The Fundamental Problem with Coalitions (1.5)

[ikkiks]

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

You're missing the point completely. We (at least, I think most of us) are not being beaten by coalitions. We're tired of beating said coalition and getting almost nothing in return. So, you beat a coalition get 3 provinces. Couple years later, you beat another coalition, get 3 more. Beat the same coalition again, 3 more.

It's boring and not even close to rewarding. You want suggestions?
1- Make your country size, the annexed country size, your army size, manpower and army power factors in a coalition. The stronger you are, the stronger the coalition gets.
2- Fix coalition warscore. I don't want to beat a coalition down to 99% score just to get 3 provinces.
3- More rebels on OE. 300%+ should be really hard to handle, now it's quite easy.

 

[Tub]

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

Yes, but Ulm taking three provinces should be less threatening than France taking those same three provinces, thus France taking those provinces should result in a coalition forming, whereas Ulm taking those provinces should result in an opinion malus.

In the current build fabricating a claim can result in a coalition being formed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, but Ulm taking three provinces should be less threatening than France taking those same three provinces, thus France taking those provinces should result in a coalition forming, whereas Ulm taking those provinces should result in an opinion malus.

In the current build fabricating a claim can result in a coalition being formed.

AE did used to scale with nation size. The devs mistakenly thought the complaining was over that rather than coalitons, despite a clear message to the contrary, which is how we got 1.4 where basically nobody had any without chain truce breaks.

 

[IZob]

Yes, but Ulm taking three provinces should be less threatening than France taking those same three provinces, thus France taking those provinces should result in a coalition forming, whereas Ulm taking those provinces should result in an opinion malus.

In the current build fabricating a claim can result in a coalition being formed.

Coalitions are not just for big nations. A coalition of small nations against someone small like Ulm, is perfect plausible when that Ulm is annexing nations the same size it is.

Further more, I am sure larger nations would not be happy to see small nations like Ulm becoming a stronger emerging power. The larger nations want to stay powerful, so they may as well join the coalition.

This doesn't mean expansion for Ulm is impossible. It can get allies and strike at times when the enemy are most vulnerable.

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

So basically according to most opinions here the coalitions would be fixed by:

1. Making warscore necessary for annexations and other things like core return, release nations etc. smaller - how much 50%, 33%?
2. Allow countries that are fully occupied to be able to white peace out.
3. Countries that are much stronger than you won't be joining coalition against you. So basically only countries with size who are able to rival you or have threatened attitude?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Making warscore necessary for annexations and other things like core return, release nations etc. smaller - how much 50%, 33%?

Scale it with the total size of the coalition, exactly how you would for a big nation. IE treat the coalition as one small-to-giant nation, depending on its size.

2. Allow countries that are fully occupied to be able to white peace out.

Not necessary with #1, and a bad idea based on what I hear about how BB used to be.

3. Countries that are much stronger than you won't be joining coalition against you. So basically only countries with size who are able to rival you or have threatened attitude?

Big countries shouldn't go for coalitions unless they can become leader. They should be looking for a proper snack like usual .

 

[sunsterson]

Lol people who don't read.

I have specifically stated that the problem comes after beating coalitions

 

[MiniaAr]

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.

Well nobody is coming into your thread arguing because there, you have a fair point, provinces warscore count should indeed scale to the size of the coalition.

But when other people than you complain to coalition forming, then that's when people defending coalitions come.

However, do you really think that with warsocre count for coalitions, people won't still complain about coalition forming?

 

[Great One]

I completely agree with the OP. When a coalition forms and then loses a war, the loss should hurt all of the countries involved in the coalition. It should be painful to be on the losing side of a coalition war. The winner should be able to annex, vassalize, and generally mistreat the losers at will. This is war and to the victor goes the spoils!

 

[Casadoom]

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

Actually, you should. When you are a Lorraine and take two provinces, there is no reason for France to join a coalition when they can make you vanish by flicking their wrist. Just like Castile should always be in a coalition against France and vice versa because they need all the help they can get to cut down the size of the other nation.

Alternatively, they should make coalition war allowing you for the coalition members to only demand for the return of cores and release of nations cheaply while disallowing them to forcefully take provinces or taking them with massive AE.

 

[Variton]

I completely agree with the OP. When a coalition forms and then loses a war, the loss should hurt all of the countries involved in the coalition. It should be painful to be on the losing side of a coalition war. The winner should be able to annex, vassalize, and generally mistreat the losers at will. This is war and to the victor goes the spoils!

Like in 1.0?? I disagree strongly.

Case example: As Portugal I joined in coalition versus France (with Spain, Austria + some others). Spain got rolled over and peaced out giving Portuguese holdings in Morocco,Kongo, Zimbabwe,India to France... ragequit

 

[sunsterson]

Untick, let leader negotiate?

 

[Variton]

Untick, let leader negotiate?

Yes, now. But then how could you "get hurt" like was proposed, if you do not allow the leader to negotiate? Separate peace deals like in alliances?

 

[TheSavage01]

Yes, now. But then how could you "get hurt" like was proposed, if you do not allow the leader to negotiate? Separate peace deals like in alliances?

At the very least, you should be able to form a separate peace to remove that junior member from the coalition war and/or coalition. This would prevent exploiting coalitions by picking apart junior members one by one, but would actually give the war a purpose: to whittle down or break apart the coalition.

