Age of Wonders: Planetfall – Dev Diary #19: Diplomacy

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

LennartGS

Managing / Game Director @ Triumph
Paradox Staff
16 Badges
Jun 12, 2018
370
786
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Gettysburg
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Magicka
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Prison Architect
Hi there, welcome to this week’s Planetfall Journal, which is all about the new player vs player Diplomacy system!

Diplomacy Goals. With its war-game roots, the AoW series featured rudimentary diplomacy systems which generally resulted in you either being at war with others or in an alliance, with little in between. For Planetfall we want to take diplomacy to a new level and set the following goals:
  • Support Multiple Roads to Victory: Base game Planetfall offers alternate roads to victory in addition to conquering other players. In AoW3 basically every war resulted in a fight to the death. Diplomacy should help people achieve alternative victory goals, by protecting them from aggressors and achieve short- and longer-term goals through non-combat means.
  • Foreshadow Behavior: The diplomacy systems should clearly manage and communicate the changing disposition between players and foreshadow likely (AI) behavior like war declarations. In AoW3 wars were often declared with no forewarning and with few counter balances.
  • Increase Player Survivability: Keep the game fun through diplomacy even though the player might not be the ultimate victor.
  • Living AI Factions: The diplomacy system should make AI players and NPC factions feel like living entities through logical behavior and situational messaging.
  • Meaningful Trade: The diplomacy system should facilitate meaningful Trade between factions. Find peaceful resolutions to border disputes by exchanging provinces.
  • Non-Mutual Relations: The Player vs Player relation should be a non-mutual relation. This gets around the problem that a trespassing player would start to dislike the faction whose land he/she’s trespassing. Every player has its own view on other players. They are only connected with each other through their diplomatic state.
  • Expose the Diplomacy system with variables and modifier rather a black box approach with fuzzy messages. This helps people understand the mechanics behind the systems and is in line with approach taken with other game systems.
When players meet on the planet; they can start to engage in diplomacy. Diplomacy allows players to make treaties and pacts, and trade resources.

Diplomacy_Kirko_Releations.jpg


Diplomacy Interface

Through the Diplomacy interface, relations with players, NPC factions and races can be reviewed. The commander is the player representative in Diplomacy. The relationship between players is represented by their opinion and diplomatic state. Increasing these through diplomatic actions can result in mutual benefits, like allowing a call to war. Lowering these relationships can result a declaration of war. The following diplomatic actions are available in the Diplomacy interface:
  • Negotiation; propose trades or diplomatic states
  • Pronouncements; use influence to modify opinions
  • Declaring war

Diplomatic State

The diplomatic state represents the degree of mutual cooperation between two players. Diplomatic states further affect opinions, race relations and reputation. Players can change their diplomatic states through Diplomacy.

As the diplomatic state between two players increases, they will have an increased base opinion and be able form better treaties. Additionally, it also affects their Race relation with the race of the opposing player.

The reputation of a player is affected by all diplomatic states with others. Having better diplomatic states increases reputation, where having wars or breaking a diplomatic pact lowers reputation.
Diplomacy_DvarTrade.jpg

After this deal players are able to settle peacefully next to each other.

Players can share the following diplomatic states:
  • Alliance: An alliance is the highest achievable diplomatic state, that unlocks the ability to call the other player into any war and allows for an allied victory.
    • Share intelligence treaty
    • Allies can be called into any war
    • Allied victory
    • Increased Reputation (+150)
    • Increased Opinion (+400)
    • Increased Race relation with the race of the other player (+200)
  • Defensive pact: The defensive pact is the second positive diplomatic state, that unlocks additional treaties and the option to call to defensive war when in need.
    • Unlocks: Share vision treaty
    • Unlocks: Alliance
    • Unlocks: The other player can be called to war when waging a defensive war
    • Unlocks: Players now join each other in battle through the adjacent hex rule
    • Increased Reputation (+100)
    • Increased Opinion (+200)
    • Increased Race relation with the race of the other player (+100)
  • Non-aggression pact: The non-aggression pact is the first positive diplomatic state and shows peaceful intent between two players. From this state players can still declare war, but suffer a 1 turn delay before they may attack the opposing player.
    • Unlocks: Open Borders treaty.
    • Unlocks: Good Neighbors treaty (grants a player the rights to build on sectors that are claimed by another player without triggering any penalties)
    • Unlocks: Defensive Pact.
    • Increased Reputation (+50)
    • Increased Opinion (+100)
    • Increased Race relation with the race of the other player(+50)
  • Neutral
    • Is the lowest non-hostile diplomatic state and is the default state for two players that meet each other. From the neutral state, players can either improve to a non-aggression pact through negotiation or declare war without any turn delay.
    • While in a neutral state, players cannot have any diplomatic treaties.
  • War
    • Truce treaty
    • Call to war action (towards a friend)
    • Offer/Demand Vassalage
    • Request Attack, (AI ally only)
    • Decreased Reputation depending on the Casus Belli
    • Decreased Opinion towards and from the opposing player
    • Decreased Race relation with the faction of the other race
    • End Wars Using:
  • Forming a truce
  • Requesting or demanding vassalage.
  • Having the war expire

