Please can we have a patch to look at the diplomacy in game? The diplomacy is so odd sometimes when the AI calculates wars it wants to fight. Why does every war become a world war? Why does every single allied nation of an enemy want to kick my head in over a trade dispute, why does my long term ally decide to ally my obvious rival AND THEN DECIDE TO CHOOSE THEM OVER ME!?
it's so frustrating that the AI doesn't know how to deal with alliances and wars. Not every war needs to be a world war. Most wars were at most a handful of battles/skirmishes and then largely nothing. Even the 100 years war was more just a handful of battles spanning a century. There is no reason why multiple factions need to be involved in every single war and drag them out.
Exhibit A
Let's say we're playing as England and we have a trade dispute with the netherlands. Let's say they are allied with a few german states or are part of the HRE. We can't declare war because their entire alliance network will join in for NO REASON meaning the war is dragged out for many years and their allied provinces (in land) drag down the warscare because you can't occupy them without committing to a full scale invasion. There is ZERO reason a trade war should descend into a full blown continental war, what do in land german states have to do with this? why do they care? This scenario is too common and effectively makes it a pointless CB because the costs outweigh positives. I can spend half my manpower and income to fight a war for at most 10 years slightly increased trade.
Exhibit B
We're playing as Castile in this instance, allied to Portugal and have taken Aragon in a PU. Time to expand and finish the reconquista, Yaaay. Oh wait no my long term ally from the start of the game who I have 200 relations and a historical freindship with have decided to ally the ONLY muslim nation in Iberia for no reason. They could conquer it but nope they've allied. To make things worse they will even go to war with ME to defend them. WHY? THIS MAKES NO SENSE. Why would a Catholic nation who we have marriages and an alliance with side with a random ally who they should by all rights hate. Now I have to either fight a war against a major ally and waste resources or start again. Thanks AI.
Again, not every war is a world war. The major problem is that its a clear you either join the war or the alliance breaks. This effectively forces the AI to the majority of the time to join regardless of the reason. We need tiered CB's, we shouldn't have one set CB diplomacy hit.
For example when we declare Trade war CB we should be able to do so with the knowledge that this is a largely trivial dispute in the grand scheme of the world, in many cases actually armies wont even see battle and it'll largely be a blockade. The AI should be able to see it's a trade war and not a major CB such as an attempt to subjugate and not bother involving themselves.
Clearly more serious CB's such as subjugate, conquer provinces, nationalism etc should merit a strong response. This is where you'd expect large scale wars such as the Napoleonic war. Not Germans bordering Austria throwing themselves into a meat grinder to defend Dutch fisherman.
Really more smaller scale and short wars would be preferable as this is more like what happened. Rulers didn't want to send men and resources to fight in wars not in their interests.
We also need the historical rivalry and friendship modifiers to be more dyanmic. We should be able to remain allied with nations for a long period and have intertwined royal families and gain this to reflect our shared history. The same goes for rivalries, someone we've been at war with multiple times should be seen as a natural enemy. Fighting in wars with allies should be more dynamic and fluid, it's so frustrating and also quite depressing that the AI who you've gone above and beyond for just breaks their alliance and will actively fight you to the death for no reason because they just decided to ally with a OPM after centuries of friendship.
Please look into the diplomacy system and take feedback from players as it's so limited currently.
it's so frustrating that the AI doesn't know how to deal with alliances and wars. Not every war needs to be a world war. Most wars were at most a handful of battles/skirmishes and then largely nothing. Even the 100 years war was more just a handful of battles spanning a century. There is no reason why multiple factions need to be involved in every single war and drag them out.
Exhibit A
Let's say we're playing as England and we have a trade dispute with the netherlands. Let's say they are allied with a few german states or are part of the HRE. We can't declare war because their entire alliance network will join in for NO REASON meaning the war is dragged out for many years and their allied provinces (in land) drag down the warscare because you can't occupy them without committing to a full scale invasion. There is ZERO reason a trade war should descend into a full blown continental war, what do in land german states have to do with this? why do they care? This scenario is too common and effectively makes it a pointless CB because the costs outweigh positives. I can spend half my manpower and income to fight a war for at most 10 years slightly increased trade.
Exhibit B
We're playing as Castile in this instance, allied to Portugal and have taken Aragon in a PU. Time to expand and finish the reconquista, Yaaay. Oh wait no my long term ally from the start of the game who I have 200 relations and a historical freindship with have decided to ally the ONLY muslim nation in Iberia for no reason. They could conquer it but nope they've allied. To make things worse they will even go to war with ME to defend them. WHY? THIS MAKES NO SENSE. Why would a Catholic nation who we have marriages and an alliance with side with a random ally who they should by all rights hate. Now I have to either fight a war against a major ally and waste resources or start again. Thanks AI.
Again, not every war is a world war. The major problem is that its a clear you either join the war or the alliance breaks. This effectively forces the AI to the majority of the time to join regardless of the reason. We need tiered CB's, we shouldn't have one set CB diplomacy hit.
For example when we declare Trade war CB we should be able to do so with the knowledge that this is a largely trivial dispute in the grand scheme of the world, in many cases actually armies wont even see battle and it'll largely be a blockade. The AI should be able to see it's a trade war and not a major CB such as an attempt to subjugate and not bother involving themselves.
Clearly more serious CB's such as subjugate, conquer provinces, nationalism etc should merit a strong response. This is where you'd expect large scale wars such as the Napoleonic war. Not Germans bordering Austria throwing themselves into a meat grinder to defend Dutch fisherman.
Really more smaller scale and short wars would be preferable as this is more like what happened. Rulers didn't want to send men and resources to fight in wars not in their interests.
We also need the historical rivalry and friendship modifiers to be more dyanmic. We should be able to remain allied with nations for a long period and have intertwined royal families and gain this to reflect our shared history. The same goes for rivalries, someone we've been at war with multiple times should be seen as a natural enemy. Fighting in wars with allies should be more dynamic and fluid, it's so frustrating and also quite depressing that the AI who you've gone above and beyond for just breaks their alliance and will actively fight you to the death for no reason because they just decided to ally with a OPM after centuries of friendship.
Please look into the diplomacy system and take feedback from players as it's so limited currently.
- 5
- 1
- 1
Upvote
0
