There will always be people complaining that AI does not just sit there and wait for the player to attack it, especially in games like this where getting outplayed by the AI is somewhat of an ego hit. There were two threads in the EU4 forum complaining about the AI blobbing too much - the example being France going into Italy and *gasp* Low Countries!
They are literally asking for a Treaty Port my dude. It's not like they are doing this for an Obligation from Burundi.
Infamy was at 0 and this was a 5 infamy war. So infamy isnt the problem here.
Yes.
Well, WW1 technically was over Serbia, not that huge of a difference.
What you want is making small nations unplayable.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.
I have fought in most of those areas. I have had wars without outside GP interference.
Burundi is adjacent to Great Britain. If they attack you, others might join. They were offered a treaty port into you to join your Diplo-play and their opponents are might be less likely to join. They would also get an independent Burundi out of the deal that probably likes them and fears their neighbor so likely to want protection.
I can only speak to the examples you provide and indicate possible reason why they did/didn't join.
At least I dont get an ego kick from being a dick on some forum.
I did fight a few wars and expanded but always under 25 infamy and earlier in the game noone cared.
I did not imply you were a bad player at all. On the contrary, my point is that getting outplayed by the AI can be an ego hit since you implicitly realise that AI is dumber than you. (And it's always more humiliating to lose in a strategy game than something like a shooter or an action game.)
Dude chill, you don’t get to call someone a dick just because their opinion doesn’t align with yours.
Playing as a major it’s not sooo bad because, well.. come at me bro. But as a smaller country it does suck. Like if I would have known you would jump in I wouldn’t have stepped out of line.
I don’t get it. It’s still a Gigantic Savescumming Gauntlet.
The alternative to this would be making backing down less harmful, so maybe you lose prestige or pay some money but you don't have to give up an entire state or become a puppet
Sure, but the great powers propably couldn't care less if one small kingdom goes to war with another.
It would have been interesting to see what GB's attitude was towards you (there are some that basically say will interfere with most of your Diplo-plays). It would also have been interesting to see what GB's attitude was towards Burundi (there are some that basically say will likely join to protect).
I agree that is should be more transparent and have asked the devs for that before. There are values that only become visible once you are in the Diplo-play (buried behind multiple tool-tip layers) that provide 'favors you', 'favors them', and 'prefers neutrality' scores that I feel should be visible before the diplo-play with a note indicating that the values can change (as they do by adding on war goals and when others join the diplo-play).
It wasn't an obligation, it was a treaty port and a possible protectorate in Burundi (as they would be free, like you for helping and have a larger neighbor that they fear).
