Military Alliances - Upkeep Cost

[unmerged(498532)]

Hey all,

I just saw the recent stream with the developers, and it was great seeing the game in action. There was a lot of information mentioned that I don't believe was previously stated:

- Buildings and such upgrades are purchased with Monarch Points
- Royal Marriages now require an upkeep of such points to maintain
- Clarification of sorts on trade nodes
- I think each advisor slot now draws from a separate group of great person types

Having played some recent sessions of EU3 Chronicles, I got to thinking about how all the diplomatic functions were thrown around the political landscape like hotcakes. I love the changes to the royal marriages, and I feel that military alliances could benefit from similar treatment. We know that generals will require an upkeep in military points, so why not military alliances as well? I am not a fan of the massive cascading alliance wars of EU3, but making it more of a commitment to maintain such a pact would at least give the sense that the military alliance is a more strategic decision and that spam would hobble a nation's military capability in the long run.

I wouldn't know where to begin regarding the costs. If not a flat rate, it could be relative to nation size, ally distance, national ideas, etc. Coalitions could also require upkeep, but be a lot cheaper than a more general military alliance.

Thoughts?

 

[ABookshelf]

I think the "upkeep" for a military alliance should basically be your army upkeep. If you're in some tough times and you have to slash your military spending...no one wants to be allies with a soft military. If you get into alliances with big players, you should have a big military so they feel like the alliance is worth it.

 

[unmerged(498532)]

I think the "upkeep" for a military alliance should basically be your army upkeep. If you're in some tough times and you have to slash your military spending...no one wants to be allies with a soft military. If you get into alliances with big players, you should have a big military so they feel like the alliance is worth it.

That would actually be pretty interesting tying your ability to project military power at the bargaining table through the size of your standing army, maybe relative to your force limits. Granted, standing armies would have been pretty small during this time. Historically, as well as in game, the ideal strategy would have been to keep on hand just what you needed. In the long run it was much cheaper, and far more economical, to raise what you needed on the spot should tensions escalate or hostilities breakout. Standing armies are no clear indicator of the ability of a nation to contribute to a war effort, and this approach also doesn't take into account countries that enter and alliance for reasons other than gaining a strong ally in times of war.

The point about making military alliances be at cost is to offer a trade off during the gameplay for both the player and AI. This would be best represented by the ongoing cost of maintaining military ties and contingencies in defense of both nations. Monarch points are the obvious currency in this case, since they are a precious resource all nations will have to nurture. This may be more the domain of diplomatic points, but military points warranted a mention since I thought there was obvious overlap in this area.