Which is terrible in Paradox MP games!
I know it sounds fun, *it isn't*. When you get to the two-power-blocks stage, they solidify, and once one parts starts losing, it keeps losing, and there's no real dynamics to diplomacy.
- 8
- 1
Join Wars In Progress
- Thread starter Void2258
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Which is terrible in Paradox MP games!
I know it sounds fun, *it isn't*. When you get to the two-power-blocks stage, they solidify, and once one parts starts losing, it keeps losing, and there's no real dynamics to diplomacy.
I use it, but the problems I find...
1) It is really limiting, I usually have to increase my diplomacy with the nation so I can intervene, by that time, the aggressor has gobbled up/annexed the OPM already.
2) It turns out that the OPM actually bit off far more than it can chew and had a big bad coming in, which annexes them anyway with no way to enforce peace due to them being the aggressor.
- 1
You realize that forcing people into blocks by fear of dying without support is even worse than risking "secret alliances"?
Anyway, you seem to disregard proven experience in similar games so let's just agree to disagree
- 4
- 2
- 1
All it would take is a vicious rebellion. Look at Blorg's ally, they frequently have to deal with a rebellious planet given to them by the Blorg. Its revolted twice and occupies much of the Blorg's ally's time.
If the AI development bug wasn't present in the early streams, maybe the alliance would have declared war on the Blorg by now. Surely a combined effort of the 3 nations could take on the Blorg's fleet.
- 1
If the Ai could join that could make diplomacy really interesting:
1. This way you would need to prepare for the war by trying to localise it. You could for example try to secure non aggression pacts or neutrality declarations beforehand from those you think likely will intervene. You could pay for this or make some promises - give them something if the war is successfull or promising you wont take more than something.
2. At DOW you get only a list about who is likely to jump in against and for you. Maybe you could see a list about likely countries during the whole war.
3. During the war you should get a warning when someone is going to jump in maybe with a time limit: you can try to persuade them to remain neutral or at least adjust your troops. You could also try to make others join your side.
1. This way you would need to prepare for the war by trying to localise it. You could for example try to secure non aggression pacts or neutrality declarations beforehand from those you think likely will intervene. You could pay for this or make some promises - give them something if the war is successfull or promising you wont take more than something.
2. At DOW you get only a list about who is likely to jump in against and for you. Maybe you could see a list about likely countries during the whole war.
3. During the war you should get a warning when someone is going to jump in maybe with a time limit: you can try to persuade them to remain neutral or at least adjust your troops. You could also try to make others join your side.
- 2
- 2
You realize that forcing people into blocks by fear of dying without support is even worse than risking "secret alliances"?
Anyway, you seem to disregard proven experience in similar games so let's just agree to disagree
You also seem to disregard my experience, so pot calling the kettle black right there.
A solution would be to limit the legal size of alliances and federations in MP.
A viscous rebellion affecting 1 out of 10-15 members of the Super Secret Diplomatic Clusterfuck Agreement trying to subvert any semblance of localized wars.
- 2
I don't think the player should ever know who is likely to 'jump them'.
Granted the NAP is already in the game.
Depends how close the powers at be are, if a crucial member of the alliance now is occupied with putting down a rebellion, wouldn't you suppose that it would affect the balance of power? What happens if its rather series and said player loses to the rebellion?
Assuming of course that it is a closely tied in fleet strength, otherwise one of the alliances would have failed already.
Most people won't never play in a multiplayer game. So, at best, it could be limited in multiplayer like you propose if it is actually a problem, but when it comes to single player, I have a problem with the idea of limiting it for fear of multiple players going crazy WW1 (which is not really problematic for me in the first place, but eh).
I would limit it in multiplayer games by decree in campaigns, rather than a gameplay feature. No need to fragment the game into the "MP version" and "SP version" beyond the lack of important of opinion towards other factions.
Personally I think this would be the best option by far, though perhaps it should only be possible if you're either un-allied or the leader of a federation. That way you're not undermining the current alliance system.
- 2
Honestly.. intervention is annoying even in Victoria.
It is realistic in Victoria, because it allows the great powers to turn around and say, "oh, it looks like you're trying to become a great power through military expansion.. hahaha.. no" and contributes to the overall weight of inertia which Victoria tends to build up over the course of a single play through. The Victorian era wouldn't be the Victorian era if the powerful weren't getting more powerful and everyone else wasn't getting their faces stamped on. It works in that game, but it is (I suspect) a big part of why Victoria is the nichest Paradox title. Most players don't like having success or failure be entirely at the whim of a capricious AI.
The other thing is, if you could simply jump into any wars you wanted, what would the point of alliances? Alliances in Stellaris seem to entail considerably more of a sacrifice than alliances in any other Paradox game I'm aware of, because you are effectively giving up a degree of control over when you can and can't go to war. Why would you ever do that if you could just intervene.
