Possible bug with CTA and breaking alliance ?

[Pornek]

Situation:
Crimea and Ottomans are at war with Russia, Russia has occupied 70% of Crimea.

DOW window shows Crimea not accepting defensive CTA from Ottomans. Because of WE.
I declare on Ottomans.
Ottomans instantly white peace with Russia.
Crimea and Russia make peace. Crimea loses provinces - thus WE.
I get popup Crimea entered alliance with Ottomans.
Crimea joins war.

- I thought this behaviour has supposedly being fixed for the player. You refuse CTA, lose alliance, re-ally and dont get another CTA. Im 99% sure this is what happend in the above scenario. Shouldnt this be working for the AI too ?

- The tooltips states they wont join war and they still do because for the 2nd CTA the variable (WE) has changed. I guess this works correctly but it is totally misleading.

Anybody here had the same happen ?
Likely a bug ?

 

[Chewy Yui]

Had a similar thing happen.

I (Sweden) was at war Denmark and Muscovy, Austria (my ally) declared war on England (also my ally), and called me in, I declined, and re-allied them. After war with Denmark was over, they called me in AGAIN.

Firstly I thought the AI wouldnt call you in if they would decline (allied to defender), but to do so two times? Thats dumb!

Also, this....

My allies wont join because I am in another war, not as a co-belligerent and can't call them into that war anyway.

 

[Xara]

They will call you in whenever they judge that they need your help and judge that you would (should) be willing (based on the attitude modifiers any AI would use) to join.

If you refuse to join, they will call you again if those modifiers are high enough. If you don't want a 2nd call, don't re-ally them before their wars are over.

With the removal of the time penalty on joining wars, always assume any current ally of your target will end up against you. Then it's up to you to judge whether or not you can blitz the war against your current before that ally joins in.

 

[Pornek]

They will call you in whenever they judge that they need your help and judge that you would (should) be willing (based on the attitude modifiers any AI would use) to join.

If you refuse to join, they will call you again if those modifiers are high enough. If you don't want a 2nd call, don't re-ally them before their wars are over.

With the removal of the time penalty on joining wars, always assume any current ally of your target will end up against you. Then it's up to you to judge whether or not you can blitz the war against your current before that ally joins in.

Well what is the point of the tooltip telling "No" and they can just re-ally and CtA them at another time. Im not complaining about the particular situation but that basically means all that fancy stuff added in the expansion/patch to clarify who joins is 100% useless.

Edit: I really thought were through with the problem. Cant believe this is WAD otherwise this is nothing different of incompetent. Trying to clarify it and implement a mechanic that circumvents the clarificaton... :/

 

[Xara]

Train yourself to construe "No" as "Not right now".

 

[Pornek]

Train yourself to construe "No" as "Not right now".

Well I dont really care about it in terms of gameplay. I wouldnt declare if Im not sure Im going to win the war.
Im more curious - if it is WAD - why they would work on a feature for a new patch and make it useless with another feature in the very same patch.
I'd rather pay them to get wasted instead of wasting their time on feature that has no use.

"Doesnt matter what CTA window shows, cause we can CTA at any time even if we broke alliance prior to this or the circumstances have changed and now he would accept."

Just why...

Anyways Im done ranting, maybe a dev will read this thread and actually think about it...

 

[Xara]

Uh, but it does matter what it says. If they refuse a CTA, the alliance gets broken. If relations weren't good enough prior to that, they won't regain the alliance, thus they won't re-ally and thus they won't get called in again. And that second call only happens if the conditions that led to the first one being refused changes - they're not going to join if they're still in another war they're losing. You have to make note of their situation and plan on the ally eventually joining if they get their @#$# together, recover manpower, money, and war exhaustion.

There's several cases where the UI "lies", but this isn't it, and it certainly doesn't make it "useless". In fact, that first alliance breaking might free up a diplo slot that the defending nation uses to ally someone else who gets a CTA once that happens. The UI doesn't (and can't) warn of you that.

 

[atwix]

Train yourself to construe "No" as "Not right now".

i laughed. Learn and adapt i guess... Thats not my opinion, it just the way the devs see it. I think it is realistic to be honest. Always check opinion modifiers before declaring war aswell. You can predict if the alliance will be reastablished. If it will, they will be called in again if you let the war drag on for too long. It is what "historical friends" should be about really.

"I can't help you now, but i will come and help you if i ask later, when i recovered from my last war."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They really, really need to axe the "would call to multiple wars" when the CTA would not, in fact, call to multiple wars. CTA should work on a per-war basis anyway.

 

[Pornek]

Uh, but it does matter what it says. If they refuse a CTA, the alliance gets broken. If relations weren't good enough prior to that, they won't regain the alliance, thus they won't re-ally and thus they won't get called in again. And that second call only happens if the conditions that led to the first one being refused changes - they're not going to join if they're still in another war they're losing. You have to make note of their situation and plan on the ally eventually joining if they get their @#$# together, recover manpower, money, and war exhaustion.

It was changed for the human, if you refuse CtA and re-ally you wont get another CtA.
This is simply BS for the AI. It should accept in the first place because thats what it does anyways. Instead it takes the opinion & prestige hit for no reason and the tooltip states something different. Sorry but I refuse to believe this works correctly. The AI should not accept a 2nd CtA or rather not even get one.
Edit: Either that or OE in my example shouldnt have CtA Crimea directly and instead waited for them to be at peace.
Edit2: That scenario however would mean the CtA tooltips - who joins - is pointless, because the potential to join is given at any time.

There's several cases where the UI "lies", but this isn't it, and it certainly doesn't make it "useless". In fact, that first alliance breaking might free up a diplo slot that the defending nation uses to ally someone else who gets a CTA once that happens. The UI doesn't (and can't) warn of you that.

I know and thats not my problem. Im talking about the specific situation above.

They really, really need to axe the "would call to multiple wars" when the CTA would not, in fact, call to multiple wars. CTA should work on a per-war basis anyway.

That too.

 

[Pornek]

Bump.
Its Monday maybe a dev can tell me if this is WAD or a bug...

 

[Squirrelloid]

Really, it should make an AI unwilling to accept an alliance request or make an alliance request *to a country which turned down a CTA* until the war is over.

Also, I'm pretty sure I recently saw a country who got peaced out of a war get called back in a decade later. That also shouldn't happen. (Needs some sort of 'we already fought in this war' flag). (The war went on over 50 years, but I'm pretty sure it was the same war.)

And yes, the 'would be called into multiple wars' modifier is nonsense when you're only calling them into one war. That really needs to be looked at.

 

[orthezuma]

I just found this out today =( Poland called me in against some hre minors and Austria(my ally), i refused and re-allied them, they called again. All that trust built over years went *poof*