Impossible to start a war as a small nation without great powers interfering.

[Shaddarhim]

Great power ALWAYS interfere in minor wars to a degree where the game is unplayable without saving and reloading before every single war. Also great powers seem to never support you in your plays. Prussia declared a war against me and although France is genial and amicible towards me there was no wargoal they were interested in.
There need to be changes to great powers interfering in minor wars like this.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

I think it's fine for minors to get bullied and thrown around. I don't want this game to be balanced around playing Ethiopia.

 

[gh4ever]

I think it's fine for minors to get bullied and thrown around. I don't want this game to be balanced around playing Ethiopia.

There should be some notion of what the AI will do before launching a play, though (IMO). It currently feels essentially completely random, which really takes the S out of GSG.

 

[Shaddarhim]

I think it's fine for minors to get bullied and thrown around. I don't want this game to be balanced around playing Ethiopia.

Its not that they should not bully minor nations. Like the case with Prussia declaring a war on me. But them interfering in every single micro war is just annoying and would not have made sense historically. Why would they care if I annex some random minor country that is already my puppet?

 

[Whili]

Great powers must have other ways of interfering in small crises

In this kind of situation maybe the British Empire would send military advisors or supplies maybe some soldiers

But in the game they will simply mobilize the full power of the empire against you

This is just unrealistic

 

[Oglesby]

Its not that they should not bully minor nations. Like the case with Prussia declaring a war on me. But them interfering in every single micro war is just annoying and would not have made sense historically. Why would they care if I annex some random minor country that is already my puppet?

By the picture show it is obvious that Great Britain has a lot of interest in the area.

Also I find that the attitude towards you and towards you target have more effect than relations. I am guessing that Great Britain wants your land and by protecting Burundi they gain access to your market, remove one of your ports (reducing convoys) making you weaker while also getting a possible subject (through Customs union, protectorate) in Burundi.

For your Prussia question, we would need to know Frances attitude towards Prussia, if France was already doing things, if Prussia had an obligation from France or was humiliated by them. Also Genial isn't far up the attitude scale if I remember correctly.

 

[Oglesby]

Great powers must have other ways of interfering in small crises

In this kind of situation maybe the British Empire would send military advisors or supplies maybe some soldiers

But in the game they will simply mobilize the full power of the empire against you

This is just unrealistic

Looking at the picture it doesn't appear that they mobilized the full power of empire (166 of 1092, 161 of 1087 being British).
And looking at the map this is somewhere that GB has put plenty of effort.

 

[Whili]

Why would the British Empire send the British to die for Burundi?

This attitude makes sense to a certain extent, but everything has limits.

 

[Shaddarhim]

By the picture show it is obvious that Great Britain has a lot of interest in the area.

Also I find that the attitude towards you and towards you target have more effect than relations. I am guessing that Great Britain wants your land and by protecting Burundi they gain access to your market, remove one of your ports (reducing convoys) making you weaker while also getting a possible subject (through Customs union, protectorate) in Burundi.

For your Prussia question, we would need to know Frances attitude towards Prussia, if France was already doing things, if Prussia had an obligation from France or was humiliated by them. Also Genial isn't far up the attitude scale if I remember correctly.

The picture is just an example it happens all over the world no matter where I try. You can do a micro war in middle America, in Indonesia or Arabia and some Great power will join. Mostly Britain tho. You can also see Austria leaning against me which is odd because they dont have colonies and dont share a border with me.

Burundi is located in the middle of Africa at lake Victoria so they dont have a port. Its also just a splinter of a whole state. If they wanted my land they could have just declared war on me like Prussia did but they just joined plays against me.

Prussia also was just an example. In the end I was able to white peace them because they couldnt land at my coast but the fact that great powers often join against the player but its pretty hard to get them to support you just isnt logical.

 

[mursolini]

Why would the British Empire send the British to die for Burundi?

This attitude makes sense to a certain extent, but everything has limits.

Why would British Empire sent their troops to die pretty much around the globe at this period?
China, Russia, Africa, India, pretty much you name it, Brits fought there.
I don`t think it is to "die for Burundi", it is to make sure you don`t get strong, like IDK Crimean war.
Sure, AI can be a bit hard to get right, but this behaviour isn`t entirely unheard of in 19th century, just may need a bit of finer tuning.

 

[Life is Comedy]

Always keep infamy below 25 tò avoid Major interference.

Also, in OPs case, UK Is even receiving a traety Port, so something.

I understand the annoyance thought

 

[Whili]

Why would British Empire sent their troops to die pretty much around the globe at this period?
China, Russia, Africa, India, pretty much you name it, Brits fought there.
I don`t think it is to "die for Burundi", it is to make sure you don`t get strong, like IDK Crimean war.
Sure, AI can be a bit hard to get right, but this behaviour isn`t entirely unheard of in 19th century, just may need a bit of finer tuning.

Does it really make sense for the British Empire to worry if Ethiopia gets too strong by annexing Burindi?

But for me the main problem with this interaction is that it leads nowhere.

It's just annoying and has a very high chance of escalating to great nonsense.

Imagine if the player manages to call France or Germany to his side? Ready ww1 for burund

 

[$ilent_$trider]

I am guessing most nations would then back off once GB got involved. To me, diplo plays are a good feature that can definitely be expanded on.
Something like a country asking (preferably a GP) to act as neutral mediator to avoid an escalation to a conflict to begin with.
Also, see some way for diplo plays reach a compromise.
Brazil and Bolivia had a dispute over Acre (begun after a secession movement from Bolivia there) that basically gave Acre to Brazil in exchange to some territory in Mato Grosso and a construction of a railroad connecting Bolivia to Porto Velho so Bolivia could sell their rubber to the international market (which, by the way, it would be a nice way of having some trade agreement where you don’t join a market but you can have access to their infrastructure to access others if you are landlocked).

