The automatic call to arms was a REALLY bad idea

[EviLine]

So I'm a Duke of Lombardy and a single count rebelled against me after my failed attempt to imprison him. He has less than 1k soldiers, easy prey right? So I send my army to siege his crib. But this automatic alliance system makes my wife to send 5000+ stack to help me. I don't need any help and I didn't ask for it! This 5k stack is a real drain on her budget and she goes bankrupt.

Guess what? Now she has a rebellion on her hands and now I am called into her war. This is beyond stupid.

 

[Robert II]

Yep just a horrible change. I doubt anyone can really argue that this was an improvement to the game in any way.

Any not Amy Damn you to hell autocorrect.

 

[Sobisonator]

I agree wholeheartedly. The prestige hit was good enough. There's no realism or gameplay reason for this change to remain in the game.

 

[EviLine]

And why can't A.I. compare basic numbers? The enemy has 1k levy, she as my ally has 5k+, why can't she send me 2k instead of all of her army?

 

[jere8184]

And why can't A.I. compare basic numbers? The enemy has 1k levy, she as my ally has 5k+, why can't she send me 2k instead of all of her army?

yes this is needed so babdly

 

[naisel]

I agree, and unlike the other changes this is unmoddable, this is the reason why I'm stuck in 2.4.5.

Edit: Silversweeper is proving me wrong, there seems to be a way to mod it back in, which I find a great news

It isn't a simple yes/no in the defines though.

 

[VladPrus]

New allliace system is just stupid. Yo can attack your ally, but you can't atack someone with non-agression pact. Automatic call to arms is also stupid. Previous system was immersive and nearly perfect.

 

[Kollatius]

Or... you could... just... not make alliances...

 

[EviLine]

Or... you could... just... not make alliances...

LOL, I made an Alliance because it's beneficial for both of us to protect ourselves from the Kaiser. That's a real threat.

Please, don't defend a stupid system, just don't. Because I can ally the Kaiser and he'll send me a 30k doomstack around the world to help me defeat this baron. Lulz.

 

[Kollatius]

LOL, I made an Alliance because it's beneficial for both of us to protect ourselves from the Kaiser. That's a real threat.

Please, don't defend a stupid system, just don't. Because I can ally the Kaiser and he'll send me a 30k doomstack around the world to help me defeat this baron. Lulz.

... If you hadn't put "lulz" on the end I might have taken you seriously...

 

[orochi2k]

The only usage of this forced ally system is to counter something as stupid as allies itself which is now called "defense pack".
Now we can easily see world war scale conflicts even in 900 when ERE + HRE + Those 2 Muslin Empires I Forgot Their Names formed "Allies of United Empires" V.S "Defense Pack of Everybody Else". They are fighting for some small duchies every 10 years. Guess, we can take it as a Heart Of Iron game now.

And no, you cannot even see something like this in EU4 unless Paradox suddenly killed the diplomatic limit ,

 

[EviLine]

... If you hadn't put "lulz" on the end I might have taken you seriously...

O.K. Serious mode on. See, previously if you call someone into war, they would get a -25 opinion penalty to you. That's not bad, because you had a +30, because of marriage ties. So you can call your ally into war once and still have a +5 overall. But you may think really hard about calling him into war the next time.

Now your ally has no opinion penalties towards you. As Navarra I can ally let's say France, DOW Aragon and observe France and Aragon fight, while doing nothing, just collecting land, and watch France implode. And then DOW Castille and have no opinion penalties from the King of France, while he fights for me again.

Also, I don't need help to take out some count or even a petty baron as a Duke or King. Would King of England call the King of France to help him siege down a single castle? No. And even if he did, would King of France respond to the invitation with 20k doomstack, call his navy, embark his whole army and sail to England to siege down a single castle? No. Unless he's a lunatic. And then King of England would probably not allow him ashore, fearing an invasion.

 

[TropeSage]

I agree wholeheartedly. The prestige hit was good enough. There's no realism or gameplay reason for this change to remain in the game.

Not that the current system is great but; I always got the impression that nobody really cared about a prestige hit. If your feudal/itqa you're just losing a minor opinion bonus. While tribes and nomads can actually use prestige for things, they can just get it back with raiding. As for merchant republics it's really only useful if your character is running for doge.

 

[EviLine]

Not that the current system is great but; I always got the impression that nobody really cared about a prestige hit. If your feudal/itqa you're just losing a minor opinion bonus. While tribes and nomads can actually use prestige for things, they can just get it back with raiding. As for merchant republics it's really only useful if your character is running for doge.

I think it should not be a prestige penalty, but a a pretty severe opinion penalty from the guy/gal you betrayed. Also there may be a trait added - "Dishonored Alliance" with a penalty towards you from everyone.

One more thing, you should be able to send money to your ally if you can't/don't want to send your army, so he could hire mercs or pay his soldiers for longer.

 

[Donelloth]

There's no reason the system couldn't be to force your allies to join wars you call them into if you should decide to call. There is certainly a middle ground here. You'd just need to make it so you can't dissolve an alliance if either party is at war so players couldn't dissolve the alliance as soon as they noticed the war notification.

I don't so much mind having to honor a call myself but bankrupting your allies because the AI can't handle its finances seems similarly wrong.

I'm surprised they hit financial problems. Income has been high since conclave. Takes effort to go into the red.

 

[Zolotaya]

Anything in the middle is too exploitable.

 

[RforRush]

Maybe this is bad mechanic, but I disagree that prestige hit was good. Because it was complete nonsense. There should be at least 2000 prestige loss for declining emperor call to arms, 1500 king etc. And add prestige reduction every month for not helping at the top.

 

[danurban]

I agree wholeheartedly. The prestige hit was good enough. There's no realism or gameplay reason for this change to remain in the game.

I kinda like the fact that your allies cannot refuse the call to arms however they still should have made it optional and not mandatory; if you do call them they have to come but you don't have to call them if you don't need to.

 

[Robert II]

Maybe this is bad mechanic, but I disagree that prestige hit was good. Because it was complete nonsense. There should be at least 2000 prestige loss for declining emperor call to arms, 1500 king etc. And add prestige reduction every month for not helping at the top.

Why so much? I know I said I'll help to the person it's more if a neighbour attacks them. I'm not sending my levies to invade Armenia for them.

 

[joeBurn]

This is one of the worst changes in conclave...arguments like you shouldnt form alliances are just absurd. You should surely be able to have a choice. I will just copy R'hllor post on this issue, I couldnt put it any better:

First off, automated call to arms. It is by far the worst change in the patch. I've covered the problems in detail before, but I will do it again. First, I don't want every single one of my allies in every single war, and I don't want a suffering ally to get destroyed because their army was creating attrition for me when I'm taking a county on the other side of the continent. Second, I don't want to get dragged into wars if I'm in civil war or getting invaded myself. If I have a good reason, and even if I don't, I should be able to decline (with properly big penalties). And third, I might want to screw my allies and join their attacker. This is a dynasty simulator, so I should be able to betray and be betrayed. And to make this even worse, the old manual call to arms, even with their lack of consequenses, still portrayed the reality of the time period immensely better than this current system. I can see no legitimate reasoning for removing choice in such a terrible way.