One thing I noticed a lot in the stream chat at that point was people talking about "space condottiere" (or "space expeditionary forces", I guess, if you're using HOI slang) which seems like a much better idea in terms of giving people the ability to influence wars they aren't part of, to me, than intervention.
It is realistic in Victoria, because it allows the great powers to turn around and say, "oh, it looks like you're trying to become a great power through military expansion.. hahaha.. no" and contributes to the overall weight of inertia which Victoria tends to build up over the course of a single play through. The Victorian era wouldn't be the Victorian era if the powerful weren't getting more powerful and everyone else wasn't getting their faces stamped on. It works in that game, but it is (I suspect) a big part of why Victoria is the nichest Paradox title. Most players don't like having success or failure be entirely at the whim of a capricious AI.
The other thing is, if you could simply jump into any wars you wanted, what would the point of alliances? Alliances in Stellaris seem to entail considerably more of a sacrifice than alliances in any other Paradox game I'm aware of, because you are effectively giving up a degree of control over when you can and can't go to war. Why would you ever do that if you could just intervene.
One thing I noticed a lot in the stream chat at that point was people talking about "space condottiere" (or "space expeditionary forces", I guess, if you're using HOI slang) which seems like a much better idea in terms of giving people the ability to influence wars they aren't part of, to me, than intervention.
- 4
- 1
- 1
This is not true that in Victoria2 players do not make informed decisions declaring war even though there is an intervention mechanic. This is because interventions are very limited (you can join only a losing side in a defensive war, you have to be friendly with them, you have to be a great power and you can only add the Status Quo wargoal) and players know what to expect of AIs (they are the less inclined to intervene the more wars they are already at and the more war weariness they have). Why it doesn't work so well in MP? It's primarily because it works by different rules: players have much greater liberty in their diplomatic deals with each other than with AIs. They don't have to work hard to befriend another player (as they have to in regard to AIs) because they can make instant deals without taking relations between their empires into account - why they are allowed to do so ?!! They can make deals (also secretive ones) they shouldn't be allowed to because their people would revolt when they were revealed!
There are so many ways in which interventions could be made good for gameplay in Stellaris, not taking away anything from the current mechanic of alliances that, having a great respect for Wiz, I actually wonder: is he provoking us to come up with them in hope that we could think of something they didn't? But... wouldn't it be better just to ask? I am sure many of us would be glad to answer without stirring it all up.
There are so many ways in which interventions could be made good for gameplay in Stellaris, not taking away anything from the current mechanic of alliances that, having a great respect for Wiz, I actually wonder: is he provoking us to come up with them in hope that we could think of something they didn't?
But... wouldn't it be better just to ask? I am sure many of us would be glad to answer without stirring it all up.- 1
Since the ideas are voluntary and we use each other as sounding boards, we eventually distill a couple of ideas that might be considered.There are so many ways in which interventions could be made good for gameplay in Stellaris, not taking away anything from the current mechanic of alliances that, having a great respect for Wiz, I actually wonder: is he provoking us to come up with them in hope that we could think of something they didn't?
To me, all ideas fight to the death in formulative combat.
IDEAL VICTORY!
- 1
Given the intention of having very committed alliances in Stellaris it makes sense that intervention is restricted as that would allow you to get around our commitment of the alliance. That being said a mechanic like volunteers from Hoi would be a good alternative to intervention, if it could be implemented properly. Unfortunately with spaceships it makes volunteers less realistically possible than with just boots on the ground.
With the diversity in ethics/government and general size of maps, I think it'll be more like EU4 with several alliances and wars constantly waging rather than a WW1 style two-bloc battle. Nonetheless, we won't know until we play.
Coming to the defensive aid of a empire which whom you are not allied with but are ethically (or strategically) aligned would seem to be an obvious thing to do, so it's really disappointing that this isn't allowed. A separate war declaration doesn't really accomplish the same purpose, as the entire goal of this type of war is to defend the other race (unless a war goal can be the cessation of another war). The need for this mechanic is made still greater due to the fact that you can't establish embassies/ally with an empire that is at war, or even give them ships, so there's very little way to support their cause and prevent them from being wiped out.
This mechanic is also conveniently very anti-blobbing, as well as giving pacifist empires a better chance to fight off militaristic neighbors. I strongly support it being added.
This mechanic is also conveniently very anti-blobbing, as well as giving pacifist empires a better chance to fight off militaristic neighbors. I strongly support it being added.
- 5
Would a wargoal of 'support x in war effort' work? It would block most other wargoals and cause most of your warscore to contribute to x in their war with your target. When the war you're fighting over ends, then your war also ends.
- 1
That could potentially work... but I'd also want to make one of the terms be that I won't accept peace unless the empire I'm supporting ends up no worse off than they started. Naturally this wouldn't be able to be carried out if I were to lose the war as well.
