Major/Great Power Struggle: All is Quiet on the Western Front

[We Who Are About 2 Die]

Another small post. One of the things I am noticing is that Major/Great Powers avoid warring with each other. Absurdly at times. They may fight two or three wars then live in peace for the rest of the game. I seen it with Rome and Carthage. Seleucids and Maurya/Egypt. They only seem to declare on other powers when there is significant disparity.

 

[Chiron]

Aye, I would very much appreciate Great Powers or Major Powers having a Border Policy mechanic that encourages raiding cross borders (not the full on raids of Viking Era roam the seven seas of CK2) but one that allows them to go and raid next door neighbours for loot and slaves. It would keep minor powers down or encourage defensive pacts to stay relevant, and encourage major powers to fortify borders with each other to prevent raids.

Tribes especially should have something similar to encourage them to loot and burn and raid major powers.

 

[Decius]

Agree with the op. I'm fine with major powers not constantly waging wars against each other and sometimes even have a friendly relationship, but at some point in I:R they are too passive against each other.

 

[We Who Are About 2 Die]

Aye, I would very much appreciate Great Powers or Major Powers having a Border Policy mechanic that encourages raiding cross borders (not the full on raids of Viking Era roam the seven seas of CK2) but one that allows them to go and raid next door neighbours for loot and slaves. It would keep minor powers down or encourage defensive pacts to stay relevant, and encourage major powers to fortify borders with each other to prevent raids.

Tribes especially should have something similar to encourage them to loot and burn and raid major powers.

Mannnnn. I have been saying this. Thank you.

Military Organization & Size / Supply Chain

I think that this game has the opportunity to do something very unique with military, so here are a few suggestions. Military Hierarchy One of the things I would love to see is military hierarchy. The benefits would be, that overarching...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Colonization & Migration

One of the issues that bother me is the absence of non-war antagonistic actions. To raid another country you have to be at war. It defeats the point of being a tribe and under plays why civilized areas did not like them. Raiding did not denote...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Rubidium]

It's a problem in most Paradox games, to be honest. The AI says "I can either fight a bloody war with a near peer power, or I can annex a bunch of weaker states that won't be a challenge." It's the same in CK or EU: if there are no events/missions railroading them into a war, they generally won't fight one unless they are 100% sure they will win.

 

[Undead Martyr]

The issue comes down to all conquests being more or less of similar value past a certain point, and a lack of proper diplomacy.

 

[Jiben]

It's a problem in most Paradox games, to be honest. The AI says "I can either fight a bloody war with a near peer power, or I can annex a bunch of weaker states that won't be a challenge." It's the same in CK or EU: if there are no events/missions railroading them into a war, they generally won't fight one unless they are 100% sure they will win.

I can't even blame the ai on that i mostly do the same thing. Very rarely do i declare a war i'm unsure i can win. Sometimes i can be weaker on paper but declare anyway if im sure i can win somehow but it's not like i for example yolo war mauryas as bactria but it is something i really prepare for (the first war atleast)

 

[We Who Are About 2 Die]

The issue comes down to all conquests being more or less of similar value past a certain point, and a lack of proper diplomacy.

Diplomacy and Trade are really where this game drops the ball. CK3 does present a good framework to improve diplomacy drastically tho.

 

[We Who Are About 2 Die]

I can't even blame the ai on that i mostly do the same thing. Very rarely do i declare a war i'm unsure i can win. Sometimes i can be weaker on paper but declare anyway if im sure i can win somehow but it's not like i for example yolo war mauryas as bactria but it is something i really prepare for (the first war atleast)

I was playing Dacia and had pushed Rome to the Illyrian mountains and outside of the first war they never declared on me. The near power right next to them. We had horrible relations, I refused to trade with them and they never attacked me. We fought 5 or 6 wars. Only one was because of them. And they had the manpower, tech, and legions to grind me down to a pulp.

