Paradox: Please remove Shattered Retreat and Coalitions

[Finnway]

To be fair. You did just take over the 3rd largest country in the world as the largest country in the world. That should be extremely punishing. If it wasn't, coalitions would be an utterly pointless & useless mechanic.

 

[Cetan]

So you tested it and made an assumption based on testing it. That doesn't really add up, if you tested it you would have seen quite quickly that the assumption was wrong.

The point being made was that infamy was going to last 400 years and any war would result in a war against everyone. Which is false, based on misleading information and plain and simply a strawman.

However I won't because people need to form their own opinions based on actual experience, rather than dogpiling onto soemthing someone else has said and making strawman arguments that are just plain stupid.

You keep using that word, "strawman". That isn't what this argument is. It isn't a logical fallacy. It's not an error in logic. You keep repeating that word like it's the hot new hashtag but it doesn't mean "an argument I think is incorrect" like you keep using it. Please look up the meaning of a strawman argument, and come up with a diversified, if not correct, vocabulary. It's been repeated so many times in this thread.

The sooner you stop supporting false information the sooner your going to get to what your problem is. Even the Muslim and Pagans in a coalition with Catholics isn't a big deal.

A lot of people here seem to think I am pro coalition, but I guarantee you're not going to find something to support that. My opinion on the matter is much more detailed than anyone on the forums has discussed. Both from a balance and mechanic standpoint. But until you actually spend time experimenting and playing through scenarios you're not likely to come to the same conclusions.

Then, you move onto not only cherry-picking one detail out of my argument (when I am talking about the system in general) but you then start going on to make these false assumptions about myself and others. And you do it from this "holier than thou" position.

So, no thanks, I'm not going to entertain your posts any more, since you're not even bothering to evaluate anything outside of what you think is a "strawman". While you're on your fallacy website, check out the fallacy fallacy, sharpshooter/cherry-picking, and the difference between a false premise and a formal fallacy.

 

[Finnway]

chasing around these armies is really annoying

People keep complaining about chasing armies being annoying. That's the whole point of the change It buffs defense, not offense.

The fact that so many people are complaining about it is an indication that it's WAD.

 

[Dracko81]

You keep using that word, "strawman". That isn't what this argument is. It isn't a logical fallacy. It's not an error in logic. You keep repeating that word like it's the hot new hashtag but it doesn't mean "an argument I think is incorrect" like you keep using it. Please look up the meaning of a strawman argument, and come up with a diversified, if not correct, vocabulary. It's been repeated so many times in this thread.

Then, you move onto not only cherry-picking one detail out of my argument (when I am talking about the system in general) but you then start going on to make these false assumptions about myself and others. And you do it from this "holier than thou" position.

So, no thanks, I'm not going to entertain your posts any more, since you're not even bothering to evaluate anything outside of what you think is a "strawman". While you're on your fallacy website, check out the fallacy fallacy, sharpshooter/cherry-picking, and the difference between a false premise and a formal fallacy.

Can you please show me the part of his argument that is logical? How about the part that isn't based on a fallacy? It was a strawman because it was an argument knocked over because it was based on a fallacy and with flawed logic. Just like the Strawman argument with Socotra having a coalition formed against them. False information based on flawed logic, to present an argument.

The members of a coalition are in the end irrelevant. Because can you show me the HRE who took over the ERE and didn't have the rest of his neighbours annoyed at him. Oh wait it never happened. You want historical accuracy, how about you can't declare a war to take the ERE as the HRE, I'm sure that would be much better suited to you.

 

[Cetan]

To be fair. You did just take over the 3rd largest country in the world as the largest country in the world. That should be extremely punishing. If it wasn't, coalitions would be an utterly pointless & broken mechanic.

I agree. I think every person in the western world should be some mixture of angry and afraid of the new Western Roman Empire taking over and absorbing the old Eastern Roman Empire.
(I'm not sure why Hungary, the one right in the middle of it all, isn't, but...)
The problem I have, is everyone joining up under the same banner to do so. If you go to attack, say, Croatia, to link up your Roman Empires, the Seljuks, the Horse Lords, and Britannians shouldn't be raising armies to go help out the Croatian people. Which is what happens. I press my claim on Croatia, and I have this:

(France should also be red, I was impatient and didn't wait for the child king's council to pass the coalition vote this time around.)

That, is stupid.

