Permanent claims are a bad concept and warp diplomacy

[durbal]

I have a longtime ally. They go down their magical missions tree or click some decision or something and get permanent claims on a region. Previously they did not care about that region. They were happily expanding into another region against a common rival.

They tag switch, complete a mission, or whatever. Now they want my provinces because they have permanent claims.

Click button -> get claims -> warp diplomacy. Let's hope this kind of stuff isn't in EU5 I guess.

 

[Nostalgium]

I'm sorry to say, but if your longterm ally was willing to turn on you because they got claims, no matter how many, they weren't on the best of terms with you to begin with. Allies with high trust and relations will last even if they do get claims. This is why you sometimes see the Ottomans paralyze themsleves by allying AQ, and remaining in a diplomatic deadlock until some diplomatic shennanigans occur that break it.

 

[grisamentum]

I'm sorry to say, but if your longterm ally was willing to turn on you because they got claims, no matter how many, they weren't on the best of terms with you to begin with. Allies with high trust and relations will last even if they do get claims. This is why you sometimes see the Ottomans paralyze themsleves by allying AQ, and remaining in a diplomatic deadlock until some diplomatic shennanigans occur that break it.

Nah, the OP is exactly right. Yes, you can override "wants your provinces" from perma-claims via something extreme like farming them up to 100 Trust. (In which case you also have the opposite problem, too: AI loses all agency). But this is missing the point. The alliance shouldn't be undermined by something as abstract as a "mission tree" granting tons of claims after some other arbitrary threshold was hit.

There is a major ahistorical result in all playthroughs: the AI inevitably forms a couple mega-states on each continent, far larger than any that ever existed in Europe, and all diplomacy is dissolved. Mostly because European majors have these insane mission trees that make long-term alliances impossible, and grease the mana point wheel for conquest.

 

[Miroku20X6]

Why is the OP talking about permanent claims, when his issue would be no different if the same missions granted regular claims instead?

Seems to me OP’s actual complaint is some combination of 1) Mission tree grants claims, and 2) Nations actually try to pursue their claims.

 

[Nostalgium]

Nah, the OP is exactly right. Yes, you can override "wants your provinces" from perma-claims via something extreme like farming them up to 100 Trust. (In which case you also have the opposite problem, too: AI loses all agency). But this is missing the point. The alliance shouldn't be undermined by something as abstract as a "mission tree" granting tons of claims after some other arbitrary threshold was hit.

You don't need to farm them to 100 trust. I've never been in a situation where I've lost an ally I cared about due to perma-claims if I kept relations over 100 and trust at or above 50. The guaranteed swap to Domineering if they get a PU is something else, but only the most basic of diplomatic massaging is required to keep them through permaclaims.

 

[MatthewP]

If the complaint is that the ally changed their mind about the alliance in spite of the player doing nothing active to upset them, then for sure that should be able to happen. The ally is an actor too.

But I think the complaint is more subtle, something like: yes, the thing claims represent - a nation growing or changing and shifting its priorities and allegiances as a result - is something that should be represented and could upend diplomacy. But it would be great if the representation were deeper or more complex or different in some other way.

That second one I have sympathy for. But then it’s left to answer what the new representation would be, and if you want it to be deeper that’s potentially a very big open question. Simply removing claims from missions and making diplomacy essentially static would not be better.

 

[durbal]

Why is the OP talking about permanent claims, when his issue would be no different if the same missions granted regular claims instead?

Seems to me OP’s actual complaint is some combination of 1) Mission tree grants claims, and 2) Nations actually try to pursue their claims.

Because regular claims die off. Part of my problem is with mission trees and decisions creating railroaded results, yeah, but if they did it in a way that such things were temporary (i.e. with normal claims) then it wouldn't create this permanent vacuum of diplomacy around wherever those claims are.

You don't need to farm them to 100 trust. I've never been in a situation where I've lost an ally I cared about due to perma-claims if I kept relations over 100 and trust at or above 50. The guaranteed swap to Domineering if they get a PU is something else, but only the most basic of diplomatic massaging is required to keep them through permaclaims.

You need IIRC 90 Trust to stop them from randomly breaking the alliance. Part of the reason why alliances break is because all of a sudden they turn hostile with 'wants your provinces blah1, blah2, blah3, blah4... -260'.

My point is that they didn't want them before, then all of a sudden a million magical claims show up and they decide they'd like to shoot themselves in the foot by breaking the only alliance keeping them alive and turning hostile on their former ally. It's goofy behavior and actively undermines the AI who was operating more or less with a semblance of intelligence before the game decided to mind control them.