Deathmatches and repetitive wars between comparative great powers were a fixture of the times. Assyria and Egypt. Rome and Parthia/Sassanids. Rome and Carthage. Ptolemaics and Seleucids. Little nations may be an irritation but powers can be existential threats. That isn't even adding the "honor and glory" factor of fighting your 'primordial' rival.

 

[AggaWackTan]

An important aspect to remember about this time is how legitimacy was earned, a Roman consul, a Greek king, a Tribal chief all had to be militarily competent. They earned their legitimacy through success in battle.

It could be a feature for IR that upon succession a new king or consul would lose legitimacy unless they waged war successfully against a ‘competing power’. There’s something in the game to recognise a competing power so this could be used more. So for an Egyptian Seleucid war it this would generally be a superiority war with a high cost for taking land but high casualties also, to resemble the Syrian wars.

 

[Herennius]

Playing Rome myself, I can only say that for Carthage (and I cannot blame them - they would lose if they would declare on me, so they are wise to consolidate their backland and get a stronger position in Iberia. Also you could blame me for the same...except taking Sicilia and Sardinia from them, I have focussed my conquest on Illyria/Greece so far). The Diadochi are constantly fighting with each other, Anatolia is a complete battlefield all the time

 

[We Who Are About 2 Die]

I understand why the happiness penalty from integrating cultures exist. They don't want you to simply remove the happiness penalties for cultures by integrating every single culture you conquer pops from. But the implementation feels wonky. As Rome for example you probably want to integrate Punic for instance, making all the former citizens of the Carthaginian empire fully integrated romans within a few years of conquering Carthage. That doesn't feel right.

My suggestion: A mechanic called animosity. All cultures can have animosity for every other culture. Any time two countries are at war their cultures (assuming they're different) gain animosity towards each other scaled to the portion of the pops of their respective cultures that live in each of the countries. When a pop is killed by pillaging the victim culture gains a large amount of animosity towards the culture of the looter. Enslaving pops would do the same to a lesser degree. When a culture gains animosity towards a culture of a different culture group it also gains a lesser amount of animosity towards other cultures in the same group.

Integrating a culture could then require low animosity, making it impossible to instantly integrating the culture of a hated enemy the moment you defeat them. This would also make it possible to lower the penalties for integrating cultures while still limiting your ability to spam it endlessly.

I want to give credit where its due. This post inspired me to how Paradox can fix the awkward peace issue. I am currently playing a game and the Antigonids took East and West Nile Delta, its been over 50+ years and they have not tried to take it back.

Hatred System
I propose a Hatred System. The Hatred gauge is filled by enemy raiding, desecration, losing territory, insults, treatment of co-ethnics within their borders (forced slavery), and devastation** (would like to see this added to the game). Until that hatred is satisfied, the nation suffers from public outrage (declining stability & reduce pop. happiness), increased disloyalty in military officers, and decrease in popularity. The penalty increases over time as long as the debt of revenge is not paid.

Satisfying the hatred would obviously be solved by declaring or fighting a war on the target. However this would be a two edge sword, cause if the nation loses the hatred gauge would grow causing more instability.

Factors for Increasing Hatred

• War
  • Lost War
  • Raiding & Desecration
  • Lost Territory
  • Devastation
• Insults
• Disenfranchisement of Co-Ethnics
• Happiness of Co-Ethnics

Factors for Reducing Hatred

• Royal Marriage
• Integrated Co-Ethnics
• Trade (Effected by Amount)

Fear System
This system is to balance out the hatred system. Fear is to keep the extreme debuffs from hate from getting out of hand when there is a power disparity that is not in the nation's favor. It is the concept of extreme external pressure facilitating internal solidarity. Fear increases the loyalty of governors and cabinet/counsel, as they are vested in maintaining the status quo. If the nation is defeated, then they all will be out of work or lives. Fear would also increase province loyalty and religion happiness, as people turn to the gods for salvation and deliverance. Increased Freeman and Slave output as the nation gears up for fear of war.