What I was expecting from coalitions (and what I think should be done) is to have a limitation of scope on how a coalition forms. They should be limited, first, by religion. Pagans and Muslims and Catholics should not be fighting on the same side in this hypothetical war. I also think there should be some geographical limitation to them as well; is Arabia, Scandinavia, or even Britannia going to really care what is happening to this stretch of land inbetween my two landmasses on the Adriatic coast, let alone send their people to die over it? I really don't think so.

 

[Finnway]

Every time there is a balance change to any game there are portions of the playerbase who whine and complain instead of adapting. This thread proves that as much as anything.

Give it a few weeks for people to figure the new mechanics out and these threads will disappear.

 

[Bortron]

People keep complaining about chasing armies being annoying. That's the whole point of the change It buffs defense, not offense.

The fact that so many people are complaining about it is an indication that it's WAD.

Exactly. If people are stupid enough to chase around the shattered armies that is their own problem. So far, I just ignore defeated armies until they do something I need to respond to. I even would say it is not that unrealistic; it is simulating a dispersed army that is retreating to a position where they can regroup. Casualty rates during this time frame were not that high. Usually one army broke and ran before sustaining any significant casualties; shattered retreat simulates this fairly well. That being said, it would be nice if they always retreated towards the nearest friendly territory.

I haven't had any coalition problems. The people posting examples are often conquering large kingdoms with already large kingdoms, what do they expect? Even Christians and Muslims could realistically enter into a coalition to combat a common enemy that is trying to recreate the Roman Empire. Seems to me coalitions are WAD.

 

[Dracko81]

I agree. I think every person in the western world should be some mixture of angry and afraid of the new Western Roman Empire taking over and absorbing the old Eastern Roman Empire.
(I'm not sure why Hungary, the one right in the middle of it all, isn't, but...)
The problem I have, is everyone joining up under the same banner to do so. If you go to attack, say, Croatia, to link up your Roman Empires, the Seljuks, the Horse Lords, and Britannians shouldn't be raising armies to go help out the Croatian people. Which is what happens. I press my claim on Croatia, and I have this:

That, is stupid.

What I was expecting from coalitions (and what I think should be done) is to have a limitation of scope on how a coalition forms. They should be limited, first, by religion. Pagans and Muslims and Catholics should not be fighting on the same side in this hypothetical war. I also think there should be some geographical limitation to them as well; is Arabia, Scandinavia, or even Britannia going to really care what is happening to this stretch of land inbetween my two landmasses on the Adriatic coast? I really don't think so.

The reason is likely NAP, although there is a civil war(?) what is that grey strip in the middle of Hungry?

 

[Ted101]

There's no need for anyone to complain or argue. The devs have made it very easy to either remove or tweak Coalitions and Shattered Retreats: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ikes-coalitions-and-shattered-retreat.905904/

 

[Finnway]

What I was expecting from coalitions (and what I think should be done) is to have a limitation of scope on how a coalition forms. They should be limited, first, by religion. Pagans and Muslims and Catholics should not be fighting on the same side in this hypothetical war. I also think there should be some geographical limitation to them as well; is Britannia, Scandinavia, or even Arabia going to really care what is happening to this stretch of land inbetween my two landmasses on the Adriatic coast? I really don't think so.

IMO, limiting it by adjacent regions makes more sense. After all, there are instances of cross-religion alliances during the Middle-Ages.

The way I imagine it working. You could have a "coalition army size cap." And if the coalition grows bigger than that it could be broken down into smaller coalitions based on adjacent regions. The maximum coalition size might be 1.5x or 2x the size of the target country. This change would severely nerf coalitions, but it'd still give conquering countries a run for their money and slow down their conquest.


The other thing is, we still haven't had adequate time to test the mechanics that counter coalitions.

• We don't know how much Infamy declines every time there is a succession.
  
• We don't know whether coalitions disband if you lose a defensive war against coalitions.
  
• We still don't know how effective non-agressive pacts are at countering coalitions.
• Not to mention, given the defensive buffs, it's very possible Heinrich IV could fight off that entire coalition in a defensive war.

Given all of the above, it's very possible breaking it up into smaller coalitions won't be necessary.

 

[Cetan]

There's no need for anyone to complain or argue. The devs have made it very easy to either remove or tweak Coalitions and Shattered Retreats: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ikes-coalitions-and-shattered-retreat.905904/

But muh achievements...

 

[Archereon]

Honestly, I don't think infamy is a lost cause, it just needs some major tweaks.

Infamy in general should be a mixed bag, not just a "you've done fucked up"; having high infamy should make rulers dramatically more willing to swear fealty or become tributaries (and it should be possible to offer to become a tributary without war), and coalitions should be limited to realms which are threatened by you (ie which you have CBs against other than "make tributary).

