Trust - What is it good for?

[Starisc]

What is the point of trust in this game? And why does the AI love Mexican provinces so much?

I know that recent changes in AI behavior in 1.23/1.24 led AI allies to start acting against you if they perceive you as a threat (e.g. Ottos guaranteeing my targets). But what is up with trust having no impact on the decision making if they want provinces? What is the point of this feature really except regulating offensive call to arms? What are the rules?

I spend decades getting allies to 80 or even 100 trust and it doesn't matter in the end because a recalculation of "wants your provinces" & "wants your subjects provinces" modifier makes keeping an alliance impossible.
This has been bugging me for a while. I do get that border provinces with vital interest can cause conflicts. However, what is up with AI desiring colonial provinces, which they don't border at all? Mexican gold provinces right now make it nearly impossible to keep an alliance if you get suddenly slapped with a -90 opinion modifier. And it is always the Mexican provinces. Do they have hidden modifiers?

Can somebody please explain the rules with trust and "wants your provinces"? I saw that @bbqftw recently filed a bug report about erratic recalculations during wars.

Wiki mentions levels of trust, that IMHO have absolutely no actual use.
Levels of trust[edit]
90-100 A trusts B utterly.
[...]
0-9 A would not trust B to die properly.

Lets make a list to answer the question: Trust ...what is it actually good for?

1. At 80 trust you don't get rivalled
2. Increase AI willingness for call to arms, access etc
3. ?

 

[Dominion]

It's also a modifier to keep the alliance.

Heck, even if it werent't, just increasing the willingness to join your wars and them not rivaling you pays off immensely. Why ask for more?

Like winning the lottery and saying "is that all?"

POI recently got fixed. This means the atrocious, calculated, expected behavior is gone. You kinda knew how it worked, but it was shit.

Now we got a useful system that's full of bugs. Ofc bbqftw wrote a bug report. So did Atwix. The only reason I haven't written one is because I found an exploit.

Give it a few patches. At least the current - bugged - version is better than the old - correctly functioning - version.

Praise Gnivom

 

[Stenen Jan]

Yeah the (I think) +45 opinion modifier for calls to arms is hugely helpful and I'm actually quite happy with even trusted allies breaking their alliances with me as I grow more powerful. At least, in the games I played, it made sense and didn't see like some sort of Total War-esque (player is strong, must declare war no matter what) mechanic. It made for a much more interesting mid-game when my long-time ally France broke my alliance and rivalled me because they wanted my colonial provinces in my Netherlands game. The sudden shift in diplomacy left me scrambling around for viable new allies to avoid France steamrolling me after the truce was up.

Sounds like there are issues to sort out but I like that we can no longer be as complacent with powerful long-time allies with little to no risk of them ever abandoning us.

 

[Bibor]

Trust - What is it good for?

Has to do with conquests you keep for last. Should be renamed "unconquestness" because that's a word.

 

[oros]

Trust also reduces liberty desire.
It's interesting to spam "influence nation" on your colonial nations to have them more loyal.

 

[tirroj]

And why does the AI love Mexican provinces so much?

Yeah, i had that happen in my run for a few achievements for the custom nations. After i conquered the natives in mexico etc, i gained a -150 opinion modifier with my trusted ally England. It turned out they really liked the look of my gold producing provinces. Next month, our alliance was over, since their opinion of me dropped beneath 0.

 

[davej]

What is the point of trust in this game? And why does the AI love Mexican provinces so much?

I spend decades getting allies to 80 or even 100 trust and it doesn't matter in the end because a recalculation of "wants your provinces" & "wants your subjects provinces" modifier makes keeping an alliance impossible.

Reminds me of my Castille games with France.

 

[Kergan]

It made for a much more interesting mid-game when my long-time ally France broke my alliance and rivalled me because they wanted my colonial provinces in my Netherlands game.

If you're afraid of France as Netherlands past 1550 or so, you've been doing something very wrong, as in picking the wrong ideas or haven't been allying the right people.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Wants your provinces" and "wants your subject's provinces" are treated massively, comically differently for no reason whatsoever. The latter does not seem to obey trust rules.

 

[Dominion]

"Wants your provinces" and "wants your subject's provinces" are treated massively, comically differently for no reason whatsoever. The latter does not seem to obey trust rules.

Neither does it obey core rules. Which is way worse. (credit to Atwix for that insight)

 

[jhanso]

before trust you could use your allies as complete battle thralls, now there are drawbacks. The trust system was a stroke of genius, and i see nothing wrong with powerful allies becoming rivals overnight because their borders are now touching and they share no common enemy.

 

[Sharples88]

It still needs a ton of work (and for quite a load of patches now). You can't spend favors on subjects to increase trust, even if you give them a load of land from a war, which makes their purpose here worthless, at the very least you should be able to spend it into trust (which also lowers liberty desire).

 

[Coffer]

What is the point of trust in this game? And why does the AI love Mexican provinces so much?

I know that recent changes in AI behavior in 1.23/1.24 led AI allies to start acting against you if they perceive you as a threat (e.g. Ottos guaranteeing my targets). But what is up with trust having no impact on the decision making if they want provinces? What is the point of this feature really except regulating offensive call to arms? What are the rules?

I spend decades getting allies to 80 or even 100 trust and it doesn't matter in the end because a recalculation of "wants your provinces" & "wants your subjects provinces" modifier makes keeping an alliance impossible.
This has been bugging me for a while. I do get that border provinces with vital interest can cause conflicts. However, what is up with AI desiring colonial provinces, which they don't border at all? Mexican gold provinces right now make it nearly impossible to keep an alliance if you get suddenly slapped with a -90 opinion modifier. And it is always the Mexican provinces. Do they have hidden modifiers?

