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

[Xara]

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

The only thing you may take in a coalition war is a province you have a claim or core on. However, you may do so at TEN percent normal AE. Coalition wars are absolutely fantastic to launch yourself if you can get it on them whilst having quite a few claims. If you have no claims, all you can do is force releases and cancellations and take money.

Being in one you didn't start is garbage, though, since you cannot peace out.

 

[Pandadan]

The only thing you may take in a coalition war is a province you have a claim or core on. However, you may do so at TEN percent normal AE. Coalition wars are absolutely fantastic to launch yourself if you can get it on them whilst having quite a few claims. If you have no claims, all you can do is force releases and cancellations and take money.

Being in one you didn't start is garbage, though, since you cannot peace out.

10% AE for CLAIMS? That's bananas. I'd assume it was just for returning cores and releasing nations/vassals.

I've only really been on the receiving end of coalitions thus far.

 

[Xara]

10% AE for CLAIMS? That's bananas. I'd assume it was just for returning cores and releasing nations/vassals.

I've only really been on the receiving end of coalitions thus far.

It's quite nice, but you have to fulfill the requirements, of course, and you cannot take anything else, period. That nations needs to have generated aggressive expansion towards you (meaning: your nation's opinion of them must have "aggressive expansion", not the other way around), and there needs to be (at least two?) others in the coalition as well.

 

[Tikinaattori]

At first I was strongly against coalitions, but I've started to figure out how they work, and most of the time I can avoid them completely. In the early game, if a coalition against me forms, it's usually my own fault that I got too greedy. But in the late game, when my empire has grown, and there's no more cores to free, I start to get silly amounts of AE even from 1 province, and then coalitions are coming pretty much unavoidable. Of course I could release 1 province minors, and annex them 10 years later, but it's just silly that players are forced to jump through hoops like that.

So I do hope, that devs would change coalitions religion and continent specific. For example, if I'm playing Spain, I think it's just absurd, that HRE protects some distant natives from my aggression. Is Holy Roman Emperor really willing to sail around the world to save some random native tribe, that they have no prior relations with? On the other hand, I think it's very logical, if they want to protect Portugal, Aragon or Italian states from my ambitions. If HRE wants to team up with the Incas or Aztecs, then they should have alliance or guarantee for that. Also, if I'm not totally wrong, my casus belli for war is getting changed too. Like if I declare colonial war against France, and that turns in to a coalition war, I don't get my casus belli deduction to AE when I'm making demands. That should get changed too.

So my "fix" for the problem would be, that when a country starts a coalition against another, everybody with same religion and capital in the same continent can join in. If another country on the other continent, or with different religion, wants a coalition against that same country, they should start a new coalition.

 

[roman566]

The problem with coalitions is not that they exist, the problem is not being able to make a separate peace with members. Winning a coalition against half of the world means literally nothing when you take one or to provinces in the final peace treaty.
But even if you COULD make peace it would not help much as you can only grab 25 base tax worth of provinces in a single go, after that you have to sell stuff to vassals (can't be done during war, so have to peace out with the rest of the coalition) or create vassals (same as selling stuff). Vasalizing OPMs or two province minors (anything bigger is usually to 'expensive' to vasalize) can be hardly considered a 'mayor' victory.
In other words - even if the devs will allow us to make a separate peace we will still be forced to defeat the entire coalition and then quickly make separate peace, release vassals and sell them provinces before OE hammer comes down on our country. The perfect way to make game annoying and tedious, forcing player to entirely avoid certain mechanics because 'the devs said so'.
Fixing coalitions would require so many changes that I doubt we will see that before second or third DLC, or at all in EUIV for that matter.
For me the bottom line is simple - I won't buy DLCs if they do not fix the mayor problems with the game.

 

[Basileus777]

What's drastically ahistorical about coalitions more than anything is the lack of separate peaces. It's an application of 20th century politics to the wrong time period. Coalitions when did they exist, were not some monolithic blob of equally committed members. Even the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary Wars were marked by tons of separate peaces and shifting groups of coalition members. The coalition mechanic desperately needs a deeper diplomatic element in it or it will never function as more than a dull and uninteresting strong armed attempt to control the player's actions.

 

[Anthropoid]

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.

While I agree that the way a single peace treaty (it is the terms of the treaty not the war itself) can _seemingly_ fling half-dozen countries from a state of calm neutrality into hysterical alarm seems a bit excessive, I also do not think the player needs to be given 'a longer leash.' With enough diplomats, gifts, proclamations of guarantee, etc., one can often dissipate a coalition pretty quickly.

- AE shouldn't necessarily affect at all countries who like you, or hate the other country.

In fact, it does work this way already, more-or-less.

- 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.