I'm sorry to say, but if your longterm ally was willing to turn on you because they got claims, no matter how many, they weren't on the best of terms with you to begin with. Allies with high trust and relations will last even if they do get claims. This is why you sometimes see the Ottomans paralyze themsleves by allying AQ, and remaining in a diplomatic deadlock until some diplomatic shennanigans occur that break it.

This reads like a 'git gud' post. I'm not complaining because it happened to me, I'm just stating this because I think it sucks for gameplay to have the AI do a 180 and decide they hate an ally all of a sudden because they have claims. It sucks whether I'm the recipient or the benefactor because, well, it just sucks. And if you've never been in the situation where that has occurred to you then consider yourself lucky I guess. But it happens to the player occasionally (especially if they don't know how Trust works and the magical threshold), and maybe more importantly it happens to AI alliances in every game. And let's face it, if anything this just creates yet another player advantage.

And I'm not sure what your definition of 'best of terms' is, but it's entirely possible -- and even probable -- to, for example have an alliance with two or three defensive wars togethers to keep each other alive and one party can still not have enough trust and decide they'd like to all of a sudden get eaten alive by their rivals because some claims showed up and told them it's time to commit diplomatic suicide.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Allies with high trust and relations will last even if they do get claims.

You just have to be careful. WYP gives a big opinion hit temporarily even at 80-100 trust, before AI drops the red and it goes away. This can allow high trust alliances to break when they otherwise would not, if a large enough number of provinces hit opinion hard enough in a given moment to force-break alliance.

I haven't tested recently to determine whether the WYP vs WYSP bug was fixed (aka AI was massively more willing to break alliance when same provinces were held by subjects rather than directly due to a bigger opinion hit). In the past that was a pitfall too.

 

[EllisDee]

The devs subscribed ages ago to this arcadey mission tree system of "restore your borders" repeated ad nauseum. There's no way to wind back the wheel: they've been selling DLCs with trees as their core selling point.
Making all perma claims non-permanent could alleviate the issue, but then the simplistic AI would be further gimped: they can't decide for themselves when best to get mission rewards.

 

[MatthewP]

The devs subscribed ages ago to this arcadey mission tree system of "restore your borders" repeated ad nauseum. There's no way to wind back the wheel: they've been selling DLCs with trees as their core selling point.
Making all perma claims non-permanent could alleviate the issue, but then the simplistic AI would be further gimped: they can't decide for themselves when best to get mission rewards.

Basically yes, without all the negativity. Ideally the AI would analyze the geopolitical landscape and make logical long term strategic plans while also reacting to changing circumstances and preserving transparency so it doesn't feel incomprehensible to the player. It would also of course role play a bit (but not too much) so the world would feel real, not like a game.

But this is incredibly hard to do in even a vaguely satisfactory way. So Paradox cheated a bit and got an AI that is goal driven, pretty comprehensible and at least sometimes immersive using the workaround of claims. It's indisputably flawed; it checks some of the boxes but not all. But the reason I'm not so down on the approach is that to my mind they pulled off a B/B- in a class no one has ever gotten an A.

 

[durbal]

Basically yes, without all the negativity. Ideally the AI would analyze the geopolitical landscape and make logical long term strategic plans while also reacting to changing circumstances and preserving transparency so it doesn't feel incomprehensible to the player. It would also of course role play a bit (but not too much) so the world would feel real, not like a game.

But this is incredibly hard to do in even a vaguely satisfactory way. So Paradox cheated a bit and got an AI that is goal driven, pretty comprehensible and at least sometimes immersive using the workaround of claims. It's indisputably flawed; it checks some of the boxes but not all. But the reason I'm not so down on the approach is that to my mind they pulled off a B/B- in a class no one has ever gotten an A.

If they cheated and got a B- I'd consider that more of an F.

 

[Nostalgium]

This reads like a 'git gud' post. I'm not complaining because it happened to me, I'm just stating this because I think it sucks for gameplay to have the AI do a 180 and decide they hate an ally all of a sudden because they have claims.

It's not intended as one, but I do very often see players think of alliances as a one-and-done kind of deal. "Why did my ally break the alliance?" Well, had you been improving relations? Giving them things in war? Ensuring your marked territory of interest didn't overlap with theirs as they expanded and redrew? It's not uncommon for alliances to slip down into the 50's, relationship-wise, if you don't pay attention to them. Especially in Europe, especially once the Reformation fires, but it's far from impossible in ROTW either. Fighting wars together, sharing spoils, etc etc., that all increases trust naturally, with no significant need to reinforce it at all. Couple that with keeping their Improve Relations high, and they rarely turn hostile.

I'm not defending the system because it hasn't happened to me either, but as others have pointed out, the AI is also an actor. They do need to be able to consider when it's safe for them to break the alliance - preferably by going over diplo relations to secure another one - but if the AI would be hindered by not conquering lands, even from allies, they should make moves to break that alliance.

