Nations siding in diplomatic plays don't make sense AT ALL

[X_FloW]

this is super annoying, I'm playing as germany, i have good relations with austria, austria has bad relations with france, i declare war on france

but austria sides with france which they have bad relations with against me which we have good relations

and my infamy is at 16 not even that high

please someone explain this ridiculousness

 

[BPZ1941]

Yeah the AI acts in nonsensical ways at times. Most noticeably for me, another Great Power who are Genial towards me that I share >2 rivals with will absolutely go to war because an OPM in Africa offered them an Obligation.

 

[praftd]

In my opinion this and performance are the two biggest problems with the game. People are arguing about cosmetics or UI things or balance and the like. But these problems are easily the biggest and most fustrating.

Performance destroys the ability to play the game. And this problem affects everything. It affects how the AI plays, it is extremely frustrating, it creates completely nonsensical scenarios. The AI just genuinely does not seem to have a concept of cost-reward. It just arbitrarily decides to get involved in other people's wars that do not affect them.

Was playing the United States with zero infamy. Great relations with all major powers, and allied to the UK. I declared on Mexico for my Manifest Destiny lands.

And yet somehow RUSSIA decided to side with Mexico against me and the UK. First off why? Russia has zero to gain from that. We aren't enemies and have zero conflicts of interest. Russia isn't friendly with Mexico. And there is a ZERO percent chance Russia would win. And they lost, badly. But thanks to that nonsense the war lasted way longer and was way more costly for me for absolutely no reason.

And as a secondary issue, it makes no sense Russia was able to commit hundreds of thousands of troops to central Mexico. Really? And why can't my navy stop them from sending troops? I'm not talking supply lines. I'm talking during the diplomatic play I should be able to stop Russia from pouring in over 300,000 soldiers into Mexico. Something like that should be functionally impossible for a country like Russia in 1860.

 

[MJAnderson]

I'm playing as Dutch East Indies. I have 0 infamy and go to war with a OPM on my island. Austria, which has no colonies in SE Asia, for some reason has an interest in the area AND decides to join on the opposite side. I'm #26 in the world, they are #3. We have a neutral opinion because we have never interacted before.

 

[maxirage]

The AI makes decisions based on attitude, not relations. Honestly, relations should just be removed from the game. All it does is make things more confusing and add busywork.

 

[praftd]

The AI makes decisions based on attitude, not relations. Honestly, relations should just be removed from the game. All it does is make things more confusing and add busywork.

That is part of it, but not all of it. I've had plenty of Cordial countries flip on a dime for no reason and join diplomatic plays.

 

[TSD]

That is part of it, but not all of it. I've had plenty of Cordial countries flip on a dime for no reason and join diplomatic plays.

Cordial is relations not attitude, the thing the poster was advocating get rid of. I assume you maybe meant a Genial attitude, yet still flipping on you.

 

[BPZ1941]

The AI makes decisions based on attitude, not relations. Honestly, relations should just be removed from the game. All it does is make things more confusing and add busywork.

The decisions are still nonsensical even if you only pay attention to attitude. Honestly, I agree that attitude should be the more important one, but Friendly + Genial countries will still pick fights with you for no reason.

 

[Marirosa]

Cordial relations helps you defend. Noone can target you in a diplomatic play if yours relations are cordial or better.

 

[Ir0nSlug]

The decisions are still nonsensical even if you only pay attention to attitude. Honestly, I agree that attitude should be the more important one, but Friendly + Genial countries will still pick fights with you for no reason.

As I wrote in another thread, after doing a lot of tests, Genial is pretty much worthless except for getting trade agreement. Protective is gold, but you can only get it as a minor most probably.

 

[Nitros14]

The AI should make intelligent decisions like siding against someone becoming too powerful to keep the balance of power intact, regardless of relations.

 

[Kyoumen]

this is super annoying, I'm playing as germany, i have good relations with austria, austria has bad relations with france, i declare war on france

but austria sides with france which they have bad relations with against me which we have good relations

and my infamy is at 16 not even that high

please someone explain this ridiculousness
View attachment 931300

Fun fact: this almost happened in the Franco-Prussian war in real life. Austria got cold feet and only agreed to join France if the South German states sided with France (which they didn't, and then France's disastrous performance nixed any appetite Austria had for revenge).

