Problems with diplomacy? (Full Version)

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



Message

WCG -> Problems with diplomacy? (6/28/2020 1:01:49 PM)

I'm not a wargamer. I love the military part of Shadow Empire, but only because it's mixed with economics, research, and politics. It's a great combination.

But although I'm eager to wage war when I can justify it (very much like RL, huh?), I'd like to have real options for peaceful diplomacy as a way to... have my way with the world. [:D]

This is just my first game, but I'm finding a couple of potential problems with that. I'm not sure if this is working as intended - perhaps I've just missed something? - or not.

1) One neighbor is a Republican major regime, firmly under Realpolitiker control. We've had a relationship of 100 with these guys for a long time. We have level 3 deals (the top level, I believe) in communication, research, and trade.

But we have level 0 in military. And I can't even try to change that, because when I attempt to use the non-aggression pact stratagem, the game says, "Regime does not have a faction in power that supports such a pact." That seems odd.

This has been going on for a long time. Is it a bug? The only other explanation is that maybe the target regime needs to be at peace? I'm not sure why that would be necessary for a non-aggression pact. And every major regime I've encountered on this planet has been at war - permanently, as far as I can tell.


2) When I started the game, I was surrounded by minor regimes. Not all of them were hostile, but... things happen. [:)] At one point, I was at war against three of them at once. However, I do like to make friends, where that's not going to inconvenience me. Heh, heh.

At any rate, very early in the game, I set borders with a minor regime to our north - in the arctic, basically. We quickly got to a relationship level of 50. But I seem to be stuck there (and now, we border them on all three sides).

I can't offer protection, let alone ask them to be a client state, because I have no possibility of that stratagem succeeding. It's a guaranteed fail. So,... we just continue with no change.

Shouldn't our relations increase the longer we're peaceful neighbors? Shouldn't it become easier to play peaceful stratagem cards the longer we stay friends? Heck, for that matter, shouldn't it become easier just because we've become so powerful over time, compared to them?

Early in the game, this regime could have given us a tough fight. Now, they'd barely be a bump in the road. Shouldn't that influence them? (Maybe it should make them more fearful than friendly, I don't know. But it doesn't seem to have had any effect at all.)

I really wish there were more stratagems for minor regimes. Certainly, I've had a lot more interaction with minor regimes than with major regimes on this planet. (Again, this is just my first game, though.)

I deliberately made friends with this minor regime, but not with two others which had roads leading in directions I needed to go. [;)] I'm really glad I made that decision, because I can't find any way of absorbing a minor regime in any other manner but violent conquest.

I just wish there were more options. Or maybe there are options, and my experience with this minor regime is just a bug?


3) This one isn't a problem, but I thought I'd mention my plans for another major regime. These guys are Theocratic, controlled by a Crusader faction. (They've been at war with that other major regime for a long time.)

They started out friendly, but quickly turned cold. I suspect that's when the Crusader faction took power, but I didn't know enough about them then. Their desired relationship is zero. But we've actually got a relationship of 80. Heh, heh. Apparently, that's because they keep discovering our spies, and I just apologize to make things better?

At least, I think that's all I'm doing. The message seems to indicate that they're getting something else from us, but it doesn't specify what. Likewise, we regularly give our neighbors... something they want, which makes them happy, but I'm never sure what that something is. It's all quite vague.

However, I'm trying to use our spies to help the Humanist faction gain power. At the start, they were far the least powerful faction in the regime, but now they're neck and neck with the leader. So,... we'll see.

My goal is to turn them secular. Heh, heh. Well, to turn them friendly, at least (and that requires Humanism, clearly). I don't know if that will work. And if it does, I don't know if they'll make peace with that Republican regime I'm friendly with.

But I like the idea of this, the idea of using our influence to change the culture of a neighbor, with the goal of having a reliable ally. It's basically diplomacy as war by peaceful means, I suppose. But isn't encouraging better behavior what I'm trying to do in the first place?

Well, that's what I'm trying to do. [:)] (I like strategy games I can role-play. I get bored without imagining a reason I'm doing this stuff.)

So far, this regime seems to be moving my way. I'll be interested to see if I can get them where I want them. (And to see if I'll be able to make a non-aggression pact with them, eventually. I'm still wondering why that won't work with that other major regime.)


Comments?



