Would be great to get future notice about upcoming war

[GurenGaaze]

You can use favors/trust to inform an ally to not start any wars in a short timeframe so that they can join your wars and better prepare (do they actually? never actually use this) But I don't think the AI ever uses this function.
The AI never uses favors to get the trust higher between a themself and a player nation.
It would really be great to have the AI use this function better, to inform you of upcoming wars they are planning and want you to aid them in.
I imigine this can be exploited, but that can easily be outdone with - when they inform you, you can either say yes or no. Depending on whenever this is a thing. Before the call to arms you are not allowed to delete them as your ally, to avoid this war. And if you refuse (if you say yes) You get an stab hit? and lose more prestige (but that's really not a big issue, and never were.) But this is not something for me to decide or think of.

In any case - the trust/favor system is a paid feature, and I wonder why it isn't in the game? A certain AI personality can even warn you (somehow) before they declare war.

 

[gia257]

You can use favors/trust to inform an ally to not start any wars in a short timeframe so that they can join your wars and better prepare (do they actually? never actually use this) But I don't think the AI ever uses this function.
The AI never uses favors to get the trust higher between a themself and a player nation.
It would really be great to have the AI use this function better, to inform you of upcoming wars they are planning and want you to aid them in.
I imigine this can be exploited, but that can easily be outdone with - when they inform you, you can either say yes or no. Depending on whenever this is a thing. Before the call to arms you are not allowed to delete them as your ally, to avoid this war. And if you refuse (if you say yes) You get an stab hit? and lose more prestige (but that's really not a big issue, and never were.) But this is not something for me to decide or think of.

In any case - the trust/favor system is a paid feature, and I wonder why it isn't in the game? A certain AI personality can even warn you (somehow) before they declare war.

it costs 10 whole favors, its just a trap button, the ai knows better, also i believe the trust system was rushed, it has several holes

 

[GurenGaaze]

Even so, the feature is already in the game, and it would be very helpful to have them inform from time to time. It wouldn't only increase the AI's strenght before declaring war for the player's side, but overall. Instead of a "oh shit, now it's war... ummm what to do?" it would be better to be a little bit better prepeared. I don't think an offensive war came as a suprise for it's allies, and they have to debate whenever it's worth it there and then.

 

[Dominion]

it costs 10 whole favors, its just a trap button, the ai knows better, also i believe the trust system was rushed, it has several holes

It gives +20 reasons to join your war. Not a trap button.

 

[Sfan]

It remains very situational. Most of the time, I'd rather buff my diprep, spend favors to increase trust because that's more costly but is useful later on too, or pay off part of their debt so that they join. The only thing it can be useful against is a distance penalty. But not 100% trap, I agree.

 

[gia257]

It gives +20 reasons to join your war. Not a trap button.

It remains very situational. Most of the time, I'd rather buff my diprep, spend favors to increase trust because that's more costly but is useful later on too, or pay off part of their debt so that they join. The only thing it can be useful against is a distance penalty. But not 100% trap, I agree.

-160 distant war
-500 they have 936 in loans
-50 war exhaustion
-46 occupied and besieged provinces
-25 attitude towards enemies
-1000000 screw you, have that war solo you didnt give us land last time
and so on, i suppose it helps when you are just needing to beat negative diplo rep or some other minor thing (but 10 favors for it, 5 tops)

 

[Dominion]

Yea, but you use allies. Think we made it clear in a different thread that I think allies are a waste of time and resources.

You pick someone up if he's convenient, use that person for your own offensive wars and deny any call to arms because the penalty isn't even close to the penalty you get from accepting.
Not advocating for harsher penalties, but rather saying getting a call to arms in the first place is the harshest penalty there is.
No use in increasing trust if I'm going to lose it all anyways, but that's only a minor sidenote.

My main point is: Trust doesn't do enough.

