If guaranteeing now requires being stronger than the target...
- Thread starter Granite
- 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.
But warning would theoretically be more likely to be used against a target bigger than you. As in, you're defending an area against an invading power, whereas guaranteeing is more of a power show saying "Hands off!"
EDIT: Nevermind Corrected by slv
EDIT: Nevermind Corrected by slv
Last edited:
Well, it does. Start game with Friesland try to warn Burgundy. You will see the "we are too weak for our warning to be taken seriously" or smth like that.
I would say that the act of warning another country is also a "power show". For example, how realistic would it be for say Navarra to warn France or Aragon?
The thing about warnings is that they should require reasonably similar levels of power between the target. I think it's more reasonable the Ottomans warn Hungary to not invade Serbia or Wallachia than it is for Ottomans to warn Serbia or Wallachia so they don't invade each other.
This would also improve gameplay as a minor bordering a large power, so this way you don't get warnblocked by Austria/Ottomans/Burgundy/whoever and get to do nothing for the next 20 years unless the warner is suddenly losing a war very badly.
This would also improve gameplay as a minor bordering a large power, so this way you don't get warnblocked by Austria/Ottomans/Burgundy/whoever and get to do nothing for the next 20 years unless the warner is suddenly losing a war very badly.
i see no reason why a bigger power cant throw its weight around by demanding smaller powers not do something
why SHOULDNT the turks warn serbia not to attack wallachia?
why SHOULDNT the turks warn serbia not to attack wallachia?
What difference does it make to the Ottomans if Serbia attacks Wallachia or not? Serbia or Serbia+Wallachia is still a walk in the park for Ottomans. If Hungary invaded Serbia/Wallachia and annexed them, though, then Ottomans would have to fight a much bigger power with a potentially much more dangerous alliance web just to get the Serbians or Wallachians.
There's also the fact that the gameplay caused by Ottomans warning nations who provide zero threat to them just because they border each other is awful and really terrible for the game if you play a nation that gets warned by Ottomans, or any other culprit.
Keep in mind there's also no penalty for not honoring your warning, warning relation penalties wear off before warns do, and that they don't take diplo slots.
especially when there are other mechanisms in the game for a large power to interfere in wars between two smaller countries that neighbor them...
These particular restrictions make no sense.
1. Warnings should be allowed by anybody against anybody. They should lower relations, and they should not block a return warning. The only reason people used to warn Ottomans as BYZ was to avoid being warned. It's stupid that a warned nation can't warn the other back though; I've never seen a strong gameplay justification for that, and yet it's the sole reason warning was taken from minor nations against majors. If you simply allowed them to be mutual, warning a major as a minor would have no upside and potentially a cost.
2. Guarantees are similar. Sometimes, a minor can throw a guarantee on someone that allows said minor to alter the outcome of the war. I've done this as Kochin in the Vijay/Bahmanis war in the past; an extra 5 units joining a battle at the right time between two nations with 11-14 fighting each other can be decisive, but now that's gone because...why exactly? The only gameplay reason that comes to mind is people using guarantees for the relations, but you could just as easily have relations scale on relative power so that majors don't take guarantees from minors seriously on the relations front, while minors appreciate the help.
In both cases, we're getting reduced player agency where it's hard to see the gameplay reasoning, with minimal historical reasoning.
1. Warnings should be allowed by anybody against anybody. They should lower relations, and they should not block a return warning. The only reason people used to warn Ottomans as BYZ was to avoid being warned. It's stupid that a warned nation can't warn the other back though; I've never seen a strong gameplay justification for that, and yet it's the sole reason warning was taken from minor nations against majors. If you simply allowed them to be mutual, warning a major as a minor would have no upside and potentially a cost.
2. Guarantees are similar. Sometimes, a minor can throw a guarantee on someone that allows said minor to alter the outcome of the war. I've done this as Kochin in the Vijay/Bahmanis war in the past; an extra 5 units joining a battle at the right time between two nations with 11-14 fighting each other can be decisive, but now that's gone because...why exactly? The only gameplay reason that comes to mind is people using guarantees for the relations, but you could just as easily have relations scale on relative power so that majors don't take guarantees from minors seriously on the relations front, while minors appreciate the help.
In both cases, we're getting reduced player agency where it's hard to see the gameplay reasoning, with minimal historical reasoning.
Why should warning or guaranteeing require any amount of strength? Does your diplomat physically lose the ability to say "if you declare war on Wallachia, we will help defend them?"
It's like the year 1066 and sailing rivers. Or converting from norse/germanic and sailing rivers.
At the very least maybe France for example shouldn't get the temporary +10 like to a a OPM guaranteeing they will stay independence. I've used it as a kick to finish getting an alliance I was close to.
"France is saved now ulm has our back"
I imagine that is what it is for.
Last edited:
The new system is weird. Does it mean that if you are 1 base tax, 3 manpower less powerful than a nation you cant warn them? If thats the case then thats really dumb.
That would be WAY more sensibly solved by removing the +10 relations bonus from guaranteeing. After all, if they really gave a crap about you they'd make an alliance. If anything, guarantees should be seen as condescending and threatening.
They used to be; then, they added a truce timer upon guarantee removal.
Still, do you guarantee countries you plan on having a long-standing friendly relationship with?
If i'm using it for the last bit of points so I can form an alliance with a powerful nation then yes. Other times I use it for the last bit to diplo vassal someone.
I guarantee a tiny nation will be free from... well people who aren't me.
Often the +10 from guaranteeing helps nail a vassalage with a nation you can't RM/heretic.
The only thing you achieve with guarantee as a Strong nation to an OPM, is to prevent others from annexing it so you can annex it yourself.
That said warnings now do take into account relative strength. And all things considered it makes sense. If an OPM minor in the Baltic warns a fully fledged Russia, I believe the Tsar would simply piss his pants...laughing.
That said warnings now do take into account relative strength. And all things considered it makes sense. If an OPM minor in the Baltic warns a fully fledged Russia, I believe the Tsar would simply piss his pants...laughing.