Vassalage (Alliance Sub-state)

A player is in a vassalage when they have declared loyalty to another player in return for stopping hostilities. When a player sees they are losing a war, they can negotiate to surrender themselves onto the other player and become their vassal in a locked pact. A player can also choose to demand that the other player becomes their vassal if they feel confident. In a vassalage, one player is the overlord and the other the vassal. During a vassalage, the players are locked into an alliance with limited diplomatic options:
  • Only the overlord can break the alliance by declaring war.
  • Players can no longer denounce or warn each other.
  • Only the overlord may call the vassal to war, the vassal must always accept.
  • Treaties cannot be broken by the vassal.
  • The vassal is freed when the overlord is defeated.
Vassalage.jpg

Jack is submitting to his overlord

Cassus Belli


The Casus Belli and Popular Support system is about placing a penalty on unprovoked wars and about foreshadowing war. It is not about installing harsh limits on number of wars or the durations of war.

Casus Belli, or reasons for war, represent a point value that are used to denounce players and declare war on them. It is important to have Casus Belli against a player before declaring war to them to avoid high penalties in reputation and Popular Support. Casus Belli are obtained when a player is actively provoked by another player, through fabrication, or automatically by having a low reputation or race relation.

The Fabricate Casus Belli Operation is Successful!

Declaring War without Casus Belli reduces Popular Support and therefore lowers unit morale and colonist happiness. By having Casus Belli when declaring wars, the player gains Popular Support, which increases morale and happiness depending on the amount of Casus Belli.

Casus Belli are unique to each of the relations with other players. Casus Belli have a direct tie to opinions as they form a grudge which will remain active until the Casus Belli are resolved. Aside from declaring wars, Casus Belli can be resolved through negotiation.

Automatic Casus Belli are received by having a low reputation or race relation with the race of the opposing player. They can not be forgiven through negotiation, but can be used in war declarations.

Popular Support

Popular Support represents how supportive a player's population is when they lead their empire into war. A popular player pays less unit upkeep, has high morale units and produces more happiness in their colonies. Where the opposite is true for an unpopular player.

Popular support is affected by starting wars, ending wars and the amount of Casus Belli involved:

  • Declaring war without any Casus Belli leads to a high Popular Support penalty while the war lasts.
  • Declaring war with Casus Belli grants Popular Support for a limited time.
When a war ends, the Popular Support gained or lost during that war is reset.


Grudge

Grudge is a point value that modifies the opinion from one player to another. Grudge is created by having Casus Belli and can only be removed by resolving the Casus Belli and not being at war.

Grudge is increased by 50 points for each Casus Belli point that a player has on another player. This Grudge is directly subtracted from the opinion.

When the players are not at war and the current grudge value is higher than the amount of Casus Belli x 50 (minimal value), the grudge will wane with 20 points per turn until it reaches the minimal value.

Race Relations

Players have relations with each of the main races, including their own. Race relations lead to both economical effects as well as diplomatic effects:
  • Colonies of the race gain/lose happiness.
  • Units of the race gain/lose morale.
  • Camps of the race require less/more influence.
  • Race Relations modify the opinion of other players of that race.
Bad Race Relations cause other players of that faction to gain Casus Belli.

Outpost.jpg

Meeting an independent Kir'ko Camp. After acquiring them you can chose to develop the camp into a colony, move it to a new location or absorb the population.

Reputation

Reputation determines the way a player is perceived by the world. It represents their actions, good and bad, as they build a new civilization from the Ruins of the Star Union. Reputation influences the opinion of other players and the costs of Dwelling shops. Having a negative reputation grants other players a Casus Belli on them.

Reputation is divided over 7 levels; each is dependent on the reputation value:
  • Virtuous: higher than 600
  • Honorable: 400 to 599
  • Trustworthy: 200 to 399
  • Neutral: -199 to 199
  • Untrustworthy: -399 to -200
  • Dishonorable: -599 to -400
  • Deplorable: lower than -600
Reputation Modifiers:
  • Changing Diplomatic State (e.g. declaring war)
  • Trespassing
  • Razing a colony
  • Migrating a colony
  • Completing quests
  • Fabricating Casus Belli
  • Responding to NPC faction demands
  • Handling outpost events
  • Offering gifts in a trade
  • Denouncements
Reputation.jpg

Reputation Breakdown in Game

Opinion

Opinion represents how a player empire views another and affects player’s actions towards each other. It is non-mutual and is unique for each relation. Opinion is used by AI controlled players to determine the diplomatic actions they should take.

