glad to hear!!!! The staticity of the rivalry system is awful... we would be better without it alltogether
The dark side of the rivalry system.
- Thread starter Revan F
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
glad to hear!!!! The staticity of the rivalry system is awful... we would be better without it alltogether
I can confirm this. I removed the AE reduction for lucky nations to test and it did not change anything except for the Ottomans
I find this hard to believe with France conquering all of Savoy and most of Northern Italy basically every game by 1600, unless the player messes with them. If a player did that militarily, there'd be a coalition, and a pretty big one at that. Also, i've seen both Ming and *Japan* provoke coalitions throughout southeast and/or east asia on occasionally. Leads me to believe we'd see a lot more anti-France coalitions if it wasn't for the -AE reduction.
But if they don't need it, then take it away so they actually face diplomatic reprisal when they should.
Also, make the AI more aggressive. Part of what makes the game so easy is the AI is too passive. Then losing the -AE modifier would matter more.
Most likely, yes, though I'd have to test the impacts of such a change.
I'm pretty sure I'll be able to consistently forge a coalition CB on Muscovy (as Bohemia, for instance) without this kind of a bonus. Atm Russian minors rarely see a threat coming even after Novgorod is crushed to the hell and back and loses like 6 provinces in the very first war. And coalition CB at the right time is simply game-changing.
yea, i kicked castille out of spain (ok so i left them the canaries), they now have a few provinces in africa, a 34 land force limit, and france is still able to keep them a rival when their force limit is in the low 200's, i'm thinking something wonky with the calculation of strength from the 2 colonies they have, one of them stronger than they are
also up until france finally annexed burgundy, they were also able to keep them with just 2 provinces as a rival (antwerpen and another high BT tax dutch one, but still)
i was until recently weaker than france, and i got messages 30, and 60 years ago respectively that castille and burgundy were no longer valid rivals
also up until france finally annexed burgundy, they were also able to keep them with just 2 provinces as a rival (antwerpen and another high BT tax dutch one, but still)
i was until recently weaker than france, and i got messages 30, and 60 years ago respectively that castille and burgundy were no longer valid rivals
That would be because European Christians in Europe basically never care about countries that conquer Arab Muslims in Asia and Africa.
This is a problem caused by mutual rivals never invalidating because someone who's rivalling you is always a valid rival. It's fixed in 1.8.
That would be awesome!
Although, I have posted in other threads, and I feel the same about this that it is not earth shattering and I'd hate for you to force it in if it takes away from other things you're working on for the patch. I know you don't need my permission for that, but just wanted to make sure anyone else reading those posts and this one doesn't feel I'm being a hypocrite (at least not for this reason
)
It did cripple only the Ottomans, Muscowy did not have coalitions likely because her enemies are all different cultures and religions. France was actually favored by it because castille and Austria became immobile.
The key here is by 1600. That's a really easy thing to pull off, the AE from annexing a few provinces will go away in about 20 years or so, and then you can do it again. 1444-1600 is about 14 such wars, easily letting you take like 70 provinces.
That would be awesome!
Although, I have posted in other threads, and I feel the same about this that it is not earth shattering and I'd hate for you to force it in if it takes away from other things you're working on for the patch. I know you don't need my permission for that, but just wanted to make sure anyone else reading those posts and this one doesn't feel I'm being a hypocrite (at least not for this reason
Even if I change it, it probably won't be for 1.8 just to be clear. But I wouldn't mind axing it in the future if it proves unnecessary.
I think the rivalry system is fundamentally flawed. The problem is, that while, there is some reason to the beginning of the rivalry, once that issue is resolved, the rivalry continues just because it is there.
I think there is a better way to achieve what rivalry system achieves -- scrap the rivalry system altogether and have an "Ambitions" system where each country would be able to designate several "ambitions". These ambitions could be something like:
- Have most powerful army/navy in the region
- Be the most dominant trade power in the region
- Be dominant country in the HRE
- Desire control of specific province/region
- Be most powerful country of a specific cultural group
- Be most dominant country in a colonial region or company zone
etc, etc. Country could have more than one ambition, depends on balance. The scope of the ambitions could be based on the present capabilities of the country. As country grows more powerful, their ambitious could become more and more grand... at first, it could be just competition with local powers in local regions once you are powerful enough, it could be competition on a global level, etc.
So, this would mean that, if one or more country has the same objectives, they automatically become rivals. Once those countries stop having the same ambition, the rivalry automatically ends. The power projection system can also easily be tied up with this (based on how much ambition you have achieved etc)
After all, there are no permanent friends or foes in diplomacy. There are only permanent interests.
I think there is a better way to achieve what rivalry system achieves -- scrap the rivalry system altogether and have an "Ambitions" system where each country would be able to designate several "ambitions". These ambitions could be something like:
- Have most powerful army/navy in the region
- Be the most dominant trade power in the region
- Be dominant country in the HRE
- Desire control of specific province/region
- Be most powerful country of a specific cultural group
- Be most dominant country in a colonial region or company zone
etc, etc. Country could have more than one ambition, depends on balance. The scope of the ambitions could be based on the present capabilities of the country. As country grows more powerful, their ambitious could become more and more grand... at first, it could be just competition with local powers in local regions once you are powerful enough, it could be competition on a global level, etc.
So, this would mean that, if one or more country has the same objectives, they automatically become rivals. Once those countries stop having the same ambition, the rivalry automatically ends. The power projection system can also easily be tied up with this (based on how much ambition you have achieved etc)
After all, there are no permanent friends or foes in diplomacy. There are only permanent interests.
Seems like it should be thoroughly tested, then. The impact on France is probably marginal, but the AI Ottomans certainly don't need another nerf. They're fine in a players hands, but rarely become anything resembling their historical threat when controlled by the AI, particularly in more recent patches.
Those are basically just long term missions. I'm not sure that would really work well with the power projection system, and it doesn't address the reason why that system was created in the first place. The devs want there to be rivalry between nations, and they want something in place so that the AI doesn't ping pong around between being friendly, hostile, and a rival to other nations.
but why? I fail to see a long term rivalry that makes sense for 400 years, everyone was at war and the allied with one other during this period...
Obviously the current system has flaws, but the system that Tornado is suggesting brings back the ping pong issue from before where in a single year one nation could offer you an alliance, then dissolve it a few months later because you grabbed a province they wanted in a war, then re-offer you an alliance a few months after that because a third nation took their border province from them.
ah cool, not the biggest problem was just a bit annoying since i need to backstab france soon but because they only had 1 "true rival" for 100+ years they were able to keep more great power alliances than usual
Yeah, the challenge is making the AI break alliances/change rivalries in a sensible fashion. People rage quite enough that the AI dares have its own priorities even when it's actually being sensible about it.