Adding some depth to increase/decrease relations

[The Goldfinch]

Relations, from what we know so far, are the absolute core of Vic3 diplomacy - and that's wonderful. Various levels of relations have certain material implications (cordial=non aggression, etc). Here, I am going to share two ideas on how to make determining and changing bilateral relations more fun and realistic.

1. To begin with, and I consider it critically important - primary factor should be your global geopolitical position. It is, shortly, how your relations with country X are affected by your relations with country Y and others. Example:

Russia hates Turkey. Britain has good relations with Turkey. Relations between Great Britain and Russia will be, to some extent, lowered by British - Ottoman friendship.

Simply put, the more your friends are X's enemies, the lower are your relations. The more friends, or enemies, you have in common, the higher will be your bilateral relation score. I consider it sort of fundamental for diplomacy - this mechanic would ensure, that countries that are globally on a collision course (by hating/liking certain other countries), would have a harder time in getting closer. Countries that share their stance in regard to certain countries will be natural friends. I am convinced this is how biggest part of global international relations throughout history was determined.

2. Secondly, just as we don't have "increase income" button, but there are specific actions leading to it - I think it would make a lot of sense to also try it in regard to changes in bilateral relations.

(Important note: I am not saying that existence of simple "increase" button will drag Vic3 to the depths of despair, I am just sharing ideas how to expand it, make it more complex and fun)

I imagine, after clicking on "actions to increase relations" you would open a panel, with several relevant actions to choose from (each of them would have own implications outside of relations change):
- make a high ranking visit - small increase in relations, both countries pay a little money, a country with smaller prestige receives small prestige boost
- sign a border treaty (like for example Locarno treaties) - you officially recognize your borders with certain country, and you cannot use diplomatic plays to alter it unless you first renounce the treaty. Would give big increase in relations
- declaration of friendship - a non binding, unilateral action, giving small increase in relations
- etc, etc.

Decrease panel:
- summon ambassador - unilateral, small decrease in relations
- express deep concern - a very powerful, lethal weapon in international relations
- raise tariffs - depending on its scope, might seriously damage relations, also has obvious economical implications. I would say this is one of the most popular methods to damage relations in modern era
- etc, etc.

Those two ideas should naturally converge. If you want to harm your relations with Austria, you might want to make a high ranking visit to Serbia, and so on.

 

[Muezzinzade]

Relations, from what we know so far, are the absolute core of Vic3 diplomacy - and that's wonderful. Various levels of relations have certain material implications (cordial=non aggression, etc). Here, I am going to share two ideas on how to make determining and changing bilateral relations more fun and realistic.

1. To begin with, and I consider it critically important - primary factor should be your global geopolitical position. It is, shortly, how your relations with country X are affected by your relations with country Y and others. Example:

Russia hates Turkey. Britain has good relations with Turkey. Relations between Great Britain and Russia will be, to some extent, lowered by British - Ottoman friendship.

Simply put, the more your friends are X's enemies, the lower are your relations. The more friends, or enemies, you have in common, the higher will be your bilateral relation score. I consider it sort of fundamental for diplomacy - this mechanic would ensure, that countries that are globally on a collision course (by hating/liking certain other countries), would have a harder time in getting closer. Countries that share their stance in regard to certain countries will be natural friends. I am convinced this is how biggest part of global international relations throughout history was determined.

2. Secondly, just as we don't have "increase income" button, but there are specific actions leading to it - I think it would make a lot of sense to also try it in regard to changes in bilateral relations.

(Important note: I am not saying that existence of simple "increase" button will drag Vic3 to the depths of despair, I am just sharing ideas how to expand it, make it more complex and fun)

I imagine, after clicking on "actions to increase relations" you would open a panel, with several relevant actions to choose from (each of them would have own implications outside of relations change):
- make a high ranking visit - small increase in relations, both countries pay a little money, a country with smaller prestige receives small prestige boost
- sign a border treaty (like for example Locarno treaties) - you officially recognize your borders with certain country, and you cannot use diplomatic plays to alter it unless you first renounce the treaty. Would give big increase in relations
- declaration of friendship - a non binding, unilateral action, giving small increase in relations
- etc, etc.

Decrease panel:
- summon ambassador - unilateral, small decrease in relations
- express deep concern - a very powerful, lethal weapon in international relations
- raise tariffs - depending on its scope, might seriously damage relations, also has obvious economical implications. I would say this is one of the most popular methods to damage relations in modern era
- etc, etc.

