Regional Relations and what should affect them...

Discussion about the Diplomacy System in SR2010

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, BattleGoat, Moderators

Message
Author
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

#31 Post by BigStone » Nov 23 2005

Uriens wrote:And then I can kiss my WM membership goodbye
Thats not a big problem if you are completly selfsufficient and having
a nice bankaccount.
I think there should be some sever penalties when using these kind of
backstabing tricks:
- a change that the WM attacks you.
- the WM freezes your bankaccount.
Uriens wrote:not to mention that EVERY region will declare war on me.
If you have more allies they won't attack you....
I think it would be great if the AI breaks treaties with you....
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR

BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Re: Specifics

#32 Post by BigStone » Nov 23 2005

Il Duce wrote: For instance, you want to send a gift of timber -the minister should tell you that it isn't going to work as your counterpart is selling timber, and perhaps propose that you send coal instead.
Good idea....
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR

Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

re: drifting

#33 Post by Il Duce » Nov 23 2005

Probably would be useful to have a thread for AI diplo distinct from dip/civ/cb reactions. but as you can see, at least for me, it's hard to separate them.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].

User avatar
Seydlitz
Major
Posts: 194
Joined: Oct 09 2005
Location: UConn
Contact:

#34 Post by Seydlitz » Nov 23 2005

Does a region's treaty integrity rating ever go up? I've only seen it go down.

If it is only a one-way street right now, then having a long standing (multi-year) treaty with other countries (especially military ones like non-aggression pacts and transit treaties) would improve treaty integrity.

And, it seems that not declaring war on an allies' attacker doesn't have much (if any) effect on treaty integrity. It'd be nice to see a region take a hit to integrity if it takes more than, say, a week to declare war.

Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

#35 Post by Il Duce » Nov 23 2005

Either your integrity should take a hit - OR -
your AI ally should begin withdrawing treaty clauses, beginning with free trade if you have that with them, and next free flow of labor...

If it were an MP game, what would your human ally do if you failed to join in somehow with their situation.

Of course, it depends on what it the events are, and on what treaty clauses you have signed.

If your ally is attacked, sometimes merely sending a brigade-sized contingent - and not declaring - can be quite effective. Consider an ally who is under attack by a region who realizes that they do not want you to declare. You show up with a brigade, and defend your ally's assets. The attacker will not attack your units [you are now running a peacekeeping mission] for fear of your declaration. The attacker then should sue for peace, as they will not be able to achieve a victory. The paradox here is that your lack of declaration is a force multiplier - the type of units you send is irrelevant, as the attacker simply will not engage them. [I have aa savegame of this very scenario - it really does happen.]

So - your integrity should increase, even though you have not declared on the attacker. And what happens to your wm approval rating?
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].

red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

#36 Post by red » Nov 23 2005

Il Duce wrote:If your ally is attacked, sometimes merely sending a brigade-sized contingent - and not declaring - can be quite effective. Consider an ally who is under attack by a region who realizes that they do not want you to declare. You show up with a brigade, and defend your ally's assets. The attacker will not attack your units [you are now running a peacekeeping mission] for fear of your declaration. The attacker then should sue for peace, as they will not be able to achieve a victory. The paradox here is that your lack of declaration is a force multiplier - the type of units you send is irrelevant, as the attacker simply will not engage them. [I have aa savegame of this very scenario - it really does happen.]
I've seen this and been on the reverse, where an AI unit is pushed to an ally's territory and continues to attack from it while you have no more belli towards this assisting region. I wouldn't call it an intelligent, human-like behavior on the part of the AI, but a bug/exploit. The AI isn't at war with you, so they can't occupy a hex with your unit. The AI doesn't seem to understand the need to declare war on you for that, so it's only coincidence if they are at war with you while you assist an ally with that blocking.

I think if the player encounters a unit from a neutral region within one of their units' ZOC in an enemy region's territory, they should receive a significant belli boost against this region.

Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

#37 Post by Il Duce » Nov 23 2005

Red -
Not sure I understood that exactly...
but it does underscore that there is a need not only for a more predictable [and timely] set of dip/civ/cb/etc responses, but also a more coherent set of AI diplo/alliance actions, and better freedom of action for human players as well - and I suppose that this is the ultimate point of my contributions to this thread for the developers. Yep - it's a wargame, but it has far greater scope of play than pure military confrontation, and some additional consideration in this area will [IMO] add a dimension of value that most of us have longed for but never gotten in strategy games.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].

User avatar
Uriens
Colonel
Posts: 473
Joined: Oct 05 2005

#38 Post by Uriens » Nov 24 2005

I think what Red said is along the following lines; if you allow ally to attack some region through your territory (reverse of your example) then that region should get pretty large causus belli against you since you are supporting that attack indirectly but actively (supplying enemy troops and allowing them access through your territory).

User avatar
Uriens
Colonel
Posts: 473
Joined: Oct 05 2005

#39 Post by Uriens » Nov 24 2005

BigStone wrote: Thats not a big problem if you are completly selfsufficient and having
a nice bankaccount.
I think there should be some sever penalties when using these kind of
backstabing tricks:
- a change that the WM attacks you.
- the WM freezes your bankaccount.
Well that's basically true, but many regions start small with low GDP/c ratings and insufficient resources which makes them very dependent on WM, at least until they grow big(er). That is why I asked for mechanism in which you can pick a fight with specific region. Maybe creating a territorial dispute or making military maneuvers along someone’s border should do it (create causus belli against you). Also, it IS realistic as we have numerous examples of that sort of actions (creating tensions deliberately in order to achieve some political goal) in real life.

I like the idea on more military aggressive WM (there is even an option in game for that, although it seems not to do anything right now) but I don't agree with bank account freeze - bank account of some region is not the property of WM as WM is not a bank. Denying you WM membership is closes best thing and is already in.
If you have more allies they won't attack you....
I think it would be great if the AI breaks treaties with you....
Problem is that regions that are far away will declare war on you as well, and they won’t agree to peace treaty afterwards either. That will put you on a very looong DEFCON 3 or lower economy on large maps (like Europe) and is bad thing for small region.

I would also like to see AI break treaties if his causus belli gets high enough (near 100) or his allies’ regional integrity drops low. There should be much less diplomatic consequences for breaking alliance in such cases as well.

Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

it's always something....

#40 Post by Il Duce » Nov 24 2005

...if it isn't one thing, it's another.

I never understood why having a war declared on you should just blindly force you to defcon three. It seems pretty mindless, under the circumstances. Except for its being an aggressive economic attack it serves very little purpose. Likewise, you shouldn't really have the option of forcing that kind of economic distress on a region unless you pose a real threat to them.

Two real world examples in the US: As a result largely of rhetoric and a few spectacular terror attacks, the US has responded to Al Qaida by massive expenses in preparedness, but the US is there by its own choice, and it's not clear that raising the expense of preparedness has actually produced preparedness, or reduced the threat in any way [we just don't know what else to do except throw money at the problem]. On the other hand, imagine what would happen if the real Venezuela declared war on the real US. Would the US immediately increase its defense budget by 20% to deal with that event? [And would the real Venezuela raise its own defense expenses before playing that gambit?] I don't think so. The US might send an existing carrier task force or two to blockade them, and use some existing air assets to disconnect all of their international oil pipelines. This wouldn't cost that much - about the same as the maintenance costs of those same assets over the same period of time. An assault on Venezuela by the US? not likely. An assault on the US by Venezuela? hmmm....
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19931
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#41 Post by Balthagor » May 26 2006

wanted to revive this thread since we've been looking at some of these factors in the game engine.

There are lots of things here that should get you in trouble, but what types of actions should you be able to take that make the poulation and/or governement of another regions like you more?

If you're neutral with two regions and want to bring one "on your side", what types of things (other than just throwing money at them) should make them take notice of you as a "potential friend"?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

#42 Post by BigStone » May 26 2006

Well... uuhm.. probable not by sending your motherinlaw over the border....
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR

Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

#43 Post by Il Duce » May 26 2006

Well.... this is where those 'minor' treaties and thier effects could be tweaked up a bit.
Sending a tech is also a friendly gesture.
And...since the WM can send advisors, why can't we.

more later after I review and ponder.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].

BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

#44 Post by BigStone » May 26 2006

Balthagor wrote:, but what types of actions should you be able to take that make the poulation and/or governement of another regions like you more?
Well there are a few things in which way you distinguish your region to others:
Lets keep it for now to a soft sector:

HIGH CULTURE.......

- exchange of students/scientist
- organize (big) events like the Olympics,Worldchampiogns, concerts.. etc
- more -research- in the soft sector..... like art/music /literature and sports
- etc (please add...... )

Well ... all of this is far away from the original question... :oops:

But it would be nice if there is some more attention to the -social- sectors
(education/environment/health care... etc .. etc)
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR

BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

#45 Post by BigStone » May 26 2006

And... oooh yeah... don't forget the tourism industry...
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR

Post Reply

Return to “Diplomacy - State Department”