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/28/2020 4:59:27 PM)

It seems like there's way more opportunity to improve relations with some types of minor regimes than others. With raider minors I've had lots of chances to boost relations by giving them military advisors in exchange for credits, not complaining when they recruit defectors from my military, and not permitting trader convoys they're trying to rob to shelter in my territory. I haven't seen much from minor regimes of other culture types so far.

However, some factions, if you're on good terms with them, can give you 'Plea of Friendship' strategems that allow you to boost relationship with any regime by 4 to 16 points for 5 PP. In my ongoing case the "Trader Society", with the Mind and Commerce profiles, has been giving them out. I don't recall seeing other ways to boost relations with minors outside of random decisions.

Strategems for integrating minors were added in the beta patches, but they only apply to newly started games.
quote:

They started out friendly, but quickly turned cold. I suspect that's when the Crusader faction took power, but I didn't know enough about them then. Their desired relationship is zero. But we've actually got a relationship of 80. Heh, heh. Apparently, that's because they keep discovering our spies, and I just apologize to make things better?

At least, I think that's all I'm doing. The message seems to indicate that they're getting something else from us, but it doesn't specify what. Likewise, we regularly give our neighbors... something they want, which makes them happy, but I'm never sure what that something is. It's all quite vague.

If I remember correctly, in the event where they demand concessions to release a captured spy, you're giving them political points. In the events where they're looking for a rare item, you're giving them a fate point.



zgrssd -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/28/2020 6:41:39 PM)

1) I never was in that position, but someone told me differently.
That you can not make a NAP with a Militiarist/Federalist is WAD. But I am very unsure about Republican/Realpolitikers

2) Aside from teh 1st Meritocracy Regime feat, the best way to train Diplomacy is to try a roll. Win or loose, it is time to learn the skill.

3) Are you talking about the "Leader wants a special Item" decision? You basically spend 1 Fate Point to fullfill that request. Quite the steep price, I think.



WCG -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 12:10:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

With raider minors I've had lots of chances to boost relations by giving them military advisors in exchange for credits, not complaining when they recruit defectors from my military, and not permitting trader convoys they're trying to rob to shelter in my territory. I haven't seen much from minor regimes of other culture types so far.



Interesting. I've had three raider minors in my game, but I've never seen anything like that (from any other minors, either).

Admittedly, we went to war with the first regime fairly quickly - not immediately, but they were our first enemy. I figured that we wouldn't be able to get along with raiders, anyway - nor would we want to.

And the other two declared war pretty much immediately when we discovered them, one after another. When we captured that first raider city, we found raiders on the other side of them, who immediately declared war. And then the same thing happened when we defeated them.

Maybe I didn't have the right profiles to appeal to them? I went with Democracy, Government/Commerce (Government was intentional, but I can't seem to keep Commerce from dominating, anyway), and Mind. Or maybe that was just the luck of the draw.

Oh, and I've never seen a "Plea of Friendship" stratagem, either. But again, this is just my first game.


quote:


If I remember correctly, in the event where they demand concessions to release a captured spy, you're giving them political points. In the events where they're looking for a rare item, you're giving them a fate point.


WHAT? Why didn't the game indicate that was happening?

I wouldn't have missed a political point, anyway, but a fate point? Ouch! I'm surprised I didn't notice that. Certainly, I wouldn't have given up a fate point voluntarily!

Thanks for the info (both of you)!



jeeger -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 12:29:16 PM)

Manual section 5.4 describes which faction can do what. I've missed it as well, and couldn't enter a victory pact. I didn't know which faction was required, so I couldn't even influence the outcome to be what I want☹



GodwinW -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 1:44:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WCG

1) "Regime does not have a faction in power that supports such a pact."



Not a bug: flavor. Ingredient for varied experiences and replayability.

Solution: send spies their way, even play a 'Faction Support' stratagem: you can find (spies) info on the current Faction-in-Charge and prop up another. With the stratagem card you can do this directly (the following turn). Then wait for elections and hope the faction that does want to have those relations wins big.


2) Agree. The new 'Annexation' stratagem has been made for this. I don't know if your version had this one yet. In any case, I had the same situation and couldn't progress. I haven't had it in the 1.03beta 12 game though, so I don't know if it's good enough now, but at least it's better.



WCG -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 2:33:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW


quote:

ORIGINAL: WCG

1) "Regime does not have a faction in power that supports such a pact."



Not a bug: flavor. Ingredient for varied experiences and replayability.

Solution: send spies their way, even play a 'Faction Support' stratagem: you can find (spies) info on the current Faction-in-Charge and prop up another. With the stratagem card you can do this directly (the following turn). Then wait for elections and hope the faction that does want to have those relations wins big.



