AI specifically guarantees nations it wants to conquer in the near future.
If human players us guarantees, it's to block expansion in areas they could otherwise not contest.
The utility of these two approaches couldn't be more different.
Let's rethink Diplomatic Relations slots
- Thread starter durbal
- 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.
AI specifically guarantees nations it wants to conquer in the near future.
If human players us guarantees, it's to block expansion in areas they could otherwise not contest.
The utility of these two approaches couldn't be more different.
Problem is that AI nations keep their guarantees up for half the game. It's like a "I'm taking you last" icon.
Guarantee is not so bad. Since we can always pick someone else.
More annoying is warning. Generally after a while (AE drop?) they take away warning.
In that regard i dont like idea of cheaper warnings, or Ottos allying bunch of small nations.
I don't like any change to the diplomatic system in general if we don't even have a current one that works.
That's my whole problem with the thread.
POI interactions with missions and diplomatic decisions doesn't work.
POI is a mess in general on the current patch.
Guarantee isn't being used to protect nations but to save them for later, oftentimes AFTER they've almost killed that nation. Any outside nation always has an easy target.
(can't fight Spain with all its allies? fight that tiny OPM that is being guaranteed by them!)
Alliances don't have any value. Using the OPM example again: Austria and Hungary could have same dynasty, 100 trust, 200 relations and an alliance from the start of the game until 1800, but because Austria wants to eat OPM Pommerania, which is allied to Hungary, it's going to war over said province and gets eaten by France 2 years later because it's out of allies all of a sudden. (Who would have thought)
The priority is 'mil acc > alliance > rm' but the order is 'alliance > rm > mil acc' leading to multiple nations starting the game with a stabhit unless the AI doesn't get those, as someone suggested. But at least they ruin relations and waste dip points for going over their limit. (who even comes up with this stuff?)
Alliances aren't being evaluated. If it's possible and an offer is being sent it will always get accepted. Salzburg is scared of Austria? We're in the same league as the Ottomans! Let's ally them! (alliance nets in general are a complete mess after league wars)
Wants your provinces triggers semi-randomly and the modifier goes up to -200, destroying a lot of stable alliances for no reason other than "I felt like it", turning lategame maps into 'everyone for themselves'
etc. etc. etc.
Really, who wants to make the system more complicated if the easy version doesn't even work?
It's like going to the supermarket and saying self-checkout sometimes takes 20 seconds extra so next time you want a steak you build a farm with your bare hands and raise some cows yourself to improve the situation.
That's my whole problem with the thread.
POI interactions with missions and diplomatic decisions doesn't work.
POI is a mess in general on the current patch.
Guarantee isn't being used to protect nations but to save them for later, oftentimes AFTER they've almost killed that nation. Any outside nation always has an easy target.
(can't fight Spain with all its allies? fight that tiny OPM that is being guaranteed by them!)
Alliances don't have any value. Using the OPM example again: Austria and Hungary could have same dynasty, 100 trust, 200 relations and an alliance from the start of the game until 1800, but because Austria wants to eat OPM Pommerania, which is allied to Hungary, it's going to war over said province and gets eaten by France 2 years later because it's out of allies all of a sudden. (Who would have thought)
The priority is 'mil acc > alliance > rm' but the order is 'alliance > rm > mil acc' leading to multiple nations starting the game with a stabhit unless the AI doesn't get those, as someone suggested. But at least they ruin relations and waste dip points for going over their limit. (who even comes up with this stuff?)
Alliances aren't being evaluated. If it's possible and an offer is being sent it will always get accepted. Salzburg is scared of Austria? We're in the same league as the Ottomans! Let's ally them! (alliance nets in general are a complete mess after league wars)
Wants your provinces triggers semi-randomly and the modifier goes up to -200, destroying a lot of stable alliances for no reason other than "I felt like it", turning lategame maps into 'everyone for themselves'
etc. etc. etc.
Really, who wants to make the system more complicated if the easy version doesn't even work?
It's like going to the supermarket and saying self-checkout sometimes takes 20 seconds extra so next time you want a steak you build a farm with your bare hands and raise some cows yourself to improve the situation.
Last edited:
Your problem with the thread and the idea is, as has been said, related to the AI. The horse is beaten and well past dead.
If anything these proposed changes would somewhat alleviate the AI issue of alliances not being evaluated because little Salzburg allying the Ottomans wouldn't take as many diplomatic relations slots and so wouldn't encumber the Ottomans much.
"You made a point. I now declare that point dead and you should stop beating a dead horse."
Once again you impress me beyond all my expectations. But sure. I can leave the conversation. No problem.
Once again you impress me beyond all my expectations. But sure. I can leave the conversation. No problem.
I never got why having vassals meant you should have less alliances, especially in the case of feudal monarchy. I think there should be two different types of dip slot, one for each situation.
C'mon man. You make endless scarecrow arguments.
Your point is dead because it was addressed so you just restated it. The argument makes no sense anyway -- we should not rethink systems because the AI sometimes uses existing ones poorly?
IMHO, vassals should take "admin" slots, if such a thing existed. They are, after all, in the process of being part of your country, if they aren't already "legally" part of it.
The limit on things like diplomats,merchants etc seems to be a holdover from EU3 days when there was another limiting group,the magistrates.
Since they were removed and replaced with cold hard cash why not do the same with everything else.
A nation historically could have as many merchants,diplomats or colonists scattered around the world as it could afford to pay for.
As such maybe we could get rid of the agents themselves and just put a cost to their effects.
Trying to gain more influence in a trade node,converting provinces,acts of diplomacy,setting up colonies,all these things could be done with cash rather than the various agents.
Since they were removed and replaced with cold hard cash why not do the same with everything else.
A nation historically could have as many merchants,diplomats or colonists scattered around the world as it could afford to pay for.
As such maybe we could get rid of the agents themselves and just put a cost to their effects.
Trying to gain more influence in a trade node,converting provinces,acts of diplomacy,setting up colonies,all these things could be done with cash rather than the various agents.