if they change alliance or rival a lot withou reason, than it makes no sense, but if they do it to attack for example, or to weaken, or to shift alliance, then it makes sense
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.
if they change alliance or rival a lot withou reason, than it makes no sense, but if they do it to attack for example, or to weaken, or to shift alliance, then it makes sense
You know, after reading this comment, my first thought was that certain missions could give power projection (in small amounts):
- Protect against Austria (have equal or larger army)? + Power Projection (3? 5?).
- Fortify border? + PP.
- Conquer a port? + PP.
- Convert province culture? + PP.
ETC.
Thoughts?
The ping pong issue still exists, it just doesn't include rivalries anymore.
Problem is that what 'makes sense' isn't always apparent to the players.
Let them complain I guess? I mean we complain about everything, can complain about one more thing if it helps gameplay.
It needs to make sense based on a few things I guess:
1. threat: is the target nation becoming too large and a threat?
2. trade: is the target nation stealing trade money from the nation?
3. alliance: is the target nation ally with a nation I want to conquer?
4. conquest: do I want to conquer the target nation?
etc.
Yeah, the biggest impact on ping pong relations seem to be missions. I'd actually prefer them to be changed before rivalry/PP, since they regularly screw alliances out of the blue.
But then what you need is a more intricate system of opinions.
For example: Are you taking over a province in a war? You are bound to cause AE, but, may be certain countries which have claims and cores on that province (or have ambitions to take that province) will be more pissed off at you than other countries who have nothing to do with that particular province, but is merely concerned about your growing size.
This is very logical, and this is how it should be. And, if despite this warning, you still go ahead with the peace deal, then it totally makes sense for those countries to be pissed off at you (even if you are allied with them).
Should they re offer you alliance if you lose the province? Only if you haven't announced that you are going to retake that province again (by including it as your ambition). If it is part of your ambition then that country would still hate you, because now you both have the same conflicting goal, even if neither of you own that province.
If this is designed properly, you will not have ping-pong alliances, but lasting deep rivalries based on actual issues (such as contentious provinces in this instance) rather than by just selecting them as your rival in the diplomatic screen.
What I think that might be a good fix of rivals is to increase the 'enemy of my enemy' modifier to 150-200, this should mean that nations that have the same enemies become your 1.natural allies if you aren't rivals 2.possible allies if you are rivals.
that only increases the number of allies you can have and decreases the number of rivals you can have... for every positive in relations there must be a negative, i.e. in your case ally of the enemy should be also decreased to -150/-200
It might be better at this point to just take missions completely out.
It's just not a fun mechanic
no, because it's the only thing that, for example, forces BFFs Spain and France to break their alliance... it should be changed once other way to break alliances and change rivals are intorduced
...the game is already Hungry Hungry Hippo: the Strategy Game. More aggression means more or less getting to the "Always War" EU3 mod.
Wrong.
The mechanic is great flavor for the game and will hopefully never be removed. If anything, we need MORE missions to add MORE historical flavor to the game.
Could they alter a tag in the defines that disables certain missions depending on your diplomatic state? Sure. That would probably make me as a player want to ensure I keep good relations with a neighboring power.
The answer isn't removing missions, its improving them and adding PP to ones that are your rivals.
Only if Wiz isn't good at his job. (I'm in the "he is" camp)
If he is good at his job, the AI would consider the increased aggressiveness of other AI nations, which may cause it to forgo declaring wars or be more willing to end winning/losing wars sooner.
I do wish there were more meaningful missions, perhaps a good one for the HRE nations is ones to seek an elector to vote for you.
This may cause more issues for Austria if all the nations are grasping at electors and increasing relations with them.
This may cause more issues for Austria if all the nations are grasping at electors and increasing relations with them.
I often find that the AI has a tendency to be really stupid about the wars they do declare. Why they seem to think I'd be willing to back them up against the HRE or someone allied to one of my long term allies is beyond me.
It doesn't need to be more aggressive, it needs to be better at knowing when the time and place is to declare wars, and to be less reliant on allies answering alliances.
I have an idea similar to yours, where countries have grand, long-term ambitions, each of which is a basket of missions that help you accomplish that ambition. I envisage certain generic ambitions, like what you suggested, but there should also be historical ambitions. For example, France's mission would be to dominate Europe politically, and prevent the unification of the HRE. Novgorod/Muscovy/Russia's mission would be to expand till Kamchatka. Holland's ambition would be to be a dominant naval power, while Austria's ambition would be to have all the great powers of Europe either in a PU or with the same dynasty.
But I wouldn't want to scrap the rival system completely. While I find it way too static in its current iteration, there is historical precedent for long-term rivalries. Eg: England/Britain and France, or France and Spain, or France and Austria, or Bahmanis and Vijayanagar, or Persia and the Mughals, etc. What I would like is a timer for rivalries, probably based on the magnitude of the conflict in the ambitions/missions. If the ambitions are more regional in their character, then the rivalry exists for around 30 years (arbitrary number, but can be tweaked to get the right balance). For larger ambitions, like Britain's ambition of preventing a hegemon on the continent, the rivalry with France could last 200 years (again, arbitrary and requires tweaking). And the end of the rivalry can lead to a period of cool-down, probably designed as a ticking opinion-modifier titled "Former Rival" last for a couple of years.
Which is why it would be useful to have a system where there are both long-term and short-term missions. Thus, you can tweak AI behavior according to what ambition it has. Suddenly, allies wouldn't want that province I conquered in India simply because "AI behavior", but AI would actually check if wanting those provinces is consistent with its ambition(s) and would decide accordingly. Just a humble suggestion, of course.
In my ET Japan game I've spent a few centuries without a valid rival. First I'd get Parthia until I stomped them down, then Sarmatians, then Muscat and Byzantium. Then it'd be just Byzantium with Muscat becoming invalid. Muscat turned to Rashidun and I could rival them again until the next war when they became non-suitable. I eventually conquered them and forced PU on Byzantium and expanded into Russia. AI Austria spans from France to Italy to the Balkans. AI Spain controls Iberia. They both rivaled me, but I couldn't rival them back for about 200 years when suddenly I can rival Austria now, but not Spain.
I don't know if this is a mod issue (don't think Extended Timeline touches rival mechanics at all tbh) but this crops up constantly for me. Should I send in a save next time I see it?
How about something where rivals that are at peace for long enough slowly stop being rivals? Otherwise something for them simply not bothering each other long enough that the rivalry grows cold and eventually fades.