Please allow default "friendly" attitude without needing to manually set

[bbqftw]

Personally, I think friendly attitude effectively blocking CTA is pretty silly. That said, while it exists, I see no reason why I shouldn't use it, since of course the AI will naturally set most large non-rival targets friendly.

For the sake of not getting carpal tunnel I'd really appreciate being able to default mark any country I haven't explicitly set an attitude against as friendly.

I realize that exploit fixing does take a higher priority than QoL features so I will even offer to trade a certain widely applicable absolutism exploit for in return for this. Post if interested.

 

[Zaddy]

I realize that exploit fixing does take a higher priority than QoL features so I will even offer to trade a certain widely applicable absolutism exploit for in return for this. Post if interested.

This tactic greatly amuses me. Gotta do what you gotta do, I guess.

 

[Piotrzeci]

Friendly attitude basically means the same for the player and AI; they want alliance. Ai gets huge modifers towards royal mariage and alliance. Player can set this attitude to tell a country that they are interested in alliance. Just set it towards some OPM you border; you'll get offers every month. There is no real reason to have it towards everyone. I barely see a reason to ever change from neutral (only when I improve relations with someone and want them to send alliance offer when they like me enough (less micromanaging)).

 

[bbqftw]

There is no real reason to have it towards everyone

It blocks CTA (except for edge cases with massively stacked diplo rep), thus is often used by AI to signal countries they will not fight.

I reserve the right to do the same if such an idiotic mechanism is going to exist. And if it is, might as well make it not completely painful.

Frankly I don't think attitude should count against offensive CTA at all. It is even more abusable in the hands of a player since it means they will never get CTA'd against a non-rival at the cost of significant wrist pain. But in the AI hands its significant enough to impact gameplay quite a bit (see midgame when half the HRE friendlies the Ottomans before the league wars have even fired).

 

[Siu-King**]

I realize that exploit fixing does take a higher priority than QoL features so I will even offer to trade a certain widely applicable absolutism exploit for in return for this. Post if interested.

Now i wanna know which you are talking about.

It is even more abusable in the hands of a player since it means they will never get CTA'd against a non-rival at the cost of significant wrist pain.

Alternatively, at the cost of no wrist pain, crash the game when you get CtA and untick join offensive wars until they can no longer call u in.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It blocks CTA (except for edge cases with massively stacked diplo rep), thus is often used by AI to signal countries they will not fight.

I reserve the right to do the same if such an idiotic mechanism is going to exist. And if it is, might as well make it not completely painful.

Frankly I don't think attitude should count against offensive CTA at all. It is even more abusable in the hands of a player since it means they will never get CTA'd against a non-rival at the cost of significant wrist pain. But in the AI hands its significant enough to impact gameplay quite a bit (see midgame when half the HRE friendlies the Ottomans before the league wars have even fired).

You can intentionally leave tiny nations off friendly for ez 40 favors, which are the only times you'd not want to use friendly. It should be default unless the mechanic gets reworked.

 

[Zelius]

... since of course the AI will naturally set most large non-rival targets friendly.

I don't see this being the case at all.

Loading up a couple of random saves, there's not a lot of Friendly attitudes. Small nations tend to be Friendly towards larger ones, OK, and mutual rivals etc. cause more Friendly attitudes, but it's hardly that common.

 

[Piotrzeci]

If you want to avoid being called to wars, then uncheck it in the favors screen. You won't get your favors as you are supposed to. Asking for implementing of a system to ease exploiting the game is just silly.

 

[Vulkandrache]

Asking for implementing of a system to ease exploiting the game is just silly.

Thats not what hes doing.
The system is in place and can be used by anyone.
Its just so retartedly attrocious to utilize that Paradox should pay the medical bill and the next mouse for all the players because of it.

Ontop of that the AI can use the system without those issues.
Cant call Aragon against the Ottomans. Why?
Attitude vs enemy yo.

 

[bbqftw]

From Spain to Mamluks (no explo) to Timurids to Delhi to Bengal, all friendly towards Ming in late 1500s. From OPMs in ass-end nowhere to #3 great power.

The simple fix is that friendly attitude should not be a "don't CTA me ever card," which is the effective case for both players and AIs. I and my wrist would be happy for this too.

 

[Brynjar]

Yes, the game is too hard. Please make it less boring to make it easier to manipulate allies to do my bidding without pestering me with their own interests.
/sarcasm

 

[bbqftw]

You know I would be fine for a fix that eliminated friendly attitude blocks to CTA. This would make the game harder for most people. Would also remove this problem.

I would also be fine if favors were eliminated completely and you could only promise land. This is basically the only situation a player would ever accept a CTA.

But that would kill the game for 95% of the playerbase, wouldn't it?

 

[Piotrzeci]

I would love to see calling an ally that does not border a nation to war with it without favors.
Or maybe promising land in succession war.

 

[Piotrzeci]

Saying that you should be able to block CtA towards every country in the World (except rivals), because AI tends to set such attitude from time to time is also not fair. You just want to cheat.

 

[Brynjar]

I doubt "most players" are setting everyone as friendly, your solution would make it a lot easier for anyone who doesn't. You could of course implement the "fix" only for the player, but it's easier to just avoid exploiting it.

Favours are one of the most annoynug dlc features in my opinion, so I wouldn't mind it being replaced.

 

[bbqftw]

Saying that you should be able to block CtA towards every country in the World (except rivals), because AI tends to set such attitude from time to time is also not fair. You just want to cheat.

I do not make the rules, I only find the most optimal way to work within them.

 

[Brynjar]

I do not make the rules, I only find the most optimal way to work within them.

Then you complain when the "wrong" ones gets fixed. The issue in this thread is only an issue if you choose to make it one, and the dev's time would in my opinion be better spent fixing actual QoL bugs.

 

[hitchens]

Friendly by default makes no sense what so ever. Neutral opens up for politics, friendly by default limits this. Its the worst idea I have ever heard.

 

[bly08]

He's saying to have the option of setting everyone to friendly. In late game I've also had to set every country to hostile and mark every province so that vassals will fabricate claims.

 

[Rikissa]

I played as Ryukyu until 1700 in 1.22 and I think I was never able to call in an ally during any war, because of friendly attitude

Ottos wouldn't even help me fight Ming