I think this would actually be worse than it is right now. If you have moderate to low AE, this is already how it works. Taking away the possibility of offensive coalition wars for players that have really high AE does not seem to be an improvement. I think players need to play ALOT, and tinker with different permutations of actions to really see how variable and graded the AE->Coalition->Coalition dissolution-else-war tends to play out.

I have been playing and replaying a lot as France, in part so replays will be comparable but also just because it is a fun position. I have seen myself the brunt of huge unstoppable coalitions (because I conquered like a madman, i.e., the way it is done in most grand strategy games). I have seen myself the target of smallish, piddly coalitions that I beat (because the targets I picked on were their buddies, but inconsequential to the big boys). I have seen myself the target of many 'half-hearted' or quickly dissolved coalitions that I either actively undermined with diplomacy or peaceful activity. In sum, the current system, while not perfect, is already very 'well-tuned' to account for things like relationships, distance, etc.

ADDIT: though I have zero experience with how they fail to function sensibly in late game. I understand there is a 100-province threshold after which coalitions are just stupidly common. I believe you guys that that is a problem and thankfully it sounds like PI intends to fix it in the 1.4 patch.

- 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.

In several of the wars in this era, allies on farflung continents were technically involved, and in some cases literally involved in "European" wars. So while it does seem silly, it isn't completely silly.

To me, the main problems with coalitions are:

1. They are too solidary. It should still be possible to 'whittle' them down by peacing out smaller members one by one, just as one would do if engaged in a non-coalition war against one large enemy and several smaller enemies. The inability to negotiate separate peace with coaltion members I think is a major problem, although reportedly when it has been modded in it makes the whole system not work right.

2. Coalitions are a complete "freeby" for the coalition members. There should be some sort of 'burden' for being in a coaltion, and certainly some sort of cost or at least risk involved in it being defeated if not dissolved.

3. Defeating a coalition at present is quite anticlimactic. It needs to have some sort of 'reward' apart from simply winning.

 

[ero_sk]

Personally I find coalitions as very useful and balanced. At the current stage of the game I see no problems with them nor don't think that the idea is good but implementation bad. Moreover I think that coalitions is one of the best features of EUIV and Paradox games in general.

 

[Anthropoid]

War of the League of Cambrai

Not to be pedantic, but just to make sure OP and others who feel coalitions are not historical . . . "Coalition-like" teams are not unheard of during the time frame. Summarizing and linking some of the examples named above by other posters:

War of the League of Cambrai
Nine Years War

Both of those fit the "coalition" mold pretty closely, though perhaps not perfectly.

The long lists already posted above, while they may not be as close in form to the in-game coalitions also demonstrate that ad hoc aggregations of sovereigns for the sake of fighting what was perceived to be a common foe were common

The important questions is - did you have fun fighting the war and winning?

Edit: I think you just have to learn the rules about AE, they do make sense when you think about it (as people have already explained). There is a reason why war exhaustion shoots up quickly and manpower doesn't fill up when you disband troops. Warfare in this age was a long and hard slog and the modern state was not fully born yet.

Look how long some of the wars were and note how some are 'Wars (little wars that formed one overall theme or objective).

The Hundred Years' War (1337-1453)
The Wars of the Roses (1455-1485)
The Italian Wars (1494-1559)
The Valois-Hapsburg Wars
The Eighty Years War
The Wars of Religion [Huguenot Wars] (1562-1598)
The Thirty Years War
The English Civil Wars
The Anglo-Dutch Wars
The War of the League of Augsburg
The Great Northern War
The War of Spanish Succesion
The Jacobite Wars

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

The most annoying thing about coalitions is, ironically, nothing to do with the coalition itself:

It's how vassal feeding solves all the world's problems, and how coalition is the roadblock meant to railroad one into that path.

Well, that and no separate peaces. Now that's bollocks.

 

[Anthropoid]

The most annoying thing about coalitions is, ironically, nothing to do with the coalition itself:

It's how vassal feeding solves all the world's problems, and how coalition is the roadblock meant to railroad one into that path.

Well, that and no separate peaces. Now that's bollocks.

I have to admit I'm puzzled by all the irr about "being railroaded" into vassal feeding. Based on my relatively limited understanding of medieval feudal mindsets, it makes complete sense that something like vassal-feeding would be the norm.

I have the vague sense that there was an implicit if not explicit element in the feudal sovereigns mind that goes something like: it is good to have many vassals, but it is even better to have the land and peasants WITHOUT the vassal middle man.

In sum, while vassals were presitigous, landed vassals, who were also titled aristrocrats, also represented a potential threat. Earlier in the middle ages, vassals revolting and/or allying with other vassals to usurp a throne were not unheard of eh?

Not to mention that strange medieval mindset in which putatively 'ancestral' claims to piece of land and the people and property on it were associated with particular familes or dynasties. Most of the "claiming" that is going on in game presumably deals with that sort of thing, more than with plain old "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun" type diplomacy?

