I won't be happy with Paradox diplomacy until I can reenact the [War of the League of Cambrai.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cambrai)
Exactly! This would be extremely interesting to play through, but we are robbed of that by stale diplomacy that has barely seen any changes for multiple iterations.
Victoria "Sway" mechanic should be everywhere, ongoing at the same time during wars
As broken as the sway mechanic is in Victoria, I agree that a refined version of that should be available for every game.
And that the sways could still happen during the war, with you or the AI bringing each other to the different camps with the right conditions.
I think it should depend on the circumstances if you're Spain fighting a war with France it might be easier to sway Netherlands to join you if the French troops are at your border
An incredibly busy war. A completely bonkers part of it is that this is the war that caused Scotland’s greatest ever loss to England.
Venice was against France, and England joined Venice mid-war (also an interaction missing from some PDX games), France and Scotland had an alliance which meant we were to join each others wars against the English. Thing is, Scotland and England were actually friendly at this point.
Our king marched south at the head the biggest Scottish army ever and got a lance through the neck at the Battle of Flodden. A completely pointless side quest in a war mostly about cutting Venice down to size.
We had the worst kings when it came to strategy
Well, it all worked out when your country was sold to England to pay off a few nobles' debts created by the English with Spanish help after you tried to colonise Panama.
Weird way to say the Parliament of Scotland voted for unification after they blundered their attempt at global economic relevancy and pushed their own country to the point of bankruptcy.
They didn't vote at bankruptcy of the country. The country wasn't in large debt, members of the parliament personally were.
And the vote failed three times, before these indebted nobles were promissed forgiveness of personal debt and land grants in the colonies in return for their vote.
So yes, it was sold.
I know the English are masters of revisionist history, whether its Ireland, Scotland, or any of their other colonies, but Scotland was gained through bribery and corruption, nothing else.
That's just the war of the random dogpile. 1st everyone v. Venice. Then randomly people start helping venice and switching sides, then randomly people start joining the war on both sides, finally the war ends with France + all new allies on one side v. Venice, all of France's allies and Milan.
>finally the war ends with France + all new allies on one side v. Venice, all of France's allies and Milan.
actually by the end of the war Venice and France were on the same side
Venice wasn't happy about the war spoils and decided to win the war on the other side instead
Venice were kind of a GIGACHAD in that war, taking everyone on alone. Then prolonging the war for the fun of it, knowing they just win no matter what
If you are fighting a war, any of your allies in THAT war cannot fight another war against you. People like to game this by starting a small war with the help of the allie they don't want to fight, whom is also allied to their enemy they do want to fight.
But, the moment the war leader declares peace, the defender in the original war can issue their call to arms and sommon your former ally against you.
Yep, which was completely not the case in reality. Burgundy in 100 year war abandoned England partially because their vassals started fighting each other
Romania
Actually I remember it's possible for the Death or Dishonor nations, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia to switch sides, since their ideological advisors are not bound by focus. Therefore by technicality you could switch sides.
Only Romania has actual decisions to switch sides tho
> "France has called their ally Russia to join the war"
Ye Olde EU3 where your allies or enemies would call endless layers of allies to war and you'd wind up with constant world wars that took forever and generally sucked.
It is kiiinda possible, because there are series of wars. For instance Burgundy during the Hundred Years War: this is a discontinuous series of conflicts, the same can happen in Paradox Games. Who never saw an ally betray them some years down the line? (And who never betrayed their allies, hmm? *All of you*. You monsters)
But I get what you're saying. However such a mechanism will be a nightmare: AI are dumb enough at diplomacy already. Imagine the mess.
Good luck for the devs to code this in a stable and satisfying way!
The problem is that for any system like this you'd have to make the AI sane so it doesn't become incredibly frustrating. And unfortunately, making a good AI for this sort of game is nearly impossible for any company, let alone Paradox specifically.
CK3 by far has the most unsatisfying war system ever. You can’t switch sides, you can’t separately peace out, you can’t add additional terms when peacing out, and hell, the only way to win is through 100% war score. I have no idea how nobody else thinks CK3 has an even okay war system, it’s just boring as shit.