Those two ideas should naturally converge. If you want to harm your relations with Austria, you might want to make a high ranking visit to Serbia, and so on.

I especially love the powerful "express deep concern" option as a powerful tool against countries that are for example brutally crushing a rebellion in their territories. A parallel option for increasing relations should be also a powerful "thoughts and prayers" button.
But seriously, making relations between two countries dependent on their relations with other countries as well is a great idea!

 

[The Goldfinch]

I especially love the powerful "express deep concern" option as a powerful tool against countries that are for example brutally crushing a rebellion in their territories. A parallel option for increasing relations should be also a powerful "thoughts and prayers" button.

Thanks, I was also considering "doesn't do anything, really" for the description of deep concern action

 

[Andrzej2]

Yeah something like that would be nice. In modern politics what matters the most is interests! Not some sort of opinions lol. Only naive and unprofessional politicians care about feelings. If certain nations have common enemies and common interests then they should be able to ally. I hate moments in other paradox games when my interests align with some other nation 100%, when Im willing to save them from total destruction because we have common enemy and I can't even ally them becouse opinion is too low...

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

As always the depth will most likely be found in DLC. Oh well...

 

[sigismundus]

Relations, from what we know so far, are the absolute core of Vic3 diplomacy - and that's wonderful. Various levels of relations have certain material implications (cordial=non aggression, etc). Here, I am going to share two ideas on how to make determining and changing bilateral relations more fun and realistic.

1. To begin with, and I consider it critically important - primary factor should be your global geopolitical position. It is, shortly, how your relations with country X are affected by your relations with country Y and others. Example:

Russia hates Turkey. Britain has good relations with Turkey. Relations between Great Britain and Russia will be, to some extent, lowered by British - Ottoman friendship.

Simply put, the more your friends are X's enemies, the lower are your relations. The more friends, or enemies, you have in common, the higher will be your bilateral relation score. I consider it sort of fundamental for diplomacy - this mechanic would ensure, that countries that are globally on a collision course (by hating/liking certain other countries), would have a harder time in getting closer. Countries that share their stance in regard to certain countries will be natural friends. I am convinced this is how biggest part of global international relations throughout history was determined.

2. Secondly, just as we don't have "increase income" button, but there are specific actions leading to it - I think it would make a lot of sense to also try it in regard to changes in bilateral relations.

(Important note: I am not saying that existence of simple "increase" button will drag Vic3 to the depths of despair, I am just sharing ideas how to expand it, make it more complex and fun)

I imagine, after clicking on "actions to increase relations" you would open a panel, with several relevant actions to choose from (each of them would have own implications outside of relations change):
- make a high ranking visit - small increase in relations, both countries pay a little money, a country with smaller prestige receives small prestige boost
- sign a border treaty (like for example Locarno treaties) - you officially recognize your borders with certain country, and you cannot use diplomatic plays to alter it unless you first renounce the treaty. Would give big increase in relations
- declaration of friendship - a non binding, unilateral action, giving small increase in relations
- etc, etc.

Decrease panel:
- summon ambassador - unilateral, small decrease in relations
- express deep concern - a very powerful, lethal weapon in international relations
- raise tariffs - depending on its scope, might seriously damage relations, also has obvious economical implications. I would say this is one of the most popular methods to damage relations in modern era
- etc, etc.

Those two ideas should naturally converge. If you want to harm your relations with Austria, you might want to make a high ranking visit to Serbia, and so on.

Maybe instead of action and subactions as "high ranking visits" there should be one action that will start a series of events.
These events then will work similarly to your subactions (the player could choose from several options as "pay more get more relations").
So it will have both - one simple diplomatic action easy to understand but supported with a better "feeling" of complexity gameplay and more diverse actions (via options in events).

 

[Tukata]

Great ideas here. I love the decomposition of "raise" or "damage" relationship in different, more understandable role-playing actions with different effects.

 

[InvisibleBison]

1. To begin with, and I consider it critically important - primary factor should be your global geopolitical position.

This seems like a good idea, but I think it needs a greater degree of nuance than you're describing. In particular, I think that the effects of relations with a third nation on your relations with a second nation should be scaled by rank and/or interests. Eg, France and Germany both being friendly with Nepal or hostile to Paraguay isn't going to make them friends, while Russia being hostile to Nepal isn't going to interfere with them forming an alliance with France.

2. Secondly, just as we don't have "increase income" button, but there are specific actions leading to it - I think it would make a lot of sense to also try it in regard to changes in bilateral relations.

I'm not convinced this is a worthwhile change. In general, it looks like you're just making improve relations less abstract without changing significant about how it actually works. It's more complex, sure, but I fail to see how it's better than what the dev diary described.

 

[The Goldfinch]

This seems like a good idea, but I think it needs a greater degree of nuance than you're describing. In particular, I think that the effects of relations with a third nation on your relations with a second nation should be scaled by rank and/or interests. Eg, France and Germany both being friendly with Nepal or hostile to Paraguay isn't going to make them friends, while Russia being hostile to Nepal isn't going to interfere with them forming an alliance with France.


I'm not convinced this is a worthwhile change. In general, it looks like you're just making improve relations less abstract without changing significant about how it actually works. It's more complex, sure, but I fail to see how it's better than what the dev diary described.

1. Oh, come on, its pretty much obvious it would need scaling. Naturally, relations penalty/boost would depend on several factors, for example size, rank, or threat: if a country has territorial claims against you, it gets bigger relations penalty against your friends. Obviously insignificant nations would make smaller impact, this is rather a no brainer, isn't it? Also, probably nations that lie in Strategic Regions where both countries declared interest, would matter more and would make bigger difference.

2. I dare to say it would indeed change how it works. For example, a country has to accept high ranking visit from you. Maybe they would feel its not a time yet for a visit. Maybe first you have to stop supporting their rivals, etc. While in the current system, improving relations is purely one sided, and does not require any preconditions.

My other ideas: Border treaty, raising tariffs, maybe provocative military parade - its all about making some material basis for change in relations.

In real world you rarely get change in relations solely by being nice/rude. Leaders often have to use other tools. Basically my whole idea is that relations score should be firmly anchored in reality, and closely connected to other mechanics, like prestige, money, etc.

 

[Kovax]

First, I could see scaling the effects of certain diplomatic actions to some degree according to mutual friends and enemies. That should mostly be confined to events which impact that mutual friend or enemy, so the fact that one of your closest friends is an enemy of another country shouldn't affect how you perceive actions with an unrelated country. To illustrate with a modern example, the US' actions regarding Cuba should have very little effect on the UK, however, US actions affecting Australia should be a much bigger concern to the UK, since the UK and Australia have close ties.

Something like "express deep concern" or "thoughts and prayers" might be "mostly does nothing", but could affect specific interest groups within either country. In other words, you're doing it either to placate or antagonize a small but vocal group in your own country, or in the target country, even though it has no effect on overall relations.

 

[Oglesby]

1. To begin with, and I consider it critically important - primary factor should be your global geopolitical position. It is, shortly, how your relations with country X are affected by your relations with country Y and others.

I just can't get past seeing how this will not be a computational nightmare.

If the relations between two countries is affected by their relations to every other country, which is also affected by those countries relations to every other country, etc. I could see the system just toggling constantly without any change of the inputs as certain relations are constantly crossing boundaries. I was thinking it could work if this is limited to just the outer edges of the of the 'relations' scale but it still could lead to a unstable system because it just changed where the boundaries are located.

If this is limited to being solely based on countries with which you have an 'active diplomatic engagement' (i.e. trade agreement, alliance) I can see it working but I am assuming this will already be present as this is what they do in their other games.

 

[Markusw7]

Someone suggested that you have events kicked off by this like the events in CK3 when you're swaying someone. If this isn't already in or planned it would be a good idea to add it.

 

[sigismundus]

I dare to say it would indeed change how it works. For example, a country has to accept high ranking visit from you. Maybe they would feel its not a time yet for a visit. Maybe first you have to stop supporting their rivals, etc. While in the current system, improving relations is purely one sided, and does not require any preconditions.

So if I understood you correctly you want to make "increase relations" similar to "Diplomatic Incident" where both sides can bargain?

 

[elandread]

Great ideas! I hope that @Wizzington and @lachek can consider this.

 

[The Goldfinch]

So if I understood you correctly you want to make "increase relations" similar to "Diplomatic Incident" where both sides can bargain?