Huh? I appreciate the reply, but as I noted above, this is the Realpolitiker faction of a Republican regime. If they won't accept a non-aggression pact, who will?

Again, as I noted above, we've got the top level of every relation it's possible to get - communication, research, and trade - plus 100 in total relations,... except that we can't even get a non-aggression pact with them.

That makes no sense, especially since here's what the manual says about this faction: "The Faction with the most reasonable guys in the game. They just want to keep the peace and prosper without going to any extremes. ... You’ll have a good chance to build a solid relation with a Regime led by this Faction."

Again, thanks for the reply, but I still think it's a bug. If we can't get a non-aggression pact with these guys, "the most reasonable guys in the game," who could we get one with?

PS. The other two options in Republican regimes are Corporatists and Syndics. The former are only concerned about profit. The latter are "not very rational," according to the manual. I have been using Faction Support stratagems, but only to support "the most reasonable guys in the game."





GodwinW -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 3:01:42 PM)

Oh ok, I didn't know that about the realpolitikers, then it might well be a bug indeed.



jimwinsor -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 3:55:28 PM)

In general, I do wish diplomacy was a bit less rigid in this game. These hard bans on making ANY deals with certain ideologies are preventing the usefulness of the vast majority of diplomatic stratagems, to the point where my current thinking is the player is better off not creating a Foreign Minister. Why waste BPs on a ministry whose only job is to produce cards I can't play? The useful cards I can actually play can all be made by the SCC.

And from a realism standpoint, the 20th century is replete with examples of ideologically opposed regimes making pacts, deals and even alliances with each other.



lloydster4 -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 4:00:16 PM)

Not being able to form a non-aggression pact with realpolitikers is definitely a bug. Please report it in the tech forum if you haven't already.



Destragon -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 4:42:33 PM)

I had realpolitikers who sometimes accepted NAPs, but other times didn't want to accept them in the same game. I think that it probably still has to allign with the regime's intentions. I mean, for example if you completely surround them with your territory, so that they have no option to expand anymore, I'm gonna guess that they probably wouldn't accept NAPs. Just because they are realpolitikers doesn't mean that they actually want to be friends, but it means that they CAN be friends. At least that's how I think about it.



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 4:43:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WCG


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

If I remember correctly, in the event where they demand concessions to release a captured spy, you're giving them political points. In the events where they're looking for a rare item, you're giving them a fate point.


WHAT? Why didn't the game indicate that was happening?

I wouldn't have missed a political point, anyway, but a fate point? Ouch! I'm surprised I didn't notice that. Certainly, I wouldn't have given up a fate point voluntarily!


I think it's there in the small print, but yeah, I missed it the first time too.



CelestialSlayer -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 7:28:03 PM)

I would love for this game to get some more diplomacy love. I understand that it comes from a wargaming background, but it would be great to try and win a game without having to be the strongest, but by having the best spy network.

I think the more ways the planet can be unified the better,but maybe i am talking heresy in here.



GodwinW -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/29/2020 10:13:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

In general, I do wish diplomacy was a bit less rigid in this game.


Good point in some cases.
For example, I dislike the prohibition of playing minor diplo strats on minors who are at war with majors.
In my games that means I can get maybe 1 in 4-5 minors to even do stuff with potentially. And probably not the interestingly-located ones.

Why is there no 'I'll join your fight against the Major in return for you becoming me protectee, or even my vassal', for example?

There's no option to incorporate the fact they're fighting a war into your diplomacy, which is a bit weird. Someone at war may very well want an ally!



WCG -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 11:32:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Destragon

I had realpolitikers who sometimes accepted NAPs, but other times didn't want to accept them in the same game.



In my game, it's not that the regime won't agree to a NAP. It's that the game won't even let me offer that stratagem card to them. It just says flatly that "Regime does not have a faction in power that supports such a pact."

PS. I paid attention this time, and I discovered that the captured spy thing, with a major, costs ten political points. That's still not as bad as a fate point, of course. Indeed, I didn't have a problem paying that, but I wish the game would tell me what it's going to cost!



zgrssd -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 12:14:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

In general, I do wish diplomacy was a bit less rigid in this game.


Good point in some cases.
For example, I dislike the prohibition of playing minor diplo strats on minors who are at war with majors.
In my games that means I can get maybe 1 in 4-5 minors to even do stuff with potentially. And probably not the interestingly-located ones.

