Join Wars In Progress

[Beric]

What happens if you ally with someone already at war?

You can't. Another big disappointment.

 

[MasterOfGrey]

What happens if you ally with someone already at war?

You can't.

 

[Cyridius]

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've never seen this be a major issue with regards to people complaining about gameplay. I've personally not experienced it as an issue(It has happened to me but I've always just taken it). Surely the counter to this is to just give the player as much information as possible on that process and make it difficult to join wars so it can't be done frivolously? Say the player wanting to join the war actually needs a very good reason to(Say to reclaim lost territory, and the person/AI can reject this offer forcing you to go to war solo).

Like it's not a make it or break it issue for me but it's a mechanic that's been included in almost every other Pdx GSG, in one form or another.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

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.

Well, negative warscore wouldn't contribute to the other war and your enemy might add their own wargoals against you to punish you for daring to interfere with their war.

 

[Vasious]

Room for Condottieri ?
Other Indirect military support?


What if it was limited to only joining against Rivals only?
So you could join the Vassals of Rivals if they rebel
Or join in on civil wars if you rival suffers one

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

To be honest I don't think the stated reason for not being able to join wars is a good one. Just because some players can't handle a difficult situation is NOT a good reason to exclude something which simply make sense.

Why would someone not be able to ask for joining into a war... there are no guarantees that I will be accepted either, in which case I have to declare my own war.

Just make the mechanic reasonable!

Sure I can just spam guarantees of independence to cover all the basis in my surrounding area, but I think that a different mechanics to jump into a war if I see someone loosing too badly should be an option.

 

[Andrzej2]

The more can happen the more interesting the game is. Ability to intervene in any wars should be in. Not becouse my nation likes another - I hate that it's requirement in Eu4 to enforce peace - but becouse I don't want another nation to grow stronger! I may hate both of them utterly but when I see that one of them may conquer another and become threat also for me I want to be able to help. And if someone really needs help he never refuses even when help is coming from nation he hates. A drowning man clutches at straws.

I want to be able to do international politics in english style. To keep balance of power and be strong compared to my neightbours I stay aside and help once one nation then another. Without lifetime alliance obligations.It would suit xenophobic isolationist.

Maybe you could make it difficulty feature? For example on easy setting AI nations won't do it. It would be good compromise sasifying both type of players hardcore survivalist who seek realism and casual quitters who wants stress free blobing.

Even not having ability to intervene for power balance is stupid. But not being able to sign alliance during war? It's extremely dumb and outrageous. Please don't lead players by hand.

 

[Salatmander]

I am actually not sure if it was mentioned till now (to lazy to read all pages to be honest =S)
But how about giving the player the option to choose if he wants this option or not.

You could put in a radio button at the game creation screen (or map selection) if it should be possible to join Wars in progress in this universe or not, so both sides would be happy.
(In the end i am not sure how complicated it will be to implement this)

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I am actually not sure if it was mentioned till now (to lazy to read all pages to be honest =S)
But how about giving the player the option to choose if he wants this option or not.

You could put in a radio button at the game creation screen (or map selection) if it should be possible to join Wars in progress in this universe or not, so both sides would be happy.
(In the end i am not sure how complicated it will be to implement this)

To be honest I'm not that positive about game mechanics being options... that makes a game very difficult to balance properly.

 

[Yenzen]

More "Make it an optional feature" arguments. If it's implemented, it'll be a core game feature and making it optional means that developers have to keep updating and balancing the game with a growing number of gameplay "versions".

If it is implemented, it'll greatly favour the player, because game AI is terrible at making such decisions as "I don't want to ally faction X but I do want to keep them alive against faction Y for vague strategic reasons" so it will either not really use it, or use it haphazardly.

It will also undermine the paradigm of hard core alliances.

That all said, if made available, it should not fragment the gameplay!

Edit: Besides, you can accomplish the same by guaranteeing nations in advance and using concurrent wars you can declare at any time.

 

[Salatmander]

To be honest I'm not that positive about game mechanics being options... that makes a game very difficult to balance properly.

You think so ?
I don t see much that would be changed about the balancing, as long as this option will stay permanent for the Universe/game it was set for and not be switchable in anyones favor again. I mean what exactly would be changed balancing wise ?

In Multiplayer time will show what works better/more balanced for everyone and it should be made clear to every player on which "setting" the universe is set up on.
I don t actually see an issue there =o

 

[beckermt]

Here are the two weaknesses I see with Join an Ongoing War.

For single player: The AI has a significantly reduced capability to judge enemy strength.
For multiplayer: Alliances are now a fool's game. There is no reason to join an Alliance with another human player. Simply promise to join their war. And then you have no mechanical obligation to do so. Also, incredibly hard to players to judge enemy strength.

 

[Salatmander]

More "Make it an optional feature" arguments. If it's implemented, it'll be a core game feature and making it optional means that developers have to keep updating and balancing the game with a growing number of gameplay "versions".

