How can the AI be made a more selfish ally?

[yerm]

There's two problems. One is the warleader getting all the spoils - I like the solution of giving nations the option to push their share of the warscore in a peace deal, with minimums to qualify. This has the side benefit of dragging out the peace process too. They already have a box for ally can negotiate for me yes/no which was removed, just put the box back in and make it ally can keep my warscore yes/no (if you don't want anything). Another other option is to allow an allied attacker to have their own wargoal demands. Let's say for instance if Poland declares war on TO conquest of Chelmo and calls Brandenburg, Brandenburg can list a demand (reconquest of neumark) when joining. Austria might join without such a need. Now, here's the fun part, get rid of the ability to make unjustified demands unless the justified demands are met. This could even be done as part of a pre-CTA process - rather then Poland declaring war on Teutonic Order, they declare their intent to go to war, allies can yes/no joining (and in this way not screw up alliances over offensive CTAs), and Poland can then declare the war if they like what they see or back down if not, or uncheck allies they don't want (eg allied Denmark asks for Danzig, GTFO of my war).

The other, bigger, badder, IMO worst problem... is that the AI itself goes nuts over a war. The lack of compensation for allies is only as miserable a thing as it is because allies themselves go balls to the wall every war. This needs to be a simple check, similar to war enthusiasm (or maybe just use war enthusiasm) in which an ally who stops caring about the war stops trying to participate, and a war leader who stops caring about the war will try to quickly make peace.

 

[Moah]

You wanted a french core as Brittany? I also like to live dangerously.

I just wanted to expand somehow... wasn't able to, in the end. France ended up attacking provence later and taking their cores anyway. I ran like a cowa... smart man, and colonized as much as I could.

Would you have been able to win alone? If no, they're totally right. And besides, it's their cores, thus they are entirely right in being pissed at you for not giving them back to them.

I didn't say they were wrong, or that the game was broken, just mentioned one time when this happened. I probably would have been able to get it (though with much more difficulty), I had other allies (that I had actually chosen).

In the same vein as this thread, another thing i'd like to see is for war participants to be able to influence the war leader into making peace.
I've gone to war with allies who are being trounced but won't accept peace while my provinces are blockacked on all sides, and I can't do anything.
Separate peacing would cost me too much and the result is guaranteed anyway.

 

[Krajzen]

Instead of flat out alliances we should have treaties that spell out the conditions and terms of mutual assistance. These may range from shaing trade through protection to full on military alliances. These deals can be brokered through negotiations similar to peace deals. You want Austria to protect you?, give them 10% of your trade income or cancel your treaty with France. etc.


Of course this will be a challenge for the AI and game optimisation but some form of Treaty system would be good.

Whoa, ambitious and cool.

Simplified version would be simple few types of alliances:
- Defensive Alliance, where nation is called only when something else attacks second one, not other way around
- <regular> Alliance, both nations help each other in every war
- reworked Coalitions aimed at one particular target and this time more targeting big powers
- Federations expanded from NA tribes now possible all minor states: strict alliances aimed at survival from big outside threats, but important twist is they work only when federation itself is attacked, not when a member of it attacks, and only against enemies big enough.

I am not sure about extravagant concept of Offensive alliance where two nations help each other only during agression, I guess Coalition is de facto something similar.

 

[Thrake]

The AI works the same way. The only difference is that the player won't ally small states and in many cases won't do anything in favor of the war.

As I'm concerned, I happen to defend small states when it's the only real solution for a rival to expand. Somtimes, it's just easier to block the expansion of a rival that I have no easy way to beat, expand while he's locked in and bully him once I have a good enough edge, or simply go for an opportunistic war while he's trying to fight another of his rival.

Anyway, protecting the weak = maintaining status quo

This is very well represented in for exemple Victoria, or even in EUIII with sphere of influence, but in EUIV it hardly ever happens (the only guarantees are the one coded at start).

 

[HansBaer]

I guaranteed the independence of byzantium once as poland, the following war set the ottomans back 50 years. I imagine the ai tries to do the same when allying minors under threat from their rivals.

