Well-Behaved Nations Seldom Make History

[Surgünoglu]

Victoria magnificently depicted the era of the 19th century, complete with European conservatism and colonial expansion. "Badboy" played a major part in this; expanding in Europe was as expensive diplomatically as it was financially.

Unfortunately, this meant that warmongering countries tended to have no allies at all. Aggressive powers did not enter into treaties with others; you could have +200 relations but, if your badboy was high enough (which wasn't always all that high), there was no chance to capitalize on such close relations.

I wonder how easily expansion will be in this iteration of Victoria. I see that we now have claims for component states and not merely provinces, which should improve things tremendously; victory will mean something in terms of gaining whole economic units. But will it still be impossible for the world-straddling conqueror to do anything but go it alone (even when there are other conquerors whose strategic interests might be compatible)?

 

[Palfouri]

I agree. There's nothing more annoying than finding out no one will accept diplomatic agreements with me once I start going on the warpath, even after my BB drops.

I'd like some sort of "fear" consideration for small nations that would make them more likely to accept envoys when their giant warmongering native comes knocking. I know EU3 had the rivals /threat system, but I don't recall it doing anything but making them more hostile (granted, I haven't looked much into it).

 

[Surgünoglu]

Exactly! Who wouldn't want to ally with the giant empire that rests next door? Are we to believe that free nations will always stand alone, while only vassals would align with a tyrant (or suitably large but really decent republic)?

 

[Rhion]

The problem here is AI. How the AI responds to a diplomatic proposal is upto math and a bit of luck, while it's devoid of realpolitik and pragmatism.

I don't think it can be helped though. You're still playing a machine after all.

 

[Raph]

Exactly! Who wouldn't want to ally with the giant empire that rests next door? Are we to believe that free nations will always stand alone, while only vassals would align with a tyrant (or suitably large but really decent republic)?

Well, this is how I usually got around it in Vicky, I sattelited some nations to trade and ally with me. I didn't really feel troubled by the inability to find allies with high BB, but the inability to trade excess RP for techs hurt me; having some sattelites got me around that.

 

[Sute]{h]

What is badboy points really? I my opinion BB points reflect the will to (ab)use power against the "rules" of international society. Thus countries racking up loads of BB points would per default be regarded as untrustworthy.

Now you might be a powerful ally despite of your BB points, but why should your small neighbour believe your friendly intentions, when you time and time again have flaunted the rules of international diplomacy? They have no idea of knowing that you arn't just playing the old game of divide and conquer.

 

[eleinvisible]

I hope that nations with a predominately conservative ruling establishment will use the status quo war goal quite often to keep bad-boys aggressors in their place... but I also hope some alliances are still possible. Germany after uniting was probably considered the badboy of Europe, but due to its power it was able to fetch a few allies.

 

[daemonofdecay]

I hope that nations with a predominately conservative ruling establishment will use the status quo war goal quite often to keep bad-boys aggressors in their place... but I also hope some alliances are still possible. Germany after uniting was probably considered the badboy of Europe, but due to its power it was able to fetch a few allies.

I would love to see AI actions influenced not just by what is in their best interests, but by ideology as well; conservatives would want to preserve the status quo (and would use force as well as diplomacy to do so), liberals would want to ally and aid other liberal governments, and communists would want to spread the Revolution to other states.

 

[telesien]

The problem here is AI. How the AI responds to a diplomatic proposal is upto math and a bit of luck, while it's devoid of realpolitik and pragmatism.

I don't think it can be helped though. You're still playing a machine after all.

It can be partially solved by math.

Small nation with big neighbour with high military score and lot of BB -> Do I have another neighbour of similar strength YES/NO -> Do I have better relations with one or another? -> When very close (diffrence less then 50): which one has more similar constitution? etc. etc. Something like this can force nations to choose sides and create divided Europe, perfect breading ground for future Great War.

 

[Galaahd]

Fear should be definetely a factor, also for the big powers. If you had, let's say, a huge continental France, the other great powers would surely form a coalition to crush France. There was a similar system in Civilization II many years ago, why can't we have it in Paradox games?

Badboy isn't simply enough. Fear and some sort of balance of power system are also needed.

 

[Sute]{h]

Balance of power actually creates the opposite result. Countries attempt to create alliances against the major power. They don't align with it... if they value their independance.

Factoring the fear is hard. Especially since neorealistic theory is pretty much governed by the idea of rationality. Fear is only a significant variable to the extend that it causes a country to deviate from a rational balance of power approach. Thus factoring in fear is really just handicapping the AI... from a neorealistic point of view.

The trouble with Paradox games is that the AI doesn't really attempt to balance power in any meaningful sense. It should be far better at forming alliances to contain major players.

