The Fundamental Problem with Coalitions (1.5)

[sunsterson]

Read my entire post.

The problem is not that they form quickly now for aggressive expansion.
The problem is the artificial barriers that prevent you from taking the spoils of war from a coalition.
Ex. 3 provinces after beating the largest coalition formed in history. The reason for this is no individual peace, 100% warscore being dumb, OE regardless of country size, coring time, and adm points.

NOTE, THESE ARE ARTIFICIAL THINGS AND WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED A COUNTRY FROM EXPANDING AFTER FROM BEATING A COALITION IN HISTORY.

and for those people who say coalitions stop you from expanding is WAD, my counter is why are you only allowed small peace deals after you beaten the counter to expansion? In life if you get rid of a limiting factor (coalitions) shouldn't the expansion be faster?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?757081-Why-Coalitions-are-Broken-1.5-and-Before

I sum up this and the other issues in this thread and invite discussion about it.

So far, nobody in favor of coalitions has dared trying to address them, so I doubt you'll see much action either.

 

[Asa_TJ]

no individual peace, 100% warscore being dumb

I would be happy if they just changed these two things, honestly. You're right, if I stomp all over the armies of the entire world, I should be able to take what the hell I want.

 

[sunsterson]

I would be happy if they just changed these two things, honestly. You're right, if I stomp all over the armies of the entire world, I should be able to take what the hell I want.

exactly, no one is arguing forming coalitions are dumb. its just when the stakes are raised, so should the reward.

 

[TheRevanchist]

I would be happy if they just changed these two things, honestly. You're right, if I stomp all over the armies of the entire world, I should be able to take what the hell I want.

Probably something like if you occupy a country 100%, that country should be able to peace out.

Also maybe make things cost half, or even 1/4 cost in terms of warscore in peace deals.

 

[lordgoof]

That would mean that once you get to a certain point coalitions against you become a conquest benefit. The only issue at the moment is the logic for the Ai to join them.

 

[sunsterson]

That would mean that once you get to a certain point coalitions against you become a conquest benefit. The only issue at the moment is the logic for the Ai to join them.

Darn, Napoleon totally didn't use coalitions as a way of aggressively expanding

 

[lordgoof]

You don't feed your army either. EU is a game - got to make it enjoyable.

 

[Sensational]

That would mean that once you get to a certain point coalitions against you become a conquest benefit. The only issue at the moment is the logic for the Ai to join them.

At which point coalitions as they are only act as a hard limit to make your gameplay more tedious anyways.

Tedium for tedium's sake. Making them a conquest benefit for the 1% of games that actually reach that endgame stage seems like a fair trade compared to making the rest of the games more enjoyable.

Unless waiting for timers is what you call good gameplay, in which case I fully understand why you would want to maintain the status quo.

 

[lordgoof]

The forming of a conquest blocking coalition means you fail the diplomatic game. don't fail and you don't get a blocking coalition. Yes the system isn't perfect, but up until now there hasn't been anything proposed that is better.

 

[Sensational]

The forming of a conquest blocking coalition means you fail the diplomatic game.

The only way to avoid it is to either a, wait (I.e. play the game while tabbed out, browsing forums or porn), or b, slow down your own conquests anyways. You either conquer too much and get blocked by warscore, or you conquer nothing by choice.

The end result is the same, failure is the default state of a system that imposes a hard limit upon the player with end goals that require one to break past that limit. You're forced to resort to exploits, which they promptly drop a fix on as soon as they gets popular.

Meanwhile the base game remains the same.

 

[unmerged(79411)]

I like coalitions in general, but it would be nice if there where more instruments for the player to deal with them.

I would love this game to have more in deph diplomacy and espionage.
Break up coalitions and cold wars between powerfull blocks that react to the threat of the other.

 

[sunsterson]

The forming of a conquest blocking coalition means you fail the diplomatic game. don't fail and you don't get a blocking coalition. Yes the system isn't perfect, but up until now there hasn't been anything proposed that is better.

Guess, what?

grand strategy = diplomatic and war strategies

 

[lordgoof]

The only way to avoid it is to either a, wait (I.e. play the game while tabbed out, browsing forums or porn), or b, slow down your own conquests anyways. You either conquer too much and get blocked by warscore, or you conquer nothing by choice.

The end result is the same, failure is the default state of a system that imposes a hard limit upon the player with end goals that require one to break past that limit. You're forced to resort to exploits, which they promptly drop a fix on as soon as they gets popular.

Meanwhile the base game remains the same.

you honestly must be playing a different game to me. I can successfully form Italy by early 1500's as tuscany with no long term side affects. screenshots with what your trying to achieve and the blocking coalitions please because unless your playing like a monkey what your suggesting is just you making stuff up. or alternatively go watch porn instead as that seems to be your preference for entertainment.

 

[lordgoof]

Guess, what?

grand strategy = diplomatic and war strategies

exactly. so when your only strategy is annex neighbour's get beaten by coalition don't come to the forums and complain.

 

[Sensational]

exactly. so when your only strategy is annex neighbour's get beaten by coalition don't come to the forums and complain.

No one is getting beaten by coalitions, you simply do not understand what the complaints are about, and the OP presents them about as clearly as one possibly could.

you honestly must be playing a different game to me. I can successfully form Italy by early 1500's as tuscany with no long term side affects. screenshots with what your trying to achieve and the blocking coalitions please because unless your playing like a monkey what your suggesting is just you making stuff up. or alternatively go watch porn instead as that seems to be your preference for entertainment.

Here are random screenshots of coalitions where WS would be a limiting factor (Actually, in the Spain one, Size is also a limiting factor, but that's a discussion for another thread):

I don't know how monkeys play so I don't know if they fulfill your "unless" criteria.

 

[spyroware1]

Guess, what?

grand strategy = diplomatic and war strategies

In before a dev replies saying that the player is a slimy scum that doesn't deserve a real diplo system because they'll take advantage of the AI /rolleyes

 

[IZob]

Just because you are a small nation, doesn't mean you should be forgiven for Aggressive Expansion.

 

[Roelath]

Just because you are a small nation, doesn't mean you should be forgiven for Aggressive Expansion.

???

Players are asking to be rewarded for smashing multiple nations at a time beyond that of 1-5 province peace deals. Kill 200k+ soliders and cover 1/4 of Europe? Here... Take two or maybe three provinces because if go any further OE will kill you and that's all you can take in a peace deal anyways. Even though you happen to have fought multiple powerhouses...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The forming of a conquest blocking coalition means you fail the diplomatic game. don't fail and you don't get a blocking coalition. Yes the system isn't perfect, but up until now there hasn't been anything proposed that is better.

Gee, I don't know...scale possible provinces with coalition province count, like the game scales province counts for say Russia?

Joining coalitions needs risk, just as taking them on does.