HTTT has some frustrating diplomatic issues...

[Lanassa]

Semi-related diplomatic concern: if I have a core on some other state's vassal and I initiate a Reconquest war for it, am I supposed to still take the full infamy hit from taking the cored territory?

 

[Romtos]

Sometimes you just don't have a handy CB but you want to DoW anyway, so I wouldn't forbid the AI from DoWing without one.

Not getting a penalty, or getting a reduced one for declining a call without a valid CB was something I thought about too during the beta. However I concluded that it didn't really fit with the alliance system. When you sign an alliance in EU it's a FULL alliance, you're agreeing to support your ally no matter what, and if you don't live up to this you suffer for it by losing prestige. If you're not willing to support a nation fully, including if they dow without a CB, you shouldn't be allying with them.

But it makes sense that you don't get a stab hit, because your just doing what you're expected to do, as opposed to the sans-CB-dowing AI nation, who is being 'naughty'.

 

[Darkrenown]

You're still supporting someone being naughty though. Sometimes you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Balesir]

You're still supporting someone being naughty though. Sometimes you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Word. Sometimes, in life, you get reamed by someone else's actions. That's not a "design flaw" in reality - it's just the way it is. If you want a world where nothing but your own l337ne55 decides your fate, try another reality. It's a 400 year game, for pete's sake! Roll with a few punches. One of the most profound messages I have taken from these games is that, as a ruler, your job is not to decide what "should be" - it's just to decide what you are going to do about what is.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

You're still supporting someone being naughty though. Sometimes you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

CtA: Accept (-1 Stability)
     Decline (-1 Stability);)

As to the OP, should the AI claiming thrones be punished for their 'bad' choices? You seem to accept that it should (you specifically state that the player should for their own choices). Relations are bilateral; there is no way to reduce country A's relations with country B without also reducing country B's relations with A. You could just as well complain about your relations with some high-infamy country suffering through no fault of your own. Or why you should suffer a relations hit with a country who competed your merchant out of a CoT.

-Pat

 

[Carewolf2]

Secundo, theres the issue of alliances. The Ai regularly Dows people without CBs now, and this inflicts large stab hits on the player if he allies AI nations. This is, IMO, unacceptable as a game mechanic. The AI ought to either not DoW without a CB, or the player ought to either not receive a call to arms when such a thing happens, or to benefit nontheless from an "Aid an Ally!" CB and get no stab hit. A third option would be to ensure that calls to arms without a CB can be declined without damaging either Relations, Trust, Prestige, nor Breaking the Alliance.

In my short game last night, I got a CB (aid-an-ally) after I refused the call to aid him. It appears there is a lag between getting CB and being asked to join a war. This leads to expensive stab cost for honoring them, and the cheap exploit of joining the effort as a leader of your own war, afterward when you no longer have an ally in the war.

 

[Trin Tragula]

The problem to me seems to be that the AI is actually a bit too opportunistic), it will expand when the possibility is given and does so well. However it won't take into much consideration what to do with the things it has conquered afterwards. It also seems to not consider how to defend it's gains and therefore it will often overstretch and then implode.
The above behaviour is also why it's supposedly become harder to play nice with it.
This is just from what people have been reporting on the forum and from my own one game so far though.

 

[Darkrenown]

In my short game last night, I got a CB (aid-an-ally) after I refused the call to aid him. It appears there is a lag between getting CB and being asked to join a war. This leads to expensive stab cost for honoring them, and the cheap exploit of joining the effort as a leader of your own war, afterward when you no longer have an ally in the war.

No, that's not true. You get the Ally CB when your ally is at war with someone and you are not, you got it briefly as your alliance status and CBs are only checked at the end of the month. I suppose you could "exploit" this and DoW with the ally CB, but it doesn't allow taking provinces etc.
If your ally has a valid CB you don't get a stab hit for joining.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I think this CB has been added to prevent DOW exploits.

Before HTTT, you could always DOW alliance minors to prevent strong allies from going to war as they should.

Example:
FRA is allied with RUS and BAV, but RUS is not allied with BAV. If ENG sends a DOW to BAV, FRA will get a call to arms, but RUS will not. With HTTT, RUS now gets an "Alliance CB" against ENG and can join the war.

This exploit was esp. awful for MP games - and now it is fixed!

 

[King Nothing]

About the Claim throne spam, I haven't got HttT yet but if it's anything like the trade agreement spam in IN it's just stupid... The problem is not that the AI:s decision affect you. It should. The problem is that the AI is in some regards quite lousy and that makes the bad decisions occur way to often and therefore affecting the player way to much..

But about the ally thing.. What would happen if you start an allied to-war before answering the call to arm? Would you still take a hit if answering the call to arms? And would that in turn give you two wars against the enemy? And would that mean you don't loose the alliance since you actually answered his call even if you DoW:ed him separately? Or would the popup simply dissapear as it does when clicking a peace offer after you have already made peace? And therefore loose the alliance even though you are in a "alliance war"...