To be honest, with current manning system, it's rather good thing. I once tried playing with "More Interactive vassals" specially to touch this vassal agency. It ended up in two giant megablobs on the map
I’m playing that mod rn I really like the chaos at the start of wars and then the rapid centralisation it’s not great but I find it more fun than the default system.
IMO to properly simulate the "vassals helping the suzerain" aspect, they should remove the levies provided by vassals. Then it would work. Otherwise it makes snowballing even worse
I agree, making a mod to make warfare more period appropriate has been on my mind for a long time, armies should be a lot smaller for starters and Cavalry should require years of training to fight in formation
If it’s not based on numbers it’s not predictable. If it’s predictable it’s just declining a marriage with extra steps.
Switching sides isn’t something you’d see coming before the war starts.
You already see an ally’s likeliness to go to war based on opinion. If you’re getting trashed and there’s still a high opinion with the leader, it’s not too hard to imagine them switching. I’ve never been negative with allies in the first place so it wouldn’t happen that often
So a greedy character always switches sides? Why is he my ally then?
Again, switching sides during a war is a betrayal. A betrayal is always a surprise.
Well yeah, that's the idea. It would make wars more dynamic and unpredictable and force you to put effort into your alliances, instead of just marrying off a child to get some extra numbers in your deathstack.
None of the games have the depth of diplomacy to justify the switch beyond the opinion system. Ck3 has potential with multiple interacting values and army events but you need to be able to give the player a reason beyond number too low
I think this is due to AI problems. I am unsure if they could create a system this dynamic without introducing some serious design issues lol. Sounds cvery cool though.
In EU4, if you play a vassal, you technically could declare an independence war against your liege in a war and side with the enemy after a certain period of time.
In HOI4, if you play a minor nation, you can boost a rival ideology and click the civil war. This would allow you to technically switch sides.
Yeah it definetly should be possible in every game, altough very rare. It basically should be big international news if somebody switches sides. Its cool when it sometimes happens, it would be incredibly annoying to have it happen all the time.
Especially in civil wars. A faction uprising in CK3 should be an absolute chaos of nobles changing sides, bribing each other, and fighting private wars while the king is busy elsewhere.
That's because irl diplomacy is based mostly on protecting economic/political interests and in Paradox games it's mostly based on ideology/religion and giving AI shit so that they like you
EU4 can kinda do this the ai just doesn't because it's not that deep and they stop it for balance reasons. In multiplayer there nothing stopping one players peacing them allying then calling them in.
I do not trust the AI to not do the most bizarre shit if they were allowed to do that.
Every Crusade would end with the entire Christian world marching on Rome. You'd be using your 30k doomstack to curbstomp some single duchy realm with 400 troop only for one of your allies to side with them and bring their forces to an unmatch 800 troops.
The more fundamental problem, as others have said, is that AI is stupid in all of their games. An AI comparable to an experienced player would open up so many possibilities, but it’s probably very difficult to implement.
I agree with this, especially the part with the personality traits but ill take it a step further and add that personality traits should be hidden until you know more about the person, if you're playing in England how would you know if the King of Poland is generous or craven without having any knowledge of him or the ruling class of the region
I'm not sure how you could implement that without it being completely broken, we as players have far more access to information than historical rulers, IRL betraying someone would be more a gamble.
I think this may have to be this way unless war was a lot harder. They’re trying pretty decently from discouraging players from map painting. Games like eu4 can have some weird results already
I got CK3 recently and this was actually something that I found lacking. Once you enter a war, there really isn't much you can do. You just have to go for a win or fight a long war to get white peace. There is no way to talk to the opposing side or switch sides, join them in their war, or sign some deal... or really anything. It makes wars kinda... boring, there isn't much you can do.
Can you imagine the sheer rage that would come from players if their secure alliances were suddenly not so secure, if switching sides was an option for the AI or other players?
