On coalitions: Maybe its your fault?

[Pellaken]

I hope I don't start a flame fest, but, after reading a lot of threads on coalitions and the game being not fun, I have to say something that seems obvious to me...

The reason they are there is that you are not supposed to be able to expand that fast.
They are there as a mechanic to keep the game realistic.
Nobody, in all the history of the world; nobody has ever taken over the whole planet.
You are not supposed to be able to do a world conquest.
Even with France.
Even on Easy.
Even if you can use one console command once a century.

While I can't speak for the game developers; the fact that they keep making it harder and harder to win by war tells me that they want you to find other strategies.

Now if coalitions and that are frustrating and make the game really super hard? That's fine. Dealing with challenges is the point of gaming (if games were easy we'd not play them)
However if coalitions are making the game "impossible" for you to like/play, then maybe you are playing the wrong game.

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

I hope I don't start a flame fest, but, after reading a lot of threads on coalitions and the game being not fun, I have to say something that seems obvious to me...

The reason they are there is that you are not supposed to be able to expand that fast.
They are there as a mechanic to keep the game realistic.
Nobody, in all the history of the world; nobody has ever taken over the whole planet.
You are not supposed to be able to do a world conquest.
Even with France.
Even on Easy.
Even if you can use one console command once a century.

While I can't speak for the game developers; the fact that they keep making it harder and harder to win by war tells me that they want you to find other strategies.

Now if coalitions and that are frustrating and make the game really super hard? That's fine. Dealing with challenges is the point of gaming (if games were easy we'd not play them)
However if coalitions are making the game "impossible" for you to like/play, then maybe you are playing the wrong game.

Then please enlighten us on this forum why there is an achievement that is just that: world conquest?

 

[sinkingmist]

The problem is that coalitions prevent you from expanding with a single-negotiation mechanic that limits how much you can take in a single war.
In other words, even if you can completely defeat the coalition, you can take very little.

I would personally much prefer it if coalitions became a higher-risk, higher-reward thing.
So coalitions became much, much harder to defeat, but the rewards for defeating them were significant.
If you expanded too quickly and got into a coalition war, you should be defeated and lose your gains (which will naturally lower your AE and dissolve the coalition).
But, if you have prepared well, and play your cards right during the war and manage to beat the coalition, you shouldn't be restrained by the brick-wall that is the coalition single-negotiation mechanic.

TL;DR You should be avoiding coalitions because they're scary and because you'd lose.
But currently you avoid coalitions because the mechanic presents an annoying brick-wall.

 

[MyNameBeatsUrs]

Historically, Russia never managed to fully occupy France after completely annihilating every single French soldier and hold every single city, fort, and small town they possibly could. If they did manage to do so, why could they only ask for a few measly provinces? Why is France like, no, we would rather you rape and pillage us for eternity than give you a reasonable amount of our land. Why does France even have a say in what you do to them?

TL;DR You should be avoiding coalitions because they're scary and because you'd lose.
But currently you avoid coalitions because the mechanic presents an annoying brick-wall.

That.


The coalition mechanic can be compared to an RPG. Let's say you murder some people in a town to loot them and are seen. Is it reasonable that the guards keep an eye out for you and attack you on sight? Completely. Is it reasonable that everyone in a one kilometer radius starts attacking you, and that you are only allowed to loot one body after the fight, with the rest all reviving immediately afterwards, still angry at you? Hell no.

 

[Mann42]

I hope I don't start a flame fest...

When you start a thread specifically addressed to players to tell them they're playing the game wrong, you are inherently trying to start a flame fest. Saying you don't doesn't protect you.

While I can't speak for the game developers; the fact that they keep making it harder and harder to win by war tells me that they want you to find other strategies.

You most certainly don't, especially considering they have announced they're reducing AE scaling and allowing you to attain World Conquest achievements through vassalization in patch 1.4.

Now if coalitions and that are frustrating and make the game really super hard?

Not at all, and since you think that coalitions make the game 'super hard', I'd argue that you aren't particularly good at the game yourself, and that you haven't really read anyone's posts or opinions on the problems with coalitions.

But since you have apparently avoided reading these other opinions and posts on the forums, I think this following quote sums it up quite well:

TL;DR You should be avoiding coalitions because they're scary and because you'd lose.
But currently you avoid coalitions because the mechanic presents an annoying brick-wall.

Read it. Understand it.

