The dark side of the rivalry system.

[Revan F]

Hi all.

The first time i play EU IV I was greatly pleased with the rivalry system, pushing you to act against your rival etc.

However, the more i play, the more i note some defaults in this system.

It's not that the piracy system are OP (avan if I think it is but it's not the subject).

The fact is, i rarely see the AI de-rivalize sombody, especially the player, even if the strategic situation drastically change. When th AI rivalize you, it's for all the game period, no discussion allowed.
So I never see dramatic diplomatic shifting, like, for example, Spain which start at France's greatest rival became one of it's closest allies, or the diplomatic fest between War of Austrian succession and seven-years war. Simply because you can't talk with your rival and rival never, or rarely changes.

To conclude : EU IV lacks (IMO) the "Ennemy of my ennemy" dimension.

You can say "Hey man : there is the coalition system to do that", OK, be honnest : How many times did you see a coalition against a great power which is not the player? I never saw one. But i can be wrong (indeed, i hope to be wrong).

 

[Wizzington]

This is something I want to improve on. The problem is getting the balance right so we're not back in the early patches where the AI would just switch rivals at the drop of a hat.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Is there a light side to the rivalry system ? You still have cases where despite having 3 nations rival you, you can't select more than 1-2 rivals, making the patch notes for rivalry remain inaccurate ever since the change was implemented, literally the entire existence of the current implementation :/.

 

[MeatPirate]

You can say "Hey man : there is the coalition system to do that", OK, be honnest : How many times did you see a coalition against a great power which is not the player? I never saw one. But i can be wrong (indeed, i hope to be wrong).

Coalitions against AI are relatively common, but are mostly irrelevant (often just a single nation getting stomped). I've joined medium-sized coalitions against the AI before, but they are rare because offending nations are usually lucky and get AE reduction. This is probably the single worst lucky nation perk. I really don't mind the +1 ruler stats or even +1 shock/fire compared to the AE reduction.

I don't mind so much that the AI doesn't remove rivalries, I really don't either now that it costs.

Overall, I think I would reduce the derival DIP cost and lower the available rival restrictions a bit to broaden everyone's pools. Oh, and fix the "can always rival your enemy" thing because that is still not 100% working. Then I'd be in a somewhat happy state with the rival system.

 

[Revan F]

Overall, I think I would reduce the derival DIP cost and lower the available rival restrictions a bit to broaden everyone's pools. Oh, and fix the "can always rival your enemy" thing because that is still not 100% working. Then I'd be in a somewhat happy state with the rival system.

A good suggestion. I would also add a possibility to unrival free of DIP cost if someone of your dynasty came on the throne of a rival (another problem : IRL there was Royal Marriages even between "rivals", to ensure a peace treaty mostly).

But it still make the diplomatic game a matter of "hereditary ennemes", which is a late ninteenth - twentieth century point of wiew rather than a matter of strategic interest.

 

[Wizzington]

Is there a light side to the rivalry system ? You still have cases where despite having 3 nations rival you, you can't select more than 1-2 rivals, making the patch notes for rivalry remain inaccurate ever since the change was implemented, literally the entire existence of the current implementation :/.

This shouldn't happen, so please provide a save so I can take a look.

 

[DominusNovus]

This shouldn't happen, so please provide a save so I can take a look.

I'm away from the computer I play on, but I just want to confirm that that still happened to me all the time, even at the latest patch.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This shouldn't happen, so please provide a save so I can take a look.

I can do so when I get home, I should be able to find a few just offhand unfortunately.

 

[matk]

You can say "Hey man : there is the coalition system to do that", OK, be honnest : How many times did you see a coalition against a great power which is not the player? I never saw one. But i can be wrong (indeed, i hope to be wrong).

I regularly see large coalitions against the greatest of powers such as Cologne, Bavaria, Milan, Brunswick and Saxony. These menaces to world freedom must be stopped!

 

[Freudia]

I regularly see large coalitions against the greatest of powers such as Cologne, Bavaria, Milan, Brunswick and Saxony. These menaces to world freedom must be stopped!

My favorite coalition that seems to regularly occur in my games is the one against East Frisia.

 

[Wizzington]

Lack of coalitions against AI powers has less to do with lucky reduction, more to do with the fact that the AI doesn't expand that quickly. Coalitions in HRE are common due to the very high AE there. If you pace yourself you won't get large coalitions either.

 

[shoki]

woudn't it be possible to make the rival modifier dinamical?
So for example you start at -75 as it is now and if you fight an enemy of the one who rivaled you you get a positive opinion modifier of +10 to it (for white peace), so you will end with -65. If you release some nations or give cores back you'll get more. If you take provinces for yourself you won't get anything ofc or get a negativ modifier.
If you are at 0 it is possible that the rival changes his rivalry.