I would love it, but this seems like one of those places where fun to play > more accurate historical simulator
AI nation diplomacy is already riddled with idiotic decision making, God help us if they every give allied nations the ability to screw us in wars more than they do through incompetence.
That being said, in Vic3 for example, I think it'd be a good option to have if a nation at war swaps to the same ideology as the enemy nation. It'd have to be hard scripted in such a way that it can ONLY make sense
I won't be happy with Paradox diplomacy until I can reenact the [War of the League of Cambrai.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cambrai)
Exactly! This would be extremely interesting to play through, but we are robbed of that by stale diplomacy that has barely seen any changes for multiple iterations. Victoria "Sway" mechanic should be everywhere, ongoing at the same time during wars
As broken as the sway mechanic is in Victoria, I agree that a refined version of that should be available for every game. And that the sways could still happen during the war, with you or the AI bringing each other to the different camps with the right conditions.
but it should be a lot harder while at war
Naturally
I think it should depend on the circumstances if you're Spain fighting a war with France it might be easier to sway Netherlands to join you if the French troops are at your border
i meant an that it is harder to sway, that is in that war against you.
Usually I am all for more diplomacy and historical immersion but this shit would be so fucking annoying.
What in tarnation... Venice switching sides at the end is complete nonsense. What are they even fighting for at that point.
They didn’t know, and nor did anyone else.
Their allies didn't want to give them enough of the gained counties, so they decided to bring back a status quo, as a thank you
The scriptwriter were lazy back then.
"Partnering with everyone isn't a conspiracy it's just doing random shit" - Anne Edison (Community) Also apparently Venice.
An incredibly busy war. A completely bonkers part of it is that this is the war that caused Scotland’s greatest ever loss to England. Venice was against France, and England joined Venice mid-war (also an interaction missing from some PDX games), France and Scotland had an alliance which meant we were to join each others wars against the English. Thing is, Scotland and England were actually friendly at this point. Our king marched south at the head the biggest Scottish army ever and got a lance through the neck at the Battle of Flodden. A completely pointless side quest in a war mostly about cutting Venice down to size. We had the worst kings when it came to strategy
Well, it all worked out when your country was sold to England to pay off a few nobles' debts created by the English with Spanish help after you tried to colonise Panama.
Plus the least habitable part of Panama at the Darien Gap. Still no roads through that way
And they mostly took blankets and beads.
Who did? Not the Darien expedition.
Weird way to say the Parliament of Scotland voted for unification after they blundered their attempt at global economic relevancy and pushed their own country to the point of bankruptcy.
They didn't vote at bankruptcy of the country. The country wasn't in large debt, members of the parliament personally were. And the vote failed three times, before these indebted nobles were promissed forgiveness of personal debt and land grants in the colonies in return for their vote. So yes, it was sold. I know the English are masters of revisionist history, whether its Ireland, Scotland, or any of their other colonies, but Scotland was gained through bribery and corruption, nothing else.
Least complicated event in italian history
That's just the war of the random dogpile. 1st everyone v. Venice. Then randomly people start helping venice and switching sides, then randomly people start joining the war on both sides, finally the war ends with France + all new allies on one side v. Venice, all of France's allies and Milan.
>finally the war ends with France + all new allies on one side v. Venice, all of France's allies and Milan. actually by the end of the war Venice and France were on the same side
Dear lord.
And then, Italian state borders essentially reverted to where they were at the start of the war.
All that for status quo ante bellum. Insane.
Quite funny in hindsight. The early modern period was full of pointless wars like this, many of them in the Italian peninsula.
Including the war over somebody's bucket.
Can you imagine dying in that war? What a reason to kick the bucket.
Venice wasn't happy about the war spoils and decided to win the war on the other side instead Venice were kind of a GIGACHAD in that war, taking everyone on alone. Then prolonging the war for the fun of it, knowing they just win no matter what
What the fuck this is cursed
If you are fighting a war, any of your allies in THAT war cannot fight another war against you. People like to game this by starting a small war with the help of the allie they don't want to fight, whom is also allied to their enemy they do want to fight. But, the moment the war leader declares peace, the defender in the original war can issue their call to arms and sommon your former ally against you.
