeah, well... that's just like... your opinion man" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ). What they might pay attention to is to the most broken aspects of coalitions, but to wholly concede to the whims of a few who think this is a Total War game. I'm pretty sure that won't happen.

Thanks for this, it sums it up. And kudos for the dude.
Has anyone even tried a WC yet? I actually tried one in 1.1 when it was still possible and it bored the shit out of me after i PUed all of Europe. You will try this exactly once, then you will never do it again. It's like cutting onions, repetitive and your eyes start to water at some point. I don't want EU 4 to be like other games, TW for example, where you basically shelf the game after you conquered all of "map" with 3 different nations. So far, EU has yet to bore me thanks to the "arbitrary" and "ahistoric" (prime candidate for my personal ugliest word of the year) restrictions.
Most of these threads are dumb in their core and keep getting worse, some good suggestions are made, though nothing new, ingenious and revolutionary since weeks as most OPs seem to think, and those get buried under loads of turds anyway.

 

[zodium]

Thanks for this, it sums it up. And kudos for the dude.
Has anyone even tried a WC yet? I actually tried one in 1.1 when it was still possible and it bored the shit out of me after i PUed all of Europe. You will try this exactly once, then you will never do it again. It's like cutting onions, repetitive and your eyes start to water at some point. I don't want to EU 4 to be like other games, TW for example, where you basically shelf the game after you conquered all of "map" with 3 different nations. So far, EU has yet to bore me thanks to the "arbitrary" and "ahistoric" (prime candidate for my personal ugliest word of the year) restrictions.
Most of these threads are dumb in their core and keep getting worse, some good suggestions are made, though nothing new, ingenious and revolutionary since weeks as most OPs seem to think, but are get buried under loads of turds.

If they keep getting worse, it's because a few die-hards insist on posting the same vapid nonsense over and over without adding anything to the discussion.

 

[HansBaer]

If they keep getting worse, it's because a few die-hards insist on posting the same vapid nonsense over and over without adding anything to the discussion.

Oh, you mean these posts distract from those?

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.

So the player gets railroaded into playing historically, while facing ahistorical enemies.

I support you about changing mechanics of coalition.... @paradox dev change it !!!!!

This is exactly what I think. France conquered Milan and Turin, and this is not possible in EUIV without annex all the countries. Why?

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.

And my favourite "It's not historic because Napoleon did ..... something"

Yeah, quite revolutionary, basically a reinvention of the wheel.

My point is, all these "historical arguments" are 90% BS, you will ALWAYS find an example that suits your needs. Just ask every dictator or warmonger in the history of mankind.
Ottomans joining a coalition for taking Iberia? Yeah, strange. GB vs Russia about a peninsula in the Black Sea? Huh?

 

[Nobak]

Oh, you mean these posts distract from those?











And my favourite "It's not historic because Napoleon did ..... something"

Yeah, quite revolutionary, basically a reinvention of the wheel.

My point is, all these "historical arguments" are 90% BS, you will ALWAYS find an example that suits your needs. Just ask every dictator or warmonger in the history of mankind.
Ottomans joining a coalition for taking Iberia? Yeah, strange. GB vs Russia about a peninsula in the Black Sea? Huh?

Stop seeing this as "us vs them". The good posts are in the tl;dr size range for most people and contain well-thought-out, well-explained suggestions to how various mechanics could be reworked.
I don't think there was one in this thread.

 

[Anthropoid]

. . . rivals are just as likely to join a coalition against you as a random neutral nation is

This has not been my experience. Anecdotally, AE goes up more for rivals and nations that seem to be most threatened by your actions, not by 'random neutral nations.'

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.

I have had several coalitions form against me as France. I have never seen anyone farther away than Austria join them. They have always been close neighbors. Again my anecdotal sense is that the empirical basis on which you are comparing the game mechanics to history may not be accurate.

- 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.

Seem like good suggestions overall.

