Understanding alliancesCanChainTogether


  • Donators

    I want to understand this property better. Here is the text from POS2.

    alliancesCanChainTogether values: "true", "false", or "default". can only be applied to a relationship that is archetype "allied", and only 1 relationship can have it. if true, any nations that reach this relationship will share both allies and enemies.

    isDefaultWarPosition values: "true", "false", or "default". can only be applied to a relationship that is archetype "war", and only 1 relationship can have it. if true, any nations that reach an alliance chaining relationship, will have their enemies who are not yet at war with, set to this relationship.

    Here is the object browser

    Can only be applied to a relationship that is archetype "Allied" and only 1 relationship can have it.
    If true, any players that reach this relationship will share both allies and enemies.

    Can only be applied to a relationship that is archetype "War" and only 1 relationship can have it.
    If true, any players that reach an alliance chaining relationship, will have their enemies who are not yet at war with, set to this relationship.

    Let's consider a mod where at the start:

    A is at war with B
    A is allied with C
    B is at war with C
    D is neutral.

    1. D can by an event or player action, ally with A. This will chain to make D an ally of C as well, and make D at war with B
    2. C can by an event of player action, ally with B. This will chain to make C at war with A, breaking the alliance between A and B
      Do I understand this correctly?

    Let's consider a different situation
    A is at war with B
    C is at war with D

    1. An event causes C to ally with A. By chaining, A will go to war with D and C will go to war with B. D remains neutral towards B.
      Do I understand this correctly?

    Only alliances chain, not wars. If you want to join a war, ally with a belligerent, going to war with a belligerent does not have any general consequences. Do I understand this correctly?

    What I am trying to do is to create an alternative to FFA, where powers randomly join alliances as the result of events.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @RogerCooper Simpy put this means... A friend of my friend is my friend.... a friend of my enemy is my enemy... ALWAYS.

    Means any neutral nation will always replicate the diplomatic stance of whatever side it joins. If this is true... nations cannot have changing diplomatic attitudes towards other nations within the game.


  • Donators

    @Hepps said in Understanding alliancesCanChainTogether:

    @RogerCooper Simpy put this means... A friend of my friend is my friend.... a friend of my enemy is my enemy... ALWAYS.

    Means any neutral nation will always replicate the diplomatic stance of whatever side it joins. If this is true... nations cannot have changing diplomatic attitudes towards other nations within the game.

    Does chaining only apply to neutral relationships? So you can't use this to change sides in the middle of a war.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @RogerCooper I'm not 100% sure... all I remember when Veq created it is that it means any nation of any alliance always shares the same "attitude" as the alliance. So you cannot have nations that are Allied with one but neutral to a nation it is at war with.


  • Donators

    @Hepps said in Understanding alliancesCanChainTogether:

    @RogerCooper I'm not 100% sure... all I remember when Veq created it is that it means any nation of any alliance always shares the same "attitude" as the alliance. So you cannot have nations that are Allied with one but neutral to a nation it is at war with.

    So possibly, declaring war on a member of the alliance will also change relationships. I need to conduct some experiments.


  • Moderators

    @RogerCooper said in Understanding alliancesCanChainTogether:

    alliancesCanChainTogether values: "true", "false", or "default". can only be applied to a relationship that is archetype "allied", and only 1 relationship can have it. if true, any nations that reach this relationship will share both allies and enemies.

    isDefaultWarPosition values: "true", "false", or "default". can only be applied to a relationship that is archetype "war", and only 1 relationship can have it. if true, any nations that reach an alliance chaining relationship, will have their enemies who are not yet at war with, set to this relationship.

    That option definition leaves a lot to be desired, and practically only scrapes the matter. It also doesn't clarify if it is forbidden to use it without defining the "isDefaultWarPosition", in case you might want to share allied, but not enemies. It has always been in dire need to be more extensively formulated. Personally, I never felt a huge need to do so, as such an option is so restrictive I've a hard time thinking it is going to be playable, but, as it is, the pos2 explanation is worth little, not allowing the mapmaker to actually know what is going to be.

    Resummarizing the situation you have as:

    • A and C are allied and both at war with B.
    1. C can by an event of player action, ally with B. This will chain to make C at war with A, breaking the alliance between A and B
      Do I understand this correctly?

    As the definition states, what should happen, if the action is successful, is that A, B and C should end up either all allied with each other or B and C allied and both at war with A.

    Questions would be:

    1- What does get priority? The fact that allied are shared or the fact that enemies are shared (in the first case, A, B and C would end up all allied; in the second case, B and C would end up allied and both at war with A)?
    2.1- If sharing allies takes precedence over sharing enemies, does A have to consent to the action, or is it forcefully getting allied with B, at C discretion. Is this influenced by whether the action is requiring or not consent (from target B).

    I think this should be sorted out (and documented), before even starting thinking about any other cases or implications. That option clarification doesn't even clarify the starting point.

    I suppose that the only way to do so, beside somehow getting in contact with Veqryn, is testing and assuming that how it works is how it is supposed to.🙄

    I'm fairly sure there are no existent games on which you can test this.

    My gut tells me that, based on the description, what should happen is A, B and C ending up all allied with each other, as I think you would first chain all alliances, then look around for sharing enemies, but I'm merely surmising.


  • Donators

    @Cernel A common request has been the ability to have countries join alliances. I wonder if the chaining property works that way (except for the display screen).


Log in to reply