Tedium does not equal challenge or difficulty. Arbitrary mechanics that force you to choose between speed 5 for 20 years or enforce a 4 province at a time, non-stop rotating coalition strategy past 100 provinces is boring, especially because once you get that point, defeating them isn't a challenge - it's simply a time sink.

 

[grisamentum]

I hope I don't start a flame fest, but, after reading a lot of threads on coalitions and the game being not fun, I have to say something that seems obvious to me...

The reason they are there is that you are not supposed to be able to expand that fast.
They are there as a mechanic to keep the game realistic.
Nobody, in all the history of the world; nobody has ever taken over the whole planet.
You are not supposed to be able to do a world conquest.
Even with France.
Even on Easy.
Even if you can use one console command once a century.

While I can't speak for the game developers; the fact that they keep making it harder and harder to win by war tells me that they want you to find other strategies.

Now if coalitions and that are frustrating and make the game really super hard? That's fine. Dealing with challenges is the point of gaming (if games were easy we'd not play them)
However if coalitions are making the game "impossible" for you to like/play, then maybe you are playing the wrong game.

4/10, too easy troll thread.

 

[pkderek]

Then please enlighten us on this forum why there is an achievement that is just that: world conquest?

There's an achievement to conquer the world as Ryukyu. Does that mean Ryukyu should be able to conquer the world by even the most novice of players? It's an achievement. It means you achieved something. It's not supposed to be easy. Just because the world showers everyone with easy, brainless achievements for the brainless masses doesn't mean every achievement should be so.

IMO Coalitions are ridiculously underpowered. I've never had coalition issues after I learned how to play the game. If you think using Conquest CB and eating 100% WS in provinces to accrue maximum AE penalties without any diplomatic fall back at every chance you get, then getting pissy when the game calls you out on it, then so be it. You're definitely playing the wrong game.

Coalitions are hardly the problem with WC anyway. The scaling of war score, the OE penalties, nothing scales well past mid-game. You'll get to a point where even taking one province will overextend you and cost you 94% WS.

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

There's an achievement to conquer the world as Ryukyu. Does that mean Ryukyu should be able to conquer the world by even the most novice of players? It's an achievement. It means you achieved something. It's not supposed to be easy. Just because the world showers everyone with easy, brainless achievements for the brainless masses doesn't mean every achievement should be so.

IMO Coalitions are ridiculously underpowered. I've never had coalition issues after I learned how to play the game. If you think using Conquest CB and eating 100% WS in provinces to accrue maximum AE penalties without any diplomatic fall back at every chance you get, then getting pissy when the game calls you out on it, then so be it. You're definitely playing the wrong game.

Coalitions are hardly the problem with WC anyway. The scaling of war score, the OE penalties, nothing scales well past mid-game. You'll get to a point where even taking one province will overextend you and cost you 94% WS.

Let me quote OP: "You are not supposed to be able to do a world conquest.".

Now, english is my third language but to me that sentence says this but in other words: "you should not be able to do a world conquest. Evern. Period."

 

[Talq]

Then please enlighten us on this forum why there is an achievement that is just that: world conquest?

Just because there are achievements doesn't mean its meant to be easy, there are plenty of games with (intentional) 0.1% achievements.

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

Just because there are achievements doesn't mean its meant to be easy, there are plenty of games with (intentional) 0.1% achievements.

I never said nor meant for world conquest to be easy. ATM it's impossible. Not even the best players manage world conquest now even with Austria (which is easily the best candidate for WC right now). Best attempt i have seen was i think hauptmans Austria but that was not Ironman as he edited core expiration date.

 

[unmerged(804580)]

I kind of agree and disagree with the OP at the same time.

I agree that if you get into large coalitions, it's partially your fault. After all, strategy/war games like this have inevitable problems of snowball effects that ultimately rewards early, rapid expansions, and without coalitions the game would probably be way too easy.

But I still have reservations. My gues is that it was the dev intention to reduce the snowball effects by adding extra challenges associated with expansion, which is fine, but for many players the coalition wars are simply not adding to the fun of the game. There are fun challenges and just frustrating challenges, and the current coalitions belong to the latter, as many of us would feel.

I think the alternative should be the higher likelihood of collapse. Say, if your empire has less than 50% of your culture, you would get strong nationalist sentiments from the majority of not-your-culture provinces. Or make the rebels stronger as they were in the release version, so the large empires (both AI and human) will constantly face nationalists, separatists and patriots unless they take time, slow down and actually manage the culture and religion.

