Rage!
- Thread starter Sukramo
- 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.
While I agree with the suggestion to have a more informative tooltip for allies upon a declaration of war, I disagree with the completely deterministic expectations out of a mechanic in a sandbox game.
When we declare war on a pushover expecting an easy win, the outcome should not be clear maths. There are unknown parameters in real life and you can "roleplay" this chain of allies and warleaders as such unknown parameters. What started as a "walk-in-the-park" war now becomes a bumerang and we have to adapt our strategy accordingly. It happens in real life (out of numerous examples: Saddam was probably not expecting almost the whole west to DoW when he invaded OPM Kuweit) and it is a good feature to have somehting similar in EU.
When we declare war on a pushover expecting an easy win, the outcome should not be clear maths. There are unknown parameters in real life and you can "roleplay" this chain of allies and warleaders as such unknown parameters. What started as a "walk-in-the-park" war now becomes a bumerang and we have to adapt our strategy accordingly. It happens in real life (out of numerous examples: Saddam was probably not expecting almost the whole west to DoW when he invaded OPM Kuweit) and it is a good feature to have somehting similar in EU.
Alliance chains are good and can be avoided and/or manipulated. For example, playing tuscany and you want to declare war on Modena. Modena (say 5k troops) is allied to Milan (say 20k troops), Milan will most likely become war leader. Milan is allied with France who have 80k troops, France if called in will most likely become war leader. Take another look at Modena, they are also allied with Urbino who have 5k troops and no other allies. Declare war on Urbino and Modena gets called but wont become war leader and bing you have war against your intended target with the side benefit of beating up Urbino too.
As a rule of thumb I assume a called in nation will become war leader if it has double the number of troops of the target (this I believe is quite conservative and likely higher in reality but you will never be suprised with this estimate). By checking alliance chains there is all sorts of abuse to be done to get your intended target into war to avoid coalitions or uber alliances. Finding the weak links in aliances chains is what I spend a large amount of peace time doing.
As a rule of thumb I assume a called in nation will become war leader if it has double the number of troops of the target (this I believe is quite conservative and likely higher in reality but you will never be suprised with this estimate). By checking alliance chains there is all sorts of abuse to be done to get your intended target into war to avoid coalitions or uber alliances. Finding the weak links in aliances chains is what I spend a large amount of peace time doing.
1. Is the information knowable or not?
2. Should the information be knowable?
3. If 1 and 2 are both "yes", then there is no valid argument for making the process of calculating warleader changes more tedious. If both are "no", I argue that your opinion is wrong, but at least the game is working properly. If 1 is "no" and two is "yes", you have a UI flaw. If 1 is "yes" and 2 is "no"...well...you have a game that isn't well made
.That said, even if it's "2 minutes per evaluation of WL change", if you are looking to declare on multiple nations you're talking 10-20 minutes of simply looking at stuff before you can even apply actual strategy, and this is a common process. You'd lose an hour per game just checking potential alliance WL swaps if you actually spend 2 minutes to check.
Ahh.. WL change, a bit broken but still interesting mechanic - tends to spice things up. What's really weird is that some CBs don't allow for a WL change, and that can be exploited...
1. Is the information knowable or not?
2. Should the information be knowable?
3. If 1 and 2 are both "yes", then there is no valid argument for making the process of calculating warleader changes more tedious. If both are "no", I argue that your opinion is wrong, but at least the game is working properly. If 1 is "no" and two is "yes", you have a UI flaw. If 1 is "yes" and 2 is "no"...well...you have a game that isn't well made
That said, even if it's "2 minutes per evaluation of WL change", if you are looking to declare on multiple nations you're talking 10-20 minutes of simply looking at stuff before you can even apply actual strategy, and this is a common process. You'd lose an hour per game just checking potential alliance WL swaps if you actually spend 2 minutes to check.
Well. By those definitions it's an UI issue.
I agree the data should be readily available, but would argue that it already is, if somewhat convoluted. More precision could be nice, but for gods sake, let's not clutter the UI with stuff that neatly fits in the ledger. An alliance ledger where you could discern warleader escalations would be nice, but still, put it in the ledger.
I'd put it there, but also have it say this:
"They are allied to x, which will assume war leader"
"X is allied to a, b, and c, which will assume war leader"
In the DoW screen along the left. If that starts to look really cluttered, one is probably starting to re-think war plans anyway. in practice, however, it'd look fine unless you're talking well into double-digit enemies.
I really don't like it telling if someone will assume warleader straight out. That means it automatically tells that a particular ally is going to answer a call.
Ed: And if it doesn't we'll have tons of threads about the UI lying to the player, which i agree is bad, but there'll suddenly be viable tactics in escalating particular alliances to lock them in truces after a peace out.
You can see that on your own offensive CTA.
Besides, you could always have it say "will assume WL if they join" if your goal is to leave that ambiguity in there on whether the AI will answer.
Are you in a coalition war? If yes, then you must negotiate with Castile. If no, then you can click on any of the English provinces and negotiate a separate peace with England. If you have indeed sieged every province they have remaining (including colony provinces), they you should have 100% warscore vs. England despite having negative warscore vs. Castile.
The best news is that you don't need to have cores to get the Luck of the Irish achievement. If you can annex the remaining provinces and you already have all the others (including Orkney), you should get the achievement as soon as the ink dries on the separate peace with England.
The best news is that you don't need to have cores to get the Luck of the Irish achievement. If you can annex the remaining provinces and you already have all the others (including Orkney), you should get the achievement as soon as the ink dries on the separate peace with England.
You can't negotiate a separate peace with the country that owns the wargoal. So if the wargoal is take London, England is protected from annexation by Castile. If the wargoal is show superiority, separate peace can be made with England. This is one of two ways the holy war CB is better than conquest CB.