Just a quick brainstorm from me :>

 

[josh127]

Lack of coalitions against AI powers has less to do with lucky reduction, more to do with the fact that the AI doesn't expand that quickly. Coalitions in HRE are common due to the very high AE there. If you pace yourself you won't get large coalitions either.

Since it's not an issue, the AE impact can be removed from the AI handicap then? :wub:

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Since it's not an issue, the AE impact can be removed from the AI handicap then? :wub:

But that would expose it to 60 AE from taking 3 provinces and get it a 15 nation coalition .

Lack of coalitions against AI powers has less to do with lucky reduction, more to do with the fact that the AI doesn't expand that quickly. Coalitions in HRE are common due to the very high AE there. If you pace yourself you won't get large coalitions either.

Why not let manpower and money do the pacing? Why create an arbitrary + artificial constraint on a mechanic that would be much better served not as a "dogpile on Tuscany with 4 provinces" mechanic, but one that actually works on balance of power and containing runaways?

It's pretty junky that a nation will join a coalition against another nation that just beat up its rival...and combine arms with their rival against said nation, despite that their rival is actually still markedly larger than the offender...and return cores to their rival in the peace deal. That's not rational play. It is, however, standard play from the AI right now, even in some AI-AI situations.

 

[josh127]

But that would expose it to 60 AE from taking 3 provinces and get it a 15 nation coalition .

Wiz just said that the coalitions don't form against an AI because of the pace the AI expands, not because of AE discounts. Therefore, since the AE discounts aren't doing much it stands to reason they can be removed for AI bonuses and Lucky Nations.

Well, maybe they should be left for AI Bonuses, since I would guess someone needing player bonuses on would probably need that.

 

[Thrake]

Lack of coalitions against AI powers has less to do with lucky reduction, more to do with the fact that the AI doesn't expand that quickly. Coalitions in HRE are common due to the very high AE there. If you pace yourself you won't get large coalitions either.

Overall, the AI doesn't expands very aggressively indeed. That said, even when it does, it hardly ever triggers a coalition. Ottomans almost annexing the Mamlukes in 3 wars triggered a coalition made of... The Mamlukes. There's also the common occurences of both France and Austria happily annexing anything beetween both of them with no coalition at all, yet that's HRE lands.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Wiz just said that the coalitions don't form against an AI because of the pace the AI expands, not because of AE discounts. Therefore, since the AE discounts aren't doing much it stands to reason they can be removed for AI bonuses and Lucky Nations.

Well, maybe they should be left for AI Bonuses, since I would guess someone needing player bonuses on would probably need that.

I believe Wiz's reasoning have similar utility to his assertion of province war score scaling for large nations. Technically a factor, but nothing near the in-practice effect implied.

Considering that taking 2 provinces from a nation outside the HRE will typically give ~30AE with it (more if caught fabricating claims too), taking 3 with HRE multipliers would give years worth of AE large enough for coalitions throughout the HRE. However, -25% AE impact tanks this really hard. It's worth nothing that a player would have to run 2 separate idea groups and take a policy to match that -AE.

From a value standpoint, it's right up there with the boosted monarch stats and leader shock/fire, and from an idea group standpoint arguably stronger than the latter (which requires only offensive to match).

A good workaround is to force the AI to take unjustified demands, but it's hard to apply in practice.

 

[DicRoNero]

Lack of coalitions against AI powers has less to do with lucky reduction.

But the impact is huge, given how the bonuses are applied. You get -20% from prestige+influence, and adding another 25% on top of that means a Lucky nation can conquer (80)/(80-25)= 1.45 times as much, i.e. 29 basetax instead of 20 before facing the same consequences.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Mostly what I get annoyed at is sudden bursts of opinion loss from desired provinces and the game giving you missions to boost relations, get royal marriages, or alliances with nations that have rivalry or hostile attitudes towards you. You can't possibly complete this stuff, why does it get suggested?

Game start has England with -200 opinion on Scotland for desired provinces, and the mission to get into India can give -70 for one province alone between long time allies if both are great powers.

 

[RobRoy3]

I'm away from the computer I play on, but I just want to confirm that that still happened to me all the time, even at the latest patch.

Yeah, I get this frequently, too. Not sure if I can put my hands on a save file, but I assumed it was a known issue.

IIRC, it seems to me that it happens when a rival becomes no longer valid during a war. Even after the war ends, and even if you have 5+ nations that are eligible rivals, you (sometimes) don't have the third shield available to select a third rival. You can change rivals in the first two, but you can't add the third.

I'm pretty sure the situation resolves itself, eventually, but it can take decades. Monarch death might be what fixes it.