Why is there no 'I'll join your fight against the Major in return for you becoming me protectee, or even my vassal', for example?

There's no option to incorporate the fact they're fighting a war into your diplomacy, which is a bit weird. Someone at war may very well want an ally!

Because game AI has no way of planning for that possibility.
Humans meanwhile? Planning ahead is trivial for us.



WCG -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 12:32:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CelestialSlayer

I would love for this game to get some more diplomacy love. I understand that it comes from a wargaming background, but it would be great to try and win a game without having to be the strongest, but by having the best spy network.

I think the more ways the planet can be unified the better,but maybe i am talking heresy in here.



I agree. As I noted in my initial post, I'm not a wargamer. I'm fine with being the strongest regime (militarily and/or economically) - and I certainly need me some war [:)] - but I'm all for having more options.

At least a few settlements on the planet should recognize the value in standing together against raiders, slavers, and theocrats. Suspicion should be expected, of course. But not everyone wants constant violence, right?

And there are a few specific ways I might suggest (only a few, because this is just off the top of my head):

1) I wish we could find out more information about minor regimes. A generic "farmer" regime doesn't tell us very much, since that could include a wide variety of cultures and leadership types reacting very differently to a neighbor.

2) Peace is great, but if I'm far more powerful than my neighbor, that should influence their desire for diplomacy, too. [:)] Seriously, that should make them either more likely to ally with us or to ally with one of their other neighbors to defend against us. It should have some effect on diplomacy, at least.

3) I'd like to see regimes surrender, sometimes. When they have no hope, they should at least offer peace. Now, minor regimes often surrender when you take their only city,... though not always. I'm not sure how that works.
We had a raider regime which kept fighting after we took their only city. They even showed a leader and everything. Basically, there were two zones with the same name - or very similar, at least. But the new enemy zone didn't have a city.
That seemed reasonable for raiders, although it hasn't happened when we've fought other raiders. But I assume that there are variations. Anyway, most regimes should surrender at some point, but maybe not all. If a leader won't go along with it, leaders can be deposed. Or assassinated. [:)]




Destragon -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 12:58:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WCG

In my game, it's not that the regime won't agree to a NAP. It's that the game won't even let me offer that stratagem card to them. It just says flatly that "Regime does not have a faction in power that supports such a pact."

That is what I was trying to say. I think that if the regime doesn't want an NAP, it will say "the faction in power won't support it" even if they have Realpolitikers in power.
I think the message is probably bugged/ misleading, but I can't tell if the actual AI behavior is bugged.



GodwinW -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 1:58:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

In general, I do wish diplomacy was a bit less rigid in this game.


Good point in some cases.
For example, I dislike the prohibition of playing minor diplo strats on minors who are at war with majors.
In my games that means I can get maybe 1 in 4-5 minors to even do stuff with potentially. And probably not the interestingly-located ones.

Why is there no 'I'll join your fight against the Major in return for you becoming me protectee, or even my vassal', for example?

There's no option to incorporate the fact they're fighting a war into your diplomacy, which is a bit weird. Someone at war may very well want an ally!

Because game AI has no way of planning for that possibility.
Humans meanwhile? Planning ahead is trivial for us.


No way? Eh.. what?

IF offered stratagem X THEN ** stratagem x can only be played when the minor is at war with a different major
.. IF (casualties > y), or (hexes - hexes of 5 turns ago < 0), or (w/e you want) THEN
.... accept
.. End if
End if



WCG -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 1:58:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Destragon


quote:

ORIGINAL: WCG

In my game, it's not that the regime won't agree to a NAP. It's that the game won't even let me offer that stratagem card to them. It just says flatly that "Regime does not have a faction in power that supports such a pact."

That is what I was trying to say. I think that if the regime doesn't want an NAP, it will say "the faction in power won't support it" even if they have Realpolitikers in power.
I think the message is probably bugged/ misleading, but I can't tell if the actual AI behavior is bugged.



OK, thanks. I reported it in the "Tech Support" board, just in case.





zgrssd -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 9:36:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

In general, I do wish diplomacy was a bit less rigid in this game.


Good point in some cases.
For example, I dislike the prohibition of playing minor diplo strats on minors who are at war with majors.
In my games that means I can get maybe 1 in 4-5 minors to even do stuff with potentially. And probably not the interestingly-located ones.

Why is there no 'I'll join your fight against the Major in return for you becoming me protectee, or even my vassal', for example?

