The change made to DoWs recently where an AI won't let you use it as a club is one with good intent, but I think the follow-through is flawed. The AI absolutely shouldn't want to be used, but the best way to do this, rather than just reducing the frequency with which you can use it, would be to help the AI understand how good an ally you truly are (or aren't). To this end, I propose a new diplomatic modifier. I'm calling it Brotherhood, but that's just my working title. Here's how it would work:
1. Brotherhood would provide a positive or negative modifier to whether the AI will be willing to join a war based on how "helpful" you have been to the AI. To this end, Brotherhood modifiers would only be kept for allies or recent allies to reduce processor load.
2. The effects of Brotherhood would range from -500 to +100, added to the current system of willingness to join wars.
3. Positive modifiers would be halved and negative ones doubled when calculating willingness to join an OFFENSIVE war.
Things that would impact Brotherhood level:
Base
Base Brotherhood would be +0. Each alliance partner has their own separate Brotherhood level (e.g. Hungary might think of France as a great ally, but France might think Hungary is useless). If an alliance breaks, the Brotherhood value would tick toward 0 at the rate of 1 Brotherhood per month. Nations with a Brotherhood score of 0 with one another would simply not be tracked or checked by the game.
By default, Brotherhood value will not change at all between two allies; only helping or harming an ally will have any effect.
Small Bonuses (+1 or +2)
Defeating rebels in ally's territory that the ally couldn't have easily beaten alone.
Relieving sieged fort during defensive CTA.
Transferring occupation to an ally who has a claim or core on transferred province.
Honoring offensive CTA.
Sending significant subsidies during war (slow ticking bonus).
Large Bonuses (+5 to +10)
Honoring defensive CTA.
Giving claim or core in peace deal.
Small Penalties (-2 to -5)
Declining offensive CTA. (Could be made to not break alliance under this system.)
Per occupied claim either not transferred to ally (as of peace) or not given to ally in peace.
Per non-occupied core held by opponent not given to ally in peace.
During peace negotiation, gaining power projection when ally gains none (unless ally can't gain any from war).
Large Penalties (-10 to -20)
Betraying defensive CTA. (Still breaks alliance.)
Separate peace.
Claiming throne.
Giving up more of ally's territory than own as part of peace deal (by development level) on lost war.
Per occupied core either not transferred to ally or not given to ally in peace.
(Some of these large ones could be made larger, so I increased the possible negative brotherhood to 500.)
So basically, if you don't do anything to help the ally, they'll have little interest in joining your wars, even your defensive ones.
That's all I've got off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many more that could be added.
1. Brotherhood would provide a positive or negative modifier to whether the AI will be willing to join a war based on how "helpful" you have been to the AI. To this end, Brotherhood modifiers would only be kept for allies or recent allies to reduce processor load.
2. The effects of Brotherhood would range from -500 to +100, added to the current system of willingness to join wars.
3. Positive modifiers would be halved and negative ones doubled when calculating willingness to join an OFFENSIVE war.
Things that would impact Brotherhood level:
Base
Base Brotherhood would be +0. Each alliance partner has their own separate Brotherhood level (e.g. Hungary might think of France as a great ally, but France might think Hungary is useless). If an alliance breaks, the Brotherhood value would tick toward 0 at the rate of 1 Brotherhood per month. Nations with a Brotherhood score of 0 with one another would simply not be tracked or checked by the game.
By default, Brotherhood value will not change at all between two allies; only helping or harming an ally will have any effect.
Small Bonuses (+1 or +2)
Defeating rebels in ally's territory that the ally couldn't have easily beaten alone.
Relieving sieged fort during defensive CTA.
Transferring occupation to an ally who has a claim or core on transferred province.
Honoring offensive CTA.
Sending significant subsidies during war (slow ticking bonus).
Large Bonuses (+5 to +10)
Honoring defensive CTA.
Giving claim or core in peace deal.
Small Penalties (-2 to -5)
Declining offensive CTA. (Could be made to not break alliance under this system.)
Per occupied claim either not transferred to ally (as of peace) or not given to ally in peace.
Per non-occupied core held by opponent not given to ally in peace.
During peace negotiation, gaining power projection when ally gains none (unless ally can't gain any from war).
Large Penalties (-10 to -20)
Betraying defensive CTA. (Still breaks alliance.)
Separate peace.
Claiming throne.
Giving up more of ally's territory than own as part of peace deal (by development level) on lost war.
Per occupied core either not transferred to ally or not given to ally in peace.
(Some of these large ones could be made larger, so I increased the possible negative brotherhood to 500.)
So basically, if you don't do anything to help the ally, they'll have little interest in joining your wars, even your defensive ones.
That's all I've got off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many more that could be added.
- 1
Upvote
0