Infamy should also make it much more likely for you to be the target of a Crusade or Jihad, and dramatically increase the AI's propensity to join the war effort.

 

[Ted101]

But muh achievements...

Yes, unfortunately you cannot play Ironman if you change anything in defines.lua

 

[Cetan]

Yes, unfortunately you cannot play Ironman if you change anything in defines.lua

In all seriousness though, I don't dislike the entire mechanic. I just think it needs some limitations, and we get on a slippery slope any time we resort to "modding can fix this" as an argument-closer. Certainly, anything we like or dislike can be fixed through modding, but that doesn't mean the base game should be left in a state players do not like.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Every time there is a balance change to any game there are portions of the playerbase who whine and complain instead of adapting. This thread proves that as much as anything.

Give it a few weeks for people to figure the new mechanics out and these threads will disappear.

But the shattered retreat "feature" is nothing new. It's an old bug revived. We've had literally years of experience with it.

 

[Crenickator]

Honestly, I don't think infamy is a lost cause, it just needs some major tweaks.

Infamy in general should be a mixed bag, not just a "you've done fucked up"; having high infamy should make rulers dramatically more willing to swear fealty or become tributaries (and it should be possible to offer to become a tributary without war), and coalitions should be limited to realms which are threatened by you (ie which you have CBs against other than "make tributary).

Infamy should also make it much more likely for you to be the target of a Crusade or Jihad, and dramatically increase the AI's propensity to join the war effort.

Emphasis mine, but you may have stumbled onto a better solution. We have Duchies/Kingdoms/Empires already. Coalitions might benefit from being specific to one of those entities, so if you war in Germany you can eventually get all the German princes to go against you, but it will have no effect on England or Norway because you're outside those kingdom's area.
A sliding scale tied to the level of title you're warring for might be good, so if you're warring for a county, you'll piss of any other counts in that duchy into coalition against you, but other dukes in other duchies will be less concerned, and kings even less so, and an emperor wholly unconcerned with such a petty squabble. But try to press a claim for a kingdom and you'll make all the other kings in the empire (whether the empire exists or not) turn their attention to stopping you. Like I mentioned before with the Franks not doing anything about the Moors until they crossed the Pyrenees, that should be more how it works. The whole of Hispania might unite against Muslim conquerors, but the nobles of Francia won't do anything until the Muslims are starting to make inroads into Francia.

 

[Rags17]

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

Hey guys, whine all you want that you can no longer get WC in 12 months from your Zunbil OPM but guess what - the mechanism is here to stay. Get over it (and yourselves).

FWIW - we have a perfect RL parallel of what would happen if the HRE absorbed the ERE - Charles V. Spain and the HRE unite and every nation in Europe went apeshit - so much so that Charles had to abdicate in the end. Now THAT is infamy in action. (cue "B-b-but that's 100 years outside our timeline" complaint. Talk to the hand, I could care less).

I've just played around 3 hours of Conclave as the Despotate of Trebizond and have ZERO issues with the new mechanics - I lost one big battle and was able to save my army via SR, then got stuck in three wars at the same time and had armies shattering and returning continuously, I still managed to White Peace one war and win the other two. Learn to adapt to the new system and you will have ZERO issues, try to pain the map your favourite colour and keep on whining, your tears will do no good.

I for one welcome our new SR and Infamy overlords.

 

[Tilarium]

Don't like them wait for a mod that removes them or make one yourself. I like both. I do agree that coalitions need some work though, limiting who's allowed to join like you said.

 

[Langkard1]

Do they need to be removed? Perhaps not, but when the Pope joins a coalition with Sunni Muslims against a Catholic ruler who attacked Sunni Muslims in a holy war, as has been reported several times that I've seen, then something is very wrong with coalitions and needs a lot of fixing.

As for infamy, gaining it from your own vassals and other co-religionists for winning a holy war against an opposing religion or heresy is just silly and ahistorical. Infamy needs to be completely re-worked. In this case, it is not the thought that counts; the results are worse than the problem being addressed.

 

[King Dave]

The argument that we should adapt our tactics to accomdate SR and that we should forget about annhilating armies by chasing them down is winning me over. The more I think about it the more it makes sense and reflects reality. If you forget about what the beaten army is doing on a game level then it's easy to rationalise that it has disintegrated after defeat and will reform later. It may be harder to rationalise it as the loser, but it does sorta make more sense than fighting a number of battles in different provinces in order to win an overwhealming victory.