Rage!

[Sukramo]

I bought this game two weeks ago with all DLC and I love it and Crusader Kings. But I need to vent: DAMN THE ALLIANCE SYSTEM! CURSE IT! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

Ok, now I feel abit better. Im trying to do Luck of the Irish and conquer the British Isles and doing some soild progress. England is down to 5 provinces and Europe is locked in a bunch of Alliances.

So I decide the time has come to rid the map of England, maybe vassalize them or just take 3 or more provinces from them. I look at their allies: Portugal and some puny one province land. Ok, I can take that. Neither France nor uber Denmark waants to join me even thogh they like me +200 but thats fine. Its my 21 dudes vs his 9. Even if Portugal shows up I can probably deal with it.

So the War starts. I clear out the puny English army and begin carpet siegeing all his provinces. I notice alot of ships in the area and armies dropping main Ireland. Again, sieging all his stuff should allow me to end the war and I got a headstart..............

I look at the War tab. Who leads the enemy? Not England. Not even Portugal. ITS CASTILLE! I end up taking all 5 english provinces while they have sieged down two of mine. They will not white peace. They want me to give two of my privinces to get out of the war. With that I sigh, turn of the game for day and go to the forum to rage.

I guess since England is so weak Portugal became War leader and since they were Allied to Castile they called them in and then Castile became leader? Such an awful and boring development. Alliances are by far too large and too easy to maintain in this game. Ive seen Brittany in an Alliance with Austria for 80 years, effectivly making them untouchable for me. I really like the idea of big wars with many fronts but such things as Castille taking over Englands war when they are not allied to England is just............No. Its a punch in my big Irish face.

 

[aitaituo]

The thing is that, if England was the warleader, their Portuguese->Castillan allies would be forced out of the war once you've occupied all of England and made peace with them.

 

[Sukramo]

The thing is that, if England was the warleader, their Portuguese->Castillan allies would be forced out of the war once you've occupied all of England and made peace with them.

I occupid all of Englands territory, all 5 provinces they had left. I still had -7 Warscore and Castile (Who negoitiated for the entire Alliance as War Leader) refused to White Peace or give me land.

Its possible he had some colony far off somewhere but I doubt it. He was getting pounded from all sides since early on.

 

[StatikShocker]

I'd like to see "cascading alliances" be removed. war leader switch is fine, it prevents small nations from being annexed quickly. however, the new war leader shouldn't be able to call their allies, let alone call one that takes over the war again!

picture this: oman declares war on yemen, allied with mamluks and ethiopia. mamluks take over. mamluks are allied with tripoli, algiers, hedjaz, and timurids. timurids take over. timurids are allied with nogai, golden horde, chagatai, sind, and ottomans. Ottomans take over. Ottomans are allied with Crimea, Morocco, tunisia, and france. France takes over. France is allied with Spain, Prussia, Sweden, and Russia. Russia takes over. Russia is allied with denmark, commonwealth, serbia, and austria.

so for declaring war on yemen, you are now at war with
yemen
ethiopia
mamluks
tripoli
algiers
hedjaz
timurids
nogai
golden horde
chagatai
sind
ottomans
crimea
morocco
tunisia
france
spain
prussia
sweden
russia
denmark
commonwealth
serbia
austria

just to make a point.

 

[Nidhoegger]

I don't think this can happen. As far as I understand it, someone must be way bigger for taking over. So e.g. between Timurids and ottomans shouldn't happen a takeover.

 

[V1ribus]

Wars should be limited to one change of warleader per side, per war. It's just plain silly at the moment.

 

[StatikShocker]

I don't think this can happen. As far as I understand it, someone must be way bigger for taking over. So e.g. between Timurids and ottomans shouldn't happen a takeover.

2 province persia took over for 2 province crimea in my last game. persia called ottomans, who then took over. so its not as difficult as it may seem. my example would never happen, I was exaggerating to make a point.

 

[Loveeulongtime]

It's FUN when you're on the other side though, like my last game mighty Spain declared war on tiny Mantua, As Mantua's ally France got the lead and they called their buddies, which is me, and I got the lead and I called mine! It was like One super nation and it's colonial nations against 2 dozen nations. Muahahahha... it's fun, just saying!

 

[Variton]

This can be truly confusing especially to new players. At least it should be warned on the "Declare War" screen.

"Declaring war on England leads Castille to become warleader and hence a war with a, b, c, d, e, f, g"

Are your sure you want to be overrun? Yes/No

 

[Strangedane]

Miss judging the political situation of the world have tipped kings and emperors both before and after our timeline.

I don't see a problem in being punished for not noticing stuff.

 

[AgentBuckshotMo]

Miss judging the political situation of the world have tipped kings and emperors both before and after our timeline.

I don't see a problem in being punished for not noticing stuff.

The problem is that because the calculation that determines who becomes war leader is unknown, and the UI doesn't give this information out, it's NOT noticeable. You can gauge it to some extent, but it's imperfect. The UI needs to be updated to tell this information.

 

[Strangedane]

The problem is that because the calculation that determines who becomes war leader is unknown, and the UI doesn't give this information out, it's NOT noticeable. You can gauge it to some extent, but it's imperfect. The UI needs to be updated to tell this information.

So you're saying you can't see the allies of the people you attack?
You can't look both your target and their allies up in the ledger?
You can't look potential allies of allies up in the ledger?

Gee, I guess we're not playing the same game.

In my game, a quick look through the ledger of target, targets allies, and potentially allies of allies let's me make a damn close estimate.
So close, infact, that I've never been surprised by a warleader change after I realised the concept existed.

 

[Variton]

So you're saying you can't see the allies of the people you attack?
You can't look both your target and their allies up in the ledger?
You can't look potential allies of allies up in the ledger?

Gee, I guess we're not playing the same game.