There's no option to incorporate the fact they're fighting a war into your diplomacy, which is a bit weird. Someone at war may very well want an ally!

Because game AI has no way of planning for that possibility.
Humans meanwhile? Planning ahead is trivial for us.


No way? Eh.. what?

IF offered stratagem X THEN ** stratagem x can only be played when the minor is at war with a different major
.. IF (casualties > y), or (hexes - hexes of 5 turns ago < 0), or (w/e you want) THEN
.... accept
.. End if
End if

That is the requirement to play this card.
No idea what you think that maters for the AI, wich has to deal withthe player turning a expansion war vs a minor into a major regime struggle.

Or did you seriously think I was talking about the AI being unable to attack when someone is distracted by another war? The AI already seems to do that all the time!



GodwinW -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 10:23:17 PM)

No.. that is not the requirement. I spoke of the requirement in a comment on why you don't need to fuss with that in that spot because the strat's requirements already set the situation.

In plain words then if that confuses you:
If the minor has a lot of casualties or if he lost a lot of hexes lately (translation: the war is going badly for him), you can code him to accept.
He should be way more willing/desperate to be rescued by another major at the cost of some sovereignty. Better to be a vassal state than dead.

And no, the example isn't precise but a broad sketch of how you could code this. I am reacting to you saying it's impossible to code it because the AI has no way of planning for that. It's not the AI who starts it, YOU play the stratagem.



zgrssd -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (6/30/2020 10:59:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

No.. that is not the requirement. I spoke of the requirement in a comment on why you don't need to fuss with that in that spot because the strat's requirements already set the situation.

In plain words then if that confuses you:
If the minor has a lot of casualties or if he lost a lot of hexes lately (translation: the war is going badly for him), you can code him to accept.
He should be way more willing/desperate to be rescued by another major at the cost of some sovereignty. Better to be a vassal state than dead.

And no, the example isn't precise but a broad sketch of how you could code this. I am reacting to you saying it's impossible to code it because the AI has no way of planning for that. It's not the AI who starts it, YOU play the stratagem.

Now you are talking about cheating the AI out of the City they have been fighting to getting this whole time.

All that fighting to get teh city. Making them weak enough to even consider your offer.
You protectorate them.
The Major just incured combat casualties without any hope of recovering the losses. Unless he goes to war with you, who just got stronger.

It does not realy mater how you slice it - this is going to be terrible for the human or AI that has been fighting to get it.
And they have no counterplay options.

These kinds of Systems never work. Excactly because of the scenario you want them for.



GodwinW -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (7/1/2020 12:30:10 AM)

Ah now that's an argument! :)

So you ask how to balance this in order for it to not be too powerful?
Ok, well, it's a good point, not so much imo versus AI but versus other humans, for the sake of such balance.

Well, it could be made rare (tied to a profile, limited to once/game, very hard roll etc.).
It could be made costly (credit cost, PP cost, relation damage with other majors).
The consequences could be made dire (if you fail the roll you get serious relation damage with everyone (breaking a local 'code of honor' or so, failing to actually rescue the minor you promised to rescue results in war with every minor, etc).
The bonus isn't that big either if the Major is smashing the minor (laser vs farmers) and you now have to protect these weak guys and have war with that major who has his troops in place while yours may not be (at minimum you may need to cross the minor's lands).

So, I think it could be fine, but yes it could be frustrating for human players at times to get this used against you. You still make a good point.
Maybe it's better if the game doesn't have it, but I just find it difficult to believe when I see someone in dire straits *not* seeking out allies.
Heck, even one of the very starting options is: we survived because we found allies against our pursuers!
It's literally right at the start of the game :D



Leslac -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (7/1/2020 1:23:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

No.. that is not the requirement. I spoke of the requirement in a comment on why you don't need to fuss with that in that spot because the strat's requirements already set the situation.

In plain words then if that confuses you:
If the minor has a lot of casualties or if he lost a lot of hexes lately (translation: the war is going badly for him), you can code him to accept.
He should be way more willing/desperate to be rescued by another major at the cost of some sovereignty. Better to be a vassal state than dead.

And no, the example isn't precise but a broad sketch of how you could code this. I am reacting to you saying it's impossible to code it because the AI has no way of planning for that. It's not the AI who starts it, YOU play the stratagem.

Now you are talking about cheating the AI out of the City they have been fighting to getting this whole time.

