i have had so many perfectly stable alliances broken because they get a mission to get into India or the spice islands and suddenly a -200 opinion. its just ludicrous.
please fix "wants your provinces"
- Thread starter Redwallzyl
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Unless you own every spice island, and every port in India/East Africa I agree. Having a major native ally should be on the priority list for such missions/goals, it increases their chances for actually GETTING it.
I think this modifier should be swapped for buffs to the "has claim" and "border friction" modifier.
+1. The missions themselves are broken. They need to be fixed in the next major patch IMO.
I think "wants your provinces" modifier should be completely deleted. It never made sense in my games, I mean some nations want provinces that don't border them, never were part of them in OTL, are not part of a mission, a common historical region, have another religion and culture etc...the list goes on...
Rather, fix the weighting on overseas mission claims. A French claim on one Indian province should not be weighted higher than a French claim or three that are adjacent to its borders, and that's the issue in this case. Right now, that distance province is weighted to break any alliance, while super valuable provinces nearby aren't weighted as such, creating irrational behavior that violates expectations the game otherwise builds up. Missions are the sole thing that will consistently break longstanding high-trust alliances and essentially make some provinces a trap in a fashion that feels arbitrary even to relative beginner players.
The "wants your provinces" system is AMAZING! It's the random missions that give claims that fuck it up.
They do make sense now. At first they were quite bugged but now they quite ok.
The AI will want your provinces because those provinces are:
- cores
- claims
- mission objectives (they usually become claims as well)
- needed for forming nations
- rich (base tax/production) - this also includes religion & culture since those affect the final wealth of the province when conquered
- give a lot of trade power in an important trade node (this is often overlooked by players)
+1. I just wrapped up a campaign as Italy in which I was allied to France for virtually the entire game. I eat Savoy in the 1600s: France remains Friendly and gets a -18 "wants your provinces" modifier against me for Savoie and I think Cuneo. That's reasonable; if anything maybe a little low for an area that is actually fairly strategically important for France. I colonize West Timor: France takes the "Establish France in the Spice Islands", goes hostile and gets a -200 "wants your provinces" modifier. For one tiny piece of the Spice Islands? No. While it's fair for them to want a fairly good colony, this sort of thing desperately needs to be rebalanced.
France, my ally, got -99 because he wanted Provence. Austria, to whom I'm married, got 200 because of Cremona and "Claims to northern Italy". I hate it.
I don't agree with this viewpoint. Countries are not "best buddies". Never were, never will be. Everything in politics is dictated by interests, on the long term.
To be clear, you're okay with the general behavior but not with the mission behavior, correct?
I don't see how anybody can defend the current mission behavior. In his example, Provence isn't but a -200 mission is wonky. The ones in India and Indonesia are the most glaring examples but not the only ones.
Wants your provinces is fine in itself. If anything it makes the AI act a little bit more like a player.
The problem is how a mission like presence in India will instantly tank a nation's opinion by 400 points, leading to a global war for claiming Ceylon.
The problem is how a mission like presence in India will instantly tank a nation's opinion by 400 points, leading to a global war for claiming Ceylon.
I posted this about 5 posts before my previous comment:
What I'm not ok with is players wanting to be best buddies with nations for 400 years, without any kind of turbulence. That's even further into fantasy land than the lasers some people wanted in EU4
I posted this about 5 posts before my previous comment:
What I'm not ok with is players wanting to be best buddies with nations for 400 years, without any kind of turbulence. That's even further into fantasy land than the lasers some people wanted in EU4
Portugal/England did pretty well.
That's like the only example in history. And they were never truly neighbors. And then this happened: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_British_Ultimatum. That one event is blamed for toppling the Portuguese monarchy.
On the other hand I can probably provide over 9000 examples of neighbors backstabbing each other (or just hating each other).
Yeah fair enough.
Also, in some cases you can be best friends with the AI forever, simply by never actually bordering and having your political situation change and IMO that's fine. I've had some permanent African-Austrian alliances for example lol. Short of completely conquering through the Ottomans, your interests just aren't going to conflict a whole lot.