The restrictions to changes of war leader in v1.8 have reduced the Defensive strength of Enforce Peace, DotF, Warnings, Guarantees, & even Alliances.
IMO this has overall been a positive re-balance to the game making it easier to assess the initial scope of offensive wars*. If it is easier for the player to do so, then it follows that it is the same for the AI. It presumably makes it less likely that the AI will start rash wars that it is unlikely to win.
*The primary defensive re-balance appears to be the comparative ease in defenders bringing in new allies after commencement of a war.
Despite the introduction of a minimum war length, minor states are even more vulnerable to predatory neighbours than prior to v1.8. IMO they are no longer really worth being allied or guaranteed by a larger state, as this is now only likely to delay their inevitable demise, rather than prevent it... and is not worth the ongoing expenditure of a Diplomatic Relationship in almost all circumstances.
My first thought was that a guarantee from a larger power SHOULD still allow a change of defensive war-leader... But this would negate the positive benefits to player & AI offensive war planning brought in by v1.8, & it would be difficult to justify when not available to Allies, Enforce Peace, DotF etc.
Therefore I suggest that guarantees (like warnings) should NOT cost a diplomatic relationship.
Arguably they might be restricted to being given ONLY to minor states (i.e. those that could be annexed for 100% WS), & ONLY by larger states that cannot be so easily annexed. Perhaps a small one-off cost in Diplomatic MPs might be levied on the guarantor, as unrestricted guarantees would be more effective than giving Warnings to potential predators.
This measure would encourage more guaranteeing of minor states, making it much more likely that minor states would have more than one guarantee, in addition to any other legitimate allies.
Any thoughts please?
IMO this has overall been a positive re-balance to the game making it easier to assess the initial scope of offensive wars*. If it is easier for the player to do so, then it follows that it is the same for the AI. It presumably makes it less likely that the AI will start rash wars that it is unlikely to win.
*The primary defensive re-balance appears to be the comparative ease in defenders bringing in new allies after commencement of a war.
Despite the introduction of a minimum war length, minor states are even more vulnerable to predatory neighbours than prior to v1.8. IMO they are no longer really worth being allied or guaranteed by a larger state, as this is now only likely to delay their inevitable demise, rather than prevent it... and is not worth the ongoing expenditure of a Diplomatic Relationship in almost all circumstances.
My first thought was that a guarantee from a larger power SHOULD still allow a change of defensive war-leader... But this would negate the positive benefits to player & AI offensive war planning brought in by v1.8, & it would be difficult to justify when not available to Allies, Enforce Peace, DotF etc.
Therefore I suggest that guarantees (like warnings) should NOT cost a diplomatic relationship.
Arguably they might be restricted to being given ONLY to minor states (i.e. those that could be annexed for 100% WS), & ONLY by larger states that cannot be so easily annexed. Perhaps a small one-off cost in Diplomatic MPs might be levied on the guarantor, as unrestricted guarantees would be more effective than giving Warnings to potential predators.
This measure would encourage more guaranteeing of minor states, making it much more likely that minor states would have more than one guarantee, in addition to any other legitimate allies.
Any thoughts please?
Last edited:
