Diplomacy

Discussion on game mechanics, balancing etc.
Forum rules
Posted relevant content can be used under GPL or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/) for the project. Thanks!
User avatar
Creator
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:01 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Creator »

[*]Maybe limit number of possible alliance partners to 1 or 2 to avoid big blocks
Just in response to this. I would like to see this but as time goes on blocks actually do eventually form towards endgame (IE WW1)

So at the start there will not be a lot of alliances but every 10 years(?) the ai will allow for another nation to ally itself with them. This cycle continues until eventually a world war will be triggered but this would only be in late game.

Declarations of war
Possibly make it so that you DON'T have to declare war and you can do a (sneak attack) but this would make you a diplomatic perior. You would lose a lot of diplomatic points all non allys will have a large negative relation with you whilst allies will have a small negative opinion of you.
Also usually when countries go to war they had a casus belli (reason to go to war) in order to start the war "legitimately". (Germany made one up in WW2 to go to war with poland, The european powers "went to war" with many Africa countries to "help them". ETC)
mobilizations of the army
Allow mobilizations to occur at any time even if not at war (in order to gear up for war). All neighboring nations think less of the nation mobilising UNLESS they have a pre existing non-agression/alliance treaty. Mobilizations should severely impact the industry or raw goods production as you are taking away people from the workforce and conscripting them into the army. Mobilized armies should be rather weak troops (Ie irrgulars) that appear at the capital a turn after mobilization, Amount depending on your workforce size.
Peace treaty with fixed running time to really get safety
Agreed but peace treaties should be allowed to be broken with severe loss of diplomatic relations with ALL nations even with pre-existing non-aggression treaties and alliances(this could mean the breaking of alliances) as well as an influence point hit.




These are the type of treaties I would like to see possible.

MAJORS:
1: Alliance: Both forces will come to the aid of each other during times of war.
2: Defense Pact: Both parties agree to help each other in a defensive war, (IE war that was not started by either parties)
3: Military access: Allows your troops the use of the parties infrastructure and land to move your forces through and attack from. If you declare war on someone you have military access with you will receive a huge relation hit with ALL countries

MINORS:
1: Alliance: As Above
2: Defense Pact: As Above
3. Guarantee: A major garentees the independence of a minor and will defend it in case of a defensive war. This gareentee will end the turn after it is cancelled by the major power. As long as this gareentee exists you will have a boost to relations.
4: Trade Pact: The minor will trade with the major before trading with any other nation. Only one trade pact per minor nation
5: Protectorate: You have gained economic control over the minor. you have permanent military access and an alliance. No other country may buy land in this minor and any that have land in this minor is returned to the minor. Minor still retains control of its military.
6: Vassal: You have gained political control over this minor. It is considered as a state in your country. You gain military control over this country and it may no more conduct diplomacy with other countries.

The only legitimate reason a country will NOT abide by an alliance is if a peace treaty exists between it and the opposing nation

Peace Terms:
End treaty: Force a country to end all its treaties with any country it desires
Veneteaou
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:23 am

Re: V. Diplomacy

Post by Veneteaou »

Agreed but peace treaties should be allowed to be broken with severe loss of diplomatic relations with ALL nations even with pre-existing non-aggression treaties and alliances(this could mean the breaking of alliances) as well as an influence point hit.
Breaking treaties should only be a big diplomatic hit when someone else is attacking your ally. If your ally goes on the offensive against the world, breaking the alliance should improve diplomatic standing with the rest of the world.
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Post by Trilarion »

Okay, so we want to station troops for protection. And then we want to be able to declare war even on the protected nation. What should happen to the troops? (In Civilization for similar situation, troops get teleported out of the country with very funny side effects...)

I suggest that in these cases you cannot break a piece treaty but have first to leave the country.
Veneteaou
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:23 am

Re: V. Diplomacy

Post by Veneteaou »

Okay, so we want to station troops for protection. And then we want to be able to declare war even on the protected nation. What should happen to the troops? (In Civilization for similar situation, troops get teleported out of the country with very funny side effects...)

I suggest that in these cases you cannot break a piece treaty but have first to leave the country.
To me, the most realistic solution is that troops stationed in another nation would at the end of the turn fight like they had attacked the province. It's brutal and would obviously incur a serious diplomatic hit, but it's the only non-ridiculous solution. It wouldn't be a huge deal either: minor nations would have to like you in order to let you place troops (so you'd already be on a diplomatic path to dominance and have no reason to blindside them). For major power allies, they would only need allied defenders in chokepoint provinces. As long as two nations are allied, give them the ability to boot defenders out of certain provinces to prevent surprise attacks on defended capitals, and it should be fine.
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Post by Trilarion »

I think this puts too much prominence on the surprise tactics (make a friend your protected area, station troops, declar war, take over) that is not intended by the concept of protection and might never be realistically be balanced by any diplomatic penalty. How often did it actually happen in history?

I imagine good relations as two things: not only that they like us but also that we like them. Therefore we wouldn't really do it. Protection should be the path to peaceful assimilation. As an AI I would probably never allow anyone to protect my country and station troops there if the chances for being overthrown are high. As a human I would certainly never allow anyone such things (I know how fellow humans act). And on the diplomatic scale the only reasonable answer would probably be total war which is nothing what makes a game fun? I think we can simply forbid it because it is not a fun element if you think about it all. But that's only my opinion. :)
Veneteaou
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:23 am

Re: V. Diplomacy

Post by Veneteaou »

I can agree it definitely makes combat and military placement really complicated. I don't think it would be impossible to balance, much like other games have balanced troop movement through sovereign territories (a la Civilization).
User avatar
Creator
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:01 pm
Contact:

Re: V. Diplomacy

Post by Creator »

Veneteaou wrote:
Agreed but peace treaties should be allowed to be broken with severe loss of diplomatic relations with ALL nations even with pre-existing non-aggression treaties and alliances(this could mean the breaking of alliances) as well as an influence point hit.
Breaking treaties should only be a big diplomatic hit when someone else is attacking your ally. If your ally goes on the offensive against the world, breaking the alliance should improve diplomatic standing with the rest of the world.