Who said anything about allying all great powers in day 1? But why shouldn't (for example) Albania to ally Austria? Many countries were worried about the Ottomans expansion into Europe so having a strategically strong Albania (getting stronger by helping them and eventually pushing out the Ottomans) makes perfect sense? or are you too fickle to apply abit of logic to such a situation?

I thought we were talking about offensive wars here. Of course you should be able to guarantee minor nations and have defensive alliances with greater powers, AI or human. Yet, although i usually despise the historic argumentation as you can find an example for almost every argument, Austria, Poland or France joining an offensive war Albania started against the Turks? To help them build the great Albanian empire? I don't know... It makes even less sense gameplay wise, which is all that counts for me.

Also, this has little to do with the OPs suggestions, he mostly wants to make wars fair. I think most of us can agree that wars are pretty imbalanced right now although it got a little bit better in the recent patches with the "was not given Claims in Peace Deal" mechanic (which, sadly, can be easily avoided by the experienced player). And if you really want to ally the great Hapsburg empire as Albania, you should at least give them 50% of your tax income, 30% of your monthly manpower or something similar for their protection (as others have suggested since ages).

 

[Merrivale]

This is definitely an issue, in my last game as Tuscany I allied with France and basically used them to defeat Austria, Spain, and the Ottomans (I mean, I helped some, but it was the big French doomstacks that won the wars). I gave them some stuff here and there, but no where near the enormous compensation I received and definitely not in every war. They did ask for my help in a few wars and I of course joined and preceded to sit on my hands and do nothing. They did not seem to care.

The other major effect was that since France was constantly involved in my wars against major powers, she was unable to fight many of her own offensive wars and was never even close to full manpower and did not blob beyond her usual borders, it even took forever for Brittany to get annexed. So when the time came for me to stab them in the back, it was a walk in the park.

The system shouldn't make it impossible for an alliance like mine to happen, but it should make the AI increasingly less likely to keep winning wars for its allies when it gets nothing in return.

 

[richelieu1628]

That still doesn't make sense to me. Austria protecting Albania? Perhaps. Austria being called to arms by Albania in an agressive war against Ottomans? No way. Albania on its own is insignificant; basically, it's like asking Austria to do all the job. And with the current rules, they would do all the job and get nothing in turn but debt, loans and dead soldiers.

Exactly. I think it would make complete sense for an AI Austria to defend Albania against the Ottomans. But not for an AI Austria to beat up the Ottomans on behalf of Albania. Perhaps there can be something like a beefed up guarantee to model this better.

 

[richelieu1628]

There's two problems. One is the warleader getting all the spoils - I like the solution of giving nations the option to push their share of the warscore in a peace deal, with minimums to qualify. This has the side benefit of dragging out the peace process too. They already have a box for ally can negotiate for me yes/no which was removed, just put the box back in and make it ally can keep my warscore yes/no (if you don't want anything). Another other option is to allow an allied attacker to have their own wargoal demands. Let's say for instance if Poland declares war on TO conquest of Chelmo and calls Brandenburg, Brandenburg can list a demand (reconquest of neumark) when joining. Austria might join without such a need. Now, here's the fun part, get rid of the ability to make unjustified demands unless the justified demands are met. This could even be done as part of a pre-CTA process - rather then Poland declaring war on Teutonic Order, they declare their intent to go to war, allies can yes/no joining (and in this way not screw up alliances over offensive CTAs), and Poland can then declare the war if they like what they see or back down if not, or uncheck allies they don't want (eg allied Denmark asks for Danzig, GTFO of my war).

The other, bigger, badder, IMO worst problem... is that the AI itself goes nuts over a war. The lack of compensation for allies is only as miserable a thing as it is because allies themselves go balls to the wall every war. This needs to be a simple check, similar to war enthusiasm (or maybe just use war enthusiasm) in which an ally who stops caring about the war stops trying to participate, and a war leader who stops caring about the war will try to quickly make peace.

I agree with this very much. I suspect it'll be hard to implement, but it would be cool if could make the whole spoils of war setup more dynamic, basically.

