Japanese daimyos

[HRErceg]

Why are there so many diplomatic constraints with the japanese daimyos? Their alliances weren't obligations and what not, they shouldn't be punishing you with -25 prestige and diplomatic reputation hit for not joining wars, you couldn't trust no one then, not even your "allies". And why is there a -3 stability hit for declaring war on the shogun? Paradox really needs to give diplomacy another look Not all alliances are the same, not all relationships are the same. Some nations didn't have concepts of alliances, but a royal marriage was something like an alliance to them.
The concept that "all wars were total wars" is something paradox needs to revise, European powers didn't need to take Chongqing in inner China to take over Canton, and wars weren't often that different from peace, war exhaustion is stupid, how much war exhaustion has Russia held since it didn't end their war with Japan during the cold war.

 

[Dakka]

I definitely agree that the stability hit for declaring for Shōgun needs to be removed. It’s silly and doesn’t make much sense in either a historic or gameplay perspective. It’s not like the Daimyo would throw their land into chaos for doing what literally everyone in Japan wanted to do.
As for the alliance breaking, I think that is fine. Think of the prestige loss as like a reputation hit. Other Daimyo know they can’t trust you... which they shouldn’t have in the first place, but I digress

 

[HRErceg]

Indeed, but the bigger problem is actually the prestige hit which reduces you army morale.
By that I wanted a mechanic where whenever you attacked a daimyo and went well in the war 3 more would attack you to use the chance, and should have more crumbling and spliting, that's why the era lasted so long, in eu4 you are lucky for it to last 50 years until all of Japan is united.
And I think there could be much more done with the ikko ikkis, they weren't just peasants, they were an army of monks which was the most feared force in Japan, altough centralized everyone feared their rebelions and wanted them on their side

 

[Kathandis]

I have to agree heavily on diplomacy and wars needing another look at but with how paradox likes to leave dlc mechanics alone and never look at them again once the new dlc is out
I cant see it being an eu4 thing maybe eu5 but not eu4. I could potentially see alliances being reworked maybe in the first age alliances function more like ck2 where you need a marriage or same dynasty for an alliance and as the ages pass it could get more and more secular.

 

[Vicodin_Addict]

Actually, I just united Japan as Uesugi in around 1502 (yeah boring I know), but the fact is you can use the alliance/Marriage to your strategic advantage is the joy of playing as Daimyo, the constant change of politik, force you to adjust alliances/rivalry to finaly become the conqueror of Japan. I like it so much that burning 400 ADM Point + 300 Dip just to stabilizing my realm, was considered a cheap price. Better than sit and watch like that dumbass Ashikaga, whom I exiled to the border of Ainu provinces with 3 development.

For instance as Uesugi I allied Imagawa then together (well mostly for me) we conquered Northern Japan, and then after we become 2 biggest powerhouse in northern Japan, I insulted them, rivalled them and destroy them after 5 years truce. And then after that it's just a repeated process with Yamana as my next bro turned rival.

 

[Sunspawn]

Do you have a source on the daimyos not considering alliances binding?

 

[HRErceg]

@Sunspawn They did, but nobody trusted nobody, how can you trust someone less if you don't trust them?
Something has to be done, 6 alliances is too much historicaly for a daimyo and for any diplomat. You had 1, possibly 2 and those were the ones you trust, but alliances changed quickly and former enemies become friends when their interests bind (like anywhere), but in eu4 you hit the -200 relations for being former rivals... Diplomacy should be massively revorked.
@Vicodin_Addict I don't think alliances can change that quickly, as i said you have to have fixed rivals, and as much as you aren't truly rivaled, or your interests dont even interfere where they are in the north and you in the south, you can never again be allies just because you once had to rival the so you don't lose power projection

 

[Vicodin_Addict]

@Sunspawn They did, but nobody trusted nobody, how can you trust someone less if you don't trust them?
Something has to be done, 6 alliances is too much historicaly for a daimyo and for any diplomat. You had 1, possibly 2 and those were the ones you trust, but alliances changed quickly and former enemies become friends when their interests bind (like anywhere), but in eu4 you hit the -200 relations for being former rivals... Diplomacy should be massively revorked.
@Vicodin_Addict I don't think alliances can change that quickly, as i said you have to have fixed rivals, and as much as you aren't truly rivaled, or your interests dont even interfere where they are in the north and you in the south, you can never again be allies just because you once had to rival the so you don't lose power projection

Actually it can, sadly I don't have the SS, but this is how the chain of event happened, insult means -50 relations hit, set them as a rival means you change your status into rivalry, ans shortly after they will break alliance with you.

I take this methods twice against Imagawa and Yamana, three times if the conquest against Otomo counted, but well they rivalled me first lul...

 

[Sunspawn]

@Sunspawn They did, but nobody trusted nobody, how can you trust someone less if you don't trust them?

Give a source for those claims or gtfo.

 

[Jules Brunet]

And why is there a -3 stability hit for declaring war on the shogun?

Well, this can be explained with the following: even if they were not that lawfull to the Shogun, or even the Emperor, they had to keep the illusion that they worked for the Emperor to keep the stability in their lands. Declaring war on the Shogun, which was at that point the ''representative of the Emperor'', had to be carefully prepared. The real problem is that Ashikaga is an overlord, but with EU4 mechanics it isn't quite possible to give all the political deep that had the Feudal Japan.

 

[makaramus]

Reason Tokugawa was victories in era was a good alliance with imagawa. JUST BECAUSE they were able to trust eachother they carried each other to victory. they wasnt most powerful clan or most famous one they had A Friend thats all