Permanent claims are a bad concept and warp diplomacy

[DominusNovus]

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.

Tangentally, but I’ve been thinking that the game should have a more uniform gradation of claims/cores. We currently have a system of 3 tiers that is more or less slapped together. I’d say make it 4 tiers, and enable the espionage function to strengthen your claim (still require ownership to make a full core) - the stronger the claim, the longer it lasts (but never permanent), and the cheaper it is to core. Then, have the missions just add strength to the relevant claims.

 

[holyvigil]

Eh I like the extra layer of diplomatic considerations it adds. At least it's not random so you can actually plan for it.

Dynamic desires are what is annoying to me. Mughals desiring the whole world is dumb ai creation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

What is being described sounds like the WYP vs WYSP bug.

I'm calling it a bug, because there's no valid reason an ally should be happy with you holding land, but flip -200 and break 80+ trust alliance if/when your subject has exactly that same land.

 

[durbal]

why not?

Because it causes the AI to commit suicide when it breaks a crucial alliance based on a new map state which is incongruent with the old state. The AI needs to be able to adjust priorities based on the new map state, not just throw a hissy fit when the map state changes not to its liking. Tensions should rise and fall, not just exist and not exist.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

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.

JC, who are you and who is/was your ally?

 

[durbal]

JC, who are you and who is/was your ally?

In which game? Been playing EU4 since Cossacks. None of this has really changed much except that the mission trees and permanent claims from them kinda exacerbate the issue. Just started playing again and realized how the permanent claims everywhere create tons of problems with diplomacy and are just silly hardcore railroading anyway.

An egregious example that came up recently (and kinda inspired this post) was when Muscovy tag switched to Russia and all of a sudden wanted all the worthless steppe land north of the Caucasus rather than taking on the PLC and the Ottomans who they'd been able to weaken with my help. They didn't break their alliance with me or anything but only because I knew to not take provinces they had permanent claims. Meanwhile after a few wars with the Ottomans and with my help against the PLC they could've made inroads into weakening rivals and taking better clay from them than the steppe. But nah, they'd rather hate anyone who takes the land they magically and all of a sudden have interest in since deciding to be called Russia and would risk their own downfall or outright destruction over the mere principle of someone owning else owning Astrakhan despite it being of negative value tot them.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

Can anybody here give me an example of long-term alliances spanning centuries between neighboring powers?

The static nature of diplomacy is a limitation of the AI at large. Permanent claims are a crutch to get the AI to achieve something instead of haphazard blobbing in random directions.

And I don't understand the complaint about Russia. It makes sense, in game and in history, that Russia would want to push South and East. Controlling Astrakhan means it can move more trade into Muscovy. Also, I don't understand the complaint about not wanting to use trust, other than it is also static. I ran a Theodoro campaign where I held almost the entire PLC, Crimea and Golden Horde while maintaining a Russian alliance for the entire campaign.

Also, to anybody reading this, I highly recommend not keeping Russia as an ally for longer than you need to. The Russian AI will debt spiral itself multiple times per game.

 

[Workiwork]

Because it causes the AI to commit suicide when it breaks a crucial alliance based on a new map state which is incongruent with the old state. The AI needs to be able to adjust priorities based on the new map state, not just throw a hissy fit when the map state changes not to its liking. Tensions should rise and fall, not just exist and not exist.

and if my "why not" would be to your opening post i would say "okay" but it was to the point of a 180° overnight. and if you look at my and the following posts we spoke about related topics but not directly yours. that does happen in forum threads.

 

[Blizzrd33]

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.

If culture conversion was more incentivised to occur more often, more nations would become more hostile with allies who converted some province with their culture, at least enough to break up existing alliances more frequently. But AI culture conversion is quite rare and human players either don't need it most of the time or can do it carefully enough to avoid breaking a key alliance in any case.

 

[Nostalgium]

If culture conversion was more incentivised to occur more often, more nations would become more hostile with allies who converted some province with their culture, at least enough to break up existing alliances more frequently. But AI culture conversion is quite rare and human players either don't need it most of the time or can do it carefully enough to avoid breaking a key alliance in any case.

That would solve some cases. But the Indian Hugbox forms pretty much along culture group lines, and culture conversion will do absolutely nothing to it. The same is true for repeating alliances like Russia/Ottomans, Austria/Poland, or other such alliances who rarely conquer provinces of the other's culture.