The coalition would still be a roadblock, but a roadblock that could be removed (at least for a time) through war.

 

[sunsterson]

At the very least, you should be able to form a separate peace to remove that junior member from the coalition war and/or coalition. This would prevent exploiting coalitions by picking apart junior members one by one, but would actually give the war a purpose: to whittle down or break apart the coalition.

The coalition would still be a roadblock, but a roadblock that could be removed (at least for a time) through war.

this. i really want separate peace to force leaving coalition.

 

[eugene171]

this. i really want separate peace to force leaving coalition.

Some sort of "leave coalition" peace option would be fantastic. I'd happily take that as an option in a "concede defeat" sense: no other gains but kicking them out of the coalition, and maybe some prestige.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well nobody is coming into your thread arguing because there, you have a fair point, provinces warscore count should indeed scale to the size of the coalition.

But when other people than you complain to coalition forming, then that's when people defending coalitions come.

However, do you really think that with warsocre count for coalitions, people won't still complain about coalition forming?

Of course they'll complain. It's a matter of scale, scope, and rationality. People complain about everything from the Ottomans being too strong to colonial nations sucking while you can get 300 FL to having too much money in the mid-end game. People complain WC is or isn't possible. People want the game a certain way.

However, in each case there will be varying degrees of possible supporting arguments about why the game should behave a certain way, and there will be a varying amount of threads/people who will agree or shoot those assertions to pieces. Coalitions in their current form lean REALLY hard in one direction, and that is in large part because they not only violate rational conventions consistent across strategy gaming, but are also inconsistent in the mere context of EU IV itself.

But sure. When people who don't understand the game get rolled by something or get unlucky, there will always be complaint threads, but probably not 4-5 identical ones with limited argumentative capability on only one side of them .

I'd rather be discussing strategy a bit more frequently, like I was a few days ago with Luck of the Irish or Mongol Khanate openings, not trying to beat it into people's heads what's wrong with a given mechanic in the first place because they insist on talking about only the aspects of it that aren't in threads trying to address the things that are.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

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?

This artificial barrier exists because the dynamic barriers that prevented this type of expansion cannot be reasonably modeled. Land attrition is almost nothing, and the ability to continuously supply an army infinitely the entire world away is a significant problem. The coalitions that some people have shown on this page should crush the player if the AI was semi-competent at coordination, or defensive wars. For the player to completely annex the entirety of some of those coalitions or half of them should leave the manpower pool depleted.

I'll agree that warscore needs to be recalculated. For me the recalculation is to add more emphasis on battles and less on sieges. I shouldn't have to carpet siege a 20 provinces to get 3 or five, when by the tenth province the war is already decided.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This artificial barrier exists because the dynamic barriers that prevented this type of expansion cannot be reasonably modeled. Land attrition is almost nothing, and the ability to continuously supply an army infinitely the entire world away is a significant problem. The coalitions that some people have shown on this page should crush the player if the AI was semi-competent at coordination, or defensive wars. For the player to completely annex the entirety of some of those coalitions or half of them should leave the manpower pool depleted.

I'll agree that warscore needs to be recalculated. For me the recalculation is to add more emphasis on battles and less on sieges. I shouldn't have to carpet siege a 20 provinces to get 3 or five, when by the tenth province the war is already decided.

Battles + war goal will get you over 60%. The issue with coalitions is that 60% is scaled as if you were declaring on a single, medium-sized nation with no scaling at all, even if the coalition you battle totals 150 provinces. That is the central element of idiocy with coalition peace negotiations, and one of the few things wrong with them.

The game treats 60% of Ming and 60% of Bengal differently. The game treats 60% of a giant coalition and 60% of Bengal identically. If you want to block separate peace (and IMO you should), then 60% of a coalition the size of Ming should have demands scale such that you can get the same amount of the coalition as you could of Ming.

Assuming you don't get wrecked by the coalition and actually reach 60% of course .

 

[Joe_Chip]

To me it seems the problem here is all about annexing and OE. Not really about coalitions.
Until the developers realize that the Overextension mechanic should be mainly based on a nation's size and not on base taxes we aren't going anywhere. Base taxes (i.e. population) should only determine how difficult a land is to tame, pacify and assimilate. Not affect your whole territories and parameters such as revolt risk anywhere, trade power and these global stats. THIS is artificial difficulty. I can understand the end but the mean is just terrible. Additionally, OE should also scale according to tech groups and levels of the annexing and the annexed nations (conquering a lot of land populated by primitives would be far less problematic than doing so in the middle of Europe).
As for coalitions specifically, peace treaties should be indeed reworked with special conditions and demands (vexing a defeated blob with periodical payments, territorial and military limitations). Maybe having in mind huge chuncks of territories based on historical borders (ex. a winning nation could ask for his borders to be restored as they were at a certain date, like at the day you declared war onto them), decreasing costs for some demands like "release nation", scaling down all costs for demands according to how many and how large the nations in a coalition are. I oppose the idea of a separate peace in case of coalition. That would be unrealistic(? perhaps someone can prove me wrong) and, if these mechanics were to be reworked as above, unnecessary. I'd rather have a final, big treaty in which you can specify conditions for each participant.