Ming, my life time ally, has abandoned me for a OPM favour
- Thread starter Luchofeio
- 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.
Every war is a world war. We need to voice this a bit more for them to consider something else.
TBH, I wish there was 2 different interest declaration:
Trade and Military. Military being more difficult to have and to use.
TBH, I wish there was 2 different interest declaration:
Trade and Military. Military being more difficult to have and to use.
- 36
- 7
- 1
I mean...Ming does gets the little heart. So I guess he cares more about feeling than politics!
- 3
I don't think it's wrong for alliances to be relatively temporary and conditional, or that the AI might abandon one that no longer suited their interests.
OTOH I think it'd be good if we got some kind of eu4-style alliance breaking notification when the AI decides you're too big for your britches... it's gamey, but still irl if a country is going to completely flip from supporting you to containing you I feel your diplomats wouldn't be caught completely flat-footed upon launching a play against a small neighbor.
I also don't think it's wrong for the game to seriously punish map painting.. otoh I think it should give us more diplomatic ways to gain access to useful land (letting us build in subjects!!).
OTOH I think it'd be good if we got some kind of eu4-style alliance breaking notification when the AI decides you're too big for your britches... it's gamey, but still irl if a country is going to completely flip from supporting you to containing you I feel your diplomats wouldn't be caught completely flat-footed upon launching a play against a small neighbor.
I also don't think it's wrong for the game to seriously punish map painting.. otoh I think it should give us more diplomatic ways to gain access to useful land (letting us build in subjects!!).
- 10
Well of course they are! The Great Qing know you're calling them Ming behind their backs.
- 36
- 4
I love how you can with one single letter insult all of XIXth century Manchus and Hans at the same time
- 3
- 3
its all clear now!!! I shall not complain anymore and work on improving our international relations to avoid such a faux pas!
- 4
- 1
Sure there must be ways to punish map paint. However, those kinds of punish is just silly. Qing did not join any wars against the Indian Company, which would make a lot more sense, since he is trying to control the balance of power in India. But to break our alliance and join an OPM for a favour that will have ZERO benefit to him...is tiresome.
I dont want the AI to leave us alone. I just want some fixes and balances so that THIS kind of sillyness doesnt happen. Its just a matter of tweaking the numbers for the AI to consider a better diplomatic negotiation.
- 10
- 1
Yes, this problem is tiresome. But on the other hand I can understand why the AI does it, because I like to do it too. It's to make sure that potential future threats get never into a position of power. Once they spiral out of control, who is to say that the alliance will last?
The only solution to stop someone from intervening is to make sure they're in no position to challenge you ever again.
First, demand war goals to liberate some of their most valuable territories as independent countries. A big bonus is to deprive them of all ports, that alone dropped my AI-Austria's SoL to 7-ish. It's brutally effective. Then keep the war going for as long as you can to bankrupt them, raid convoys to destroy their economy, before delivering the final blow to break them apart.
After that they'll never recover. If they try, just throw in your weight on behalf of whoever stands against them. They tend to back down then and have to pay war reparations each time. Because they know that I'll readily throw 1k+ batallions into the field for some nameless African tribe, just to spite them.
The only solution to stop someone from intervening is to make sure they're in no position to challenge you ever again.
First, demand war goals to liberate some of their most valuable territories as independent countries. A big bonus is to deprive them of all ports, that alone dropped my AI-Austria's SoL to 7-ish. It's brutally effective. Then keep the war going for as long as you can to bankrupt them, raid convoys to destroy their economy, before delivering the final blow to break them apart.
After that they'll never recover. If they try, just throw in your weight on behalf of whoever stands against them. They tend to back down then and have to pay war reparations each time. Because they know that I'll readily throw 1k+ batallions into the field for some nameless African tribe, just to spite them.
- 2
- 1
He didnt do anything when I was conquering India. Now, I am already a Trheat, much stronger then him. But NOW he decides to come into the aid of that 1 province nation? So I would understand if had he done it earlier. Now its just too late and just silly as I can easily overpower him. Im not a potential threat anymore, I am the threat =D
If he did that when I was eating India, sure, Im all for it...
- 2
- 1
At a guess, given normal Sikh gameplay in the hands of a player, you have very high infamy, which makes diplomatic relations brittle. China may have stayed allied as long as you were beating up on the EIC (if they didn't like them), but been willing to quickly abandon you once you attacked someone else in an area they had an interest. Huge trade deals do seem to make the AI more reluctant to side against you but are by no means a guarantee.
Oh the bright side, you can undoubtedly hold off the Chinese from making much progress in a war against you, but economically it may hurt yòu pretty badly (again, assuming typical gameplay where you hoover up vast quantities of Chinese raw resources). If so, it may be worth considering just how much that chunk of Baroda is worth to you.