At the moment I'm trying TheBloke's Cores Never Expire mod. Playing this mod really feels like I'm back to the release version, with the dormant cores causing revolts in large empires both within mine and the AIs, the AIs constantly claim reconquest, they expand and they collapse, the game feels more dynamic this way - despite the arguments like it should be impossible to release French minors like Berry or Armagnac in 1700, it does feel more fun this way, because I see serious challenges both within my empire, and within AI empires. It was a great moment of Schadenfreude when Armagnac, Toulouse, Dauphine, Avignon and Normandie revolted and got independent during France's religious turmoil, but it also alarmed me as I was facing the same internal religious and cultural problems as blobbing Tuscany. Perhaps, adding more internal collapse risks in a more historically plausible way (so that those who favor historical games could agree) while softening down the coalition could be a nice balance.

Like I said, I'm more than OK if the game tries to curb the snowball blobbing. And the coalition mechanics is a brilliant way to do it, but I also feel like it shouldn't be the only mechanic to curb snowballing.

 

[gaius valerius]

Then please enlighten us on this forum why there is an achievement that is just that: world conquest?

Enlighten me then: each single time you start a campaign you seriously aim at... world-lolling-conquest? I aim to be the primus enter pares and that's more than satisfying enough.

 

[milman]

so ppl play WC becouse of WC achievemnt ? than we have easy solution. Devs should remove that achievement and fire dev which put that crap achievemnent in game.

 

[orthezuma]

Wow, just wow. I'm simply amazed by some people's ignorance. This is what happens if you read half-assed. All those people who posted their detailed opinions on why & how coalitions should be improved are simply noobs who shouldn't play and bask in your amazingness instead.

we realise that those who grow that big want to paint the map, and AE scaling just makes it impossible.

This is what Johan said in this thread

And seriously, go read those topics you talk about, but actually read them this time.

 

[panionios]

There are a few things I don't like about coalitions, though none has anything to do with the fact that they make the game harder.

1.I hate seeing Denmark and Ming in a coalition against Russia. I hope that the level of threat remains the same but they do something that such ahistorical coalitions cannot be formed.

2.Joining a coalition appears to have only rewards. There is no much risk even if you lose. They should make it more risky. Don't know how, can't think of anything, but it should have some risks.

3.The Ottomans and Russia (two obvious examples) can very easily expand aggressively as they have two opposite directions to move and a huge distance between nations on each side. You fight on one front, amass some AE, then fight on the other while your AE decreases, then back to the first front, and so on. This is unfair for the europeans who cannot really do much on the continent.

 

[laijka]

Enlighten me then: each single time you start a campaign you seriously aim at... world-lolling-conquest? I aim to be the primus enter pares and that's more than satisfying enough.

Whaaaat!?! Someone is playing a game in a different manner than you? Surely there is some laws against that or at the very least we should burn them for their heresy.

EDIT: Oh and it's inter not enter.

 

[hitchens]

While I can't speak for the game developers; the fact that they keep making it harder and harder to win by war tells me that they want you to find other strategies.

I see vassal feeding more as an expliot than a strategy.

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

Enlighten me then: each single time you start a campaign you seriously aim at... world-lolling-conquest? I aim to be the primus enter pares and that's more than satisfying enough.

Well, if i at a point decide to try a world conquest shouldn't i be able to?

 

[Incompetent]

I see vassal feeding more as an expliot than a strategy.

It's not an exploit if you're playing the game just as the developers intended it to be played.

 

[zodium]

I hope I don't start a flame fest, but, after reading a lot of threads on coalitions and the game being not fun, I have to say something that seems obvious to me...

The reason they are there is that you are not supposed to be able to expand that fast.
They are there as a mechanic to keep the game realistic.
Nobody, in all the history of the world; nobody has ever taken over the whole planet.
You are not supposed to be able to do a world conquest.
Even with France.
Even on Easy.
Even if you can use one console command once a century.

While I can't speak for the game developers; the fact that they keep making it harder and harder to win by war tells me that they want you to find other strategies.

Now if coalitions and that are frustrating and make the game really super hard? That's fine. Dealing with challenges is the point of gaming (if games were easy we'd not play them)
However if coalitions are making the game "impossible" for you to like/play, then maybe you are playing the wrong game.

It's painfully obvious from this post that you've not been "reading a lot of threads on coalitions and the game being not fun" at all. Well, maybe you have somewhere, but not on this forum.