 

[Whili]

I am guessing most nations would then back off once GB got involved. To me, diplo plays are a good feature that can definitely be expanded on.
Something like a country asking (preferably a GP) to act as neutral mediator to avoid an escalation to a conflict to begin with.
Also, see some way for diplo plays reach a compromise.
Brazil and Bolivia had a dispute over Acre (begun after a secession movement from Bolivia there) that basically gave Acre to Brazil in exchange to some territory in Mato Grosso and a construction of a railroad connecting Bolivia to Porto Velho so Bolivia could sell their rubber to the international market (which, by the way, it would be a nice way of having some trade agreement where you don’t join a market but you can have access to their infrastructure to access others if you are landlocked).

This situation in vic3 would have a high probability of ending in a french invasion of london or an english invasion of paris

Or a full-scale invasion of Brazil rofl

 

[Samolub]

This seems to be the correct behavior of the AI and I would even say that this is how the game should look like. Great Britain in this situation should get a boost to lowering the infamy due to the demands and gains by taking part in the defense war of a country, if you caused this conflict and it takes part on the side of the attacked state in the zone of declared interests, it has a bit of a cacus beli against you and world opinion and internally would view the conflict a little differently, Ethiopia caused the war, any territorial or other gains during this war, however, should significantly reduce the level of possible infamy for coutry who join on defender side bro

So for me everything works fine, but there is still should be a boost for the country that is taking part on the side of the attacked country when it comes to possible infamy from the completed requests.


This map shows that each of these countries Egypt, France, Great Britain should take every opportunity to take part in the war against you if you are the party initiating any conflict. Only very good relations with any of these countries or possible involvement in some large conflict involving them could make you annex a country under their nose, or even just your nose, without consequences.

I'm generally surprised that you don't see this or think something is wrong here from a historical, geographical, political point of view, but I'm shocked that you actually ask this and still want them to optimize the game in the wrong direction. The state that defends your vassal de facto after victory in the War of Independence becomes its protector without any penalties to infami and should have some boost to a smaller infami, be it a percentage or a certain value to other demands towards you because you give this war casus beli to the whole world opinion as an attacker.

From the map you show, even Egypt has legitimate reasons, unless, as I wrote, you do not have a great relationship with it, a trade agreement, a defense pact, there are no super internal problems or other important war to take part on the side of Burundi, even though Burundi does not borders with Egypt.

 

[LDSkinny]

Honestly I wish there were more nuanced ways to bully minors.

Rather than being swayed to join and fight for them, I want to be able to call up Ethiopia and demand they join my customs union in exchange for me not joining the other side.

 

[ero_sk]

There should be some notion of what the AI will do before launching a play, though (IMO). It currently feels essentially completely random, which really takes the S out of GSG.

It's because, unfortunately, Victoria 3 in its current state is a grand tycoon game, not a grand strategy game. It's an economy first and foremost focused game at a nation level, with other aspects (diplomacy, military, etc.) as additional rather than equal element of the game.

 

[gh4ever]

It's because, unfortunately, Victoria 3 in its current state is a grand tycoon game, not a grand strategy game. It's an economy first and foremost focused game at a nation level, with other aspects (diplomacy, military, etc.) as additional rather than equal element of the game.

I agree, unfortunately. I wish in particular diplomacy and warfare were more interesting as they're what I find the most interesting about the time period. Victoria II balanced them better with the economic gameplay IMO (not to beat a dead horse on this...).

 

[agonistes]

Great power ALWAYS interfere in minor wars to a degree where the game is unplayable without saving and reloading before every single war. Also great powers seem to never support you in your plays. Prussia declared a war against me and although France is genial and amicible towards me there was no wargoal they were interested in.
There need to be changes to great powers interfering in minor wars like this.

There needs to be more diplomacy in general.

Here is another war example: I am Russia in a DP with Austria. I and Austria both rival Otto, and Otto rivals both of us. Otto dows Moldavia. I declare for Moldavia.

Now, Moldavia cannot get Austria to join. But I should be able to offer Austria something to join - obligation, free trade for ten years, 1 m gold. Even a gd cigar. All 4 nations share a border.

 

[Samolub]

Honestly I wish there were more nuanced ways to bully minors.

Rather than being swayed to join and fight for them, I want to be able to call up Ethiopia and demand they join my customs union in exchange for me not joining the other side.

Nice idea, something like a counter-proposal when a country has declared itself as taking part in the opposite side of the conflict in the final phase of escalation can you make a counter-proposal or give in to the demands of one side? The idea is extremely interesting, technically complicated, but certainly doable.

It's because, unfortunately, Victoria 3 in its current state is a grand tycoon game, not a grand strategy game. It's an economy first and foremost focused game at a nation level, with other aspects (diplomacy, military, etc.) as additional rather than equal element of the game.

In general, as for the very assumptions of the functioning of diplomacy, including these escalation activities, the concept of military combat, I am becoming more and more convinced that the concept on which it is based is really interesting and pleasant, there was no similarly operating system in V2, EU4 or HOI4, At first, it seemed to me that the mechanism of warfare was unacceptable. Over time, I must say that this is a brilliant concept, although I say that on the day of the premiere it was bad and today it is average, but after improvements it is something much better than in other paradox games, or at least it fits perfectly with the era and it would also work if the game turned back the clocks to the eighteenth or seventeenth century.

With this diplomacy, notice that there has been practically no major patch yet