Diplomacy observation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Diplomacy observation

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Diplomacy observation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 10:06:39 AM

Majick

Posts: 180
Joined: 1/7/2010
Status: offline

Hi,

In my current game I am at war with several major powers. I have captured zones from them, following which I would expect them to either sue for peace or at least be more receptive to a peace proposal. But no, my relationship score with them remains too low to make any proposals to them. If I was stupid enough as the winning power to want to pay them cash to get the score up even that wouldn't work because the difficulty roll is too high.

Of course, I'm happy to grind the b*****ds into the ground as punishment for their transgressions. But it seems to me that this particular diplomacy mechanic is simplistic and unrealistic as it currently is.

Post #: 1

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 12:09:12 PM

WCG

Posts: 138
Joined: 5/30/2013
Status: offline

Yes. I enjoy the diplomatic game, but it could use a little loving attention.

Minors, too, should probably surrender when you've got their capital surrounded with overwhelming force.

In my current game, I've allied with one major regime, but I can't take that final step with the one that's been my friend almost from the start of the game. I can't even make the offer.

I would hope enemies to be amenable to compromise - or even to becoming allies - if I could arrange for a new faction to take control. But that's a long, slow process. And the manual's clues about which faction that would be... don't seem to be accurate. (Corporatists eagerly allied with me, but Humanists won't?)

Of course, the game is still being developed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Majick)

Post #: 2

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 1:56:18 PM

Majick

Posts: 180
Joined: 1/7/2010
Status: offline

Yes and to give credit where it's due it's an excellent game. I played a few turns of Civ VI the other day seeing as I have bought all the DLC and not really played it. Compared to Shadows Empires it's....meh :)

(in reply to WCG)

Post #: 3

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 3:15:07 PM

demiare

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Majick

But it seems to me that this particular diplomacy mechanic is simplistic and unrealistic as it currently is.

Very few major wars in human history ended after taking a few provinces and without capturing enemy capital. So no, it's quite realistic.

There is a specific stratagem to raise relationship with a major you're in war, called "Overture".

(in reply to Majick)

Post #: 4

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 6:43:02 PM

Majick

Posts: 180
Joined: 1/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

quote:

ORIGINAL: Majick

But it seems to me that this particular diplomacy mechanic is simplistic and unrealistic as it currently is.

Very few major wars in human history ended after taking a few provinces and without capturing enemy capital. So no, it's quite realistic.

There is a specific stratagem to raise relationship with a major you're in war, called "Overture".

I take it you are excluding Vietnam, Korea, WW2(France, Japan, Italy, and probably several more), WW1, The Crimea, the Napoleonic Wars of the First, Second, Third, Fourth (as far as Russia was concerned), Fifth and Seventh Coalitions, the Seven Years War, The War of the Austrian Succession etc? Napoleon's invasion of Russia I guess proves that loss of the capital doesn't always result in surrender either, but I would agree thats a bit of an anomoly.

Overtures don't work when the difficulty is 150 and the roll is 1d100+49. The only mechanic I can see to raise the chance is paying money to the power. This illogical if you are winning the war.

< Message edited by Majick -- 7/30/2020 6:56:04 PM >

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 5

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 8:38:49 PM

demiare

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Majick

I take it you are excluding Vietnam, Korea, WW2(France, Japan, Italy, and probably several more),

Vietnam and Korea were major wars? C'mon it's a well known fact that USA and USSR set a rules and mostly followed them. That was a ordinary minor local wars with proxy of superpowers involved.
Japan capitulated after USSR begin preparation to invade into their mainland (well, and utterly destroyed most of their land forces too, cutting them a way to retreat from their islands).
France simply don't want to war against nazis, they prefer instead... well, I will not detail here to avoid hurting anybody from France.
Italy was a Italy, like usual.

But you're missing one huge point. We aren't major superpowers fighting to impose our will over billions of people (even if game do it's best to create such illusion). We're poor feudals fighting over another man castle and bunch of rusty high-tech wonders. So yes, war up to the last man.

P.S. And seriously, now (in game) diplomacy is close to being OP, no need to buff it further.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Majick

Overtures don't work when the difficulty is 150 and the roll is 1d100+49.

Yes, they're one of few huge failures in game design now. There indeed a few events&stratagems with ridiculous skill checks.

Either ignore it or abuse post-game knowledge and search for advisors with skills to cover those crazy checks.

