How to make people actually join their allies wars.

[klopkr]

As things are now when an ally calls you into war there is no real reason not to just say yes and never actually help. So here are my ideas to fix that.

If a war ends within a year it should be the same as usual because you may not have been able to reach that place in time. After the one year mark if you don't contribute more than 1% warscore through battles or sieges when the war ends your ally will consider it the same as a dishonored call. If you get more than 50% of the warscore your ally will like you by 10 more opinion for a few years. If 100% of the warscore is contributed by you your ally will like you twice as much as normal and may become your friend.

All this would apply to the AI too but it shouldn't be too much of a problem because they usually try to help and if they couldn't manage then they shouldn't have accepted your request.

Thoughts?

 

[Zohtun]

+1. While I hate the idea that I'll have to help my "Ally" who I secretly hate, this would make a lot of sense. Personally I'd just send a sacrificial stack if I hate them that much. Get my 1% and then suicide the stack or walk it home (or just suck up the -50% levy loss). There's no reason why a King would go "I love that you came to my aid" when they've just lost a war and you were nowhere to be seen.

 

[SpanglishEmpire]

Definitely needs something doing so the AI knows you were there or not.

 

[Azarias59]

1% contribution is nothing. Make it a good 3% at least.

+1 for the idea btw.

 

[Rags17]

+1 with my own suggestion - why not make the caller's gratitude based on the outcome of the war and each combatants Warscore contribution, REGARDLESS of time in war or forces provided ? To really spice it up the actual reward/punishment would be based on each members contribution as a proportion of the whole, with a big minus if the player underperformed their expectation. This need not be a sudden death condition (eg "We expected 25% from you and you gave us 24 - we now hate you !") but worked into the formula for payoff, eg "We expected 25% from you but you only gave us 15%, thanks for the help, but I'm not really that grateful . . ."

This would have many interesting effects -

1) If I join a huge coalition then my expected contribution would be small - I could then "outperform" by adding more troops or whatever and exceeding my ally's expectations.

2) If the war is already nearly won or lost then it might be detrimental to answer a call. Becoming (say) the third member of a losing coalition with a Warscore of -70 might not be worth it if your contribution wont affect the outcome and the blame for the loss gets apportioned all round - far better to accept a smaller fixed malus then a larger share of total blame and retributions.

3) There would be no excuse for being late to the party - if you don't think that you would be able to make it in time then just stay home and avoid the malus for underperforming your expected contribution. Another tactical (operational) decision to consider before accepting the call.

4) Keeping a war going after getting to 100% Warscore might make more sense if the idea is to rack up some more personal contribution to the total, either to deny prestige to an ally or to gain more for yourself.

 

[klopkr]

I like your idea rags it could really make joining wars more dynamic.