Can somebody please explain the rules with trust and "wants your provinces"? I saw that @bbqftw recently filed a bug report about erratic recalculations during wars.

Wiki mentions levels of trust, that IMHO have absolutely no actual use.
Levels of trust[edit]
90-100 A trusts B utterly.
[...]
0-9 A would not trust B to die properly.

Lets make a list to answer the question: Trust ...what is it actually good for?

1. At 80 trust you don't get rivalled
2. Increase AI willingness for call to arms, access etc
3. ?

Outside of cheap rivalries when I blobbed too hard before getting 80 trust, I've only had issues keeping alliances twice: as Provence when I allied France in a recent game (even though I was a great power on 100 trust with almost the same development as France they suddenly wanted everything, which may have been because of me being Protestant), and when I had a vassal in the area as the high trust and willingness to avoid my land does not extend to my subjects (which I'm not too fussed about, but does need to be looked into). Barring that, even with its problems, the system does what it's supposed to and I'm happy with it.

I've seen complaints about Exploration ideas being bugged in that sense though.

If you're afraid of France as Netherlands past 1550 or so, you've been doing something very wrong, as in picking the wrong ideas or haven't been allying the right people.

It is a problem if they're allied with the Ottomans, no matter what allies you may have, because they will very gladly call them in against you.

 

[KaiserWilhelmI]

Has to do with conquests you keep for last. Should be renamed "unconquestness" because that's a word.

There are also people who do not go WC in every game. I actually like having long term allies.
In one game as France I had to force Spain into PU because they suddenly wanted my colonial provinces, despite our alliance being over 200 years old.

 

[Starisc]

"Wants your provinces" and "wants your subject's provinces" are treated massively, comically differently for no reason whatsoever. The latter does not seem to obey trust rules.

Neither does it obey core rules. Which is way worse. (credit to Atwix for that insight)

This is my impression as well. Those two modifiers should be influenced by trust but are definitely not.

I've seen complaints about Exploration ideas being bugged in that sense though.

Exploration ideas and AI desires might really have weird interactions with this. The game that started this rant is a Russia game with Ottoman as long-term allies. Both of us have exploration ideas and the massive increase of "desires your subjects provinces" happened to me when a new Ottoman ruler with "Colonialist" personality appeared.

In general I agree with comments here, that it could be seen as part of the mid-game challenge and is a welcome increase in the difficulty curve to counterbalance blobbing. My argument has much to do with the fact that it is not transparent (hence, my question what are the rules?) and too sudden to allow meaningful mitigation choices (well, I better drag Ottomans into a long war and make use of the alliance one final time ^^).

 

[Bibor]

There are also people who do not go WC in every game. I actually like having long term allies.
In one game as France I had to force Spain into PU because they suddenly wanted my colonial provinces, despite our alliance being over 200 years old.

As I was kindly reminded in another thread, alliances are not meant to last forever; even if you stay an OPM, one of your buddies will eventually come knocking. I personally don't like it, even if it's realistic.

 

[cuendillar]

As I was kindly reminded in another thread, alliances are not meant to last forever; even if you stay an OPM, one of your buddies will eventually come knocking. I personally don't like it, even if it's realistic.

If you're a good ally, I don't see why they shouldn't last to 1821. If you're actively helping them out in their wars, letting them grow alongside you by helping them conquer instead of using them to block of their own expansion I don't see why a mechanism to break that alliance is good. The "wants your /subject's) provinces" is so huge that it's often impossible to counteract it diplomatically even with fully improved relations, gifts and max trust.

Mutually beneficial alliances are, per definition, a bad idea for both sides to risk like that.

 

[Coffer]

If you're a good ally, I don't see why they shouldn't last to 1821. If you're actively helping them out in their wars, letting them grow alongside you by helping them conquer instead of using them to block of their own expansion I don't see why a mechanism to break that alliance is good.

Pretty much. As LO->Kurland I kept TO->Prussia at 200 relations, 100 trust and 100 favors just fine for an entire run. I helped them expand to the west, they helped me expand to the east and even with the absolute worst possible ruler trait&personality combinations they did not complain even once, whereas Russia, in almost the exact same situation, broke alliance because I helped my march Finland blob too much and they got antsy. And that's not just one example - in every single game right now where I don't focus solely on blobbing I have at least one ally, usually 2, that I can easily carry all the way to 1821 once I get them to 100 trust. It's definitely not impossible, but things like the Exploration ideas bug and the "wants your subject's provinces" malus make it more annoying than it has to be in certain cases.

Realism may be realism (and I still reckon the loss of the AI's ability to rival you should happen at 90 trust and not 80), but these two issues in particular have nothing to do with that so they need to be looked into.

 

[jhanso]

if youve expanded beyond your old enemies and are now competing for resources directly with your old pal, this is precisely the scenario that would turn a friend into a rival and makes perfect sense to me. Do what I imagine you did to begin with, make allies of their enemies to keep them at bay or crush them. If the country was a human, and desired your land, what do you think they would do? would they check their trust meter? I happen to like that certain rulers of powerful countries change their geo politics and would prefer it kept that way for banalities sake.

 

[Coffer]

and are now competing for resources directly with your old pal

Not every nation is or should be as greedy as France, the US or Russia. Unfortunately this is very strongly encouraged by the game right now, but if you were to, say, lose 3+ stab and 3+ dip rep from breaking a 90+ trust alliance, things would be very different. I'd love it if you got an instant coalition, but that's a touch too unrealistic.

If the country was a human, and desired your land, what do you think they would do? would they check their trust meter?

They would probably die then and there. In many such cases, your now-broken alliance is the only obstacle stopping you from un-rivaling and then allying other great powers bordering them and not you, and after that, the only thing stopping you from winning the inevitable war is your own skill.