Most diplomatic actions affect the opinion of the population, like pronouncements and negotiations. Increasing the opinion can result in beneficial negotiations while decreasing it could eventually lead to wars.
  • Interactions between players
    • Using pronouncements
    • Through negotiations
    • Using covert ops
    • Trespassing
    • Ignoring sector claims
    • Attempting a victory condition
  • The diplomatic state between players
  • The reputation of players
    • Players dislike other players that have a bad reputation.
    • Players with a good reputation like other players with a good reputation.
  • The grudge between players
 
Definitely a lot more to watch out for.

What about breaking pacts? Is there a "safe" way to break a NAP or Alliance like after X turns or something?

Do players with negative reputations also have positive opinion modifiers with each other? Is there an "honorable" way to declare war without taking a reputation hit?

What if you want to end a war without the CB having been resolved? Does it automatically count as surrender, is there some variant of white peace? Is there a war score? :p
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely looking forward to the new diplomacy system and how that plays out with the diplomacy strategic operations.

I am also glad to see this in there: "The vassal is freed when the overlord is defeated."

Also @BloodyBattleBrain there is an edit button :p
 
Last edited:
Definitely a lot more to watch out for.

What about breaking pacts? Is there a "safe" way to break a NAP or Alliance like after X turns or something?

Do players with negative reputations also have positive opinion modifiers with each other? Is there an "honorable" way to declare war without taking a reputation hit?

What if you want to end a war without the CB having been resolved? Does it automatically count as surrender, is there some variant of white peace? Is there a war score? :p

Some pacts have to option to include fixed duration. Breaking them causes reputation penalties and - pending balance - popular support too.

Crooks and War criminals distrust each other too. Reputation is all about trust - not a fantasy style alignment meter where lawful evil players might like each other.

CBs are lost as soon as you declare war; so there is no war score to manage. We experimented with CBs being gradually spent during a war (and War wariness) but it was too irritating in a heavily war focused game.
 
Lennart, what if I gave you an unopened copy of Chrono Trigger for the SNES and my soul. Would you let me play this game NOW?

Asking for a friend.

Also, holy hell, this diplomacy system is EXACTLY what I've hoped would be a part of Planetfall. I'm so excited for this game, I could pee.

Dang, too late.
 
I think that you're missing the CB fabrication screen in the diary. Oh, loving that bearded armor btw, nice and creative :)

Otherwise, I really like the CB system. I'm a bit confused on how exactly you can get it. You have it with low relationship. Then you can also fabricate it.
Casus Belli are obtained when a player is actively provoked by another player

That sentence confuse me though. Does it mean that I can provoke a player so he gets a CB on me? Is it a literal provokation, ie. we can insult the ennemy as in other games of a famous company (which is a sort of beating stick you're giving to the ennemy that gets a one-way CB in hope that I win the war and pretend to be the good guy that got shamelessly attacked?)? Or does it mean that being a badboy will eventually create a CB for the ennemy, like just settling on claimed sectors, trespassing,...

I wish there were other instances for a CB, but that's an interesting move nevertheless.
 
While I'm interested in fiddling with the more robust diplomacy system, and I certainly noticed that bit about fabricating Casus Belli, there was something else that caught my eye here:

unknown.png


Compared to the previous limits of:
unknown.png

(earliest limits seen, around the period of the first Vanguard live stream)
and
unknown.png

(more recently seen in the last several dev diaries and Kir'Ko live stream)

While maintaining the lower Doctrine limit isn't much to talk about, the jump from 7 to 12 Operation points is rather noticeable. Is there any insight you're willing to share in regards to the reasons behind that change, or is that considered off topic for a Dev Diary about diplomacy?
 
With its war-game roots, the AoW series featured rudimentary diplomacy systems which generally resulted in you either being at war with others or in an alliance, with little in between.

Actually, diplomacy in AoW3 isn't rudimentary. It has enough features to negotiate and even roleplaying. You should differ when diplomacy is primitive or AI just can't use it correctly or even doesn't use it at all. Let's be honest, in case of AoW3 it's 2nd case, not 1st.
 
I like the look of this. But I feel like it wasn't very clear. Something for the next Stream?

First image, top right, has tabs of "RELATIONS" and "RELATIONS". Either one of these is wrong, or better names are needed for them.

