Is Great Power Intervention ever getting fixed?

[pedrito_elcabra]

This has been brought up so many times I can't remember. A quick google search returns dozens of thread on these forums, reddit and steam from people frustrated about this broken mechanic.

It's not fun and it heavily favors the strongest blobbers on the board. It was supposed to be about balance of power but turned out to be exactly the opposite.

After it was introduced, patch after patch I've waited patiently for a fix. After all there are easy solutions - the mechanic was a good idea, it just needs a little polishing, a few extra sanity checks like the ones we have for Enforce Peace.

I'll make the points again, but this has been discussed ad nauseam here, here, here, here, here... you get it.

It's about balance of power right?

GP1 Ottomans intervening in the GP2 France conquest of GP8 Austria who is allied to GP7 Denmark... not fun.

First of all GP interventions in favor of the attacker should be severely restricted. Like enforcing peace on the defender is impossible. It makes zero sense. In the above scenario, if France declared war it's because they thought they could win.

Next, intervening on the winning side should be impossible too. That's just cherry picking. If they're winning they don't need help.

That's it. That would most likely remove 99% of absurd interventions.

No more GP1 intervening in a war to help an aggressor who already has 3 times as many troops as the defending side.

 

[bbqftw]

Its even more abusable if you are a tributary since as long as you call in one GP you're very likely to get free 'help'

 

[SaucyBaron]

I've never had a GP intervene in a war I was part of (whether for or against, regardless of if their GP rivals were involved), nor ever seen the AI use the feature...

 

[TheDutchWarlord]

I've had this happen to me in the last patch, Me, GP#3 or #4, got attacked by the Ottomans, GP#1, I have Bahmanis, with most of the Indian subcontinent as an ally, who are #8, 2 years into the war they peace out... Why is my question, I look over, they had been carpet sieged by the Ming, GP#2, who intervened on the Ottoman side.... Like wtf, Me and Bahmanis together had like 75% of the troops the Ottomans had...

 

[Badesumofu]

What I would like to see, is rather than disallowing those unfair interventions altogether is that they would escalate the war and open it up to the remaining GPs to sort of counter-intervene on the other side. Once someone counter-intervenes then it becomes a free for all where anyone can join on any side. To balance this I'd also make it that no interventions of any kind can happen without the warleader okaying it. No more having GP8 try to get in on GP1 attacking 4 and 5 so they can 'help' by getting themselves carpet sieged.

I also want the mechanic where a GP who is a secondary participant in a war with a non-GP as leader can usurp war-leadership under certain circumstances. And in general I like the idea of wars that can start off as minor conflicts but get gradually escalated into major conflagrations.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

I've never had a GP intervene in a war I was part of (whether for or against, regardless of if their GP rivals were involved), nor ever seen the AI use the feature...

Lucky you.

Here is my favourite GPI of all time. See the game log. See the development values and who attacked.

 

[cordialgerm]

Lucky you.

Here is my favourite GPI of all time. See the game log. See the development values and who attacked.

Why is that an issue? I guess Scandinavia didn't like Brandenburg and wanted to help you kill them.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

Why is that an issue? I guess Scandinavia didn't like Brandenburg and wanted to help you kill them.

As a matter of fact Castile was their rival, that was their motivation.

The issue at hand is not that the AI doesn't choose their wars well. They do.

The problem is that there is a very simplistic rule (one side must have more GPs than the other) which has absolutely no relation to whether they actually are the stronger side in the conflict. If you want to make unrealistic rules for the sake of gameplay (which this requirement for GPI certainly is - sorry Russian Embassador, you can't join the war of the Sixth Coalition because the side you're trying to join has more GPs than the other, take your declaration of war and go home, lol) then at least make sure that gameplay actually benefits. Which my point is that it doesn't.

I have no issue with GPI per se.
I have an issue with the simplistic rules and would like to see them more fleshed out. There are plenty of good suggestions for this mechanic floating around, in this very thread and many others.

 

[jere8184]

I have never played with the DLC that adds great powers so I dont know much about the topic but it seems like one of the problems with great powers is just how the mechanic was implemented in general. To me global great powers make no sence and I feel as if have great powers be dynamic e.g what countrys a country considers a great power are only relative to its own stregnth (e.g in 1444 Poland may consider the tutonic order but not france due to distance) (im just mumbling now; still gonna post anyway)

 

[Sharples88]

IIRC you can also peace out a great power that has intervened in a war against you and then ANOTHER great power intervenes after they get peaced out.

 

[IndraSunrise]

No.
Great power ability is about throwing your weight around as a great power.
Which is what it does.
Balance of power is coalition actions, covered under a different mechanism.
Great power ability is the opposite of balance of power.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

No.
Great power ability is about throwing your weight around as a great power.
Which is what it does.
Balance of power is coalition actions, covered under a different mechanism.
Great power ability is the opposite of balance of power.

I disagree, but even if that was the case the mechanic still needs a sanity check to avoid situations like those I mentioned above.