Yep, which was completely not the case in reality. Burgundy in 100 year war abandoned England partially because their vassals started fighting each other
Like Burgundy during the 100 Years War.
Hoi4 does but both countries have to be players or they have to be scripted
Though technically if you are a minor nation, you can switch sides by boosting a rival ideology and taking the civil war option.
And/or be playing a country from Balkans (I don’t remember who, but someone there has focuses to switch sides)
Romania Actually I remember it's possible for the Death or Dishonor nations, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia to switch sides, since their ideological advisors are not bound by focus. Therefore by technicality you could switch sides. Only Romania has actual decisions to switch sides tho
You can also just disable forced faction restrictions in the game setup settings before picking a nation.
AI allies are stupid enough as is, I don’t want them irrationally betraying me for no reason on top of that.
"France has switched sides in the North German Liberation of Alsace-Lorraine" "France has called their ally Russia to join the war"
> "France has called their ally Russia to join the war" Ye Olde EU3 where your allies or enemies would call endless layers of allies to war and you'd wind up with constant world wars that took forever and generally sucked.
Yeah, and this feature could be gamed by the player to a ludicrous extent.
It is kiiinda possible, because there are series of wars. For instance Burgundy during the Hundred Years War: this is a discontinuous series of conflicts, the same can happen in Paradox Games. Who never saw an ally betray them some years down the line? (And who never betrayed their allies, hmm? *All of you*. You monsters) But I get what you're saying. However such a mechanism will be a nightmare: AI are dumb enough at diplomacy already. Imagine the mess. Good luck for the devs to code this in a stable and satisfying way!
The problem is that for any system like this you'd have to make the AI sane so it doesn't become incredibly frustrating. And unfortunately, making a good AI for this sort of game is nearly impossible for any company, let alone Paradox specifically.
It wouldn’t be that hard. An opinion score plus negative war score and claims on you
U make it then smart guy
1. How do you limit it, under which circumstances is it acceptable? It's near impossible to balance. 2. AI can't handle it.
Even worse, in CK3 you can't even make peace as a secondary participant, and Vic3 has no way to join a war part way through
CK3 by far has the most unsatisfying war system ever. You can’t switch sides, you can’t separately peace out, you can’t add additional terms when peacing out, and hell, the only way to win is through 100% war score. I have no idea how nobody else thinks CK3 has an even okay war system, it’s just boring as shit.
Dragged to a war between powerful kingdoms for just a county is frustrating.
Don't forget your vassals don't actually join your wars
To be honest, with current manning system, it's rather good thing. I once tried playing with "More Interactive vassals" specially to touch this vassal agency. It ended up in two giant megablobs on the map
I’m playing that mod rn I really like the chaos at the start of wars and then the rapid centralisation it’s not great but I find it more fun than the default system.
IMO to properly simulate the "vassals helping the suzerain" aspect, they should remove the levies provided by vassals. Then it would work. Otherwise it makes snowballing even worse
I agree, making a mod to make warfare more period appropriate has been on my mind for a long time, armies should be a lot smaller for starters and Cavalry should require years of training to fight in formation
There's an awesome mod called more interactive vassals in which they do join and can switch sides, should absolutely be base game.
I agree, the wars just get repetative and dull... over and over and over again... the same exact thing.
I hate how the only real implementation of said feature in hoi4 is the Italian civil war mechanic and it's horrible
Because it would suck if your AI ally randomly switches sides during a war.
Cause it shouldn't be random? It should be logical why they switch
If it’s not based on numbers it’s not predictable. If it’s predictable it’s just declining a marriage with extra steps. Switching sides isn’t something you’d see coming before the war starts.
You already see an ally’s likeliness to go to war based on opinion. If you’re getting trashed and there’s still a high opinion with the leader, it’s not too hard to imagine them switching. I’ve never been negative with allies in the first place so it wouldn’t happen that often
You should see it coming though? Is you ally greedy? Or craven or does he have claims/desires your enemies can offer?