Assuming any great power is happy to see you become a greater power is always risky, particularly since becoming Germany means you've had a conflict with Austria. If you want security, you sway allies of your own to the conflict. You might not need Russia to beat France, but they'll certainly keep Austria busy if they stick their nose in. If you're hell-bent for leather and don't need allies, then congrats: you're playing Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian War, not Bismarck. And that didn't go well for him.

 

[praftd]

Cordial is relations not attitude, the thing the poster was advocating get rid of. I assume you maybe meant a Genial attitude, yet still flipping on you.

I've had green on both and the AI still decides to fight against me.

 

[praftd]

The best is when China gets involved with wars in S. America. Fun times

 

[Nitros14]

Never assume any great power is your friend.

 

[The Goldfinch]

I agree with the title of this thread - but example you provided isn't the right one.

Tbh nothing wrong with neighbouring GP wanting to keep balance of power on European continent. If anything, it should happen *more* often.

The problem I see with diplo plays, is that the AI GPs tend to massively commit to wars over completely insignificant and strategically irrelevant targets - while it neglects objectives it should focus on.

Examples:
Italy will side with Timor attacked by Austria. But it will almost never attempt to start a play to take Venice.
China will side with Tripolitania against England. It won't try to make a play to reconquer Hong Kong.
Massive European war will often erupt over civil war in Parma with no additional wargoals added
russia gets heavily involved in Mexico, forgetting about Ottomans for entire game

List could go on - I see huge problem with lack of opportunistic logic in AI behavior

 

[jura28]

In your example, Austria is acting perfectly logical. Germany is much greater long term threat to them than France. Bad relations doesnt mean they should ignore their strategic interests. Its logical for both France and Austria to team up against Germany any chance they get.

 

[Camara]

As a GP allying other GPs is very hard, sure it prevents the formation of power blocks but late game they should seek allies against their major enemies and stick with that alliance. As alliances are rare the GPs are always wildcards that can choose any side at random.

WWI example:
Austria DOWs Serbia, Russia joins Serbia side.

Reality: Germany joined Austria, France joined Russia.

In this game what would happen maybe: Germany joins Russia, France joins Russia
"Well but they're neighbours and Germany wants to weaken and steal land from Austria!!" - probably the game justification

 

[BPZ1941]

As a GP allying other GPs is very hard, sure it prevents the formation of power blocks but late game they should seek allies against their major enemies and stick with that alliance. As alliances are rare the GPs are always wildcards that can choose any side at random.

They really shouldn't be that kind of wildcards though. Historically, and in the ideal case in-game, GPs do what they do to benefit their own interests. War is expensive and destructive, but the game AI seems to have big problems grasping this simple fact.

90% of diplomatic plays where both sides were supported by Great Powers between 1836 and 1936 ended in one side backing down. And those that didn't were fought because both sides thought they could benefit immensely from winning.

WWI example:
Austria DOWs Serbia, Russia joins Serbia side.

Reality: Germany joined Austria, France joined Russia.

In this game what would happen maybe: Germany joins Russia, France joins Russia
"Well but they're neighbours and Germany wants to weaken and steal land from Austria!!" - probably the game justification

The situation between Prussia and Austria has never been that good in PI games. I don't really understand why it's so hard to make them stop hating each other after the formation of Germany.

 

[thedarkendstar]

In your example, Austria is acting perfectly logical. Germany is much greater long term threat to them than France. Bad relations doesnt mean they should ignore their strategic interests. Its logical for both France and Austria to team up against Germany any chance they get.

I mean in absolutes sure but states don’t join alliances just based on there relative strength to those two countries IRL Austria and Germany were allied because they were both German allowed them to get along better and because Germany already achieved its aims in Germany.
This is despite the fact in absolute terms Germany represents a greater risk to Austria then France does.

America represents in absolute terms a greater risk to Europe then say china does but Europe is allied for the former because of ideological political reasons.