Revanchism in Multiplayer

[Torrential]

Revanchism currently affects the entire losing alliance and provides each alliance member with its full bonuses irrespective of them having lost land in the war or not. This can lead to players joining an ally's war with the aim of losing it in order to maintain these bonuses and repeat this as desired.

This is a serious, potentially game breaking issue as the players exploiting this mechanic will be hard to track and will have a very significant advantage over those players that ignore this feature. Is this working as intended?

 

[Torrential]

I would like this to be clarified. Are we forced to accept alliance wide revanchism bonuses or can we expect this to be changed in a future patch?

 

[ringhloth]

Or you could just fight the war and have a stronger alliance than you started with? Intentionally losing wars is a bad idea, no matter what the benefit is.

 

[Torrential]

But you won't be "losing" anything in the war if you're merely an inactive participant.

 

[Pahvimato]

Or you could just fight the war and have a stronger alliance than you started with? Intentionally losing wars is a bad idea, no matter what the benefit is.

You are not actually losing anything, though. As an example, you could be playing France, and then ally Sweden. Russia DoW's Sweden, but you don't even attempt to help them out in that war. The war ends with Sweden giving away all of Finland to the Russians. You have lost absolutely nothing in this war - yet both you and Sweden get Revanchism. Sure, technically you lost the war, but you now have the Revanchism bonuses that you can use to beat up Austria in a war that actually matters to you.

Hope it's a bug.

 

[LordNeidhart]

Or you could just fight the war and have a stronger alliance than you started with? Intentionally losing wars is a bad idea, no matter what the benefit is.

Revanchism is supposed to help prop up losing states after a war.
It is currently allowing people who lose nothing to enjoy great bonuses for free.
Why willingly defend a broken system?

 

[ringhloth]

But you won't be "losing" anything in the war if you're merely an inactive participant.

You are not actually losing anything, though. As an example, you could be playing France, and then ally Sweden. Russia DoW's Sweden, but you don't even attempt to help them out in that war. The war ends with Sweden giving away all of Finland to the Russians. You have lost absolutely nothing in this war - yet both you and Sweden get Revanchism. Sure, technically you lost the war, but you now have the Revanchism bonuses that you can use to beat up Austria in a war that actually matters to you.

Hope it's a bug.

Compare to you just winning the war, where Sweden now gets a significant amount of Russian land, and one of your chief rivals is weakened and one of your now very trusting allies is now greatly strengthened. I'd much rather have a lasting ally and a weakened enemy than a small, 5-10 year bonus.

 

[Chaingun]

AFAIK only nations actually losing stuff in the war are supposed to be impacted, make bug report.

 

[BaddoSpirito]

Compare to you just winning the war, where Sweden now gets a significant amount of Russian land, and one of your chief rivals is weakened and one of your now very trusting allies is now greatly strengthened. I'd much rather have a lasting ally and a weakened enemy than a small, 5-10 year bonus.

Small? SMALL? Are we looking at the same numbers? Revanchism is arguably OP even without the entire alliance getting it.

 

[LordNeidhart]

AFAIK only nations actually losing stuff in the war are supposed to be impacted, make bug report.

A very sensible response, thank you.