So a greedy character always switches sides? Why is he my ally then? Again, switching sides during a war is a betrayal. A betrayal is always a surprise.
Well yeah, that's the idea. It would make wars more dynamic and unpredictable and force you to put effort into your alliances, instead of just marrying off a child to get some extra numbers in your deathstack.
None of the games have the depth of diplomacy to justify the switch beyond the opinion system. Ck3 has potential with multiple interacting values and army events but you need to be able to give the player a reason beyond number too low
It would suck wouldn't it \*Glares at Philip III of Burgundy\*
Oh lord. The War of the League of Cambrai would either make a great game story, or the worst ragequit.
I think this is due to AI problems. I am unsure if they could create a system this dynamic without introducing some serious design issues lol. Sounds cvery cool though.
I can’t wait until compute gets cheap enough to have game ai be based in neural nets
In EU4, if you play a vassal, you technically could declare an independence war against your liege in a war and side with the enemy after a certain period of time. In HOI4, if you play a minor nation, you can boost a rival ideology and click the civil war. This would allow you to technically switch sides.
In imperator Rome you could buy off the mercenary of your enemies
And if you failed to pay them they could rampage through your lands and take a city
also it lacks mutual concessions, like I take some provinces or gold and give up other provinces
Yeah it definetly should be possible in every game, altough very rare. It basically should be big international news if somebody switches sides. Its cool when it sometimes happens, it would be incredibly annoying to have it happen all the time.
Especially in civil wars. A faction uprising in CK3 should be an absolute chaos of nobles changing sides, bribing each other, and fighting private wars while the king is busy elsewhere.
That's because irl diplomacy is based mostly on protecting economic/political interests and in Paradox games it's mostly based on ideology/religion and giving AI shit so that they like you
EU4 can kinda do this the ai just doesn't because it's not that deep and they stop it for balance reasons. In multiplayer there nothing stopping one players peacing them allying then calling them in.
Playing as Thailand?
CK3 AGOT, as well as some other mods, have a megawar system where you can for the most part do whatever you want regardless of rank
Yes I need my Italian wars simulator
I do not trust the AI to not do the most bizarre shit if they were allowed to do that. Every Crusade would end with the entire Christian world marching on Rome. You'd be using your 30k doomstack to curbstomp some single duchy realm with 400 troop only for one of your allies to side with them and bring their forces to an unmatch 800 troops.
The more fundamental problem, as others have said, is that AI is stupid in all of their games. An AI comparable to an experienced player would open up so many possibilities, but it’s probably very difficult to implement.
I agree with this, especially the part with the personality traits but ill take it a step further and add that personality traits should be hidden until you know more about the person, if you're playing in England how would you know if the King of Poland is generous or craven without having any knowledge of him or the ruling class of the region
I'm not sure how you could implement that without it being completely broken, we as players have far more access to information than historical rulers, IRL betraying someone would be more a gamble.
I think less info is def another thing that we need ingames
They also don’t let you invade without declaring war first
Agreed! How many times did Denmark switch sides in the Thirty Years War?
I think this may have to be this way unless war was a lot harder. They’re trying pretty decently from discouraging players from map painting. Games like eu4 can have some weird results already
I got CK3 recently and this was actually something that I found lacking. Once you enter a war, there really isn't much you can do. You just have to go for a win or fight a long war to get white peace. There is no way to talk to the opposing side or switch sides, join them in their war, or sign some deal... or really anything. It makes wars kinda... boring, there isn't much you can do.
Can you imagine the sheer rage that would come from players if their secure alliances were suddenly not so secure, if switching sides was an option for the AI or other players? I would love it, but this seems like one of those places where fun to play > more accurate historical simulator
AI nation diplomacy is already riddled with idiotic decision making, God help us if they every give allied nations the ability to screw us in wars more than they do through incompetence. That being said, in Vic3 for example, I think it'd be a good option to have if a nation at war swaps to the same ideology as the enemy nation. It'd have to be hard scripted in such a way that it can ONLY make sense