Why don't they like me?

[armonistan]

I have been playing EUIII for a while now, but it seems like I can never
get anyone to ally with me except the puny 1 provience nations. Even when
I have a good rep and 150+ relations.

Why do they hate me?

 

[unmerged(11600)]

I have been playing EUIII for a while now, but it seems like I can never
get anyone to ally with me except the puny 1 provience nations. Even when
I have a good rep and 150+ relations.

Why do they hate me?

+150 relations is "hate"?

I don't think the 'two alliance' rule still holds in IN, but they probably are still less likely to accept the more alliances each of you has. Prestige and power also have some effect on alliance offers. And I suppose not being percieved rivals or threats impacts these decisions, too.

-Pat

 

[spirto]

it's easy to get another nation to be your ally! You could even get France to be your ally as England even when you have continental holdings!!
They will NEVER agree if they have 3 or more alliances though. That's the only thing that stops them really.... Missions against you will make them insult you a million times but just wait for them to succeed or fail.

 

[armonistan]

hmm, never more than 3 alliances
that darn a.i never allies with me
well....allies are overated

 

[unmerged(134823)]

alliances are pretty good if they are the right ones

 

[unmerged(136398)]

I try to not ally unless absolutely necessary, because I hate how the AI can ruin peace deals for me. In one game as the Timurid Empire, I got dragged into a war against the Mamluks together with Ethiopia, and since I was under a personal union with Dulkadir at the time, Ethiopia was the alliance leader, and due to Ethiopia being conquered, they ceded back the conquests of Judea, Damascus and Hawran that I had gotten from the Mamluks earlier, which had taken some very tough wars to obtain, where the Ottomans and the Golden Horde had also been involved.

I reloaded that game, though, since I find it to be bullshit to have the AI negotiate on my behalf.

/Teutonic

 

[Prussia Rules]

First, you need alliances for protection. Later on, as an excuse for war

 

[LAF1994]

I try to not ally unless absolutely necessary, because I hate how the AI can ruin peace deals for me. In one game as the Timurid Empire, I got dragged into a war against the Mamluks together with Ethiopia, and since I was under a personal union with Dulkadir at the time, Ethiopia was the alliance leader, and due to Ethiopia being conquered, they ceded back the conquests of Judea, Damascus and Hawran that I had gotten from the Mamluks earlier, which had taken some very tough wars to obtain, where the Ottomans and the Golden Horde had also been involved.

I reloaded that game, though, since I find it to be bullshit to have the AI negotiate on my behalf.

/Teutonic

I think that PI should fix this problem by making it so that ALL parties in a war have to approve a peace deal.

 

[Tjuk]

It's not a problem, it's WAD. There are a lot of "Paradox should fix this game breaking bug"-posts lately. It is not a bug if it was never meant to work in any other way. If they were going to implement something like this there would be a storm of people complaining that lesser partners want a cut in their own wars. If you want the perfect game, build it yourself. If not, bring your suggestions without the feigned moral indignity on account of supposed flaws.

 

[unmerged(68652)]

He didn't say bug, he said "problem". It may be WAD but it's still an annoying mechanic (and when used by the player something of a minor exploit) that a lot of people would like to see changed when they make EU:IV, it's mentioned fairly frequently in the EU4 wishlist thread IIRC. If we enjoy the game there's no reasons why we shouldn't be able to make suggestions for things that would make it better

I generally avoid alliances with the AI in most games because of their annoying habit of suddenly deciding they don't like you and canceling it. Then accepting your alliance request. Then canceling it again...repeat ad nauseum. It's weird because they'll trust me "utterly" or "implicitly" (I'm not sure which one of these is the higher level) and I'm pretty sure I've been down as a "rival" or a threat for quite a long time without it seeming to bother the other country but at some point the AI makes a fairly arbitrary decision that it doesn't want me as an ally anymore (even in MMP where the AI doesn't get missions)

 

[Tjuk]

