This may be something for a sequel as opposed to a patch, but the coalition system (the games say "alliance" but they do NOT work like alliances!) is both un-fun and grossly ahistorical. Alliances should be one to one, non-exclusive relationships. On the surface this sounds simpler, but it actually leads to much more intricate diplomacy, and it reflects history far better, especially if alliances also come in different degrees.
A long time ago, there was a suggestion for EU3 that I really liked.
An alliance would be between two countries. No form of alliance with one country would ever outright prevent an alliance with another country, though a nation that dislikes your friends probably won't ally with you, and allying with two countries that hate each other would be a bad idea for other obvious reasons.
There would be three types:
Full Alliance - works like alliances do now, except for its one-to-one, non-exclusive nature
Mutual Defense Treaty - Can call on each other for aid if a third party attacks either of you. Grants full military access as soon as such an attack occurs. Won't help each other in wars of aggression. Will not enter the agressor's territory (the party actually attacked is free to do so) but may very well watch the treaty partner's borders while they do so.
Directed Alliance - Full alliance, but only for the purpose of defeating a specific third party and, perhaps, its full allies. In a HoI2 context, probably wouldn't share blueprints.
Check here for my own case against the alliance system as it now stands, which also includes some enhancement suggestions if the existing coalition system is in fact kept.
I would greatly appreciate if someone explained to me why the existing coalition system was deemed a good idea for the various Paradox games, because I just don't see it.
A long time ago, there was a suggestion for EU3 that I really liked.
An alliance would be between two countries. No form of alliance with one country would ever outright prevent an alliance with another country, though a nation that dislikes your friends probably won't ally with you, and allying with two countries that hate each other would be a bad idea for other obvious reasons.
There would be three types:
Full Alliance - works like alliances do now, except for its one-to-one, non-exclusive nature
Mutual Defense Treaty - Can call on each other for aid if a third party attacks either of you. Grants full military access as soon as such an attack occurs. Won't help each other in wars of aggression. Will not enter the agressor's territory (the party actually attacked is free to do so) but may very well watch the treaty partner's borders while they do so.
Directed Alliance - Full alliance, but only for the purpose of defeating a specific third party and, perhaps, its full allies. In a HoI2 context, probably wouldn't share blueprints.
Check here for my own case against the alliance system as it now stands, which also includes some enhancement suggestions if the existing coalition system is in fact kept.
I would greatly appreciate if someone explained to me why the existing coalition system was deemed a good idea for the various Paradox games, because I just don't see it.
Upvote
0