Also, coalitions had a tendency of falling apart in the face of staunch resistance or when national interests began to clash. Just look at the countless coalitions against Louis XIV and how France could keep them at bay time and time again till attrition on both sides and mutual distrust ruptured them... This fun diplomatic game is sadly not reproduced in-game. Imagine how awesome it would be to not only survive a coalition but turn it against itself.

THAT! is an excellent point. Sadly though, I fear that given we are playing against an AI, efforts to render such complexity might just make it more exploitable.

 

[Eyestabber]

I love how these kids are completely incapable of seeing anything in between the current mechanics, which make WC impossible due to illogical constraints, and a Total War game, which pretty much removes all constraints that EU IV has. Saying "historical arguments are 90% BS" is simply admitting that you are incapable of arguing on historical grounds. "It should not be possible because it would be really boring". Really? EU IV is about pursuing whatever objectives you have, so long as you don't chose anything too belligerent? I mean, look at the amount of effort the devs put on warfare. Terrain bonuses, generals, different units, etc etc etc. It should all go to waste because some troll kids LOVE having a brick wall preventing militaristic expansion? NO, and I think the devs are realizing that (read 1.4 changelog).

 

[Darkath]

I have had several coalitions form against me as France. I have never seen anyone farther away than Austria join them. They have always been close neighbors. Again my anecdotal sense is that the empirical basis on which you are comparing the game mechanics to history may not be accurate.

I played a bit as force and used a bruteforce Napoleon-like approach at conquering europe as soon as 1444 (on hard/lucky nations on/etc.) By expanding aggressively into the HRE, i had AE reach the Poland and Danemark.

(this is the coalition map mode, a bit before poland joined it)

But as I pointed out in a precedent post, this is a snowball effect. Poland won't get any AE if you take one province from the HRE, but might get some after your 5th annexion of a HRE minor in 10 years.

 

[Matt3721]

So my understanding is that the coalition mechanic (along with AE in general, as well as overextension) is designed to limit "blobbing". And some people argue that this makes the game more "historically" accurate.

What I don't understand about this argument is that let's assume I'm not a WC L2PLAY NOOB - and I follow the path that the game seems to be forcing me down:

only take 1 province every few years in war - instead use warscore to release nations
abuse vassalization in general - sell provinces to vassals, go way over diplo limit and diploannex like a madman
AE getting too high? just release a nation as a vassal and watch AE go down to everyone in the world

When did any of that happen historically? I never heard of countries conquering territory... then selling it to their vassals so that they wouldn't have to deal with the administration of their newly conquered territory.
When a coalition formed against a country when was it a reasonable response to release a previously conquered country as a vassal (that no on should really give a crap about) and then expect the rest of the world to suddenly thank you for it?
What country ever kept like 15 vassals at all times and then annexed one every 10 years like clockwork because it was the only logical way to increase territory without getting a coalition to form against them?

On the other hand, if I am interested in some amount of conflict/expansion/war whatever you want to call it... right now my only option is to do a bunch of gamey stuff like selling provinces to vassals in order to expand. Me and my buddy played a game together on EASY with lucky nations, him as France and me as Austria - working as a team to WC basically... So toward the late 1600s we control well over 75% of the planet. But if either one of us suddenly takes 2 more provinces in a war than we should.... overextension is at 200%, coalitions are forming all over the place, and the game quickly devolves into an unfun version of whack-a-mole as rebels pop up all over our giant empires. Note that killing these rebels is not hard, nor strategic... it's just tedious, even with automatic rebel suppression. Apparently this is what's supposed to motivate us to not conquest too much. Want to conquer stuff? Too bad! You get punished by Tedium for the next 5 years. On the other hand... if you sell those provinces to your vassals and then just annex them later... well then all the sudden the rebels don't mind... And the argument for this is that it's historical? Or that it's much better than the "blobbing" effect that all these mechanics are designed to avoid? I can't understand either of those 2 arguments.