"They're more willing to accept defensive calls to arms" no, no they are not.
Early on you don't have trust, midgame the negative modifier on debt massively outweighs any potential gain you could get from trust. I've reported it twice already. No change.

"They're more willing to get vassalized" no, no they are not.
1 point per 5 trust meaning 1 point per 10 favors capped at +10, the equivalent of 3.33 dip rep and far from worth it. I've reported it twice already. No change.

"They're more willing to join your wars" no, no they are not.
+1 per 1 trust meaning 40 favors are equivalent to hitting "prepare for war" once.

40 favors.

You need to be allied to someone for at least 50 years if you want to get in the same situation you'd be in if you were to call them in on prepare for war after 20.

Trust is something you increase when you have nothing better to use those points on, not something you actively spend favors on.
It's a great system that's horribly balanced. As many systems in the game are.

i suppose it helps when you are just needing to beat negative diplo rep or some other minor thing

Yes. That's what you use it for. Amongst other things.
You confuse a niche case (-2389612847 occupied and besieged provinces) with standard.
Unless it's standard for you to have your allies fully occupied in which case I'm seriously confused by your playstyle.
Not even sure why you would even want to call in an ally that's fully occupied. What do you expect to gain from that?

If I tell you bread can't be used to produce children, can't be used to cure cancer, can't be used to launch a rocket into space, but I guess you can eat it to avoid starving to death, you'd be equally confused.

 

[Rocketskates]

the game tells you, your ally is not training and at full maintaince, there

 

[Lor360]

-160 distant war
-500 they have 936 in loans
-50 war exhaustion
-46 occupied and besieged provinces
-25 attitude towards enemies
-1000000 screw you, have that war solo you didnt give us land last time
and so on, i suppose it helps when you are just needing to beat negative diplo rep or some other minor thing (but 10 favors for it, 5 tops)

Wow, what post apocalyptic survivors are you allied to? In most of my cases if they wont accept its -3 to -20 reasons.

 

[GurenGaaze]

the game tells you, your ally is not training and at full maintaince, there

I guess, but the fact that we do have the favor/trust system - it could be utilized better as just a simple message or something. Anything is better than watching your allies closely every year just to see who he "might" attack. And it's also more realistic to inform your ally, when you want to bring him into your offensive wars. Otherwise as the game works "I'm weak, go kill them for me" while you have your own wars and own plans.... maybe even on a whole other continent. It's a relyability kinda thing, with the last scenario you can't realisticly expect them to say yes if you didn't inform them first. (or strike a deal, but it's EU4 we're talking about, no pre-war dealings here unless players)

I guess you could say and "only defensive wars". But that can go for different playstyles why you don't want to do that. Or maybe you WANT to help out in the war, but you are VERY unprepeared for this "sudden" war, which the AI might have planned a few months ahead of time. (Guessing)
I think it would work way better for the AI to inform and "discuss" like any other "human" being.

Maybe getting a "prepeare for war" message, and if you refuse you get a -10 or -15 trust?

 

[Sfan]

Wow, what post apocalyptic survivors are you allied to? In most of my cases if they wont accept its -3 to -20 reasons.

I smell an alliance with Poland there. Only them can create -500 reasons out of loans.

Yea, but you use allies. Think we made it clear in a different thread that I think allies are a waste of time and resources.

You pick someone up if he's convenient, use that person for your own offensive wars and deny any call to arms because the penalty isn't even close to the penalty you get from accepting.
Not advocating for harsher penalties, but rather saying getting a call to arms in the first place is the harshest penalty there is.
No use in increasing trust if I'm going to lose it all anyways, but that's only a minor sidenote.