All that said, a system that 'funnels' a player into a process like vassal feeding seems to me to be both relatively historical and relatively satisfying from a gameplay standpoint, no?

Perhaps I'm not doing it right, but I also have yet to fully get the hang of "vassal feeding." More often than not, when I take a province that I intend to feed to a vassal, I find that the vassal won't buy it for one reason or another and I wind up just having to core it myself and live with the AE anyway.

 

[AJ2009]

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?

I like these ideas actually..I especially like your final idea and I completely agree that its silly that Native American's can join the European coalitions.

Maybe they will be addressed in a future patch.

 

[InnocentIII]

The Coalition is a sign you did a bad thing and you need to rest a while and not do that again. Plowing ahead is not intended to be fun. I think there should be a good deal more expansion possible without it, but we really have to just accept that these are the rules and work around them (or play a mod). It's annoying, I think it should be changed and the line moved, but we still have better choices than banging our heads against the wall.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go fight half of Europe for 3PM Luneberg.

 

[bizkit]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohács
I think this is a coalition war isn't it?
I support the idea behind coalitions. If a country goes berserk and invades all around, other countries must not wait to be the next one and take action and unite together.
Thanks to this feature, games does not become incredibly boring after 1600s because you blobbed all around. You still need to stay tuned for a coalition and I think this is great feature, and unique in gaming industry I must say.

 

[Jomini]

What are the features of the EUIV coalition system?
1. It creates an ironclad full alliance against one party (you can do nothing to induce one partner out).
2. It is most strongly influenced by taking territory (you primarily get them by seizing land).
3. Coalition wars are global, unlimited, and unitary (everyone works as one block for your near total destruction).
4. Coalitions are self-reinforcing (doing anything against the coalition makes it last longer and get stronger except waiting or gaming the system).

What were historical coalitions like?
1. They were generally defensive in nature (coalitions tended to form to keep people out and not to drive them out) and exceedingly fluid (Prussia flipped sides in the Coalition wars multiple times).
2. They were most often influenced by succession, religion, and government (wars against Rev France were more about the threat to the old order than about the territory seized as Prussia and Russia were actually more expansionary during the early Republican period)
3. Coalition wars tended to be local (only a handful of colonial wars had multiple theaters and most coalitions tended to be limited to theaters like the Balkans or Italy), limited (Cambrai was about the Italian lands in Romanga, not the Venetian holdings in northern Italy or Dalmatia), and divided (the League of Cambrai began with everyone against Venice, then the Pope made a Venetian alliance against France, and then the Venetians allied with France against the Pope).
4. Coalitions were self-limiting. Many states saw things like Rev France beating Austria and then made their peace with Napoleon. Likewise, you could flip a lot states by offering territory or concessions (e.g. free passage and trade was quite popular).


The big problem with coalitions are that they:
A. Cut in for ahistorical levels of aggression. The Turks in 1453-1463 wracked up over 200 AE. So clearly this followed with a huge coalition of the Mamlukes, Hungarians, Austrians, Georgians, etc. against them? Nope. Likewise, when the War of Spanish Succession ended, Austria took a comparable amount of land - and still no Coalitions. Yeah coalitions should spawn - when you make like Napoleon and overrun truly vast swathes of territory, but there should be some base game setting where you can do basic peace treaties (like the 1763 North American settlement) without hitting the coalition mechanic.
B. Are monodimensional and boring. Get into a coalition and you can either game the system (release states in war to retake when the truce is up) or you can wait. Avoiding a coalition is fine, but even there your options are decidedly limited. Take the religious idea track, maybe expansive and space out your conquests by theater hopping. With mind numbing repetition spam "improve relations" and maybe use ally slots just to dampen the effects of AE. Can you settle with coalitions through force of arms (you know the historical option)? Nope, that just makes the coalition worse if you take any spoils. Can you deal with coalitions by coming to terms (e.g. converting to Catholicism to please Spain)? Nope. Once you are in them, all the stakes in the game are gone (lose 4 provinces at worst now) and it becomes a highly repetitive task to just declare war, take your provinces and wait.

If you are just trying to avoid a complicated mechanism rather than engage with it - the mechanism may as well not exist. What is the point of having a robust coalition mechanic if you spend your whole game never letting it play it because it is too painful and boring. We code save a lot of code and make the engine less kludgy just by putting in "you can only take 4 provinces every 10 years" as a hard code. Just because you dress up a drastic penalty with kludge on kludge doesn't make it better. Further, if the mechanism is something that you can fall into without easy understanding - and let's face it when people post on the boards only to need correction it ain't clear- then the mechanism is poorly implemented. You shouldn't have to read ini files or be taught by someone who did to play the game well.