Militaristic Rulers Make Trust Useless

[Senstrae]

My long time ally Poland (edit: 150 years) got annuled in an unfortunate fashion while we were fighting a large Spain. All was well until the current ruler died and the next one in line was a militarist. Immediately he paints the 1 neighboring territory we have, as well as my entire coastline he can reach. Suddenly bam, hostile. This was regardless of high trust. Regardless of the fact that we share two rivals. I have not even marked down any territory of our mutual neighbors so there is no conflict there. But because he now wants my territory due to an annul treaty, that means we can no longer get along.

I dislike that militaristic leaders arbitrarily paint all non allied territory within reach as "vital interest". Here's example two. Blobby Austria is common, but she painted nearly the whole empire red, and lead a campaign that earned her a coalition in spite of the Lucky nation buff, and removed her dynasty from the throne for good. (Lithuania was the next emperor and was subsequently devastated by the League Wars)

I understand the necessity of a militaristic leader type, it shakes up the game landscape. I'm all for them painting a good deal of territory... just make more of it yellow instead of red. And right now the functionality makes the trust system feel completely useless.

Maybe before a militaristic leader paints territory they should check to see if there's 1) common rivals 2) mutual allies 3) high trust 4) opinion over 100.

 

[mursolini]

I have the fact that game promotes permanent 200+ years alliances in the first place. That is not how things worked in the time and age.

 

[Maria Theresa]

I agree completely, militaristic AI is way too aggro.

 

[Senstrae]

I have the fact that game promotes permanent 200+ years alliances in the first place. That is not how things worked in the time and age.

Then why have "historical friends" ever?

 

[Gratak]

I have the fact that game promotes permanent 200+ years alliances in the first place. That is not how things worked in the time and age.

I would agree here, BUT the way the AI becomes aggressive towards long time friends is usually completely random and stupid. For example, whenever I've seen Novgorod being strong thanks to having a long times alliance with a strong Sweden (and no one else), at some point they suddenly rival Sweden and, surprise, 1 year later Muscovy has killed them...

 

[Guru VII]

I have the fact that game promotes permanent 200+ years alliances in the first place. That is not how things worked in the time and age.

Well except for the Anglo-Portuguese alliance, the French-Ottoman Alliance, the French and Scottish alliance, which all lasted for 200+ years, heck one of them is still in effect. I imagine there are more, those are just the ones I could think of on the top of my head. Heck Anglo-Portuguese alliance is still standing.

 

[Chlodio]

Well except for the Anglo-Portuguese alliance, the French-Ottoman Alliance, the French and Scottish alliance, which all lasted for 200+ years, heck one of them is still in effect. I imagine there are more, those are just the ones I could think of on the top of my head. Heck Anglo-Portuguese alliance is still standing.

I heard that French-Ottoman Alliance wouldn't be alliance by game terms, but just a historical friendship.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even the most militaristic AI should constrain the vital interests to things their nation can actually take in the next war. Blocking alliances that would be useful for the next 30-50 years to the AI is devastating to it.

 

[Pornek]

Worst is the popup says ruler is said to be diplomat and when you check he is militaristic. Will there ever be a version when we dont have to triple check on everything ?

 

[rizla7]

you simply got hit for -200 wants provinces. it eventually happens with all allies who contest large swathes of border with you.

most often it happens when they take a mission, giving them claims on 20 provinces.

edit: ROFL 'vital interests'... good thing i don't own that DLC...

 

[Chaingun]

Going to have a look at the AI's behavior regarding this, it's probably too crude at the moment.

 

[cemacmillan]

I heard that French-Ottoman Alliance wouldn't be alliance by game terms, but just a historical friendship.

I don't know how accurate is the Wikipedia article, but it sounds like a long standing alliance with very limited joint operations to me.

Definitely the city of Toulon was given over to the Turks (eg. Military + Port access) before a campaign that never really took off and some operations
were carried out together.

 

[rizla7]

i don't see the point though...

clearly, i can 'trust ottomans explicitly' as an ally, then turn on them any day i choose as a player...

because of... 'vital interests'...

such is the case when you ally stronger nations (like the player himself)...

not to mention, there's no limit on the number of great powers you can ally these days... for extra dogpile, disposable alliances you can then break.

do unto me, as i do unto you? what goes around, comes around? karma's a B? sorry, got carried away

'austria does not want aragon in a PU under portugal' - like i care... eat dirt austria [allies lithuania, PUs hungary].

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i don't see the point though...

clearly, i can 'trust ottomans explicitly' as an ally, then turn on them any day i choose as a player...

because of... 'vital interests'...

such is the case when you ally stronger nations (like the player himself)...

not to mention, there's no limit on the number of great powers you can ally these days... for extra dogpile, disposable alliances you can then break.

do unto me, as i do unto you? what goes around, comes around? karma's a B? sorry, got carried away

Do you, as a player, dump useful allies because you both have some similar provinces you want, or do you dump them after your mutual enemy is at least broken?

In other words, why is the AI being set to play poorly on purpose and dump allies it can't benefit from betraying yet?

 

[rizla7]

Do you, as a player, dump useful allies because you both have some similar provinces you want, or do you dump them after your mutual enemy is at least broken?