Do you drop literally every ally and dishonor literally any CtA? Just curious about what it implies and how it plays out. I agree that there are allies you typically only get to call them in one offensive war. But if an ally is relatively stable, I'm happy accepting his CtA and not actually fight the war, or maybe a minor battle. My vassals might give me war participation and free favors, and worst case scenario I can white peace after two years or so if the war seems annoying. Besides very early game where allies are crucial to expand quickly without draining your own manpower (attach one unit to their main stack to siege forts), mid to late game they help to prevent coalitions. An alliance with Austria and Bohemia allow you to eat all of PLC + Russia without triggering a coalition, basically. You get reduced AE with the only majors nearby, and they add extra strength to prevent German minors to coalition you. I'd happily accept some dumb CtA and white peace half of them as soon as I can instead of dishonoring and finding myself with Austria and Bohemia in a coalition against me, or forced to delay my conquest of Eastern Europe to prevent the coalition.

 

[gia257]

Wow, what post apocalyptic survivors are you allied to? In most of my cases if they wont accept its -3 to -20 reasons.

erm, poland?

 

[Dominion]

erm, poland?

There's not a sane person in the world who would ally Poland for anything other than calling them into an offensive war with promise of land without giving them anything and ditching them immediately afterwards.

I don't even ally Commonwealth when it's avoidable. Think I picked them up four times in 3000 hours.

They're the worst possible ally in the game. What are you doing?

Do you drop literally every ally and dishonor literally any CtA?

Yes.

Exceptions include farming favors like I did in my Hisn Kayfa run where I followed the Ottoman's CtA against Dulkadir who had fewer units than I did or any war that my vassals can win without me moving a finger.

Besides very early game where allies are crucial to expand quickly without draining your own manpower (attach one unit to their main stack to siege forts), mid to late game they help to prevent coalitions

Early game you can ditch them and pick up another ally. Your own wars come first.
Mid to late game you're not preventing coalitions by following a CtA, you're enticing them.

All enemy forces get counted towards a potential coalition's/potential enemy's forces.
Assuming the enemy is stronger than your ally, following the CtA means weakening your position.

Denying it and picking up an OPM as an ally is a stronger deterrent than following it.

EDIT: As for reducing AE, sure, you pick allies to reduce AE with them.
But if they're getting into a war they can't win without you you can just ditch them and ally their attacker instead. Or attack them, as soon as your truce is up.
They've been defeated once. They're dead.

 

[Sfan]

Poland is an excellent ally. If you pay their 4000 ducats of debt, you can call them in against Hungary, Lithuania will run around in circles and Poland start sieging a fort and then turn back because 40k nobles and 20k Galician separatists revolted.

 

[Stadhouder]

Poland is an excellent ally. If you pay their 4000 ducats of debt, you can call them in against Hungary, Lithuania will run around in circles and Poland start sieging a fort and then turn back because 40k nobles and 20k Galician separatists revolted.

Thanks for make me chuckle

 

[Dominion]

Poland is an excellent ally. If you pay their 4000 ducats of debt, you can call them in against Hungary, Lithuania will run around in circles and Poland start sieging a fort and then turn back because 40k nobles and 20k Galician separatists revolted.

Sidenote: I edited my post a bit.

To go a bit more in depth: I stopped mentioning it in my Nagaur AAR because it had become too common.

My alliance with Mamluks got dropped twice. I re-allied them later on.
Not like trust is a heavy modifier against alliances once you've surpassed a nation in military strength. Worst case you build a few ships. Still cheaper than fighting a war on their side for no gains.

The only Call to arms I followed was Transoxiania's, but only after marking all of Khorasan as vital interest.
Khorasan was a coalition member, Transoxiania was stronger than all enemies combined.

Got a province for almost nothing, a coalition member got removed and my ally was able to win the war on his own so I didn't take that big of a hit.

That's the kinda situation where I follow a CtA.
But an actual war? Having to fight for my ally because he needs me?

I want clay, I want to expand. If anything them declaring and not being able to win without me is an amazing opportunity.
Deny their call, wait until your truce is up, pick up the pieces.

What you get is favors, what I get is development.

Think I'm getting the better end of the trade on this one.

