Diplomacy

[Cetacea]

How flexible is diplomacy?

In my current game as Prussia I attacked the Netherlands in 1854, because that country had DOWed and occupied Hannover. (Hannoverian troops remain alive, in exile in my Prussian lands.) I occupied the four Dutch mainland regions and succesfully stormed their three fortresses in 1855. However, I am unable to attack the Dutch troops inside the Hannoverian areas as the Hannoverians consistently refuse my request for passage, even though their relation with Prussia is about 60. The war score vis a vis the Netherlands is around 80.

When I send a peace proposal to the Netherlands there is no option to propose to the Dutch to leave Hannover or to end the war with Hannover. And there seems to be no other way to remove the Dutch from the Hannoverian lands than to DOW Hannover, in order to be able to enter these lands.

The Dutch also send me peace proposals, but they offer a meagre $66 per year as an indemnity - no counterproposal possible.

What to do? Is this a limitation of the diplomacy system or should I have patience untill they fall on their knees and ask me for some counter proposal...?

[Pocus]

Both

In the next beta patch, you'll be able to enter Hannoverian lands, if it is occupied by the Dutch... then the engine will make you retrocede whatever Hannoverian assets you captured... This should solve one issue.

As for the second, if you occupy all Dutch mainland, you should get extra WS each turn, which will make in turn the Dutch more willing to propose substantial proposals.

[Sir Garnet]

Welcome back.

This game really needs a war leader dynamic, or some way for allies to sort out a way to end (and prosecute) the war, but I pray that at least we get a guarantee or intervention mechanic so the stubborn little countries don't get overrun so readily as they won't agree to treaties. Defensive treaties, at least against specific foes, should not be hard to get against a regional menace if the country you are asking is the obvious target.

[Romtos]

Yes, the diplomatic system could really use some work, as well as the peace mechanics. I guess it can be improved somewhat with patches, but I think to do it truly justice it needs a bigger overhaul.

[Feltan]

In addition to the war resolution limitations, I would really like to see a more straightforward way of improving relations with a given country. True, that such efforts might not succeed; however, it is both boring and ineffective to offer state visits or supply or commercial treaties to countries that, in effect, tell you to F.O. when you make the offer.

Perhaps an option to "improve relations" or "cultural exchange" could be implemented that allowed a player, over time, to develop better relations that could lead to more substantial diplomatic initiatives.

Regards,
Feltan

[Cetacea]

I guess one important issue here is the time scale. Significant slides in mutual relations did not take place within the timeframe of a few weeks - at least not in the 19th century. In game terms this would mean (very) many turns. So how to simulate that? Tedious micromanagement each turn in order to puruade or cajole minors into one's camp, or a one time decision to spend long time diplomatic or econmic resources? Gameplay IS imortant.

[yellow ribbon]

Cetacea, problem here is a somewhat unweighted system.

for instance, playing the USA i had three out of four tribes in treaty of defense and thus got them very soon to a level of 40 and 50 just after start of civil war.
but this nations had seldom accepted Commercial Agreements or state visit before.

same time, 10 years of commercial agreements went to hell, when France, Uk or even my own country had a partially mobilization (minus 15).

when USA triggered a par. Mob. during civil war, tribes i had agreements of defense started to destroy my colonial structures.
on the other hand tis very tribes "invaded" Canadian territory and seized military control in their provinces for UK had bad relations with me.

and, of course France and Prussia seized my investment in their countries for bad relations after one single minus of 15 "happy-digits" event

we are talking about destroying relations in one single turn, relations build up in up to 11 turns

and there is still a bug known for triggering nearly every turn partially mobilization in UK and France.


in 14 years i never recovered from diplomatic crisis of with Spain either.

[Sir Garnet]

Local Support requires 2 diplomats, does not require they accept it, and improves relations. State visit is cheaper at 1 diplomat, but does require consent.

Diplomatic systems don't seem to be easy to do. I liked Imperialism's back in the day, I liked the effectiveness of Sins of a Solar Empire's approach but not the style, and I do like VIctoria 2's system combining diplomacy and spheres of influence and which separates warm or hostile feelings from diplomatic status and allows a very diplomacy-centered game. Which is good since the military side works but without great depth.

The sort of thing I like to be possible: as Spain in V2 it made good sense to ally with the CSA and fight for their independence in order to knock down the US so it would no longer push diplomatically in Mexico, and then within the decade for Spain to go to war allied with the CSA after it pushed influence in Mexico with the key goal of knocking them out of the Great Power influence game as well. The last thing Spain wants to see is a re-united US, so there's an interesting goal. Plus there are wars to establish a sphere of influence over recalcitrant countries which are now forced (and perhaps dubiously reliable) allies, and one can use wargoals that reward allies to encourage pro-active behavior.

One diplomacy interface note - clicking dozens of times down the tribal list to get to Wolof is such a pain! Don't need a mouse-wheel scroll - just a fast scroll on holding the mouse down on the the UI arrow would be nice.

Thanks for listening.

[Cetacea]

I agree completely. Diplomacy is part of the spice of the era.

[Sir Garnet]

I agree completely. Diplomacy is part of the spice of the era.

I would go much farther and say that, in an era where there was no superpower readily able to impose its will on any power, and each power played the balance of power game to prevent a shift against it while trying to secure advantages, the essence of the era is diplomacy with a gold-chainmail fist in a velvet glove.

And, as historically, the player great power can be entertained with little colonial wars while the serious business of building the economy goes forward.

[Pocus]

The system will be improved over time, but we are still in the 'end of beginning' for PON, the phase were most of our time is on bug fixing, optimization and interface improvement, and less in adding more content.

As for boosting relationship, the treaties once in place give a recurrent boost over time. So the design here is to start small and easy (state visit), then a commercial agreement, and then a defensive treaty perhaps. You just can't jump the bandwagon here.

Local support is cool too, but beware, because the friend of my enemy is my enemy, and supporting a country IS a contentious matter that can trigger a crisis.

We will (asap) develop further 2 items: support of ally, and regional understanding, to give more subtlety to the diplomacy game.

[Sir Garnet]

If find it hard to get a state visit accepted, even with positive relations - they don't like my army, government, or bureaucrats etc. Relations seem to have to be quite positive for it to be accepted so the only reliable means to get to as sufficiently positive level is support.

A guarantee/intervention option or something similar seems much more important for the balance of power game than more actions based on an alliance context - since getting an alliance is hard even when the other party is quite desperately fighitng a losing war.