Lots of strange possibilities here.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

7

Heresy!

 

[Grubnessul]

The AI can never be opportunistic enough

EDIT: and of course the old wisdom: if you don't want shit, keep your manhood in your pants.

 

[Alerias]

Sometimes you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Thats precisely what I object to; it makes for an incredibly frustrating game when such serious consequences depend on the AI rather than yourself.

Its just un-fun, no matter how challenging or whatever. Once again, at a minimum, we ought to be able to mod it out somehow.

 

[DukeSforza]

Going to wait on HttT

You know I'm just getting used to EU3 IN 3.2 Final and though the new expansion sounds like it has quite a few good things going for it, threads like these make me think I should wait a bit and see what the first patch does before diving into this new morass of features and dynastic goodness.

I do think there needs to be a cap on royal marriages, that just makes sense. Even the venerable Habsburgs didn't have an unlimited supply of suitors to send to the courts of Europe, and with someone like Queen Elizabeth on the throne no amount of suitors would make any difference. From what I'm reading it does sound like the AI is too opportunistic, and I know from experience raw opportunism can lead to lost campaigns in EU3, even for a human player. I guess there needs to be a touch more strategery going on, especially for Tribal Nations who's expansion is, in of itself a great risk. Sure Astrakhan might gain 15 regions in 10 years, but once that incapable ruler/succession crisis hits it wont matter. I've had situations where I've played minor nations, and I've found out the hard way expanding into 9 tax base provinces when you can barely field a 3,000 man army is a bad idea, even when it is opportune and relatively risk free.

So I guess I'm saying, if the AI is claiming thrones like its going out of style, that does need to be toned down, its unwise and potentially destructive. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing obscure factions like Danzig come into existence, but I don't want total chaos on the strategic map either. I can see how royal marriages could hurt, that doesn't seem too unrealistic. But I too wouldn't want my fate as a non-OPM to be guided entirely by the potential missteps of others. I'll have to keep my eye on how HttT develops, I like IN 3.2 as it is, but I also like the new features I'm hearing about too. Hopefully things will get clearer as the game becomes more familiar to everyone.

 

[xGhost4000x]

I've played 3 campaigns for various lengths, England, Timurids, Japan, and I haven't had my throne claimed ever. Nor have I seen many thrones claimed by the AI.

 

[acheron_w]

Thats a possible solution, yes. As long as it is the player's choices that determine the consequences, everything is fair. Its unmerited consequences that fly in the face of unified gaming theory

I think you forgot that only weak legitimacy nations can be target of claim throne action now.
So if you marry only strong legitimacy nations, you will not get relation penalty with a 3rd party claiming the throne if your in-laws.

Ofc there are more benefits of marrying low-legitimacy rulers, but then having more dangers as well is fair.

 

[whitesoxfan]

Turn on messages when for countries claiming the throne of others. The AI ALWAYS claims thrones. Even when I, Austria, with 50 prestige, had claimed the throne of Bavaria, OPMs insisted on also claiming the throne, for no reason at all. The AI really needs to consider whether the relations penalty is worth claiming the throne.

With AIs DOWing without CB, I think the choice is realistic. You either had to dishonor the alliance, which should make your country ashamed, or honor it. For the AI, they might go in without a casus belli because they really, really want the country they're DOWing. For you, there's no such incentive, you have to honor the alliance because you want to stay true to your word.

I think a lot of people are having a hard time adjusting to the concept that the purpose of joining an ally's war is not to gain anything for yourself, it's to keep a deal you made and help your ally.

 

[xGhost4000x]

Turn on messages when for countries claiming the throne of others. The AI ALWAYS claims thrones. Even when I, Austria, with 50 prestige, had claimed the throne of Bavaria, OPMs insisted on also claiming the throne, for no reason at all. The AI really needs to consider whether the relations penalty is worth claiming the throne.

With AIs DOWing without CB, I think the choice is realistic. You either had to dishonor the alliance, which should make your country ashamed, or honor it. For the AI, they might go in without a casus belli because they really, really want the country they're DOWing. For you, there's no such incentive, you have to honor the alliance because you want to stay true to your word.

I think a lot of people are having a hard time adjusting to the concept that the purpose of joining an ally's war is not to gain anything for yourself, it's to keep a deal you made and help your ally.

I turned it on, played for 4 years and got a grand total of 2 claims. Then again I'm in Asia, so it's not like I have the giant cluster of European Countries.

 

[unmerged(115611)]

7

why 7?

 

[Balesir]

why 7?

Because that's part of the question.

Back on topic:

Thats precisely what I object to; it makes for an incredibly frustrating game when such serious consequences depend on the AI rather than yourself.

Its just un-fun, no matter how challenging or whatever. Once again, at a minimum, we ought to be able to mod it out somehow.

Is this your first visit to planet Earth? Sometimes, bad stuff happens. That's life. Now, it might be happening a little frequently to be plausible - that's a legitimate complaint - but to object to it happening at all is like objecting to the tide coming in or the wind blowing...