The Leverage mechanic is terrible for small nations

[Rider_of_Doom]

I don't know if I am alone with this but I genuinely love playing smaller nations and I have to admit that 1.7 and the Leverage mechanic killed that part of the game for me. If anyone wants an extreme example Luxembourg is the perfect case to see all the problems extremely fast (makes it even funnier that the achievement tied to the nation is now impossible):

- You start as a (landlocked) nation with your own market
- When you become independent you are still locked within your own market
- The only way to join another market is by joining a Power Bloc right now

And here is where the problem arises: France wants me to join their Bloc and I want to join it too so my population is not starving to death anymore. Sadly, France needs 200 leverage points over me to make it possible but doesn't put in any work to do so. Meanwhile I, as Luxembourg, can't do anything to work towards it. I have a perfect relationship with my targeted country and the system doesn't care. It yields you no points and doesn't help you at all. So all I can do now is watching how my country slowly goes bankcrupt while my population starves to death because I don't have enough grain despite importing as much as possible with no buildings slots available anymore.

And I just wonder... why? Why is there not a single option to work towards joining a Power Bloc when you are the small nation? Especially if both countries align in that goal. Right now the system only allows a Great Power to forcefully pull another nation into their own SoI without providing a way to join one peacefully. And on top of that you have to be lucky enough that the AI actually uses the options provided and isn't just sitting there twiddling its digital thumbs. Please Paradox, I beg you, make it possible to work towards that goal when the player is the small(er) nation. Like a decision or journal entry you have to fulfill so the option becomes available (maybe has to go through your government with a debate to not make it a simple button click).

 

[Sirbab]

100% agree with you

 

[Rider_of_Doom]

Got too annoyed by this so I played around with some changed values and had to realize that only joining a bloc with trade grants you access to their market. So joining France would have been absolutely useless either way for me. I thought the shared marked would have been standard and just the bonuses would differ. TIL.

So if anyone wants to profit by joining a bigger market the only options are Prussia's bloc or - the usual way - becoming a protectorate. Thankfully this did the trick for Luxembourg: Prussia didn't want me to join their bloc so I attacked them with a "change regime" CB and Prussia either went for war reparations or becoming their protectorate. Well, they didn't want me but now they got me! Very stupid but my hands were tied and desperate times call for desperate measures... Might do the trick for many other small (or rather tiny) nations atm.

 

[lemonsquid]

Yeaaa the leverage system dosnt really make sense if both parties want to participate. It only makes sense in the case of strong arming another state to your whims(at least how I view “leverage”). I don’t understand why they removed customs unions or am I just blind

 

[Wizzington]

Yeah, we've recognized this issue and are going to look into adding ways to get 'reverse leverage' as a small nation. However, we don't want to just allow for bypassing the leverage mechanic entirely as Power Bloc membership shouldn't just be about whether the current government says yes to it but whether the Power Bloc actually has enough influence in the country for them to meaningfully be a member to begin with.

 

[Askorti]

Yeah, we've recognized this issue and are going to look into adding ways to get 'reverse leverage' as a small nation. However, we don't want to just allow for bypassing the leverage mechanic entirely as Power Bloc membership shouldn't just be about whether the current government says yes to it but whether the Power Bloc actually has enough influence in the country for them to meaningfully be a member to begin with.

I dont think that makes logical sense to me. Influence should only be relevant if you're trying to persuade someone who is unwilling. But if a country wants to join of their own volition because they believe it's beneficial to them, the need for influence over them should be negligible at best.

 

[TheHostName]

Yeah, we've recognized this issue and are going to look into adding ways to get 'reverse leverage' as a small nation. However, we don't want to just allow for bypassing the leverage mechanic entirely as Power Bloc membership shouldn't just be about whether the current government says yes to it but whether the Power Bloc actually has enough influence in the country for them to meaningfully be a member to begin with.

I have to agree with @Askorti here. While i see and understand the intend here, leverage seemed to me like the name suggest as a way to justify towards that nation that they should be part of your bloc. 200 Leverage also might be to hard. Every new bloc makes adding a nation harder and that really gets problematic in MP. You wont even get enough together when you have 5 European blocs alone....

Ohh btw can we get a way to force countries out of Blocs or even dismantle them? Or do i need to release everything in them and humiliate them until they are not a GP anymore?

Also for gamebalance the amount of nations who are willing to become my protectorate in turn for helping them in their civil war is far to big. I saw AI prussia get Sweden as a protectorate and Austria getting the Rebel side becoming theirs. That was just one of 7 nations in Europe alone that became a Protectorate that way.

 

[Helmut von Dandy]

I've only played the Power Bloc leader side so far, but why can't you just do the same things but in reverse? Grant investment rights, make a trade agreement, make a defensive pact, etc. Or do they not grant leverage when you propose them as the smaller party?

 

[Delterius]

I dont think that makes logical sense to me. Influence should only be relevant if you're trying to persuade someone who is unwilling. But if a country wants to join of their own volition because they believe it's beneficial to them, the need for influence over them should be negligible at best.

