I did once. When i forced France to release Champagne, i guaranteed them, to prevent France to reconquer its claims.
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.
So why not let the Tsar do that in that situation, and not restrict it in situations it would matter?
Generally just for the relation boost. It's usually just a formality though, because I'm probably already allied to them anyways.
The powerful countries can still warn the weak, its not the other way around.
And I still don't get why this is. Why do powerful countries warn the weak? Why do they not warn each other?
What made you believe that they cant? You can warn anybody who is relatively at your power level.
According to the Op:
So we are discussing weather a country should be able to warn another comparing their relative strength. Its only logical that a week country cant warn a powerful one, whats the confusion about?
Because I disagree a weaker country can't warn a more powerful one. A weaker power can definitely tip the balance of a war against a larger power. Given coalitions don't respond to threat, warnings are one possible method to ensure some balance.
Think this from the perspective of a ruler. If I am ruling a great power and you are ruling an OPM, the moment the warning comes into my desk, ill throw it to my fireplace. And I might even decide to invade you just because you are an upstart. Coalitions are explicitly responding to threats, if you were that one OPM you had better joined that coalition forming against me, cause a letter from a country that simply cant compare does have 0 value. You simply dont have the weight to carry out your threat and I know it, or more simply you are in no position to make threats in the first place.
Sending warnings and simply damaging your relations while you are unable to act upon them is a silly mechanic.
The AI does not do this. The AI only warns nations that honestly pose very little threat to them. This implies that the intended use of warnings and the logical use of warnings are not the same.
A weak nation with a strong ally that has a lot of trust in them isn't a weak nation.
I have. If I ruled a large power and was planning on invading a medium power, but I was then warned by another medium power, I'd think twice. The inability to do that is a far, far, sillier mechanic than OPMs warning larger countries, which, as noted, could indeed change the balance of a war. If OPMs can send warning does it harm the game? No. If medium powers (and I mean, even an OPM can make a huge difference in some wars) can't warn larger powers does it harm the game? Yes.
Yes it does harm them if it functions like this, because as I said they cant back their warnings and in the end strain their relations for no effect. This game doesn't need neither mechanics that have no effect or ones that gimp the AI further.
As to your scenario I can counter argue with a 10000 arguments, the point is you cant simulate every single alliance web in the game to be taken into account hence why the game functions by taking individual strength into account. As it does for almost everything else.
And in the end what you propose is been done coalitions.
Also a medium power is lot different than an OPM which was our starting argument. I still fail to see how an OPM will make a difference between two super powers colliding.
The AI doesn't take this into account, if it will be taken into account one day maybe, but then you have to take the aggressors allies too, potentially reaching the same conclusion.
This only implies that the mechanic is not working as intended or that it was thought out poorly.
The main problem with warnings is them preventing from countries warning each other. Does it harm the game if Trebizond can warn the Ottomans? No. Does it harm the game the game if Trebizond can magically prevent the Ottomans from warning them by calling dibs on the warning business? It is at least weird.
Is it plausible that France and Burgundy can't try to keep each other from gobbling up the likes of Provence? I don't think so, but as long as the AI would never dare warning someone their own size it's a moot point for single-player.
Is it plausible that France and Burgundy can't try to keep each other from gobbling up the likes of Provence? I don't think so, but as long as the AI would never dare warning someone their own size it's a moot point for single-player.
In regard to warnings and guarantees a weak nation is exactly that because it normally isn't allowed to call in it's own allies. Or does the AI ever declare co-belligerents?
The fact that Trebizond is effectively speeding up its death sentence by doing something that can be akin to a suicide action by inflicting itself a relations penalty to the guy who doesn't want to mess with, is ok to you? Well now we might as well as code it to insult them as well just because.....or even dow them to get to the end result one day later.
And in either case it should be addressed, and addressing it would probably allievate some of the issues with warnings in the long run. Making the AI warn sensible targets instead of its next fresh meal would be the first step to improving the mechanic; making there some real drawback to the mechanic would be the second step. A -10 relation penalty is not a drawback, considering that the only nations that logically makes sense for a target of a warning are your rivals, so relations are already pretty bad anyways.
The AI does not factor in relations with its war targets when deciding who to go eat next, so the warning honestly does nothing to Trebizond's death sentence pace.
The argument was not about superpowers and OPMs. It was about warning and their inability to be used by a country on stronger power. If you start on the assumption that the dichotomy is superpowers and OPMs, then yeah, not that useful a mechanic, but the problem is your assumption in that case.
That coalitions do what I proposed is not true, however much I wish it were. Coalitions are tied to AE and are merely responsive. Warnings on the other hand are proactive. While we can't simulate every alliance structure, here's one that was in the game before and is now impossible. As for gimping the AI, when did smaller AI ever gimp itself by warning a larger power? That never happened in any of my games. The only time the AI uses it is for small neighbours, who are the kind of people who need to join up (which they won't do in a coalition because the big nation with claims all over them hasn't given them any AE so they must be cool).
My experience proves otherwise. Every time I see a dow, the relation meter has reached hostile by several issues (wants provinces bla bla bla), granted eventually it will result in the same reaction, but there is a build up of reasons in it. Relations is one of them.
In regards to fixing the game we are the same side.
I honestly dont understand what you try to say. What was in the game and now its impossible?
The gimping part is a theoretical reaction if we follow your logic 'everyone warns everyone' without power keeping checks (as is now).
EDIT: A second to prove you wrong on this with a screen shot:
EDIT2: And ofc I over wrote the save game....Anyway what I wanted to post was this: I released an OPM from Quara Quiowhatever (lets call them the mustard horde ok?). Immediately after, the mustards form a coalition that is been Joined by the Mams, Lithuania (!?!?!?!!?) and the little OPM. So yes they do join.
Unfortunately I dont have the screenshot cause I progressed and I abused the coalition mechanism to instantly absorb them into my vassals.
Last edited: