+15 relations with any country for only ₤100

[unmerged(15101)]

The "improve relations" diplomatic option can cost as much as ₤700-1000 when dealing with a large country. Almost every time the effect is +10, with a small chance of a greater improvement. However, relations with any country can be improved by +15 by trading them any amount of cash, even the minimum of ₤100. Is this intended?

 

[Derek Pullem]

NO! I'll confirm the report and log it.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

This is a true exploit: I've seen it used since 1.01, though it would have been reported long ago. I don't care to use it, personally, because I like the chance of "successfully" improving relations and seeing that +50 added to the diplo-score. I'm just a gambler at heart.

-Duncan

 

[unmerged(6766)]

I've been doing this too, but I didn't think of it as an exploit. I just thought it was a guaranteed raise, rather than the random one for a higher price

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Hmm, I don't think they should completely get rid of the option to give countries money in exchange for nothing, though. I've used it in the past to try to prop up countries that are in danger of collapsing under attack from another country when I'm unwilling/unable to actually go to war over it. If I'm wealthy enough, I'll give them large quantities of cash - never used it as an exploit trading $100 for relations, though. Always as a "balance of power" thing.

 

[unmerged(11633)]

As the UK, I gave 15K to the confederates to resist the Union, worked like a treat.

Anyway, doesn;t it cost money to open negotiations?

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Hmm, I don't think they should completely get rid of the option to give countries money in exchange for nothing, though. I've used it in the past to try to prop up countries that are in danger of collapsing under attack from another country when I'm unwilling/unable to actually go to war over it. If I'm wealthy enough, I'll give them large quantities of cash - never used it as an exploit trading $100 for relations, though. Always as a "balance of power" thing.

I agree, I think the system works as designed and countries should be able to give other countries "grants" as per their whim. I hope this isn't changed because I love to build up smaller countries as a rich superpower later in the game. I don't even really care about the trading $100 for relations, that's a personal choice thing it seems, destined for house rules. Still, maybe the best way to close off this "exploit" (if the devs so decided to bother with it) is to change the improved relations for successful deals from +15 to +5. Then it makes it more trouble than it's worth; it would cost $200 and 2 diplomats to get to +10 using the "exploit" when you could just improve relations the non-exploit way and get a min of +10, using only 1 diplomat and around 200-300 pounds, depending on the country.

-Duncan

 

[unmerged(15101)]

I definitely was not suggesting that the option to give money to another country should be removed. My concern is that when $100 gives you a guaranteed +15, and spending more money gives only +10 nine times out of ten, the latter seems like a waste of precious diplomatic influence points.

I think the improvement in relations should start lower and scale up as the amount of money traded increases. $100 is an insignificant amount to even the smallest countries, it should take quite a bit more to see a substantial improvement in relations. I also wouldn't mind seeing a slight increase in the chance of gaining more than +10 from the "improve relations" option.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

I agree, I think the system works as designed and countries should be able to give other countries "grants" as per their whim. I hope this isn't changed because I love to build up smaller countries as a rich superpower later in the game. I don't even really care about the trading $100 for relations, that's a personal choice thing it seems, destined for house rules. Still, maybe the best way to close off this "exploit" (if the devs so decided to bother with it) is to change the improved relations for successful deals from +15 to +5. Then it makes it more trouble than it's worth; it would cost $200 and 2 diplomats to get to +10 using the "exploit" when you could just improve relations the non-exploit way and get a min of +10, using only 1 diplomat and around 200-300 pounds, depending on the country.

-Duncan

That's a good idea, I've never considered the improved relations from a deal all that important anyway - generally the countries I conclude deals with I already have good relations with.

 

[Grosshaus]

I think the improvement in relations should start lower and scale up as the amount of money traded increases. $100 is an insignificant amount to even the smallest countries, it should take quite a bit more to see a substantial improvement in relations. I also wouldn't mind seeing a slight increase in the chance of gaining more than +10 from the "improve relations" option.

I'd say 1000 should be the lowest amount with impact, but only around +5 relations and only to very minor countries like Havaiji. Then scaled upwards heavily, so that improving relations with Russia by +15 should require tens of thousands of pounds.

