"Want's your provinces" logic?

[Searry]

I was playing as Milan and fought real hard to have control of most of the Northern Italy. France was my friend, and sometimes ally, for some 40 years and in around 1500 they decide they want Savoie.
Now what baffled me is that I couldn't sell it to them, not even for 0 ducats. What's the logic behind that? Later they got in a coalition war against me and ruined the fruitful relations we've had.
If they want a province, shouldn't you just be able to give it to them. It makes no sense. Why have a war when you can have it for free, AND, keep good relations?
Absolutely baffling. I hadn't played single player since one of the first patches and these weird AI problems never seem to get properly fixed.

 

[Rey]

In my Italian games the "wants your provinces" modifier switched every 20-30? years between France and Austria, so each time I counter allied with the other guy.

 

[Searry]

In my Italian games the "wants your provinces" modifier switched every 20-30? years between France and Austria, so each time I counter allied with the other guy.

That sounds very silly.

 

[Neoton]

All this hate for a province with 1BT...

 

[Sunspawn]

All this hate for a province with 1BT...

I believe it's due to them having a mission to take Osel. And that part of the order was under Danish control in the past (the Estonian provinces and Osel).

 

[SH4D0W_TR]

Silly but historical. In Italian Wars, it became true.

 

[Lord Finnish]

I was hostile to Russia throughout my Byzantium game because they desired Constantinople. I get that Russia wants to take it from Ottomans but why would they hate Byzantium for it?

 

[LordDamien]

Ive notice that they still " Want a lot of your provinces " although not as much as before. Still though when somebody wants like half your land for no reason is kinda disturbing like how come I cant have something similar for them. Like I want some of their land Etc ? .

 

[Enewald]

I was hostile to Russia throughout my Byzantium game because they desired Constantinople. I get that Russia wants to take it from Ottomans but why would they hate Byzantium for it?

Also historical if you have read Nestors chronicle. Early Rus rulers really had some southern ambitions. And the best way to become the third rome is to destroy the previous one yourself.

 

[G_Morgan]

That sounds very silly.

Have you read about the War of the League of Cambrai?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cambrai

 

[DanubianCossak]

That means that your province(s) fall into a group of provinces that the AI wants to conquer.

It makes perfect sense.

If France views Milan as its long term conquest plan, then France shouldnt want to ally Milan, and actively help Milan get stronger.

Without this, you could ally any AI country you pick and choose.

 

[artemis667]

In my current Ming game, around 1600, Sweden wants Beijing. Nothing else, just Beijing. Let's just say that Sweden's not going to get Beijing

I find it more amusing than frustrating, tbh. And a lot of times, the 'wants your provinces' actually do make sense, it's just that we don't tend to remember those, in a sort of confirmation bias thing.

 

[lordelenath]

The problem aren't regular claims, they just give you some very minor malus to the opinion. These -200 (and similar) opinion modifiers are the results of missions which somehow seem to count a lot more. And since the AI loves to take missions "just because" it happens very regularly. Personally I feel this is one of the most stupid things in this game currently.

And please don't get started on "How often did you backstab an ally?"-stuff. I have no problem whatsoever with that, but the AI regularly takes missions that force them to break their most important, sometimes even only alliance. I've lost count how often my allies took missions to conquer provinces, broke the alliance and got completely wrecked right after that because I was there only protection.

 

[artemis667]

All this hate for a province with 1BT...

There's an argument that Osel could be considered strategic - it's coastal, on the continental side of the Baltic Sea, and in an upstream trade node.

 

[PhroX]

Also historical if you have read Nestors chronicle. Early Rus rulers really had some southern ambitions. And the best way to become the third rome is to destroy the previous one yourself.

And Russian European foreign policy towards the end of the EUIV period up to WW1 was pretty much entirely devoted to getting control of Constantinople. They didn't want anyone else, no matter how friendly they might seem, to have the city (or more specifically, the Straights). While a Muscovy at the EUIV start might not be chasing after Constantinople, once they've taken out Crimea and control the northern side of the Black Sea, they should oppose anyone who could potentially block access to said sea, even if they have some aspects - such as religion - in common.

 

[BarskiPatzow]

I love that feature because that is exactly the situation when players betray AI allies. It makes things even

 

[Enewald]

And Russian European foreign policy towards the end of the EUIV period up to WW1 was pretty much entirely devoted to getting control of Constantinople. They didn't want anyone else, no matter how friendly they might seem, to have the city (or more specifically, the Straights). While a Muscovy at the EUIV start might not be chasing after Constantinople, once they've taken out Crimea and control the northern side of the Black Sea, they should oppose anyone who could potentially block access to said sea, even if they have some aspects - such as religion - in common.

Yeah, the entire Muscovite policy after conquering Novgorod was mostly focused on driving southwards. Siberia and Swedish fronts were just minor side-theatres. First to push against Kazan and Astrakhan khanates during 15th and 16th century, against Crimea and towards Ruthenia during 17th and 18th centuries, with culminating in reaching the Black Sea and warm water ports and even more heavier pushes against Crimea and Ottomans during 18th and 19th centuries, culminating in Balkan wars and eventually driving Ottomans away from Balkans, alas without Russia getting no extra lands due to Great Powers interference. Not that they didn't try to establish panslavism and "all Orthodox lands under one monarch" policies.

Just like Austrian long term Eu4 goal would be to establish HRE, France to establish Napoleonic/Charles the Great borders, Spain to own the world, Britain to keep Europe balanced, Russia to assert dominance over all the Slavs and Orthodox lands including a push towards Mediterranean ports.

 

[stormeagle449]

That sounds very silly.

That's exactly what the house of Savoy did when they expanded in Italy.

 

[kente]

wants your province it's a bad mechanic: if 2 countries are enemies well, they should try to destroy each other anyway, if 2 countries are allied, we should have the option to just "ask" to toher countries want give that province. I mean how many times "wants your province" is about useless <3BT? how many players would prefer to give a couple of province to mantain the alliance ?
worst is the "take a foothold in India" (or china or indonesia) how many times i took 3-4 province in India coast and suddenly my most beloved ally broke tha alliance because took the mission? many time and just in one game the actually attack me and no one of the random indian countries (in that game i had actually take all of the indian coast, so i could understand)

tl,dr: "wants your province" should the possibility to give the province in diplomatic screen (or at least as diplomatic event)

 

[anomalacaris]

By the way gaving your provinces won't even work since the AI will want provinces that is next to it now.
The only way to prevent it is not sharing a border with an ally, or at least a small border not in their direction of expansion.
As in history, the best allies are those that have an enemy sandwiched between them. If you start to need to border one, it might be time for new allies.