Well, not necessarily - here I simply meant that it would be ridiculous if you could take certain positive steps without consent of the other side. If you want to arrange a diplomatic meeting, obviously the other side has to be willing to attend it. I imagine, a precondition for diplomatic visit could be that there is no grave conflict between the two nations

 

[Spartakusbund]

Well, not necessarily - here I simply meant that it would be ridiculous if you could take certain positive steps without consent of the other side. If you want to arrange a diplomatic meeting, obviously the other side has to be willing to attend it. I imagine, a precondition for diplomatic visit could be that there is no grave conflict between the two nations

So every time the AI wants to boost relations, I get a pop up that gives me a bunch of options on how to respond? That sounds unwieldy, especially for bigger powers.

The diplomatic system currently gives you a way to block friendly diplomacy you don’t want: you can expel their ambassadors.

Also, I don’t think your other idea about your relationship with country X being impacted by your relationship with country Y holds up historically. Germany pursued friendly relations with Italy and Austria at the same time in the late 19th century (see the Triple Alliance). Yes, if Germany backs Austria in a play that Italy does not like, that should harm relations. But just being friendly with them should not.

 

[The Goldfinch]

So every time the AI wants to boost relations, I get a pop up that gives me a bunch of options on how to respond? That sounds unwieldy, especially for bigger powers.

And how is this different from 37 military access requests in EU? Also, as I said, there naturally would be requirements before diplomatic visit could be arranged, so definitely numbers of requests would not be overwhelming

The diplomatic system currently gives you a way to block friendly diplomacy you don’t want: you can expel their ambassadors.

Yes, I think you could safely assume that I have indeed read the dev diary before starting this thread. Here I would argue that it makes sense that improving relations should only work if the other side wants it aswell - especially since there is one relations score for both countries. It is sort of ridiculous that the only way to stop relations from improving is to expell ambassador.

- Hello, I am the russian ambassador. I will start imrpoving relations from now on.
- Wait, what? We don't want this, we don't want relations improvement.
- Thank you for your opinion, but I will be improving anyway
- No, no, err... you are expelled!

(my point is, unwillingness to improve relations should not necessarily end up with expelling ambassador. You simply might not be interested in it)

Also, I don’t think your other idea about your relationship with country X being impacted by your relationship with country Y holds up historically. Germany pursued friendly relations with Italy and Austria at the same time in the late 19th century (see the Triple Alliance). Yes, if Germany backs Austria in a play that Italy does not like, that should harm relations. But just being friendly with them should not.

There is a subtle (not that subtle) difference here that I think might be out of your grasp at this point.
You say, a country can still have a good relationship with a country that is hostile to its friend - yes that is true. It is totally in line with my idea. It just should be a bit harder.
But are you trying to argue that hostility to a friend does not matter at all? - no, that is not true. And I could come up with tens of examples, even in present day international politics.
So again, your argument seems to be rather misguided - I don't seek to completely block countries from having good relations with enemies of its friends - I just want this fact to matter, to some extent.

(analogy to illustrate the problem with your reasoning:
- it should be harder to keep monarchy till XX century
- but, but, there were still monarchies in XX century)

 

[Spartakusbund]

And how is this different from 37 military access requests in EU? Also, as I said, there naturally would be requirements before diplomatic visit could be arranged, so definitely numbers of requests would not be overwhelming

The difference is that I can click through those without thinking about them all that much. Here you’re asking me to stop and bargain every time an AI sends me a diplomat. “Yes, you can come in if you agree to stop backing France’s claim to Morocco.” That is going to be a lot more distracting.

Yes, I think you could safely assume that I have indeed read the dev diary before starting this thread. Here I would argue that it makes sense that improving relations should only work if the other side wants it aswell - especially since there is one relations score for both countries. It is sort of ridiculous that the only way to stop relations from improving is to expell ambassador.

- Hello, I am the russian ambassador. I will start imrpoving relations from now on.
- Wait, what? We don't want this, we don't want relations improvement.
- Thank you for your opinion, but I will be improving anyway
- No, no, err... you are expelled!

(my point is, unwillingness to improve relations should not necessarily end up with expelling ambassador. You simply might not be interested in it)

You don’t have total control over how your nation feels about another nation, though. I can’t just decide that an ambassador is going to be unsuccessful. He’s going to go around in the background, talking to influential people and trying to bring them around to a sympathetic view of his country. The only way to stop him is not to allow him in the country.

There is a subtle (not that subtle) difference here that I think might be out of your grasp at this point.
You say, a country can still have a good relationship with a country that is hostile to its friend - yes that is true. It is totally in line with my idea. It just should be a bit harder.
But are you trying to argue that hostility to a friend does not matter at all? - no, that is not true. And I could come up with tens of examples, even in present day international politics.
So again, your argument seems to be rather misguided - I don't seek to completely block countries from having good relations with enemies of its friends - I just want this fact to matter, to some extent.

