Join Wars In Progress

[QDI]

Works both ways. It could also encourage huge blocks forming, with no one daring to attack anyone else, because everyone is paranoid that ten third parties will randomly take sides and every little war cascades into a chaotic mess.

So nobody does anything because they don't know what'll happen if they actually declare war.

I've had some bad experienced with Victoria II MP...

We don't have the problem in EU4 campaigns

Yeah, sometimes you die because your ennemy suddenly receives ton of help, but it is generally your fault because you didn't do enough diplomacy.

I talk from experience

 

[Alexander Seil]

Works both ways. It could also encourage huge blocks forming, with no one daring to attack anyone else, because everyone is paranoid that ten third parties will randomly take sides and every little war cascades into a chaotic mess.

So nobody does anything because they don't know what'll happen if they actually declare war.

I've had some bad experienced with Victoria II MP...

This sort of thing is easily solved by adding sufficient penalties for unjustified war declarations. Besides, in Stellaris you already know who the opportunistic players are from ethics and AI behavioral types.

 

[Amaror]

Here's the problem: Players want to be able to join wars in progress. They *absolutely* do not want anyone joining a war in progress against them and tend to go ballistic when this happens. This is perfectly fair, as a strategy game is all about taking informed decisions and if you have no idea who's going to jump into your war, you can't take an informed decision about who to declare war on. It's just not a good idea.

Maybe, but maybe that frustration could be limited by making the war not-punishing when someone joins on the other side.
Basically you could make it that you could send an offer to join the war on the defenders side. The defender then gets to decide whether to accept your offer or not. If the defender accept the offer he will get you as an ally in the war, but get the penalty that he can only get a white peace if he wins the war, making it that joining wars is mainly done to maintain the status quo and not for expansion.
That way the player would be able to join in wars if it suits him to defend a non-ally empire and having other empires join wars against you wouldn't be too bad, since that would also mean the worst-case outcome of the war would be a white peace, not a flat-out loss.

 

[Bryartuck]

(i assume you somehow can go to war as a solo member)

Nope. Wiz stated in one of the streams that it is all or nothing. The whole alliance fights, or nobody does. there is no going it alone.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Maybe, but maybe that frustration could be limited by making the war not-punishing when someone joins on the other side.
Basically you could make it that you could send an offer to join the war on the defenders side. The defender then gets to decide whether to accept your offer or not. If the defender accept the offer he will get you as an ally in the war, but get the penalty that he can only get a white peace if he wins the war, making it that joining wars is mainly done to maintain the status quo and not for expansion.
That way the player would be able to join in wars if it suits him to defend a non-ally empire and having other empires join wars against you wouldn't be too bad, since that would also mean the worst-case outcome of the war would be a white peace, not a flat-out loss.

Another solution, although far-fetched, is to implement CK2-style CBs that limit the damage should you lose. In the Stellaris paradigm, that would mean implementing "intervention" wargoals that do not award the attacker any worlds.

EDIT: Again, with the current set-up, you could always just declare war on one of the sides, and get DOWed in return by someone else. Unless AI is unnecessarily hampered in this situation (i.e., it's directed not to attack a human who is getting destroyed), I don't see how excluding third-party intervention is good design.

 

[francis_morin]

Here's the problem: Players want to be able to join wars in progress. They *absolutely* do not want anyone joining a war in progress against them and tend to go ballistic when this happens. This is perfectly fair, as a strategy game is all about taking informed decisions and if you have no idea who's going to jump into your war, you can't take an informed decision about who to declare war on. It's just not a good idea.

I want ennemies jumping in my defensive wars. I must absolutely not exist, then, according to your logic.

Thanks you very much ; it is not pretty Blorg of you.

I remember saying the same critics not so long ago...

By the way, if the other games are anything to come by, you will eventually know about friends and foes alike, and not just your own. Thus, you will be capable to judge and take a risk on the possibility of new people joining against you.

And strategy is maybe about informed decisions, but there is always impredictable things that are going to pop up. It is part of strategy. Keeping such surprises out turn down the elements of danger and uncertainty essential for the nature of strategy.