I think it makes sense now that Lobbies exist. If you have an anti british and a pro british lobby in your country then building up that foreign influence would be the pro british government's aim. We need more interactions either way.

 

[MathyM]

(makes it even funnier that the achievement tied to the nation is now impossible):

Reminds me of when conditions to force a nation to become your subject changed. Empire Under the Pun (the Sikh Empire one) became significantly harder. Not even sure if it can still be completed within the game's timeframe nowadays.

 

[Rider_of_Doom]

Yeah, we've recognized this issue and are going to look into adding ways to get 'reverse leverage' as a small nation. However, we don't want to just allow for bypassing the leverage mechanic entirely as Power Bloc membership shouldn't just be about whether the current government says yes to it but whether the Power Bloc actually has enough influence in the country for them to meaningfully be a member to begin with.

Thank you for your post Wiz, but I have to agree with the other posters: I don't think the leverage system is a good reflection of the intended purpose then. With leverage comes some kind of force into play to "persuade" someone onto your own side. If the relationship and the goals of two nations are aligned it shouldn't be needed that much. I don't need it to be completely bypassed immediately by a simple button click (thus mentioning a debate as an example) but a more dynamic approach would probably make more sense. Including a way to see how you can trigger specific pro and anti-country lobbies in the game itself. So far it just feels totally RNG.

Also one of my biggest pet peeves I have right now is the market situation. As stated in my second post in the topic I thought each bloc would share their market since I only played within the British market before my game as Luxembourg (if everyone is a subject it is technically true after all) so I was surprised when this was indeed not the case. Of course it makes some sense to limit it to actual trading blocs but on the other hand it eliminates a ton of options for small nations. Sure, it should be hard to raise them but if your only option is to game the system it simply feels kinda flawed imo.

(Also something unrelated to the topic at hand: When I got support from Spain or Belgium for my independence it never influenced by liberty desire gain. Is this WAD?)

I've only played the Power Bloc leader side so far, but why can't you just do the same things but in reverse? Grant investment rights, make a trade agreement, make a defensive pact, etc. Or do they not grant leverage when you propose them as the smaller party?

The base reluctance being set at -100 simply makes it impossible to propose such deals when you are the minor nation. You simply can't overcome that. As the big nation you will easily blast past it because of the GDP difference modifier alone most of the time. They would give them leverage over you if you could ever achieve them though.

Reminds me of when conditions to force a nation to become your subject changed. Empire Under the Pun (the Sikh Empire one) became significantly harder. Not even sure if it can still be completed within the game's timeframe nowadays.

In the end I still found a strategy for Luxembourg after exploring all possibilities. Become as liberal as possible initially, get Belgium to support your independence (Spain can't help you) and let them handle the war. Getting enough liberty desire is the biggest problem, Belgium and its conscripts can handle the war pretty easily even with others joining Netherlands. After that - as mentioned above - declare on Prussia with "regime chance" until they roll the protectorate war goal. Buld relationships back up with them until they will support you backstabbing Belgium by conquering Wallonia (call them in during the last tick so the AI can't react to it anymore). After that they will absolutely hate you but you will be in their bloc and market with a full and great state (and it keeps your liberty desire high). After that, work yourself towards the coast and unite the Netherlands.

The Sikh one I don't even want to attempt nowadays.

 

[NaviVoleb]

I have to agree with @Askorti here. While i see and understand the intend here, leverage seemed to me like the name suggest as a way to justify towards that nation that they should be part of your bloc. 200 Leverage also might be to hard. Every new bloc makes adding a nation harder and that really gets problematic in MP. You wont even get enough together when you have 5 European blocs alone....

Ohh btw can we get a way to force countries out of Blocs or even dismantle them? Or do i need to release everything in them and humiliate them until they are not a GP anymore?

Also for gamebalance the amount of nations who are willing to become my protectorate in turn for helping them in their civil war is far to big. I saw AI prussia get Sweden as a protectorate and Austria getting the Rebel side becoming theirs. That was just one of 7 nations in Europe alone that became a Protectorate that way.

I got Austria when I played for Russia. And they asked me to do it themselves)

 

[Generubi]

Reminds me of when conditions to force a nation to become your subject changed. Empire Under the Pun (the Sikh Empire one) became significantly harder. Not even sure if it can still be completed within the game's timeframe nowadays.

i actually completed the achievement last week!

 

[Theuthis]

Yeah, we've recognized this issue and are going to look into adding ways to get 'reverse leverage' as a small nation. However, we don't want to just allow for bypassing the leverage mechanic entirely as Power Bloc membership shouldn't just be about whether the current government says yes to it but whether the Power Bloc actually has enough influence in the country for them to meaningfully be a member to begin with.

But, what is keeping the country from joining a power bloc if both the government and the power bloc leader agree? I would assume that it would be the influence of other power blocs, which would rather have that country remain unaligned. However, if that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense for the +200 leverage advantage to consider the sum of both the power bloc leverage and the unclaimed leverage (which as far as I can tell represents how 'sovereign' that country is) instead if both the country and the leader agree?