All that fighting to get teh city. Making them weak enough to even consider your offer.
You protectorate them.
The Major just incured combat casualties without any hope of recovering the losses. Unless he goes to war with you, who just got stronger.

It does not realy mater how you slice it - this is going to be terrible for the human or AI that has been fighting to get it.
And they have no counterplay options.

These kinds of Systems never work. Excactly because of the scenario you want them for.



Honestly this pretty much describes a lot of human history up til now. It's extremely logical for a losing regime to seek strong allies, even be vassals. Which is one reason why you didn't just go to war on a whim, but waited for a moment of weakness to pounce.

Just give the same protectorate options to the ai and include the EU series option of "guarantees", which gives you access to a minor's logistics system, but don't take control of them and allow you to move into their territory to counter another major invasion (and if you decide to attack their capital, get massive word penalties, crippling unrest and neighbour hate).


The simple fact of the matter is, at this time, diplomacy very rarely really works. And minor diplomacy almost never... It needs more work - which is honestly the situation with most 4x games.



zgrssd -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (7/1/2020 3:25:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leslac


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Now you are talking about cheating the AI out of the City they have been fighting to getting this whole time.

All that fighting to get teh city. Making them weak enough to even consider your offer.
You protectorate them.
The Major just incured combat casualties without any hope of recovering the losses. Unless he goes to war with you, who just got stronger.

It does not realy mater how you slice it - this is going to be terrible for the human or AI that has been fighting to get it.
And they have no counterplay options.

These kinds of Systems never work. Excactly because of the scenario you want them for.



Honestly this pretty much describes a lot of human history up til now. It's extremely logical for a losing regime to seek strong allies, even be vassals. Which is one reason why you didn't just go to war on a whim, but waited for a moment of weakness to pounce.

I am already playing this "life" thing 24/7.
Graphics are unbeatable. But the goals are unclear and the forced ironman mode is really frustrating.

I prefer my computer games to be a bit fairer.


quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

Ah now that's an argument! :)

So you ask how to balance this in order for it to not be too powerful?
Ok, well, it's a good point, not so much imo versus AI but versus other humans, for the sake of such balance.

Well, it could be made rare (tied to a profile, limited to once/game, very hard roll etc.).
It could be made costly (credit cost, PP cost, relation damage with other majors).
The consequences could be made dire (if you fail the roll you get serious relation damage with everyone (breaking a local 'code of honor' or so, failing to actually rescue the minor you promised to rescue results in war with every minor, etc).


Those are all nice ideas. That failed in every single game that tried them. It would be really nice if it worked like that, but it really does not.

We have literal decades of evidence, that non-binding diplomacy does not work. Wich includes not being able to "snatch" a city from another player peacefully (the war options is always there).
Stellaris used to allow players to gift planets while at war. Wich was invariably used to cheat the enemy that defeated you out of their price - just give every planet to a 3rd party.

If this is all just about dealing with the Zombie Majors keeping Minors at war, Vic is actually adressing that problem in the Beta. At the Majors, the only place where such a problem should be adressed.



WCG -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (7/1/2020 1:07:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

I am already playing this "life" thing 24/7.
Graphics are unbeatable. But the goals are unclear and the forced ironman mode is really frustrating.



Amen, brother! [:D]

Years ago, after I'd been playing a game for some hours, I dropped a box of tacks, which spilled out all over the floor of my house. My first reaction was to reload the game. Heh, heh. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in RL. Too bad. [:)]




concern -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (7/2/2020 12:13:22 AM)

It does seem to be a bug. I have Realpolitikers as well who won't accept a NAP. The reason I believe it is a bug is that I can click on the strategy, select the target major, receive the "does not support" message...then click on the REP (reports) tab, then click back to the STRAT tab and voila, you can play the strategy. Odd bug.



WCG -> RE: Problems with diplomacy? (7/2/2020 12:48:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: concern

It does seem to be a bug. I have Realpolitikers as well who won't accept a NAP. The reason I believe it is a bug is that I can click on the strategy, select the target major, receive the "does not support" message...then click on the REP (reports) tab, then click back to the STRAT tab and voila, you can play the strategy. Odd bug.



Yup. I just tried that, and it worked for me, too. Thanks!

It is a bug, and it's been fixed in the new version of the game, apparently. But I'd have to start a new game for it to take effect.

Thanks again. I'm still deciding whether to continue my current game - which has gotten pretty exciting - or start over with the new stuff, especially since I'm always tempted to see what a new planet looks like. Decisions, decisions. [:)]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875