Open main menu


B - This article is considered a B-class article on the wiki quality scale



  • Suggestion that allies side with defence over offence in a situation where they are allied with both sides. Perhaps research this and add to wiki

--General Baker   (Talk | Contribs) 01:40, 9 September 2013 (CEST)

Alliance vs. coalitionEdit

I do not see the need to split the page at this point. Alliances and coalitions are highly conceptually related, and both are there for the purpose of making multiple countries side together in a war.

A split would leave the alliance page very sparse. It may be warranted in the future once there's more information about alliances and coalitions, but at this point in time it seems like page bloat. ~ Meneth (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2013 (CEST)

Okay. I just thought it would be sensible since many people search explicitly for coalitions, because they want to know how to break them up when they are expanding, so it is much more complicated/wiki-worthy than the rather simple alliance concept. I hope the new structure adds some valuable information, though :D --Lateralus (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2013 (CEST)
Splitting it once the alliance bit is about as long as the coalition bit is currently is probably the best idea. So if you want it split, just start expanding the alliance section ;) ~ Meneth (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2013 (CEST)

Bringing this up again because now the parts of this page dedicated to alliances is larger than the parts covering coalitions and alliances need at least two tables added (AI factors for accepting alliance offers, AI factors for CTA). Though, unless coalitions are expanded on, the new coalition page would be very sparse. A guide for managing coalitions could pad things out. 09:33, 12 September 2014 (CEST)

Not only neighbours in coalitionEdit

I just removed the statement saying that only neighbours and rivals can join a coalition: see screenshot where Pegu just entered a coalition against Portugal while sharing no borders and being no rival. RedGolpe (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2013 (CEST)

Information about when nations leave coalition isn't accurate?Edit

I've definitely used improve relations multiple times to raise relations with someone in a coalition against me above zero, and they still have both stayed outraged and in the coalition.

I've had an enemy who had a coalition against me leave the coalition while they still had (fairly) negative view of me. I think it happened to end at -50 but that would need confirmation. (I was Portugal vs. Morocco, and we also had each other as rivals. I also started a lonely coalition vs. Morocco long before.) -- 21:05, 2 January 2014 (CET)
Outraged nations can stay outraged up to +50 opinion or 0 aggressive expansion, this from experience and from game files. A coalition can persist even if no members are outraged it seems, it has been 3 months since all members in a coalition against me lost outraged (all now either rivalry, hostile or threatened) and they are still blocking my expansion into France ;'[ -- 16:22, 13 January 2014 (CET)

Does answering a Call to Arms give any benefits?Edit

Besides honoring and not breaking the alliance, is answering the Call to Arms any different from merely declaring war? What does this do for Wargoals, if anything? Do you still end up paying stability costs (for instance, if you attack someone ELSE who was also an ally/royal marriage/other positive relations)? Thanks. -- 21:05, 2 January 2014 (CET)

Answering the call to arms brings you into the war on the side of your ally, and the war goal is whatever the declaring nation chose. So if your ally calls you into a defensive purge of heresy war, the war goal is to help your ally win 80% of battles. There is no stability penalty associated with answering a call to arms, so you (or a computer player) won't see any stability loss from, for example, violating a truce. A computer player always enters the war on the side of the defender if two of its allies begin hostilities. --Pookles (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (CET)
You do suffer all relevant stability penalties for honouring an offensive CTA, such as for having a RM or a truce with the target. This is why AI will cite "Accepting would destabilize <country>" as a major reason not to accept (something like -200 reasons, from memory - not an absolute bar, but very hard to overcome). Defensive CTAs don't cause stability loss. BTW, wargoals are only considered for the leader's peace - being called in to an offensive war with the conquest CB, for example, won't let you take your own claims at no DIP cost, and ticking warscore doesn't count towards individual warscore. Hairy Dude (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2015 (CEST)

Information on separate peace is not accurateEdit

In 1.6.2 I had Castille (part of a France-Castille-Poland+minors coalition against me and my allies) offer me a separate peace, even although I could not offer a separate peace to the coalition members. Also, My ally Saxony offered a separate peace to France (which involved signing over 3 or 4 provinces to an ever growing French blob that the AI should be ganging up against, but for some stupid reasons they leave it to me to tackle France, and then blame me for taking its provinces instead... Oh well, AI is to stupid to find my capital anyway so in the end I usually beat the coalitions into the ground). So separate peace is possible, just not for the main target of the coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Talk) 13:26, 14 July 2014‎

Hierarchy of Calls to WarEdit

What if an AI nation is both allied to the attacker and to one of the defender's allies? If that defender's ally is declared a co-belligerent, the AI nation will receive two call to arms: one offensive call for the original war declaration and one defensive call for the second tier of alliances. Which one will it honor? Usually it takes a day for the second tier alliances to trigger, so will it automatically join the attacker's side because the defensive call comes too late? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pal (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2017‎ (CET)

Leaving a coalitionEdit

In my current Austria game I have a coalition of HRE members against me, and after 2 or 3 years at peace with a diplomat advisor they're all at -34 AE. They're still in a coalition. The article states that they should leave if no member has -50 or worse AE, but that's clearly not true. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2018 (CET)

Clarifications/Mistakes in Calling the AI into warsEdit

As of patch 1.29, I can see that attitude towards enemies can be +18 for instance, but the article mentions no linear scaling of the modifiers. Is this a mistake? 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

it is modified by something. In a stream that I saw it was speculated that AE reduces the attitude towards enemies, but I think further research is needed before adding that to the wiki. Grotaclas (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Alliance" page.