Nations with a similar fear target will likely form defensive leagues. While individual nations may seek to a protector nation; seeking guarantees, petition to become vassals. And if they are tribes, they might seek to become migratory and move away from the terrifying nation.

Just like the Hatred System, the Fear System would be a two edge sword. If the nation reaches a point of abject terror (on the fear gauge) of another nation and the former nation declares war on said nation, it would start a scripted conspiracy to overthrow/assassinate the ruler. Possibly leading to civil war, and more likely if the war is lost.

Factors for Fear

• Power Level Difference
• Aggressive Expansion
• Tech
  • Military Tech Level Difference
  • Certain Religion Tech Options
• "Human Sacrifice" Tribal Law
• Certain Heritages
• Severity of War Victory (Against Target Warring Nations)

 

[Riukus]

It's a problem in most Paradox games, to be honest. The AI says "I can either fight a bloody war with a near peer power, or I can annex a bunch of weaker states that won't be a challenge." It's the same in CK or EU: if there are no events/missions railroading them into a war, they generally won't fight one unless they are 100% sure they will win.

Well, it's true for average war in EU4. But if really important war for city of world's desire (namely LIEGE) happened nothing matter except BLOOD!

 

[Baldamundo]

It's a problem in most Paradox games, to be honest. The AI says "I can either fight a bloody war with a near peer power, or I can annex a bunch of weaker states that won't be a challenge." It's the same in CK or EU: if there are no events/missions railroading them into a war, they generally won't fight one unless they are 100% sure they will win.

Think the problem here is that the diplomatic side isn't quite developed enough. As I understand the history, a lot of the wars between majors were basically spurred over interventions in neighbouring minors they both had an interest in. So we need better AI use of (and potentially more options for) tools like guarantees, intervention in wars, spheres of influence, etc

Also, I'm quite skeptical about some of the suggestions here which seem to amount to deliberately making the AI more stupid and encouraging it to self-destructively instigate wars that it knows it can't win. I don't think that's good game design or historically accurate.

Other thing that might make sense is having more to differentiate which territories the AI prefers to fight over? The claim system at present seems maybe a bit under-developed - there's not much distinction between what a nation considers its core territory and what it doesn't. I often e.g. see wars between Rome & Carthage which end with Rome annexing the territories neighbouring Carthage itself while leaving their overseas colonies, which feels a bit odd and unimmersive.

Becomes slightly tangential, but related to the above point, I'd wonder about removing the requirement to occupy a province to be able to demand it in a peace deal, and instead just have it affect war-score cost. That way even if a nation's core territories are occupied, they can trade away their periphery in a peace deal.

 

[Nostalgium]

Well, it's true for average war in EU4. But if really important war for city of world's desire (namely LIEGE) happened nothing matter except BLOOD!

I saw France declare a war once. It was for a PU over a 3PM Burgundy. Their opposition was Castile-Aragon, England, Portugal, and Austria-Hungary. Their sole ally was Naples, who declined their call. They squandered like 80 years of gains in that war.

 

[Battlex]

I saw France declare a war once. It was for a PU over a 3PM Burgundy. Their opposition was Castile-Aragon, England, Portugal, and Austria-Hungary. Their sole ally was Naples, who declined their call. They squandered like 80 years of gains in that war.

That's because it happens via event

An important aspect to remember about this time is how legitimacy was earned, a Roman consul, a Greek king, a Tribal chief all had to be militarily competent. They earned their legitimacy through success in battle.

It could be a feature for IR that upon succession a new king or consul would lose legitimacy unless they waged war successfully against a ‘competing power’. There’s something in the game to recognise a competing power so this could be used more. So for an Egyptian Seleucid war it this would generally be a superiority war with a high cost for taking land but high casualties also, to resemble the Syrian wars.

Wars are an easy source of ruler popularity, as ruler popularity is lost so easily its a good idea to do wars, we don't need legitimacy as well