(in reply to Majick)

Post #: 6

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 8:57:11 PM

Majick

Posts: 180
Joined: 1/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

Japan capitulated after USSR begin preparation to invade into their mainland (well, and utterly destroyed most of their land forces too, cutting them a way to retreat from their islands).
France simply don't want to war against nazis, they prefer instead... well, I will not detail here to avoid hurting anybody from France.
Italy was a Italy, like usual.

But you're missing one huge point. We aren't major superpowers fighting to impose our will over billions of people (even if game do it's best to create such illusion). We're poor feudals fighting over another man castle and bunch of rusty high-tech wonders. So yes, war up to the last man.

Where to start....? Japan was afraid their country would be invaded and their capital taken or worse a-bombed. France was scared it's capital would be taken. Aren't you proving my point? What better way to bring your enemy to the table than taking their territory. Most sane leaders will come to terms before their capital gets razed, and have done throughout history. There are plenty of insane leaders as well of course, I'm happy for them to be modelled too :)

You want to focus on major historical wars but you say the game is about poor feudals. Whats it to be? The usual reason in medieval and ancient history why cities were razed and armies fought to the death was when they weren't given the chance to come to terms by their enemy. I'm being magnanimous to these nasty aggressive so-and-so's and I don't think the diplomacy should force me to utterly destroy every enemy every time, as it currently does.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 7

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 9:07:38 PM

demiare

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

In SE we are fighting to unite a whole planet. So - if you're ruler of losing country where you would run? French rulers had possibility to run, japan rulers buy out themselves by surrendering to USA alone so they won't need to share with USSR... Both of this aren't available options for us. In Shadow Empire you will win by achieving full control of planet (assumed for attempt to get back into space) - so why any sane leader will surrender to you?

(in reply to Majick)

Post #: 8

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 10:19:44 PM

Majick

Posts: 180
Joined: 1/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

In SE we are fighting to unite a whole planet. So - if you're ruler of losing country where you would run? French rulers had possibility to run, japan rulers buy out themselves by surrendering to USA alone so they won't need to share with USSR... Both of this aren't available options for us. In Shadow Empire you will win by achieving full control of planet (assumed for attempt to get back into space) - so why any sane leader will surrender to you?

I'm not talking about them running. I'm talking about them agreeing terms so that they don't lose any more zones. From their point of view it makes sense because they can recoup strength and maybe make a comeback. From my point of view it could make sense because, for instance, another faction has just stabbed me in the back and I don't want a war on two fronts at that moment - a common situation in this game.....

This isn't about leaders running away to save their skins, it's about them doing what they can to salvage as much of their country as possible after a failed war. Are you seriously suggesting that a country losing a war doesn't have the possibility of agreeing peace terms? It's happened throughout human history and just because you are fighting over a post apocalyptic irradiated rock doesn't change that dynamic in the slightest. If you think you are losing you surrender to fight another day.

(in reply to demiare)

Post #: 9

RE: Diplomacy observation - 7/30/2020 10:29:44 PM

Leslac

Posts: 45
Joined: 5/4/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Majick

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

In SE we are fighting to unite a whole planet. So - if you're ruler of losing country where you would run? French rulers had possibility to run, japan rulers buy out themselves by surrendering to USA alone so they won't need to share with USSR... Both of this aren't available options for us. In Shadow Empire you will win by achieving full control of planet (assumed for attempt to get back into space) - so why any sane leader will surrender to you?

I'm not talking about them running. I'm talking about them agreeing terms so that they don't lose any more zones. From their point of view it makes sense because they can recoup strength and maybe make a comeback. From my point of view it could make sense because, for instance, another faction has just stabbed me in the back and I don't want a war on two fronts at that moment - a common situation in this game.....

This isn't about leaders running away to save their skins, it's about them doing what they can to salvage as much of their country as possible after a failed war. Are you seriously suggesting that a country losing a war doesn't have the possibility of agreeing peace terms? It's happened throughout human history and just because you are fighting over a post apocalyptic irradiated rock doesn't change that dynamic in the slightest. If you think you are losing you surrender to fight another day.

I agree, no historical war - except for a select few - worked according to the total war paradigm. Negotiated peace to avoid further catastrophe has been the norm throughout most of history. Obviously the Mongols disagrees with this statement. But even Hitler tried to start negotiations with the western allies against the soviets.

(in reply to Majick)

Post #: 10