Don't get me wrong... I love this game and this game company... but to me it seems clear that there is something not working with these mechanics as they stand currently. I've read countless posts about this subject and no one seems to have an answer - How is selling provinces to a vassal all game historical??

 

[Eyestabber]

So my understanding is that the coalition mechanic (along with AE in general, as well as overextension) is designed to limit "blobbing". And some people argue that this makes the game more "historically" accurate.

What I don't understand about this argument is that let's assume I'm not a WC L2PLAY NOOB - and I follow the path that the game seems to be forcing me down:

only take 1 province every few years in war - instead use warscore to release nations
abuse vassalization in general - sell provinces to vassals, go way over diplo limit and diploannex like a madman
AE getting too high? just release a nation as a vassal and watch AE go down to everyone in the world

When did any of that happen historically? I never heard of countries conquering territory... then selling it to their vassals so that they wouldn't have to deal with the administration of their newly conquered territory.
When a coalition formed against a country when was it a reasonable response to release a previously conquered country as a vassal (that no on should really give a crap about) and then expect the rest of the world to suddenly thank you for it?
What country ever kept like 15 vassals at all times and then annexed one every 10 years like clockwork because it was the only logical way to increase territory without getting a coalition to form against them?

On the other hand, if I am interested in some amount of conflict/expansion/war whatever you want to call it... right now my only option is to do a bunch of gamey stuff like selling provinces to vassals in order to expand. Me and my buddy played a game together on EASY with lucky nations, him as France and me as Austria - working as a team to WC basically... So toward the late 1600s we control well over 75% of the planet. But if either one of us suddenly takes 2 more provinces in a war than we should.... overextension is at 200%, coalitions are forming all over the place, and the game quickly devolves into an unfun version of whack-a-mole as rebels pop up all over our giant empires. Note that killing these rebels is not hard, nor strategic... it's just tedious, even with automatic rebel suppression. Apparently this is what's supposed to motivate us to not conquest too much. Want to conquer stuff? Too bad! You get punished by Tedium for the next 5 years. On the other hand... if you sell those provinces to your vassals and then just annex them later... well then all the sudden the rebels don't mind... And the argument for this is that it's historical? Or that it's much better than the "blobbing" effect that all these mechanics are designed to avoid? I can't understand either of those 2 arguments.

Don't get me wrong... I love this game and this game company... but to me it seems clear that there is something not working with these mechanics as they stand currently. I've read countless posts about this subject and no one seems to have an answer - How is selling provinces to a vassal all game historical??

Don't forget the "highjack the HRE for infinite vassals" part.

 

[alanschu]

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

Unfortunately this description is a great example of what I'd like coalitions to do more of. They basically liberated land you conquered and returned it to the nation you stole it from. They are taking a belligerent and cutting him down to size.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

Lol if any developer would read these threads in full I doubt he'd change anything profoundly. Of the many thousands players who play the game why would the developers have to tend to the needs of the few dozens who incessantly spam the forum with coalition threads and all have an opinion, for to quote The Dude "yeah, well... that's just like... your opinion man" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ). What they might pay attention to is to the most broken aspects of coalitions, but to wholly concede to the whims of a few who think this is a Total War game. I'm pretty sure that won't happen.

You mean like how Paradox "didn't" nerf PUs based upon the whining of a small subset of this forum? Sure PUs needed to be altered a bit, but just making them some completely random mechanic that is biased by lucky nations (which should not be in ironman in the first place) is just ruining them in the other direction.

Sorry but this is essentially a total war game, as the main thing to do during peace is to diplo vassal and diplo annex. When the gameplay is centered around expansion, expansion should be fun. Coalitions detract from the fun after the fact. After the fact is key here as it takes little effort (once you learn the basics) to avoid coalitions when you are growing, then coalitions become a fact of life after you can already manhandle the entire world.