In other words, why is the AI being set to play poorly on purpose and dump allies it can't benefit from betraying yet?

i do whatever is in my interest at the time. it appear austria+poland have plenty of 'useful allies' in those shots.

i'm not an AI, but if i were, i would assume that ally would betray me eventually.

if i were PLC, i would kill byzantium first... actually, hungary, then byzantium.

the only mechanic this seems to break is austria blobbing in HRE. but not like AI emperor can form HRE anyways... so who cares...

oh, btw: you can prevent the DOW by having a larger army (allies probably factor into it too): quantity IG, highly underrated ;o

 

[Senstrae]

i don't see the point though...

clearly, i can 'trust ottomans explicitly' as an ally, then turn on them any day i choose as a player...

because of... 'vital interests'...

such is the case when you ally stronger nations (like the player himself)...

not to mention, there's no limit on the number of great powers you can ally these days... for extra dogpile, disposable alliances you can then break.

do unto me, as i do unto you? what goes around, comes around? karma's a B? sorry, got carried away

'austria does not want aragon in a PU under portugal' - like i care... eat dirt austria [allies lithuania, PUs hungary].

i do whatever is in my interest at the time. it appear austria+poland have plenty of 'useful allies' in those shots.

i'm not an AI, but if i were, i would assume that ally would betray me eventually.

if i were PLC, i would kill byzantium first... actually, hungary, then byzantium.

the only mechanic this seems to break is austria blobbing in HRE. but not like AI emperor can form HRE anyways... so who cares...

oh, btw: you can prevent the DOW by having a larger army (allies probably factor into it too): quantity IG, highly underrated ;o

I understand that a number of players will act with world conquest in mind. However, I do not think it is reasonable to code the AI in a way that it assumes the player is going for wc. There are plenty of us who opt instead for historical borders, or are content to roleplay, resulting in a game that's a lot less binary. I view nations as having a story, rather than potential conquest / potential ally.

Thematically speaking, using this campaign as an example, Poland came to Byzantium's defense in their final hour, the Ottoman conquest that would have closed the curtain on the once glorious empire. After that, we shared a number of offensive and defensive calls, we helped each other out with rebels. I even accepted a call to arms against Riga, who was allied with my ally Lithuania (separate from the PU), resulting in a situation where I chose Poland over Lithuania. Heck before the first screenshot in the thread, I ended up with his dynasty. So our two nations are bound by blood and fist.

Strategically speaking, I suppose I could look into potentially betraying him... except I have no interest in his lands. They're out of the way of my trade node; downstream in a completely different direction from Constantinople; not to mention the increase coring cost due to Aristocratic ideas. Having them as an ally helps me keep the hostile Spain, France, Portugal triple alliance in check, and they benefit from my alliance by keeping Russia and Denmark in check. Maintaining my relations with them lets me benefit from western arms trade. There's too many reasons for me to consider turning on him.

As far as situations where an AI would betray - I would hope they would only consider it as a result of having a conflict of interest when it comes to mutually desired land, or a situation where the ally in question is allied to one of their rivals. That or if the alliance wasn't full of trust yet (50-70 being a 'weak' loyalty, while 90+ is a 'strong' loyalty).

 

[Senstrae]

Going to have a look at the AI's behavior regarding this, it's probably too crude at the moment.

Thank you. As a follow up, once the militaristic ruler died, I was able to regain the alliance with him because at that point he unmarked my territory.

 

[rizla7]

Strategically speaking, I suppose I could look into potentially betraying him...

well, technically, it could be over-aggression on their part, due to the DLC, which i do not own.

however, you can build a larger army/have more allies to prevent attacks (won't prevent very large coalitions though, if you get over-aggressive).

but austria is doing the same blobbing even without DLC, and you do get huge hits for 'wants provinces', even for 3-4 provinces sometimes -150 hit.

i ended up breaking ottomans alliance bcs of that. or they would have eventually, due to claiming all of egypt...

historically speaking, poland came to your defense bcs they wanted your throne and your titles, not bcs they love you

I would hope they would only consider it as a result of having a conflict of interest when it comes to mutually desired land

but that's exactly what happened. look at it from poland's perspective: they don't want to annoy the HRE, they don't want to fight muscovy, the only logical option is to go south, through hungary ;o

your best bet to crush poland is ally austria, bcs you don't have to give them land. of course, the problem is austria is already a little blobby... you alliance might just make them stronger.

since when do poland/lith have aristocratic ideas? ;o

if you can drop poland and take austria as an ally, do it... bcs you won't be grabbing HRE land any time soon. but that aristocratic thing bothers me... since when... ;o

they may not be ideal trade nodes, but they have plenty of manpower up there, and you can make hungarian+polish+ruthenian accepted cultures if you're small enough even without humanist IG.

anyways, none of this solves your problem, just a suggestion.

 

[Vaximillian]

Worst is the popup says ruler is said to be diplomat and when you check he is militaristic. Will there ever be a version when we dont have to triple check on everything ?

The popup is still broken, it actually says about the previous ruler instead of the current one. This one has never been fixed for some arcane reason.

 

[Senstrae]

well, technically, it could be over-aggression on their part, due to the DLC, which i do not own.

-snip-

anyways, none of this solves your problem, just a suggestion.

Just to clarify, I made this thread to bring light to a specific AI interaction where the militaristic ruler ignores opinion, trust, dynasty, in favor of arbitrarily painting neighboring territory as "vital" just because you are temporarily annulled. I'm not concerned for my own survival, merely concerned for the AI mechanics. You've given recommendations for what I should do about the game itself, but I already have a PU over Austria, and my military ranks in the top 3 for size, technology, and morale. Poland actually went for easier targets - the weak Balkan states, the shattered Hungary, the neutered HRE. It resulted in a HRE coalition war. The moment the ruler died, I was able to offer an alliance and I helped clean up his coalition mess.

The DLC gives a mechanic that allows us to understand, and to a lesser extent, control the 'wants provinces' modifier. If you call an ally to a war and promise them land, then give them none, that's a specific malus. Same thing goes for taking land that they consider vital. Instead of randomness, we now have a visual feedback system that roughly lets us know what to do to keep our alliances relatively stable, if we so desire.

since when do poland/lith have aristocratic ideas? ;o

Bad assumption on my part. My bad.