Diplomacy is entirely broken

[Zenicetus]

With the game in its current state, would it make sense for the player to just avoid all alliances, period? I'm thinking of starting a new game and trying that, since it seems they're more trouble than they're worth -- getting dragged into wars you don't want, or not being able to stop allies from continuing when you get a peace deal, etc. It would also avoid the frustration of being attacked by an ally when there's no apparent motivation, just a random dice roll for who is going to annoy the player next.

Has anyone else tried it? If so, what are the effects on trade and your ability to avoid petty warfare?

[Beskar]

If anything, your allies not attacking is a good thing. With all the other countries constantly at war with each other, it makes it easier for you to be the superior power.

[Discoman]

With the game in its current state, would it make sense for the player to just avoid all alliances, period? I'm thinking of starting a new game and trying that, since it seems they're more trouble than they're worth -- getting dragged into wars you don't want, or not being able to stop allies from continuing when you get a peace deal, etc. It would also avoid the frustration of being attacked by an ally when there's no apparent motivation, just a random dice roll for who is going to annoy the player next.

Has anyone else tried it? If so, what are the effects on trade and your ability to avoid petty warfare?

In my new Marathas campaign I didn't bother allying anyone, and it did work out. I have complete control of India and the only people that don't like me is Persia, everyone else is bright green because I'm not ensnared in alliances.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

huh so what about a nation like great britain who starts the game allied with people? is it better to just break those alliances (does that give a hit to diplomacy?)

[Didz]

Probably, not as I think you take a huge hit on the 'Freind-o-meter' if you do.

However, I certainly wouldn't make any new alliances. They don't have many benefits and cause a hell of a lot of problems.

[Sheogorath]

You could try declaring war on an allies protectorate.

[Neoncat]

With the game in its current state, would it make sense for the player to just avoid all alliances, period? I'm thinking of starting a new game and trying that, since it seems they're more trouble than they're worth -- getting dragged into wars you don't want, or not being able to stop allies from continuing when you get a peace deal, etc. It would also avoid the frustration of being attacked by an ally when there's no apparent motivation, just a random dice roll for who is going to annoy the player next.

Has anyone else tried it? If so, what are the effects on trade and your ability to avoid petty warfare?

I am too thinking about starting a campaing without allies or even protectorates this time. Well, last time by 1706 I was war with anyone except Poland-Lithuania with Russia. Not only that. My protectorates were attacking each other and I took lots of 'didn't honor alliance' hits because of that. I didn't expand and tried to keep territorial expand meter below -20 all the time. One could say that whole campaing map is broken. Battles are only ones that are working... Well... sometimes atleast, urgh.