If it is implemented, it'll greatly favour the player, because game AI is terrible at making such decisions as "I don't want to ally faction X but I do want to keep them alive against faction Y for vague strategic reasons" so it will either not really use it, or use it haphazardly.

It will also undermine the paradigm of hard core alliances.

That all said, if made available, it should not fragment the gameplay!

Edit: Besides, you can accomplish the same by guaranteeing nations in advance and using concurrent wars you can declare at any time.

ye, ok, sounds plausbile didn t thought about it that way

Here are the two weaknesses I see with Join an Ongoing War.

For single player: The AI has a significantly reduced capability to judge enemy strength.
For multiplayer: Alliances are now a fool's game. There is no reason to join an Alliance with another human player. Simply promise to join their war. And then you have no mechanical obligation to do so. Also, incredibly hard to players to judge enemy strength.

Thats a point too, had the AI in my mind but didn t saw it as "that" negative that it won t take as much out of such an option as the player. It would have to be seen how the AI itself works with it.

Maybe it would be better to think about it as a feature to come in with a later Warfare/Combat- or Politics- DLC when Paradox also got some feedback from the player base and more time to work such things out

 

[chopak]

This option doesn't change a thing in multiplayer. You already can declare war on both warring parties and achieve wanted outcome via diplomacy. No mechanical stuff is needed.

 

[Oscot]

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.

If you're ethically or strategically aligned to them, why aren't you actually allied to them?

That, as far as I can see, is the flaw with all these "I want to be able to intervene" arguments. It's a 'if you like it you shoulda put a ring on it' situation: if you intend to defend the Klingons from the Romulans, then... well, that's what an alliance is for. It's a situation where you defend the Klingons from the Romulans. So if it's what you're gonna do, then do it: get an alliance / independence guarantee.

It's like... you've been provided with the tools to accomplish your goals, but refuse to pick them up, and then whine that you don't have the tools to accomplish your goals.

Am I missing something fundamental here?

 

[QDI]

This option doesn't change a thing in multiplayer. You already can declare war on both warring parties and achieve wanted outcome via diplomacy. No mechanical stuff is needed.

On the contrary, it changes a lot.

• I might be willing to join your war and help you as an ally but not to take the risk to declare alone (and face heavy losses myself).
• I might want to be sure you don't get to -100% warscore while I try to reach your ennemy's fleet.

Declaring a war on the attacker is far from equivalent to joining the defender's side.

 

[Tiaexz]

I've never seen this be a major issue with regards to people complaining about gameplay. I've personally not experienced it as an issue(It has happened to me but I've always just taken it). Surely the counter to this is to just give the player as much information as possible on that process and make it difficult to join wars so it can't be done frivolously? Say the player wanting to join the war actually needs a very good reason to(Say to reclaim lost territory, and the person/AI can reject this offer forcing you to go to war solo).

Like it's not a make it or break it issue for me but it's a mechanic that's been included in almost every other Pdx GSG, in one form or another.

It was a terrible problem that cropped up in Eu3 (and maybe EU4 too) where there never used to be a limit of inviting your allies into war, so you could declare a war against an OPM, and soon enough, you will find you now had all of Europe united against you in war.

The only way it could work if it worked between players only but that will give players a distinct advantage in MP against the AI, and they should be really forming an alliance, and not using this mechanic to get around that as a loophole.

In short, the game has a set design for War and the inclusion of this feature will break the game and make it really unbalanced.

 

[chopak]

On the contrary, it changes a lot.

• I might be willing to join your war and help you as an ally but not to take the risk to declare alone (and face heavy losses myself).
• I might want to be sure you don't get to -100% warscore while I try to reach your ennemy's fleet.

Declaring a war on the attacker is far from equivalent to joining the defender's side.

It's not equivalent but it's close enough. You first point is invalid because either way you will be at war with said opponent and risk losses. As for the second, If you're late for the party, you are late for the party, it's your fault for acting too late.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

Maybe this will encourage people to actually use the "guarantee independence" feature. Instead of just being able to sit back and opportunistically ensure the independence of a neighbour as and when you see fit, you need to commit to a more reliable (for them) one way defensive pact.
I mean, if you could always intervene, why would you ever guarantee independence for anyone? Just wait till their independence is actually threatened, then if and only if whoever is threatening it is weaker than you are, then you intervene.

I'll wait to see how it actually plays out before making a judgement call.
I also imagine it's something that could quite easily wind up patched in over time if it's absence really is a problem.

That said, I do like the idea of a wargoal for it, with the potential to backfire.

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.

 

[QDI]

It's not equivalent but it's close enough. You first point is invalid because either way you will be at war with said opponent and risk losses. As for the second, If you're late for the party you, are late for the party, it's your fault for acting too late.

My first point is valid because you are limited to taking 100% by war in Stellaris so you risk a lot more by acting alone.

As for the second point, it's not a question of being late. If the person I want to help is small enough, the attacker may be able to force peace them before any third party war has affected the outcome.