(analogy to illustrate the problem with your reasoning:
- it should be harder to keep monarchy till XX century
- but, but, there were still monarchies in XX century)

For all this condescension, you have not actually explained why a nation should get mad at another nation merely for talking to a third nation. Lay some of your tens of examples on me. Let’s see them. This idea is neither realistic nor, as Oglesby pointed out, viable.

 

[The Goldfinch]

The difference is that I can click through those without thinking about them all that much. Here you’re asking me to stop and bargain every time an AI sends me a diplomat. “Yes, you can come in if you agree to stop backing France’s claim to Morocco.” That is going to be a lot more distracting.

You misunderstood. I never said it should be a bargain - only that in certain geopolitical circumstances, AI, or a player, might not be willing to allow for relations improvement. Honestly, whats so distracting here? I really don't get this point. You don't have to bargain, you just hit dismiss if you don't want it.

You don’t have total control over how your nation feels about another nation, though. I can’t just decide that an ambassador is going to be unsuccessful. He’s going to go around in the background, talking to influential people and trying to bring them around to a sympathetic view of his country. The only way to stop him is not to allow him in the country.

Okay, you don't have a total control over how your nation feels about other nation, but you have a total control of what other nation feels about your nation. You can just decide that your ambassador is going to be successful. You just have to hit increase button. Yeah.

For all this condescension, you have not actually explained why a nation should get mad at another nation merely for talking to a third nation. Lay some of your tens of examples on me. Let’s see them. This idea is neither realistic nor, as Oglesby pointed out, viable.

Do I really have to explain something this basic? Okay, Turkey making high ranking visit to Azerbaijan will hurt its relations with Armenia. USA making high ranking visit to Ukraine would hurt its relations with Russia. France making high ranking visit to Poland in 1923 would hurt its relations with Weimar Republic. Russia making high ranking visit to Serbia in 1909 would hurt its relations with Austria. There were countless examples of those situations. Do I really have to go on? Isn't obvious, that when you try to get closer to country X enemies, then country X will not be extatic about it?

 

[Spartakusbund]

You misunderstood. I never said it should be a bargain - only that in certain geopolitical circumstances, AI, or a player, might not be willing to allow for relations improvement. Honestly, whats so distracting here? I really don't get this point. You don't have to bargain, you just hit dismiss if you don't want it.

Then this is functionally no different from the current expel diplomats option.

Okay, you don't have a total control over how your nation feels about other nation, but you have a total control of what other nation feels about your nation. You can just decide that your ambassador is going to be successful. You just have to hit increase button. Yeah.

Yeah, you click the button and your diplomat goes to work improving relations. He will do that even if the player in charge of that nation doesn't want relations to go up, unless he takes the drastic step of kicking my diplomat out of the country. I do not have total control of what that nation feels about my nation in this example: I merely have a way of influencing it.

You have completely sidestepped my point in this little language game you tried to play. If a diplomat is allowed to operate in a country, he's going to start talking to people and changing their opinions (for the better or for the worse, depending on what his orders are). It makes no sense that I, as the player of the country he is operating in, get to decide "nope, actually, he doesn't."

Do I really have to explain something this basic? Okay, Turkey making high ranking visit to Azerbaijan will hurt its relations with Armenia. USA making high ranking visit to Ukraine would hurt its relations with Russia. France making high ranking visit to Poland in 1923 would hurt its relations with Weimar Republic. Russia making high ranking visit to Serbia in 1909 would hurt its relations with Austria. There were countless examples of those situations. Do I really have to go on? Isn't obvious, that when you try to get closer to country X enemies, then country X will not be extatic about it?

You don't think Turkey has diplomats in Azerbaijan? You don't think the US has diplomats in the Ukraine? You don't think France had diplomats in Poland?

If Turkey backs Azerbaijan in its Play to get disputed territory, then yes, relations should go down with Armenia. If the USA starts to sell weapons to the Ukraine, yes relations should go down with Russia. If France gives a guarantee that Danzig will remain Polish, then yes relations with the Weimar Republic should go down (actually not really in this case since that was already implicitly a part of the Treaty of Versailles and should already be baked into relations, but you understand what I mean). Just talking should not.