 

[daemonofdecay]

The trouble with Paradox games is that the AI doesn't really attempt to balance power in any meaningful sense. It should be far better at forming alliances to contain major players.

Well with the new Great Power-system Paradox has talked about, we might finally see the AI take steps to counter a 'rising power' in the world to protect their own place in the Top 8 Nations. If a nation with alot of Bad Boy is rising up the list and threatening other nations' places on the list its very conceivable that they might go to war rather than risk dropping from the Top 8. Likewise a nation wanting to break into the Top 8 might seek an ally from amongst those higher on the list in less danger of being bumped to help secure their own rise into Great Power status, thus creating the grounds for a Great War.

 

[telesien]

Well with the new Great Power-system Paradox has talked about, we might finally see the AI take steps to counter a 'rising power' in the world to protect their own place in the Top 8 Nations. If a nation with alot of Bad Boy is rising up the list and threatening other nations' places on the list its very conceivable that they might go to war rather than risk dropping from the Top 8. Likewise a nation wanting to break into the Top 8 might seek an ally from amongst those higher on the list in less danger of being bumped to help secure their own rise into Great Power status, thus creating the grounds for a Great War.

That is just part of the problem. Diplomacy would really benefit from behaviour, when quickly rising GP would cause even old enemies to unite against it and not just fight against newly forming GP.

 

[daemonofdecay]

That is just part of the problem. Diplomacy would really benefit from behaviour, when quickly rising GP would cause even old enemies to unite against it and not just fight against newly forming GP.

Well I think the AI will have to take into account how close a nation is to breaking into the list or moving up or down on said list before it actually occurs. It would be beyond ridiculous if nations only decided to address a nation when it became a GP, and not before. I am pretty sure PI knows this and will code the AI accordingly.

Thus in a perfect world the AI would have an idea of the Balance of Power as being the representation of the Top 8 spots, and would generally strive to improve its own place on said list while simultaneously keeping other nations in their "spot"; in effect, preserving the status quo.

It would be able to judge how quickly and how much a nation was improving its standing before the actual change; France would be alarmed when Prussia starts making large gains on it in the Military and Industrial rating and would take steps to counter this by seeking allies years before Prussia actually does advance a step.

Likewise, the method and speed of how a nation is improving its score would be considered as well; if the USA experiences slow but steady growth and maintains a low BB the other nations should not be to worried when it moves up on the GP list, as it is not radically upsetting the status quo and balance of power.

So to work properly nations should be aware of each nations BB and how fast it is advancing even before it has moved up or down a slot; it is not enough that a nation reacts to a rival breaking into the Top 8, it must be able to prempt the move and act accordingly. Plus by taking into account the speed of growth we would see Europe react more plausibly to any upsetting of the Status Quo.

 

[telesien]

It's not just about top 8. You can have Prussia (already as GP) forming Germany and taking the freed place as new GP. Now after few years of problems, this Germany starts being so powerful, that his closest rival France fears it so much, that it allies with its traditional enemy UK.

You can be quite weak GP (when compared to those two or three on top) and they won't pay you that much attention. But you can grow and challange their absolute top position. And I don't think this is modeled.

 

[Sute]{h]

Great Power status doesn't equal military power. The AI should evaluate other countries based on their military score not their standing. At least if it is balance of power we are attempting to create.

 

[telesien]

Great Power status doesn't equal military power. The AI should evaluate other countries based on their military score not their standing. At least if it is balance of power we are attempting to create.

And industrial power. You may not have strong army now, but with position that is not isolated like the one US have, you should also taken as a threat.

 

[Sute]{h]

And industrial power. You may not have strong army now, but with position that is not isolated like the one US have, you should also taken as a threat.

Perhaps... but that depends a lot of the type of industry you have. Only industrial facilities capable to boosting the military power is relevant. A fully civilian industry doesn't pose a significant threat.

 

[telesien]

Perhaps... but that depends a lot of the type of industry you have. Only industrial facilities capable to boosting the military power is relevant. A fully civilian industry doesn't pose a significant threat.

Historically it may be true, since every nation wanted its own weapons, steel and such and France would surely prohibit weapon sales to Germany (and screw UK and the Cobden-Chevalier treaty), but when this game has the ever-open WM, every industry is potentially dangerous because it can generate money to buy those weapons and field army

 

[Sute]{h]

Historically it may be true, since every nation wanted its own weapons, steel and such and France would surely prohibit weapon sales to Germany (and screw UK and the Cobden-Chevalier treaty), but when this game has the ever-open WM, every industry is potentially dangerous because it can generate money to buy those weapons and field army

True.