In my game, a quick look through the ledger of target, targets allies, and potentially allies of allies let's me make a damn close estimate.
So close, infact, that I've never been surprised by a warleader change after I realised the concept existed.

Who is Gee?

The UI does not give the information easily as it should. For new player it can be really deceptive to have potential participators listed, but not a mention of any "allies of allies". Why give any list then at all? "You declare war on England" should then be enough and disclaimer "check his allies and allies of major allies". Everybody could then go through diplo screens and ledgers.

 

[aitaituo]

So you're saying you can't see the allies of the people you attack?

Not entirely reliable. I DoW'd OPM Trebizond, allied with Georgia who had more troops, five times as many provinces, and more income. Trebizond remained war leader. StatikShocker said he saw a 2PM take over as warleader from another 2PM.

 

[mustachewarfare]

I'd like to see "cascading alliances" be removed. war leader switch is fine, it prevents small nations from being annexed quickly. however, the new war leader shouldn't be able to call their allies, let alone call one that takes over the war again!

picture this: oman declares war on yemen, allied with mamluks and ethiopia. mamluks take over. mamluks are allied with tripoli, algiers, hedjaz, and timurids. timurids take over. timurids are allied with nogai, golden horde, chagatai, sind, and ottomans. Ottomans take over. Ottomans are allied with Crimea, Morocco, tunisia, and france. France takes over. France is allied with Spain, Prussia, Sweden, and Russia. Russia takes over. Russia is allied with denmark, commonwealth, serbia, and austria.

so for declaring war on yemen, you are now at war with
yemen
ethiopia
mamluks
tripoli
algiers
hedjaz
timurids
nogai
golden horde
chagatai
sind
ottomans
crimea
morocco
tunisia
france
spain
prussia
sweden
russia
denmark
commonwealth
serbia
austria

just to make a point.

sounds a lot like from what I have read in my high school textbook regarding WW1

 

[Strangedane]

Who is Gee?

The UI does not give the information easily as it should. For new player it can be really deceptive to have potential participators listed, but not a mention of any "allies of allies". Why give any list then at all? "You declare war on England" should then be enough and disclaimer "check his allies and allies of major allies". Everybody could then go through diplo screens and ledgers.

We might be able to agree that the information could be more readily available.
I'll even agree that the wording should be "You declare war on England. They can call their allies. Warleader can change." That way "Warleader can change" can be removed from the cb's where it can't.

I can't agree though that the information from the ledger should be popping up left and right.
We have the ledger, precisely as to not clutter the UI with unneeded numbers everywhere.

 

[AgentBuckshotMo]

So you're saying you can't see the allies of the people you attack?
You can't look both your target and their allies up in the ledger?
You can't look potential allies of allies up in the ledger?

Gee, I guess we're not playing the same game.

In my game, a quick look through the ledger of target, targets allies, and potentially allies of allies let's me make a damn close estimate.
So close, infact, that I've never been surprised by a warleader change after I realised the concept existed.

That's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have to spend 5 minutes paused tracing through several countries and the ledger to guess whether or not there will be one or possibly more war-leader changes before declaring war. This is simply bad interface design, which has been a problem in CK2 as well as EU4. The declare war interface should tell you why your allies will not go to war rather than just yes or no. It should also tell you at least if there will be one war leader change. Calculating more than one may be difficult due to the way the AI changes its attitude when more allies join a war. It is an issue of accessibility to the game. Adding this won't make the game any less difficult or challenging, but it will address a design issue.

 

[Strangedane]

Not entirely reliable. I DoW'd OPM Trebizond, allied with Georgia who had more troops, five times as many provinces, and more income. Trebizond remained war leader. StatikShocker said he saw a 2PM take over as warleader from another 2PM.

Manpower, prestige, current wealth, standing armies and other factors all play in.
Stuff you can find in the ledger.
Did you check the ledger afterwards and identified what caused the warleader to not change, or are you set in your determination that it's somehow random and you won't bother with it?

If the answer is the second one, i'm sorry to say, you'll never understand it.

 

[Strangedane]

That's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have to spend 5 minutes paused tracing through several countries and the ledger to guess whether or not there will be one or possibly more war-leader changes before declaring war. This is simply bad interface design, which has been a problem in CK2 as well as EU4. The declare war interface should tell you why your allies will not go to war rather than just yes or no. It should also tell you at least if there will be one war leader change. Calculating more than one may be difficult due to the way the AI changes its attitude when more allies join a war. It is an issue of accessibility to the game. Adding this won't make the game any less difficult or challenging, but it will address a design issue.

5 minutes?

Even with the largest alliance webs it takes 2 minutes tops.
And then we're talking worldspanning alliances in the real lategame.
No guessing is needed, if you take the time to gather the needed information, so that's not an argument.

I don't think the interface should tell you if the warleader is going to escalate. Mostly because that would allow you to see what would escalate where, and by extension who would honor what alliances. The abuse this would enable would be retarded beyond compare.
That should be part of the planning you make when you go to war.

 

[aitaituo]

Manpower, prestige, current wealth, standing armies and other factors all play in.
Stuff you can find in the ledger.
Did you check the ledger afterwards and identified what caused the warleader to not change, or are you set in your determination that it's somehow random and you won't bother with it?

If the answer is the second one, i'm sorry to say, you'll never understand it.

Um. I don't by any means think it's random, but clearly the exact formula is unknown. No one can truly understand without an explanation from the devs or extensive testing. It was some time ago, but I DoW'd them in early 1445 and neither had been in a war, so their manpower and prestige must have been fairly close.

The easy solution would be to highlight the flags of allies who can potentially take over as warleader in the DoW menu. There's no real reason you should need to go to the ledger and make a comparison of several numbers on multiple pages to guess who will take over, if anyone.