Oh the bright side, you can undoubtedly hold off the Chinese from making much progress in a war against you, but economically it may hurt yòu pretty badly (again, assuming typical gameplay where you hoover up vast quantities of Chinese raw resources). If so, it may be worth considering just how much that chunk of Baroda is worth to you.
- 3
- 1
The diplomatic play system is pretty good. Even minor issues can blow up into stupidly large wars, or countries can stumble over their spears and end up at odds with each other when they normally would be friends.
What makes the system weird in some cases is that the AI has some behaviors that make it less immersive.
1) The AI really commits to wars. So, if China joins some minor conflict somewhere, you're looking at another war with a million casualties, even if the only reason China is involved is for a favor. Yes, the AI will sometimes dump out of a war early, but by and large, they are in it to win it with no regard for the value of the war goals.
2) There's no way to tell the AI what you want to side with them in a diplomatic play. You can figure out what the AI wants, but if you want state X in exchange for war against DEI, there's no way to explain that to Germany who wants to offer me war reparations.
3) The AI is awfully fickle for any kind of offensive war, and there's no way to make it clear that you would support your ally getting spoils, too. Let's say I'm Russia and allied to Austria. I start a diplomatic play as Russia to take Beijing. Austria dumps the alliance immediately. Now, in some cases, Austria might be interested in being swayed. In other cases, they are like "To Hell with you, Russia!" But what you can't do is say "Hey Austria, I know we are allies. I'm about to demand stuff from China. Would you like Gungdong in exchange for staying my ally?" Since you can't do this, I spend a lot of time not having full allies, because they dump the alliance so often when starting any kind of offensive war. And that's why you have a full alliance in the first place. If I wanted to just defend each other and have my own offensive wars, I wouldn't have asked you to be a full ally.
What makes the system weird in some cases is that the AI has some behaviors that make it less immersive.
1) The AI really commits to wars. So, if China joins some minor conflict somewhere, you're looking at another war with a million casualties, even if the only reason China is involved is for a favor. Yes, the AI will sometimes dump out of a war early, but by and large, they are in it to win it with no regard for the value of the war goals.
2) There's no way to tell the AI what you want to side with them in a diplomatic play. You can figure out what the AI wants, but if you want state X in exchange for war against DEI, there's no way to explain that to Germany who wants to offer me war reparations.
3) The AI is awfully fickle for any kind of offensive war, and there's no way to make it clear that you would support your ally getting spoils, too. Let's say I'm Russia and allied to Austria. I start a diplomatic play as Russia to take Beijing. Austria dumps the alliance immediately. Now, in some cases, Austria might be interested in being swayed. In other cases, they are like "To Hell with you, Russia!" But what you can't do is say "Hey Austria, I know we are allies. I'm about to demand stuff from China. Would you like Gungdong in exchange for staying my ally?" Since you can't do this, I spend a lot of time not having full allies, because they dump the alliance so often when starting any kind of offensive war. And that's why you have a full alliance in the first place. If I wanted to just defend each other and have my own offensive wars, I wouldn't have asked you to be a full ally.
Last edited:
- 24
- 1
By making threads like these, I just want to call out Paradox attention so that they can tweak further. I still believe that the best solution would be to divide the Military and trade interest in regions. Or bring back some sort of "flashpoints" from vic 2. By being able to get involved in every single conflict leads to wierd results. If you can limit it to few, but meaninful conflicts, it would bring better results from what you discuss.
To me the solution would be, somehow, to only have certain conflicts scale up to get international focus. A minor conflict between two regional nations should not always call in every european power that is trading in the region. And so on. Hopefully, we will get this further down the road.
- 9
We definitely need some way to negotiate war goals during the Diplomatic Plays. “How are we gonna carve then up? Maybe Mongolia and Tibet should be granted independence, so the Qing won’t try anything funny against us again.” This is period-appropriate and would be very entertaining. I ignore most Plays taking place in my regions of interest because I have nothing to gain from them. No shift in balance of power.
- 6
- 2
Definitely not, the british empire was doing military interventions all over the globe.
If you care about the supply of tea, you care about that supply of tea.
(The problem is that every diplomatic play is just a prelude to war instead of 75% ending in concessions. I love the game of chicken aspect but backing down should be the norm, compromises should exist, and great powers should have the prestige to just make declarations.)
- 8
- 1
There is not much rationalization worth doing on this regard for anyone that seriously played the game, diplomacy is just wonky right now.
