Ok, I'm tired of complaining about Coalitions, but really???????????????????

[giovdb]

I am no historian, but I don't think even the Mongolians had a coalition against them when they took over most of Asia and even some of Europe. If I'm not mistaken the first real coalition war (where dozens of countries were angry at another country for aggressive expanding) was World War 2, where several nations around the world joined against Hitler because he had already conquered (or allied with) most of Europe. Both of these wars were outside of the scope of this game, which further leads me to believe coalitions to degree of this game did not exist in the time frame.

 

[DSwann]

While I don't agree with the OP, the peace deal screen only shows the Base AE effect, correct? It would be nice if this screen showed the exact amount of AE that will occur for each country. It is not exactly clear with the current implementation.

 

[Jaol]

While I don't agree with the OP, the peace deal screen only shows the Base AE effect, correct? It would be nice if this screen showed the exact amount of AE that will occur for each country. It is not exactly clear with the current implementation.

Yes, the peace screen only shows the base. I don't see how you could get a complete list, though--it would be huge list. And it's not so hard to estimate--neighbors care more, allies care less, etc..

 

[DSwann]

Yes, the peace screen only shows the base. I don't see how you could get a complete list, though--it would be huge list. And it's not so hard to estimate--neighbors care more, allies care less, etc..

Not sure if you know this but if you hover over the AE number in peace deal, it shows the AE effect for all countries. Is this number the final AE effect or is it modified by the base?

 

[paulk205]

I am no historian, but I don't think even the Mongolians had a coalition against them when they took over most of Asia and even some of Europe. If I'm not mistaken the first real coalition war (where dozens of countries were angry at another country for aggressive expanding) was World War 2, where several nations around the world joined against Hitler because he had already conquered (or allied with) most of Europe. Both of these wars were outside of the scope of this game, which further leads me to believe coalitions to degree of this game did not exist in the time frame.

The first real coalitions in the game sense were those of William III against Louis XVI in the 17th century. The Valois-Habsburg and Wars of Religion (including the start of the 30 years war) tussles in the 16th and early 17th centuries were more like dynastic struggles in the mould of CK2. The coalitions against the Ottomans in the period (e.g. of 1570) were strictly in the Crusader tradition. Anyway, none of these (nor of the coalitions against Napoleon which were the archetypal "bad boy" ones) were done in the horrible gamey way of EU4, and of course none of them included absurdities like transatlantic, non-Christian members and the like.

This game mechanic is fundamentally broken by design, made for the wrong reasons (to force players to play in a certain way) and implemented horribly. It's also onlyone of many poorly designed aspects of this game. I also find it amusing that the same fanboys who use historical examples (badly) to defend this fundamentally poorly made game are the same who use the "this is a game, not history -if you want history, go read a book" argument when someone complains about the numerous ahistorical outcomes and mechanics of this game.

EDIT: I don't mean the poster I quoted by that last comment BTW, it's a general observation.

 

[Xara]

Again, I repeat, none of these were coalition wars. Please name ONE coalition war.

Nice moving the goalposts.

 

[tapewormlondon]

Not sure if you know this but if you hover over the AE number in peace deal, it shows the AE effect for all countries. Is this number the final AE effect or is it modified by the base?

Final AE Effect for all countries affected. The number next to each country is the amount of AE malus you will receive from said faction

 

[Matrim_Cauthon]

I am no historian, but I don't think even the Mongolians had a coalition against them when they took over most of Asia and even some of Europe. If I'm not mistaken the first real coalition war (where dozens of countries were angry at another country for aggressive expanding) was World War 2, where several nations around the world joined against Hitler because he had already conquered (or allied with) most of Europe. Both of these wars were outside of the scope of this game, which further leads me to believe coalitions to degree of this game did not exist in the time frame.

I think coalitions are based on this war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years'_War

where, after France expanded too much too quick, a coalition of 7 powers (HRE, England, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Scotland and Sardinia-Piedmont) fought France and forced the sun king to go back to the borders of 20 years prior.

And on the napoleonic wars.

 

[AJ2009]

Again, I repeat, none of these were coalition wars. Please name ONE coalition war.

Ok fair point. I can't name one technical coalition war in the period of the wars I listed but there were coalitions wars in the time frame of the game. How do you think your frustration with the coalition system could be solved?

 

[dstarsboy]

I think coalitions add a strategic element to the game, you're not just mindlessly taking provinces non-stop or ticking off your neighbors or giving people reasons to hate you, you have to be very careful or else you'll find yourself in trouble.

I don't think it's always 1 action that causes you to have a large coalition war....

1) I think taking 80% of Venice is will get people pretty upset, that's icing on the cake.
2) you likely already have strained relations with a few countries to begin with... for some reason or another (actions in the past)
3) one of them that's very angry happens to have some CB against you, possibly for your actions in the past as well...

All of this combined adds up to a big coalition war.

 

[Geobog]

Just thought I'd contribute: the current coalition mechanic can be dealt with as a player, but doing the required gymnastics is story-busting. As EUIV is worked on by devs, however, the story-building aspect of the game should get better and better. I can't in any way imagine they are going to keep the coalition mechanic as-is forever.

 

[Anthropoid]

Ok fair point. I can't name one technical coalition war in the period of the wars I listed but there were coalitions wars in the time frame of the game. How do you think your frustration with the coalition system could be solved?