 

[HansBaer]

Do you guys think individual WS would be possible? The ticking WS being distributed evenly among all allies? The transfer of occupied provinces would certainly be a problem. Maybe WS from occupation should also be distributed evenly? So if you attack Milan as Tuscany and France does all the dirty work, you get <50% of the WS, which enables you to take Parma, Reparations and annul treaties with Austria, for example. Now as the OP suggested, if you don't give France at least something in return for their help (if they have no claims, war reparations from Milan should always be mandatory), you can kiss goodbye to your alliance.
Now what happens if you both have a claim on Parma? Well, you should have thought twice before calling France into that one. There is no way to keep them as allies after the war unless you give them Parma and just take useless ducats for yourself.
Also, this would mean that you shouldn't always just call in as many allies as possible like you do know, as this will lower your maximum possible WS by a huge degree. Now if you want to full annex or vassal someone, you would have to do that totally on your own, which sounds alright in my ears.
More complexity is always good in these kind of games imho, the more things you have to consider before DOW the better as this is what the game really is about.

In addition, this could make the "build up" phase of the game considerably longer, thus really give you some incentive to play the full 400 years for once if not hunting for achievements or world dominations. It would also help the player in some way, as it will protect you from bad wars you couldn't expect: Something like a Janapur allied to the Timurids and Bengal dowing you as Delhi. Of course they will beat you soundly, but they won't be able to completely destroy you in one war and can probably kiss their Timurid alliance goodbye after that war, which enables you to come back in force once they get into a nasty war themselves.

 

[yerm]

Do you guys think individual WS would be possible? The ticking WS being distributed evenly among all allies? The transfer of occupied provinces would certainly be a problem. Maybe WS from occupation should also be distributed evenly? So if you attack Milan as Tuscany and France does all the dirty work, you get <50% of the WS, which enables you to take Parma, Reparations and annul treaties with Austria, for example. Now as the OP suggested, if you don't give France at least something in return for their help (if they have no claims, war reparations from Milan should always be mandatory), you can kiss goodbye to your alliance.
Now what happens if you both have a claim on Parma? Well, you should have thought twice before calling France into that one. There is no way to keep them as allies after the war unless you give them Parma and just take useless ducats for yourself.
Also, this would mean that you shouldn't always just call in as many allies as possible like you do know, as this will lower your maximum possible WS by a huge degree. Now if you want to full annex or vassal someone, you would have to do that totally on your own, which sounds alright in my ears.
More complexity is always good in these kind of games imho, the more things you have to consider before DOW the better as this is what the game really is about.

In addition, this could make the "build up" phase of the game considerably longer, thus really give you some incentive to play the full 400 years for once if not hunting for achievements or world dominations. It would also help the player in some way, as it will protect you from bad wars you couldn't expect: Something like a Janapur allied to the Timurids and Bengal dowing you as Delhi. Of course they will beat you soundly, but they won't be able to completely destroy you in one war and can probably kiss their Timurid alliance goodbye after that war, which enables you to come back in force once they get into a nasty war themselves.

Individual warscore should be possible. Occupation would go to the person who occupied it, not who holds the occupation afterwards if transfered. Ticking warscore goes to the warleader still. Any WS contribution too low to qualify stays with the warleader. Any contribution from someone who opts out of spoils goes to the warleader. It's not a new idea to Paradox games, just to eu4.

It's really not that tricky, and if it means the warleader is getting a bit more than others for the same work, well, that's totally fine! Just so long as they aren't getting most of the reward while doing next to nothing. It will cripple strategies that rely on big powers handholding the player through a small early game, while empowering players who otherwise are stuck always trying to separate peace to make sure they get something. It should considerably beef up the AI emperor who's perpetually helping OPMs that take obscene rewards when defended and give Austria (or whoever) next to nothing.

 

[hajutze]

Just make it so the AI doesn't send like 100% of its army to some distant war (unless probably the side isnt losing badly)

 

[Meds]

To be honest with viewing players as defensive allies only and declining far off wars it seems ai already does act slightly selfish. I wish that they could ask for more from defeated enemies such as money and conceding defeat etc and that I could give it to them.