For the Diplomatic States:
Is any investment required for advancing those levels? I see that you gain Opinion for advancing them, but do you need a threshold of some sort first? I feel like having to work towards an Alliance rather than simply slapping it on the table would be a good mechanic. Especially since you (sort of) have to do a bit of work to start a War.
How about allowing some temporary treaties to be tabled when at a Diplomatic State below the requirement for a permanent one? This could be a good way to emulate the testing of a relationship, so you could get an Opinion boost at the end of the temporary treaty for sticking to the rules. For example, a temporary Good Neighbours or Open Boarders while at Neutral. (Open Boarders has tactical benefits when at war with a third party, or maybe you'd just like to send some scouts over that way.) Or a 1 off Map Sharing at Non-aggression Pact level.

Given that this is a War game, how about a level below War called Vendetta. Vendetta would be caused by someone performing a particularly nasty act against you or your people (so hitting a high threshold of negative Opinion and Race Relations). Once in this state, you can't end the War. Vassalage is no longer an option. Only total destruction of them will pay for their crimes. You have permanent Cassus Belli against them. Maybe a reduced Reputation penalty for using certain actions against them?

Grudge:
This doesn't seem to tell anyone what Grudge actually is/does.

I notice a mention that we can Warn other players. Is this going to do anything useful? I'm getting Civ5 flashbacks where you ask someone not to do something and they simply Denounce you, or ignore it.
 
This is all very nice and well, but at the end of the day the questions will be
a) how good will the AI handle this
b) how predictable will the AI be
c) How gullible and easy to manipulate will this be

because at the core of it it's, as was said, a wargame, and at the core of it, you don't want to win diplomatic victories all too often.

I also have to say that I heavily dislike - as was debated in another thread - the Vassalage option, because, you know, it makes no sense. Lennart's quote explains it:

Crooks and War criminals distrust each other too. Reputation is all about trust - not a fantasy style alignment meter where lawful evil players might like each other.

Yes, exactly! Now, no matter whether it's human or AI players, IF you are indeed at war, one player on the roaf to defeat, there has been some history for them to actually be at war. Covert ops, provocations, bad reputations, grudges, you name it: the two can't stand each other. But the game parameters haven't changed at the point when one player is all fed up with losing and the other seeing that they might need stuff at another place. That's way too rational.
Your crooks and war criminals would NEVER be trustworthy to actually be the loyal vassal the game would force them to be in an artificial way, and they would actually do that ONLY because that would give them a chance to NOT ONLY survive, but also to come back, while a "good" player would NEVER surrender to a crook, because that would mean (probably) lambs to the slaughter.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not against "honorable surrender" mechanics, but a mechanic that makes one player the helpless puppet of another doesn't make sense. Not only it's no "fun", it's also far away from the diplomatic realism the system is trying to summon.

You don't keep defeated players as trophies which is what this kind of vassalage is.

There is another practical point. I very much sippose that there is no way a 3rd party can "free" a vassal without defeating the overlord, but in reality, even if the current leaders of the vassal would be content there would be malcontents that a 3rd party might want to fund to overtake power and rebel (that's how this works) in order to weaken the overlord.

Basically, the game cannot FORCE a player into giving up their free will. That doesn't make sense. No matter what a player is accepting for peace, they should ALWAYS have the option to try and negotiate something, to rebel and so on - otherwise why waste time with dancing to overlord's tune? However, the player will lose control. With these conditions they won't be able to even indirectly support 3rd parties, be it with resources or troops - if they were, they could just as well rebel.

Bottom line is, vassaling another player either makes no sense or things pretty complicated. In fact, if you leave that state out and just consider the facts, IF there is a war situation (which may include more than two parties), then they who see EARLY that the war will hurt them more than benefit, will have the advantage because they can suggest peace or truce in a situation when they still are able to put up a good fight. So instead of "vassalage", there should be options to appease an opponent into a truce or even peace: pay tribute for x turns; surrender a town; hand over a tech or two plus some artifacts; agree to not build troops better than T2 for x turns ...

I'd like to close this with pointing to the fact that I don't see any reason for a vassaled player NOT to leave play of their turns to the AI.
 
Last edited:
Every development diary makes me love this game more . The developers have listened to everything the fans said and evolved age of wonders in a spectacular way I hope you sell millions of copies. I for one will buy a few copies and send some to friends.

I am very curious as to what can be traded in the diplomacy screen I would guess energy, cosmite, mods, mounts, equipment.
research or a research pact
Colonies, outposts, sectors
Maybe diplomatic buildings or embassies that improve race or empire relations.

Can anyone else think of other items that could be traded.
 
Every development diary makes me love this game more . The developers have listened to everything the fans said and evolved age of wonders in a spectacular way I hope you sell millions of copies. I for one will buy a few copies and send some to friends.

I am very curious as to what can be traded in the diplomacy screen I would guess energy, cosmite, mods, mounts, equipment.
research or a research pact
Colonies, outposts, sectors
Maybe diplomatic buildings or embassies that improve race or empire relations.

Can anyone else think of other items that could be traded.
Maybe we could even trade part of our populations especially as I believe one factions is in to its slaving.