I am not sure if I read you right here but I disagree.

If a country breaks a peace treaty he should lose relations with his allies because they start thinking "If he won't abide by that treaty what will make him abide by mine".

As for declaring war whilst military access exists I think the option should be there but the hit to relations and influence should be rather great as you are doing a very unhanded and dirty thing and many countries will distrust you for this. The diplomatic hit should be massive. many minors and majors will break treaties and many majors will be on the verge of war. You will most likely lose your allies through this action as well.

The option should be there but it should be basically a one time use pretty much because after you use it nearly all the other countries will break there treaties with you. If you have a nice amount of trade treaties going on it could potentially ruin your importing and in turn ruin aspects of your industry. The huge penalty will make it hard to ever use it again as it will take a long time (if ever) to recover from the amount of diplomatic points :twisted: This would also add an interesting dynamic to multiplayer as humans will have to be constantly on there toes with there human "friends" who will have to ability to betray them in a huge way. Much like in the board game diplomacy which is set around ww1 which is based off the idea of players backstabbing each other at the right time (IE Two Allied human countries, Austria and Russia, are preparing for war with a third human player, prussia. little does Austria know that Russia has made a secret deal with Prussia that if he joins prussia he will receive the eastern and southern parts of Austria. On the turn of the attack Austria declares war on prussia but is surprised to hear Russia declaring war on them. Austria quickly sues for peace with Russia giving them the extensive eastern provinces and promising them much of eastern prussia if they continue with the original plan. Russia agrees and before long through the use of backstabbing is now standing pretty on top of land.)

Influence:
So here is my thought for how influence is gained and spent. Influence is gained per turn depending on the amount of embassies you have around the world and the amount of diplomacy tech you invest in throughout the game. Each embassies increases your turn gain and will slightly boost your relations with the country it is in(costs money each turn to upkeep an embassy). Also there is a max to the amount of Influence you can accrue that can be increased throughout the game by investing in diplomacy tech.

Each Treaty you have has an influence turn cost to keep going. So an alliance with a major power would cost you 50/turn, an alliance with a minor would cost you 25/turn, and a military access through a major would cost you 35 per turn ETC. This will have a 2 fold effect, 1) Force people to fight bitterly over countries they have "invested" in, and 2) in the early game you will have to keep your alliances rather small but as time goes on bigger blocks arise thus making wars both more costly as the game goes on and bigger in scale.

This is obviously rather rough in the idea but I like it and the spending of influence makes sense in my mind.


Minors declaring war:
In my opinion minors should seek expansion provided that they need to (IE need a raw resource or need to expand due to a full industry) but they will not declare war if it would bring them into conflict with a major

Minors becoming majors:
I think that when a major is destroyed that they should be replaced by the next best minor for the job. IE one with a high military and industry
Veneteaou
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:23 am

Re: V. Diplomacy

Post by Veneteaou »

If a country breaks a peace treaty he should lose relations with his allies because they start thinking "If he won't abide by that treaty what will make him abide by mine".
While this is sound logically, in a real diplomatic scenario nation A isn't going to think poorly of B for decoupling itself from C if C is forcing B into wars of insanity. If we were allies, and I chose to declare war on the other 6 major powers, would those major powers really think less of you for not joining in? I don't think so.
User avatar
Creator
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:01 pm
Contact:

Re: V. Diplomacy

Post by Creator »

Veneteaou wrote:
If a country breaks a peace treaty he should lose relations with his allies because they start thinking "If he won't abide by that treaty what will make him abide by mine".
While this is sound logically, in a real diplomatic scenario nation A isn't going to think poorly of B for decoupling itself from C if C is forcing B into wars of insanity. If we were allies, and I chose to declare war on the other 6 major powers, would those major powers really think less of you for not joining in? I don't think so.
Ah I think I see what you are saying and I think we are talking about different things. I am saying the nation that started the war (and broke the treaty) should lose relations with other powers not any allies that happen to join in on the war or choose not too. okay what about this, Eveytime a nation breaks a peace treaty or military access they get a "liar" trait put on there nation for a set amount of period. Any other nation having a treaty with a "liar" nation can break there treaties with them at no cost to diplomatic relations or influence points.
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Re: V. Diplomacy

Post by Trilarion »

Relations are a measure how much friendship and trust there is between two nations. Basically you judge a nation by their past actions, by their mutual economic benefits (trade) and by their military threatening power.

One could make it as proposed by Creator with diplomatic influence points which are gained and spent.

The problem is that this is only helpful with an AI. Having multiple human players in one game they often don't care about their diplomatic relations or care completely different than any AI would do. It's just useless there if it hasn't any direct implications. What does a loss of diplomatic relations mean if you have human players?

The idea would be to require a certain minimum diplomatic standing for each treaty. So you cannot have an alliance, if you don't behaved well in the past. But for this it will be critical that the AI gets diplomacy right. It should make sense with the treaties it seeks or refuses. I just hope we will get it right.
Post Reply