 

[Rocketskates]

I guess, but the fact that we do have the favor/trust system - it could be utilized better as just a simple message or something. Anything is better than watching your allies closely every year just to see who he "might" attack. And it's also more realistic to inform your ally, when you want to bring him into your offensive wars. Otherwise as the game works "I'm weak, go kill them for me" while you have your own wars and own plans.... maybe even on a whole other continent. It's a relyability kinda thing, with the last scenario you can't realisticly expect them to say yes if you didn't inform them first. (or strike a deal, but it's EU4 we're talking about, no pre-war dealings here unless players)

I guess you could say and "only defensive wars". But that can go for different playstyles why you don't want to do that. Or maybe you WANT to help out in the war, but you are VERY unprepeared for this "sudden" war, which the AI might have planned a few months ahead of time. (Guessing)
I think it would work way better for the AI to inform and "discuss" like any other "human" being.

Maybe getting a "prepeare for war" message, and if you refuse you get a -10 or -15 trust?

you can opt out of offensive war(untick it), the ally generally considers your willingness to join a war as you were a regular AI
a bit backwards but you can also build spynetwork on your ally and it will inform you about a war coming up

the AI is not a human being, its a modifiers considering decision maker, and expecting it to become one isnt going to happen anytime soon, you will have to watch you for things i mentioned

you can also predict a war or atleast know what war is going to happen, interest provinces are going to be fought over, the province owner is weak or in war already and the AI is doing good, you can be sure theres going to be a war, opt out of it

the trust system could be improved but i think its a low priority thing for now
not anything is not better than paying attention to the game you are playing, get used it and dont expect handholding

 

[Aeon221]

I agree. As someone who actually does support allies while playing on VH, I'd like a note when they're planning for war so that I can get prepped. The whole point of this game for me is winning wars against the odds, and the AI diving into dumb ones gives me a great experience.

I can imagine advance notice causing issues where players who are obsessed with blobbing drop their allies, so it'd make sense to add the usual alliance break penalty to it + change AI relationship to hostile. I know I'd get butthurt if the AI told me it wouldn't support me, so it'd be reasonable for most AI personalities to respond in kind.

Also, Venice is clearly the worst ally. They get decc'd on routinely by both the Emperor and the Ottomans, have limited territory and no military ideas. They also hold out forever even when losing because their giant fleet blocks off their capital. So any war you get called into by them is gonna go on forever and eventually result in AI armies invading you because they're bored.

 

[GurenGaaze]

you can opt out of offensive war(untick it), the ally generally considers your willingness to join a war as you were a regular AI
a bit backwards but you can also build spynetwork on your ally and it will inform you about a war coming up

the AI is not a human being, its a modifiers considering decision maker, and expecting it to become one isnt going to happen anytime soon, you will have to watch you for things i mentioned

you can also predict a war or atleast know what war is going to happen, interest provinces are going to be fought over, the province owner is weak or in war already and the AI is doing good, you can be sure theres going to be a war, opt out of it

the trust system could be improved but i think its a low priority thing for now
not anything is not better than paying attention to the game you are playing, get used it and dont expect handholding

I do have 1000+ hours at the game, so I'm pretty "used" to stuff for that matter.
The thing I am stating is that it is very tedious and unrealistic, and could work much better by just having something of a similar feature. Instead of what Aeon221 mention - stupid AI doing stupid AI things.
And why having a paid feature ONLY to the player? (well they do towards other AI nations, but they can't interact more intelligently towards the player despite actually having the means to do so)

 

[Sfan]

What you get is favors, what I get is development.

Think I'm getting the better end of the trade on this one.

But usually I get both. I don't fight these wars, or if I marginally engage, that's because I want for AE to decrease or because I'm fighting another war at the same time. And as I said I'd rather fight a war for an ally than a coalition war against the aforementioned ally because we broke alliance. What you do obviously works or else you'd have stooped doing it, but I'm surprise by how little consequences that has.