The wonderful cascading alliances

[Cossack8559]

I have only played an hour and half so far. In my game as England i declared war on one of the Irish minors who then called in other Irish minors... which was great for me Then Tyrone(spelling?) called in Scotland who called in France... i called in Aragon end result was i annexed two the Irish minors but had to give up some land in Mainland Europe to France.

I quite enjoyed the experience of not being able to bully the 1 state minors. BUT like i said only played just over an hour so far.

 

[unmerged(176171)]

I'm really enjoying it, I have to be alot more careful declaring war, and less greedy making peace.

 

[Arakhor]

My major issue with it is that I have no idea with whom I'm going to be fighting eventually. Even Liege, a TPM with no allies, can quickly ally with someone whilst at war with me as Burgundy and then suddenly I'm fighting Savoy, Austria, Poland, Hungary etc. A half-way sane way of predicting whom I'm going to be fighting would be good.

 

[brifbates]

My major issue with it is that I have no idea with whom I'm going to be fighting eventually. Even Liege, a TPM with no allies, can quickly ally with someone whilst at war with me as Burgundy and then suddenly I'm fighting Savoy, Austria, Poland, Hungary etc. A half-way sane way of predicting whom I'm going to be fighting would be good.

I have to agree with this. Or else the hit for refusing a call needs to be reduced quite a bit. I'd personally suggest something like the original defender can call allies repeatedly as long as the war lasts but only their allies when the war starts can call allies and only if they do so immediately. This would solve the "attack the vassal to avoid the master's allies" trick but cut down the ridiculous cascades as new alliance leaders take over. There is still the alliance cb for tertiary link nations to get involved should they so choose but it would probably cut down on the half the world defending an OPM that 2/3 of them couldn't find on a map issue.

 

[Zenith Darksea]

I completely agree as well. As Byzantium I declare war on Venice to take Corfu from them. They're allied to Burgundy, Switzerland and Austria, but none of them can touch me since they don't have coasts. No problem, thinks I. So Venice calls its initial allies in. They call their allies in. Then they call their allies in. And they call etc. Before I know it, a simple war over the tiny island of Corfu has ballooned into a fight against Venice, Austria, Switzerland, Burgundy, Lithuania, France, Poland, Brandenburg, Pommerania, Galicia (!), Savoy, Naples etc.

It got worse when Hungary saw how many enemies I was fighting. They took advantage of the situation and declared war on me, calling in their allies and, well, I think you get the drift. Within three months I was at war with the whole of Catholic Europe, simply because I wanted to retake Corfu.

Come off it! This is nuts!

 

[geiseric]

I completely agree as well. As Byzantium I declare war on Venice to take Corfu from them. They're allied to Burgundy, Switzerland and Austria, but none of them can touch me since they don't have coasts. No problem, thinks I. So Venice calls its initial allies in. They call their allies in. Then they call their allies in. And they call etc. Before I know it, a simple war over the tiny island of Corfu has ballooned into a fight against Venice, Austria, Switzerland, Burgundy, Lithuania, France, Poland, Brandenburg, Pommerania, Galicia (!), Savoy, Naples etc.

It got worse when Hungary saw how many enemies I was fighting. They took advantage of the situation and declared war on me, calling in their allies and, well, I think you get the drift. Within three months I was at war with the whole of Catholic Europe, simply because I wanted to retake Corfu.

Come off it! This is nuts!

I am playing as the byz and have had a similar thing happen, not as bad though, I decided to not do the whole blockade the ottos thing and would try whatever seems advantagous at the time so I conquered candar and karamon (sp) after that I went after the faction that holds adana, they bring their allies oman and hedjaz in, then I think the siege took about 5 months and in the fourth month they bring in Tripoli, I finish my siege in adana and basically beat down tripili to sign a white peace when they bring in Algeria, so once again the warleader changes, and worse they are as strong as me, but I will deal with it, then guess who they bring in? Yep the Ottos, I decided to take a break but that war should be interesting, so people are still coming into the war about a year after the original faction I declared on has been destroyed

 

[BonSequitur]

Historically, major powers did jump to the aid of small nations as a way to justify containing their rivals. I think the alliance system doesn't need tweaking so much as the war system; if Burgundy starts acting up, it should be expected for France to come to the aid of whomever they're trying to eat at the moment. But they shouldn't be able to use that as an excuse to tear Burgundy apart permanently.

 

[Zechariah Zevi]

The best idea is probably the one mentioned about only letting the alliance leader change once. It's a simple and fairly realistic solution.

 

[Alerias]

My major issue with it is that I have no idea with whom I'm going to be fighting eventually. Even Liege, a TPM with no allies, can quickly ally with someone whilst at war with me as Burgundy and then suddenly I'm fighting Savoy, Austria, Poland, Hungary etc. A half-way sane way of predicting whom I'm going to be fighting would be good.

Exactly, yeah.

I dont mind a big war if its what Ive signed up for. If I buy a walk in the park, though, I dont want to have to fight an unexpected Cossack horde on the way.

 

[delra]

As France: Burgundy, Aragon, England, Scotland, Portugal, Bohemia, Austria, Denmark (thank god without their leash dogs), Friesland, Brabant, Brittany, Naples, Provance, Cleves, Milan, Sicily vs me an my vassals... I won lol - but it was quite close.

