Simpl-ish solution to the problem of Great Powers "avoiding" each other

[sr999]

(In reference to https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...hat-about-destroying-all-of-carthage.1413598/) [EDIT: just noticed that the thread has a second page, in which @curtadams had the same idea]

It is submitted that, per se, this is WAD. Post-Alexander/Diadochi, the great powers really were never very interested in fighting anyone who seriously could hurt them. Until Caesar's time, even Rome was content with peaceful domination unless provoked.

But this is the point. What the IR design may overlook is the historical manipulation by third parties to provoke such conflicts between the great powers .

Q: what is the common factor that typically brought Rome into conflict with other great powers - such as Carthage and the Seleucids?
A: minor allies - such as Saguntum and Pergamon.

So perhaps the solution to all the referenced problems (of fighting and land-taking) might be found in the introduction of two small historical tweaks to the AI:

1. to the alliance / guarantee system as follows. If a small tag has a CB against it from a larger tag, then
   1. other larger tags could be incentivized to guarantee them of their own accord; and
   2. the small tag could get a bonus in procuring alliances with tags larger than itself.
2. to peace settlement preferences as follows. All things being equal (claims/AE cost etc) the AI could be tweaked to prefer cutting down the clay of the largest opponent(s) available (doesn't matter if released, transferred to allies, or taken by the deciding tag itself).

This approach is intended dynamically to model an historically effective divide et impera strategy to first contain potential threats, then weaken them for the future. It thus fits the Roman "line in the sand" policy ** to halt expansion of potential rivals, and models the "accidental" creation of the Republican Roman empire.

(It also might be a less clunky substitute for, or work in harmony with, any additional introduction of a major new "rivalry" mechanic, as is often suggested).

** as literally(!) drawn in the sand when one of the Antiochi visited Rome. (unsure if this is the origin of the "line in the sand" phrase!)

 

[AggaWackTan]

An excellent idea. Really historically authentic and adds an extra layer of dynamic tact.

Some questions about the implementation though.
-Would this halt large empires from forming as they surround themselves with guaranteed nations/ tributaries? Or does this mean they can grow through absorbing nations?
-Who declares war? Is it the small nation with the guarantor backing them as a preemptive strike or is it the large aggressive nation with the CB? Or is it either can?
-Who becomes the war leader to decided the outcome of the peace deal?

Rome was always the dominant ally and guarantor especially in the examples used (Sagunton & Pergamon). I don't think they're are many examples of a guaranteed nation winning land with Rome backing them up. The alliances are very different to the timescale of EU4 and that alliance system. I think a system like this should mean a small monarchy is giving up a large amount of freedom if they looked for Rome's protection and any growth in land would cause resentment in the guarantor unless feudatory/ client state status was imposed.

A swathe of CB's could be introduced on behalf of guarantor to simulate their growing influence (demand client state status) following a war. Eg. Rome allies small city state of Pergamon. This alliance is between a major and minor power so the major power becomes the war leader (but the minor power can still separate peace but doing this creates a CB for the guarantor). Antiginoids attack as Pergamon previously broke free in a rebellion. Rome sends an army to attack Antigonids army while Pergamon sieges all Western Anatolia and seperate peaces leading to huge expansion. This seperate piece of a minor power that dragged Rome into a war gives Rome a CB to demand client state status on Pergamon. It also triggers an event that allows Pergamon to decide to submit peacefully.

 

[sr999]

An excellent idea. Really historically authentic and adds an extra layer of dynamic tact.

Some questions about the implementation though.
-Would this halt large empires from forming as they surround themselves with guaranteed nations/ tributaries? Or does this mean they can grow through absorbing nations?
-Who declares war? Is it the small nation with the guarantor backing them as a preemptive strike or is it the large aggressive nation with the CB? Or is it either can?
-Who becomes the war leader to decided the outcome of the peace deal?

Rome was always the dominant ally and guarantor especially in the examples used (Sagunton & Pergamon). I don't think they're are many examples of a guaranteed nation winning land with Rome backing them up. The alliances are very different to the timescale of EU4 and that alliance system. I think a system like this should mean a small monarchy is giving up a large amount of freedom if they looked for Rome's protection and any growth in land would cause resentment in the guarantor unless feudatory/ client state status was imposed.

A swathe of CB's could be introduced on behalf of guarantor to simulate their growing influence (demand client state status) following a war. Eg. Rome allies small city state of Pergamon. This alliance is between a major and minor power so the major power becomes the war leader (but the minor power can still separate peace but doing this creates a CB for the guarantor). Antiginoids attack as Pergamon previously broke free in a rebellion. Rome sends an army to attack Antigonids army while Pergamon sieges all Western Anatolia and seperate peaces leading to huge expansion. This seperate piece of a minor power that dragged Rome into a war gives Rome a CB to demand client state status on Pergamon. It also triggers an event that allows Pergamon to decide to submit peacefully.

Thanks for your comments!

On your very pertinent questions:
"-Would this halt large empires from forming as they surround themselves with guaranteed nations/ tributaries? Or does this mean they can grow through absorbing nations?"
I see this historically as primarily originating with the smaller nations seeking guarantees. So, in respect of your thoughtful observation, perhaps instigation of such a guarantee might be limited to tags seeking it - initially. In other words, see how it plays out. Balance is important!

"-Who declares war? Is it the small nation with the guarantor backing them as a preemptive strike or is it the large aggressive nation with the CB? Or is it either can?"
Historically Rome was thoroughly "played" a few times by its eastern "allies" (which weren't really allies at all in the modern sense!), especially the Rhodians who would flatteringly emphasize their virtues as a fellow republic, and the Attalids who were just very good at exploiting the visceral Roman hatred of kings. The Romans were often slow to figure out they'd been played. For example a lot of crazy black propaganda (right up there with WW2 German paratroopers dropping dressed as nuns and bayoneting infants) successfully was circulated in Rome about various enemies (most notably the Seleucids). Those who circulated it would then exploit this by creating a provocation that would either get their enemy to declare war on them, or at least respond in a way they could paint as being bullied and run to Big Brother Rome. So in theory, either of your options would do - but it seems a bit risky for the guarantee system unless we make it a special type of guarantee (ie those solicited by the smaller tag get a special mechanic and maybe change its name), which might be a step too far initially... Of course with a full formal alliance, it might be different. Perhaps make the requirements for soliciting a full alliance much harder than that for soliciting a guarantee?

"-Who becomes the war leader to decided the outcome of the peace deal?"
The bigger tag every time, if it arises from a guarantee... just as Rome always called the shots in the peace deal as well as during the war (this was sometimes amusing at sea, where the Romans only rarely had much idea what they were doing compared to their allies, and at times won battles more through pure dumb luck rather than from any skill). But it might be wise in such wars to make the bigger tag prefer to demand the release of land rather than transfer to anyone (by the end of the war the Romans often had wised up to their allies' manipulations, and in any event didn't want to allow anyone else expansion to become a new threat at the price of Roman dead). Such an approach arguably would minimize exploits, with the advantage of being historical.

On your final comments, (from experience) I think such a mechanic initially should be tried out in as simple a form as possible. See how the balancing works out, as well as the historicity. Then it could be tweaked a bit further...