 

[LastLeviathan]

An idea could be to have another diplomatic option akin to "Declaration of Friendship" you might see in games like Civ. This would be available at a certain point of both empires having a let's say 75 positive regard to one another. Only those who are "friends" may offer to join your war, and so at the very least defenders and attackers could have a general idea of who may or may not come help the opposing side. Of course it would need to be fleshed out further, but maybe something like this could bridge the gap.

 

[Acularius]

I want ennemies jumping in my defensive wars. I must absolutely not exist, then, according to your logic.

Thanks you very much ; it is not pretty Blorg of you.

I remember saying the same critics not so long ago...

By the way, if the other games are anything to come by, you will eventually know about friends and foes alike, and not just your own. Thus, you will be capable to judge and take a risk on the possibility of new people joining against you.

And strategy is maybe about informed decisions, but there is always impredictable things that are going to pop up. It is part of strategy. Keeping such surprises out turn down the elements of danger and uncertainty essential for the nature of strategy.

Nothing stopping a war declaration while an opponent is busy. You have permanent CBs for at LEAST 'cede planet'.

Or guaranteeing independence. Which automatically drags you into defensive wars.

Edit:
I know I saw an AI do a opportunistic war earlier today.

 

[Alexander Seil]

An idea could be to have another diplomatic option akin to "Declaration of Friendship" you might see in games like Civ. This would be available at a certain point of both empires having a let's say 75 positive regard to one another. Only those who are "friends" may offer to join your war, and so at the very least defenders and attackers could have a general idea of who may or may not come help the opposing side. Of course it would need to be fleshed out further, but maybe something like this could bridge the gap.

Once more, given Stellaris' liberal approach to war declarations, what's stopping me from declaring war on one of the participants? Or stopping the AI from reacting and declaring war on me in return? I don't see why "intervene" wargoal isn't a thing in this situation. Wiz' argument would make more sense in CK2 with fixed, mandatory CBs than it does in a game with free-for-all war declarations. It's a design oversight.

 

[LastLeviathan]

Once more, given Stellaris' liberal approach to war declarations, what's stopping me from declaring war on one of the participants? Or stopping the AI from reacting and declaring war on me in return? I don't see why "intervene" wargoal isn't a thing in this situation. Wiz' argument would make more sense in CK2 with fixed, mandatory CBs than it does in a game with free-for-all war declarations. It's a design oversight.

I would figure just independently declaring war on another empire would lower several other empire's relations with yours, nor would you be able to fight together with your non-allied allies. Granted I do like your idea of if you join a war as a non allied member you can't gain anything from it.

 

[francis_morin]

Nothing stopping a war declaration while an opponent is busy. You have permanent CBs for at LEAST 'cede planet'.

Or guaranteeing independence. Which automatically drags you into defensive wars.

Edit:
I know I saw an AI do a opportunistic war earlier today.

Sure, but it does not resolve the problematic of an alliance having hard times and trying to bring other people in the War to succeed at all, as a combined force, going as far as even reducing their share to bring people in. Sure, somebody can jump in, but then it will be a threeway between... Well, three empires and their allies, really. It was written somewhere in the Dev Diaries that three fleets could be fighting simultaniously. ( EDIT : https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-18-fleet-combat.904030/ )

Though, I am unsure if two empires can be friendly while fighting the same empire for the same sectors and such, because it seems like there are going to be hostile by default.

I might be wrong and I hope I am. Because if I am, then it is less problematic. I'd rather have the game to be able to play around with the alliance, though, for the sake of fluidity.

 

[Alexander Seil]

I'm not asking for an intervention wargoal that is magically ignored by my neighbors. I just don't see why I have to "claim" a planet and then white peace out of it because all I want is to support a third party. It's just plain stupid. Every imaginable objection to an intervention wargoal can be handled by effects to neighbors' and Pops' opinions.

 

[Yenzen]

We don't have the problem in EU4 campaigns

Yeah, sometimes you die because your ennemy suddenly receives ton of help, but it is generally your fault because you didn't do enough diplomacy.