 

[Derek Pullem]

No thats too much IMHO. Even large countries can normally be bought for £3-400 per DI. Making the deal a minimum of 500 sounds a good thing to me.

I'll log it without prejudice anyway.

 

[OndGud]

Or make impr. relations minimum increase +15 and negotiations +10. Might wanna increase chances of higher results slightly.

And while you're logging with a vengance, make then double the value of land Still to easy to buy half of india from Britain.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Or make impr. relations minimum increase +15 and negotiations +10. Might wanna increase chances of higher results slightly.

And while you're logging with a vengance, make then double the value of land Still to easy to buy half of india from Britain.

I've noticed / figured out this exploit to - but I think we sould remove the postive relations from 'the sucessful negotiations' result entirely. Also, as anyways noticed that while you have to have minimu amount of $$$ in treasury to open negotiations, that amount is never actually deducted fom your treasury? Is that WAD?

 

[Claude Luster]

Hmm, I don't think they should completely get rid of the option to give countries money in exchange for nothing, though. I've used it in the past to try to prop up countries that are in danger of collapsing under attack from another country when I'm unwilling/unable to actually go to war over it. If I'm wealthy enough, I'll give them large quantities of cash - never used it as an exploit trading $100 for relations, though. Always as a "balance of power" thing.

I agree that one should still be able to give nations money without anything in retain, except improved (hopefully) relations.

C.L.

 

[DGuller]

Why can't the effect be, to use the "s" word, scaled by income? If I give some country a gift of their five-year income, they would be kissing my feet and even more private body parts for the next year. However, that same money could be just one day's worth of income to GB, so all you would get is some slight temporary softening of the upper lip in response. There are so many things in Victoria that should so obviously be scaled, and yet aren't, and this is one of them.

 

[Grosshaus]

Scaling to income isn't all that simple, although it would solve a lot. Vic income fluctuates daily, so the amount of money in question might quadruple depending on whether you sell those clippers or not.

EU2 has those superpower scaled random events, which are tied to number of provinces. That suits EU2, but in Vic the number of provinces isn't all that important. A 3-province state with factories and sulphur is a totally different thing than whole 15+ Algerian provinces with around 2000 farmers each.

Might it be possible to make a scaling depend on either overall or industrial ranking? If the effects are only economical, then using industrial rating makes more sense. Too bad that changes just about as randomly as daily income does, so perhaps the overall rating should be used. Would it be better to make the number of points or the ranking be the determining factor?

 

[DGuller]

Scaling to income isn't all that simple, although it would solve a lot. Vic income fluctuates daily, so the amount of money in question might quadruple depending on whether you sell those clippers or not.

EU2 has those superpower scaled random events, which are tied to number of provinces. That suits EU2, but in Vic the number of provinces isn't all that important. A 3-province state with factories and sulphur is a totally different thing than whole 15+ Algerian provinces with around 2000 farmers each.

Might it be possible to make a scaling depend on either overall or industrial ranking? If the effects are only economical, then using industrial rating makes more sense. Too bad that changes just about as randomly as daily income does, so perhaps the overall rating should be used. Would it be better to make the number of points or the ranking be the determining factor?

How about last year's income as a base? For example, 1% of yearly income given translates to 1 point of improvement. It should probably be capped to at most 100 point improvement at a time, so that you won't be able to turn your most bitter enemy into best friend with one bribe. Same should be done to overly generous trade offers, it would consider the excess of value you propose as a bribe, or a negative bribe if you're proposing low percentage deal, instead of the canned +15 again. This setup would dampen much of variation and give AI a true measure of the worth of money to them. Some special consideration should be made for 1836, such as estimating the yearly income by multiplaying daily income by 365, and then doubling it for good measure, to avoid exploits while the world economy is booting up.

 

[Grosshaus]

Last year's income would be great, but I doubt the game tracks that = propably too hard to implement

 

[DGuller]

Last year's income would be great, but I doubt the game tracks that = propably too hard to implement

It does track last year's income, look at the save file (or even ledger, I think it's there also).