Somebody started a thread a while back in which he reviewed the 'earliest coalitions' they were in the 1500s and involved Italian and HRE states (plus Pope) vs. France if memory serves.

Coalitions aren't perfect, and hopefully they fix them up. But overall they are an improvement on Badboy, and some mechanism of this sort is requisite.

"Coalitions" forming in 1450 may be relatively ahistorical. But player nation blobbing to gobble up two-thirds of Europe in 1550 is even more ahistorical. Me personally, once I develop a gut intuition for how the maths play out, I very much like it. Hope they don't make the game easy because of all the whining and ranting about how it sux.

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

Coalitions aren't as much as a problem as how AE compounds with size (to be fixed in 1.4). What makes coalitions annoying is that they aren't limited by distance, or continent, or anything else, just pure AE - like I swear, having Russia intervening on my conquest of the Iroquois is very annoying.

But really, what makes it so frustrating is the blatant workaround that is vassal feeding, which players are pidgeonholed into due to the coalition mechanic.

 

[glaivemaster]

When I first heard about coalitions, I thought they were a great idea. I thought to myself "this'll give a way for smaller nations to protect themselves against large ones, by teaming up against them when they get aggressive." I imagined that it was a mechanic to stop a large nation from simply swallowing up everything smaller than it (which is, eventually, everything). Obviously, nobody's experience is quite like what I imagined there, and I think that could be fixed by making coalitions purely defensive wars. It still lets small nations protect themselves against large ones (perhaps with the help of other large nations), and still allows for coalition wars to occur if the player decides to be aggressive anyway, but doesn't force the player into pointless wars which are no fun and ruin them sometimes more than is needed.

Thoughts?

 

[alanschu]

I think coalitions still need the ability to push back. I mean, if I go in and annex half of France in a single war, I'm okay with Spain, Austria, Prussia, and the UK beating up on me to return the gains I had made back to France.

 

[AJ2009]

Somebody started a thread a while back in which he reviewed the 'earliest coalitions' they were in the 1500s and involved Italian and HRE states (plus Pope) vs. France if memory serves.

Coalitions aren't perfect, and hopefully they fix them up. But overall they are an improvement on Badboy, and some mechanism of this sort is requisite.

"Coalitions" forming in 1450 may be relatively ahistorical. But player nation blobbing to gobble up two-thirds of Europe in 1550 is even more ahistorical. Me personally, once I develop a gut intuition for how the maths play out, I very much like it. Hope they don't make the game easy because of all the whining and ranting about how it sux.

I orignally asked if it was 'fun'. I quite agree, I think the coalitions are awesome and make the game so much tougher and more strategic. I'm having a cracking game as Bohemia at the moment, which wouldn't be the same without the coalition mechanic.

 

[Anthropoid]

I orignally asked if it was 'fun'. I quite agree, I think the coalitions are awesome and make the game so much tougher and more strategic. I'm having a cracking game as Bohemia at the moment, which wouldn't be the same without the coalition mechanic.

I agree with the guys who complain in that they are 'frustrating.' Thing is, a good strategy game should involve some degree of frustration.

Having the screen go black and make a high pitched whining noise at random intervals would also be frustrating. But it would be completely inexplicable and unacceptable. Coalitions are a well defined, clearly quantified and relatively sensible mechanic compared to actual history. When a particular sovereign (e.g., Venice) was regarded as having been out of line or gone too far with their conquests, other nations did on occasion join forces to try to punish them, and or 'right the wrongs' they had committed. Obviously, the realities of how sovereigns wrangled together into 'teams,' then proceeded to backstab each other, change sides, and just generally act complicated and duplicitious could not be replicated in an opponent AI; at least not without it being intensely annoying.

It is obviously not a perfect system, and PI clearly needs to implement on major addition in a future expansion or patch: an OFF switch. Then everyone who dislikes coalitions and AE can just simply turn them OFF and see how much less interesting the game is when the player doesn't face real threats as a result of unbridled expansion.

I also hope they will tweak the existing system for those of us who enjoy it. It isn't perfect but it is a decent system to build on.

 

[Comradebot]

Again, I repeat, none of these were coalition wars. Please name ONE coalition war.

War of the League of Cambrai

 

[giovdb]

Ok fair point. I can't name one technical coalition war in the period of the wars I listed but there were coalitions wars in the time frame of the game. How do you think your frustration with the coalition system could be solved?

There are a few ways I think that coalitions can be fixed. And to clarify my point, I don't think removing them is a solution. Even though coalitions are not very historical, they are important for game play balance and I do agree that it's an improvement over the bad boy system in EU3. Here are some ways to fix them:

- lesser impact of AE. It's too much right now. Coalitions didn't form in history after every war where territory is gained.
- AE shouldn't necessarily affect at all countries who like you, or hate the other country.
- When a coalition is formed against you, it should only activate if you declare war on ANYONE in that region (not just a coalition member), and should NEVER activate if they attack you.
- there should maybe be different coalitions for each continent, and AE is kept separate for each one. For example, if you're too aggressive in europe, only nations that have a presence in europe can join it. Likewise, if you're too aggressive in the Americas, countries that have no presence there shouldn't care at all, but nations there (natives or colonial powers) should care and join a coalition there. I always thought it's silly to have a native american or far east asian nation join a european coalition war that has nothing to do with them.

I think if some or all of the recommendations above would drastically improve game play. Thoughts?

 

[Pandadan]

What are the justified demands for the Coalition War CB, anyway? The wiki is not useful on that count.