It's quite a ride and I kind of enjoy the challenge of it. But please make them stop doing that already. :-|

 

[Captain Gars]

As France: Burgundy, Aragon, England, Scotland, Portugal, Bohemia, Austria, Denmark (thank god without their leash dogs), Friesland, Brabant, Brittany, Naples, Provance, Cleves, Milan, Sicily vs me an my vassals... I won lol - but it was quite close.

It's quite a ride and I kind of enjoy the challenge of it. But please make them stop doing that already. :-|

And I assume you did nothing to provoke this...?

 

[Captain Gars]

My major issue with it is that I have no idea with whom I'm going to be fighting eventually. Even Liege, a TPM with no allies, can quickly ally with someone whilst at war with me as Burgundy and then suddenly I'm fighting Savoy, Austria, Poland, Hungary etc. A half-way sane way of predicting whom I'm going to be fighting would be good.

1. So if you were Liege and was attacked by Burgundy you would just roll over and give up?
2. Basically you want to know beforehand if you're gonna win or lose?

I agree that this can use some tweaking but personally I think this feature is the best thing to happen to single-player. No more knowing for certain in advance if you're gonna win. Declaring war should be a calculated gamble.

 

[delra]

And I assume you did nothing to provoke this...?

I did all that with two DoWs, believe or not. Provance and Burgundy.

 

[wraitii]

I think the problem is not so much the alliance problem as the AI. It looks like the AI accepts to go to war even when it has nothing to win, or no interest in going to war. If the AI was more sound about declaring war when called to arm, it would probably stop such a problem.

At the same time, it would be a rather effective anti-blobbing measure. Because if the player has high infamy, Paradox could make the AI more likely to join the war, and you would have to fight a war against almost all Europe for anything. But If you have low infamy, I think it's a bit overkill.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I agree that this can use some tweaking but personally I think this feature is the best thing to happen to single-player. No more knowing for certain in advance if you're gonna win. Declaring war should be a calculated gamble.

It makes the game indeed a bit more realistic and challanging, but my problem is that these cascades work only for the defending side with its switching war leaders.
The attacking side should also be allowed to call allies from their strongest member if the defender can do so, but (iirc) leadership of offensive wars will not be given to stronger allies (due to peace negotiation issues).

 

[Alerias]

1. So if you were Liege and was attacked by Burgundy you would just roll over and give up?
2. Basically you want to know beforehand if you're gonna win or lose?

I agree that this can use some tweaking but personally I think this feature is the best thing to happen to single-player. No more knowing for certain in advance if you're gonna win. Declaring war should be a calculated gamble.

Its excessive, really Frustratingly so. Its OK for the AI to build alliances against the player but we should know ahead of time who we are risking war with when we DoW. World Wars arent the answer.

Knowing who youll be fighting doesnt guarantee you victory. Its just common sense. To change that, you'd need to give the player reasonable tools to interfere in the AI's alliances, at the very least... spy missions and diplomatic missions to diplomatically isolate your target. Creating this FFA thing without ways to influence the flow of alliances just doesn't make for good gameplay.

 

[delra]

Yes, it's great but it needs love. And not that much of love really.

Just make AI more likely to refuse a call to arms if it's further away from the war leader. 2 bounces from the leader (ally of ally of leader) should be 50/50 to accept a call. Unless of course they have direct business in it (cores, rivals, other CBs). Don't make AI refuse alliance offers from countries at war - there should be a search for additional allies during every war - it's realistic.

This way instead of bringing pretty much everyone into a war, there will be a search for natural rivals and enemies of the opponent to bring them into the war. Search conducted mainly by the war leader, not others because war leader will have a higher success rate calling in.

 

[wraitii]

I think the AI should be less likely to accept a CtA, but should almost always accept if the player has high infamy. That way you get the best of both worlds.

 

[Captain Gars]

World Wars arent the answer.

This I agree with, and is why I agree that the system needs some tweaking.

Its OK for the AI to build alliances against the player but we should know ahead of time who we are risking war with when we DoW.

But this I don't agree with. Why should you know this beforehand? Did everyone one who was gonna end up in the war in the Livonian War, the Thirty Years War, the Deluge, etc. Or what participants would switch sides in said wars? No. So why should the player? Going to war is always a risk, and has never really been one in EU.

 

[unmerged(215997)]

1. So if you were Liege and was attacked by Burgundy you would just roll over and give up?
2. Basically you want to know beforehand if you're gonna win or lose?

I agree that this can use some tweaking but personally I think this feature is the best thing to happen to single-player. No more knowing for certain in advance if you're gonna win. Declaring war should be a calculated gamble.

But it completely kills diplo game. If for example I am Naples, and I ally myself with Savoy, Switzerland and Austria and go to war with Milan, basicly Milan should be screwed. But if Milan can ally itself with, let's say Brandenburg (allied with France), so let's say Brandenburg becomes warleader, calls in all his allies, including France, which becomes new warleader, who in turns calls in all vassals and allies...
With so many wars starting upon game loading, it causes Europe to go to permanent war. It's no fun.
Seriously, no diplo game (and hence no/limited trade game), it feels like total war series