I suppose I just have a fundamental disagreement with you in that I find alliances in EU4 to be, on the average, too stable, not too volatile. The long-lasting, mutual and virtually unconditional military pacts of this game weren't really a staple of the era, and the game does a poor job of reflecting the fluid and dynamic nature of alliances of the time.

 

[MatthewP]

If they cheated and got a B- I'd consider that more of an F.

Haha touché. I think this speaks more to the limitations of the analogy than anything else, but still well played.

 

[Yhekal]

I'm sorry to say, but if your longterm ally was willing to turn on you because they got claims, no matter how many, they weren't on the best of terms with you to begin with. Allies with high trust and relations will last even if they do get claims. This is why you sometimes see the Ottomans paralyze themsleves by allying AQ, and remaining in a diplomatic deadlock until some diplomatic shennanigans occur that break it.

This is true - with one exception -> colonies.

Imagine, your old ally and friend just finished a neighbouring colony in the same colonial region. And all of the sudden c. -80/-100 to relations "wants your land" (treaty of tordesillas or not). I don't see it in Europe if your trust is high enough, but in the New World? These rules don't seem to apply.
And if one or two of your provinces has a gold mine.... ooooh... that's an instant -200 to relations.
Maybe it has something to do with the ruler having the "colonizer" personality? Still, it's really dumb. There should be local tensions/minor conflits sure - but not instant rage fest and relations meltdown.

And as far as I remember this not applies to New World only. Castile cancelled our 100+ years alliance just because I found gold in South Africa. This turn of events was just too much for them to handle (combined with "wants your land" in America).

That's my experience.

 

[Nostalgium]

This is true - with one exception -> colonies.

I'll admit that colonies and the surrounding diplomacy is a huge blind spot for me, as it's an area of the game I don't really engage with and haven't since the early years, so I'll defer to you on this one.

 

[necro84]

Should alliances from start of the game be forever? Currently it is easy to block Ottoman expansion just by having alliance with Ottomans and vassalizing Ramazan. Next step is conquering Syria where Ottomans would help because of rivalry with Mamluks. Ottomans can't expand because they don't get claims on Syria and later Egypt. Province Adana owned by Ramazan is not enough to break the alliance and without claims Ottomans doesn't care about Syria.

Breaking alliances adds more dynamic to the game

 

[Yhekal]

Breaking alliances adds more dynamic to the game

Sure, but this should happen gradually, overtime. Relations should not deteriorate 180° just overnight.

 

[Workiwork]

Sure, but this should happen gradually, overtime. Relations should not deteriorate 180° just overnight.

why not?

it should not be the rule but from ally to war should not be impossible. "i like you so much.. you should be mine." seems like reason enough.

And especially in times of more absolute rule a ruler that does not give a f*** about shared history sounds not unrealistic. Also an alliance between a powerful state and a weak one could be construed as vassalage from one side, historical revisionism is not unheard of. Would still fit, but i guess that would be more of a case of changing relations over time.

what i especially dislike is the eternal alliance stuff. not that that should be impossible. but a nation (and even more the feudal realms and proto nations) has interests, not friends.

 

[Nostalgium]

what i especially dislike is the eternal alliance stuff. not that that should be impossible. but a nation (and even more the feudal realms and proto nations) has interests, not friends.

This is exactly right. "Nations" didn't care about other "Nations" in this period - rulers cared about other rulers at best, and more commonly, their strategic interest. Like the longstanding alliance between Portugal and England; it certainly didn't come about because of the shared plight of the Portugese and the English as recognized by their respective nations so much as it grew out of the emphatic desire to not lose their land, power and influence to Castile. If Portugal had somehow inherited those lands and become Kings of Spain, you can bet one of the first things on their agenda would be to reevaluate their long and storied relationship with England.

But even then, long alliances like that of England and Portugal are well and truly the exception that proves the rule: Alliances were temporary, volatile, and often based on the person(s) in charge. I'd almost go so far as to suggest that Alliances as they currently exist should be replaced by defense pacts - sort of like a defensive mini-coalition - and individual-basis invitations to war. Something sort of like in Stellaris, in fact, which is ironically oddly bereft of an alliance system a la NATO that doesn't also federate the states, closer to what we see in EU4.

 

[necro84]

Sure, but this should happen gradually, overtime. Relations should not deteriorate 180° just overnight.

Just look at XVII and early XVIII century and wars between Sweden, Russia and PLC - every one was allied to each other and fought each other at different times.
Or Seven Years War and Russia switching sides because of new monarch.

In Asia most of the alliances were between rulers and not nations