I talk from experience

Or everyone did so much diplomacy that nobody is going to bother declaring wars, knowing that all hell will break lose for very little gain, because people can't figure out to let smaller factions duke things out in peace. The loser-to-be always demands the intervention of everyone, making the other faction the loser-to-be, making it invite everyone...

Another worry is that this'll be something that the human excel at greatly, while the AI will be unable to use properly, and that this undermines the hardline version of alliances in Stellaris.

Why not just attack the winning faction instead, since they are now busy elsewhere? This would also save the defender as they can rebuild while you trash the prior winner-to-be.

 

[Acularius]

Sure, but it does not resolve the problematic of an alliance having hard times and trying to bring other people in the War to succeed at all, as a combined force, going as far as even reducing their share to bring people in. Sure, somebody can jump in, but then it will be a threeway between... Well, three empires and their allies, really. It was written somewhere in the Dev Diaries that three fleets could be fighting simultaniously.

Though, I am unsure if two empires can be friendly while fighting the same empire for the same sectors and such, because it seems like there are going to be hostile by default.

I might be wrong and I hope I am. Because if I am, then it is less problematic. I'd rather have the game to be able to play around with the alliance, though, for the sake of fluidity.

I'd imagine the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" would play out there. Since its not a first contact protocol if both sides are at war. Particularly against the same foe.Like a nation with military access squashing a rebel army and you join the fight.
I don't think I would want an alliance to spiral out of control, definitely since alliances in this game are less temporary than in other Paradox Games. Granted, we've never seen Wiz declare war on a nation that's at war.
I just recall "cede Planets' and 'Liberate' (I think).

 

[Alexander Seil]

Why not just attack the winning faction instead, since they are now busy elsewhere? This would also save the defender as they can rebuild while you trash the prior winner-to-be.

So, we can have an intervention war goal, or just declare a war with fake objectives and secure a white peace...why?

 

[Acularius]

So, we can have an intervention war goal, or just declare a war with fake objectives and secure a white peace...why?

Why not? We declare wars with fake objectives all the time.
Why not get a planet out of the deal? Are you really going to waste potential ships and resources to get nothing? While leaving yourself now open to opportunistic players.

 

[QDI]

Or everyone did so much diplomacy that nobody is going to bother declaring wars, knowing that all hell will break lose for very little gain, because people can't figure out to let smaller factions duke things out in peace. The loser-to-be always demands the intervention of everyone, making the other faction the loser-to-be, making it invite everyone...

Once again, while this certainly can happen, it is not how most MP EU4 gamesworks. Check the developer stream, check the EU4 MP forum and you'll see plenty of wars, some small, some big.

Another worry is that this'll be something that the human excel at greatly, while the AI will be unable to use properly, and that this undermines the hardline version of alliances in Stellaris.

I only ask it for humans in MP games where AIs are irrelevent anyway

Why not just attack the winning faction instead, since they are now busy elsewhere? This would also save the defender as they can rebuild while you trash the prior winner-to-be.

To help the losing party get some warscore and protect them from annihilation.

 

[Yenzen]

So, we can have an intervention war goal, or just declare a war with fake objectives and secure a white peace...why?

Because the latter does not contradict the 'alliances are paramount' rule, unless you want every alliance member to agree to take part in the intervention.

That said, as GM I wouldn't even allow wars with fake objectives because that's just an easy way out of breaking MP alliance limit rules.

Personally I find 'interventions' to be extremely in favor of the status quo, which as I've also stated above, can be damning to the life of any game.

 

[BloodyBattleBrain]

Works both ways. It could also encourage huge blocks forming, with no one daring to attack anyone else, because everyone is paranoid that ten third parties will randomly take sides and every little war cascades into a chaotic mess.

Sounds like World War One!

 

[Yenzen]

Once again, while this certainly can happen, it is not how most MP EU4 gamesworks. Check the developer stream, check the EU4 MP forum and you'll see plenty of wars, some small, some big.

Moving huge fleets will be easier, more akin to Victoria II than EU4.

I only ask it for humans in MP games where AIs are irrelevent anyway

To help the losing party get some warscore and protect them from annihilation.

Once again, supporting widespread fear of every war being foiled by a clusterfuck of secret alliances jumping in to save the day and make the world even more static.[/QUOTE]