It's very hard to get relevant alliances. Even if you look at the AI, you'll see it will generally mostly have irrelevant and nonsensical alliances. In my current game, I got extremely lucky since the US (which got is *** handed to it 4 times in a row now) has locked its only alliance slot in an alliance with haiti... which does them no good and abandon them each and every time anyway. To get relevant alliances, Genial or Protective + bankrolling is mandatory. It's fun giving 100k/week to a protective GB to get an alliance. And you got to time it extremely well because if you build a decent military, the AI will eventually get cautious of you and you won't be able to get any military pact with them, even at 100 reputation and a long history of fighting side by side.
Alliances are simply worth less than the boost to Infamy loss of unspent diplo mana, since your allies will most likely abandon you anyway. Last example, Joseon asked my Mexico for an alliance. I figured, why not since I can't get any relevant country to ally with me. I declared on an independent Hudson Bay company, which had a grand total of 3 outdated battalions against my 150+ state of the art force, and Joseon abandoned me right away...
Defense pact are the real tool, they are slightly easier to get (still need bankrolling) and AI seems less likely to bail out on you. But it has a limited use.
Problems are imho that AI has no memory and value getting obligations way too much for the use it has of it. You can be the most faithful ally ever, help your ally countless times and it will probably have no problem joining side against you for an obligation from luxembourg. Obligations are very valuable and it can be a game changer to be able to call someone on your side during a war or quickly boost relation to 80, that's one of the reason why bankrolling is by far the most powerful non-aggressive diplomatic interaction, but AI hardly know how to use it and it seems it makes no difference between getting an obligation from lanfang or from GB.
I think the intent is to avoid game lasting unbreakable alliances which lead to stalemates like in Stellaris, because alliances in this era (at least concerning the GPs) were more pragmatic and subject to change and gameplay wise right now, a game lasting alliance between GB and France could just kill the game for everyone else. That's why why have randomized evolving attitude. But right now alliances are useless, while you can see undying nonsensical game lasting defense pacts. And since you can only have one alliance for a good chunk of the game, the AI will often lock itself in poor and unreliable alliances.
Edit: After giving some though to it, one thing severely lacking is a boost to acceptance for common rivalry/enemies. While you have common enemies it's a very "real politik" thing to be allied, but as soon as you or the other part aren't rivaling anymore, the alliance would stop with the loss of acceptance points.
tl;dr; I think the fact that you can't get game lasting bros is intentional, but the AI diplo behavior is also all over the place.
It's very hard to get relevant alliances. Even if you look at the AI, you'll see it will generally mostly have irrelevant and nonsensical alliances. In my current game, I got extremely lucky since the US (which got is *** handed to it 4 times in a row now) has locked its only alliance slot in an alliance with haiti... which does them no good and abandon them each and every time anyway. To get relevant alliances, Genial or Protective + bankrolling is mandatory. It's fun giving 100k/week to a protective GB to get an alliance. And you got to time it extremely well because if you build a decent military, the AI will eventually get cautious of you and you won't be able to get any military pact with them, even at 100 reputation and a long history of fighting side by side.
Alliances are simply worth less than the boost to Infamy loss of unspent diplo mana, since your allies will most likely abandon you anyway. Last example, Joseon asked my Mexico for an alliance. I figured, why not since I can't get any relevant country to ally with me. I declared on an independent Hudson Bay company, which had a grand total of 3 outdated battalions against my 150+ state of the art force, and Joseon abandoned me right away...
Defense pact are the real tool, they are slightly easier to get (still need bankrolling) and AI seems less likely to bail out on you. But it has a limited use.
Problems are imho that AI has no memory and value getting obligations way too much for the use it has of it. You can be the most faithful ally ever, help your ally countless times and it will probably have no problem joining side against you for an obligation from luxembourg. Obligations are very valuable and it can be a game changer to be able to call someone on your side during a war or quickly boost relation to 80, that's one of the reason why bankrolling is by far the most powerful non-aggressive diplomatic interaction, but AI hardly know how to use it and it seems it makes no difference between getting an obligation from lanfang or from GB.
I think the intent is to avoid game lasting unbreakable alliances which lead to stalemates like in Stellaris, because alliances in this era (at least concerning the GPs) were more pragmatic and subject to change and gameplay wise right now, a game lasting alliance between GB and France could just kill the game for everyone else. That's why why have randomized evolving attitude. But right now alliances are useless, while you can see undying nonsensical game lasting defense pacts. And since you can only have one alliance for a good chunk of the game, the AI will often lock itself in poor and unreliable alliances.
Edit: After giving some though to it, one thing severely lacking is a boost to acceptance for common rivalry/enemies. While you have common enemies it's a very "real politik" thing to be allied, but as soon as you or the other part aren't rivaling anymore, the alliance would stop with the loss of acceptance points.
tl;dr; I think the fact that you can't get game lasting bros is intentional, but the AI diplo behavior is also all over the place.
Last edited:
- 9
- 2