He said something about Paradox needing to fix it. With that he insinuates that it is broken and therefore needs to be repaired by the people responsible. Problems, on the other hand, are not fixed but solved. But before we start discussing semantics, lets blame my fan boyish instigation of this probably fruitless discussion on my bad mood. I've had a long night, first playing EUIII and then convincing my girlfriend that I was not beyond rescue and could better my ways. This, however, has become a recurring theme in our discussions. o

OT: I think that the new alliance system works great. Ganging up on hapless victims is made a lot harder and trust within an alliance has to be earned. You are not done after forming the alliance. You need to go along with your allies in their wars and actively participate in them (I don't know if this gets registered by the game, but I got the impression that it helps.) Look for natural allies, like non-bordering, non-rival, same religion nations. And do not expect alliances to last for ever. If your partnership does well enough eventually you will become rivals. At the moment I'm in a game as Brandenburg/Prussia, where I had a great alliance going with Sweden/Scandinavia. Together we picked Denmark, the TO and Poland/Lithuania apart and they really helped in rescuing Vienna from the Ottomans. But now we are both big, fat, threatening and rivals. We border each other in Denmark and have by event cores on each others provinces. Our alliance fell apart after 200 years and they almost immediately allied with Poland and Bohemia, while I sold my soul to a blobbing France; who dutifully helped me put a resurgent OE back into its place after they dared to warn me.

Okey, this is starting to look like an AAR, so I will cut it short: I like the current system, it works for me.

 

[King Nothing]

Okey, this is starting to look like an AAR, so I will cut it short: I like the current system, it works for me.

It wasn't that part he saw as the problem, it was the peace part. And I have to agree with him. It just seems very wrong for me that when I have almost completely crushed the enemy, my alliance leader accepts a white peace..

Maybe just make it possible to dishonour the peace deal? A popup that says "The alliance leader have negotiated a peace making this deal..... blah blah blah... Will you honour the peace?"

Seems like a logical way of doing it to me.

 

[unmerged(68652)]

It wasn't that part he saw as the problem, it was the peace part. And I have to agree with him. It just seems very wrong for me that when I have almost completely crushed the enemy, my alliance leader accepts a white peace..

Maybe just make it possible to dishonour the peace deal? A popup that says "The alliance leader have negotiated a peace making this deal..... blah blah blah... Will you honour the peace?"

Seems like a logical way of doing it to me.

Yeah, that sounds good, maybe a reputation and relations hit for continuing after everyone else peaces out.

It was me who had the problem with the alliance part of the system in that the AI has a tendency to sometimes cancel long-standing alliances for no apparent reason, i.e. neither of us has ever dishonoured the alliance or started lots of offensive wars, BB is low, relations are high (RM, access etc.) and there are no immediate changes in circumstances for either nation or our neighbours

 

[unmerged(135152)]

The AI can smell fear.

Alliances are pretty useless. What you need is quarantees. A whole bunch of them. Nothing annoys me more than "Liege has declared war on France, do you want to commit suicide or lose a bunch of prestige?". And then they go around declaring wars against everyone who you have royal marriages and good relations with, just to tick you off.


I blame overpowered cavalry and advisor-hogging AI.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

The trick is to peace out before the alliance leader does. And if you're not leader, ignore all non-leaders on the other side except to defend your provinces, as you can't peace out with any of them.

-Pat

 

[Tjuk]

I blame overpowered cavalry and advisor-hogging AI.

Are you sure it's not the statistical inconsistencies in repeatedly sieging with the same stack or the lack of a university in Krakow.

It wasn't that part he saw as the problem, it was the peace part. And I have to agree with him. It just seems very wrong for me that when I have almost completely crushed the enemy, my alliance leader accepts a white peace..

Maybe just make it possible to dishonour the peace deal? A popup that says "The alliance leader have negotiated a peace making this deal..... blah blah blah... Will you honour the peace?"

Seems like a logical way of doing it to me.

Agreed.

Getting out by separate peace before or after the Alliance leader strikes a peace deal should be penalized by relations and prestige hit, me thinks.