Adding some depth to increase/decrease relations

[The Goldfinch]

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."

Dude, honestly your point is getting beyond ridiculous here. How can a diplomat increase relations with a foreign country, if all foreign country officials are instructed to stay indifferent? Or I, as a player, don't have control over my officials? I don't know how far your knowledge about diplomacy reaches, but it is not like personal opinions matter if there is a clear instructions from the governing body - to stay indifferent in this particular case.

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.

Where the hell did I mention having diplomats? I seriously don't understand what is your problem here. Obviously all those actions you mentioned should be harmful. In the same time, actions like declaration of friendship matter as well, and also have their implications. American declaration of friendship with Kosovo would not be welcomed in Belgrade. Please try to carefully examine my post again.

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

Sigh. Yes it is different. You might deny it, and after 3 months agree to it. And I imagine expelling diplomats should hurt relations. Refusing to improve them should be purely neutral move. And honestly this is the least important issue here, and discussing it further would be a frustrating waste of time for me.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Dude, honestly your point is getting beyond ridiculous here. How can a diplomat increase relations with a foreign country, if all foreign country officials are instructed to stay indifferent? Or I, as a player, don't have control over my officials? I don't know how far your knowledge about diplomacy reaches, but it is not like personal opinions matter if there is a clear instructions from the governing body - to stay indifferent in this particular case.

No, you don't have total control over all officials in your country. And we're not just talking about diplomatic personnel here: an ambassador might talk to a Senator, a union leader, a member of the local clergy, or any other manner of powerful people in your country who will have an impact on how your state views that nation.

Where the hell did I mention having diplomats? I seriously don't understand what is your problem here. Obviously all those actions you mentioned should be harmful. In the same time, actions like declaration of friendship matter as well, and also have their implications. American declaration of friendship with Kosovo would not be welcomed in Belgrade. Please try to carefully examine my post again.

We are not talking about formal declarations of friendship, we're talking about improving relations. Your repeated rudeness combined with this tendency to move goal posts and attack strawmen is very frustrating.

 

[The Goldfinch]

We are not talking about formal declarations of friendship, we're talking about improving relations. Your repeated rudeness combined with this tendency to move goal posts and attack strawmen is very frustrating.

If you read my post carefully, you would understand that in my idea, improving relations consists of series of particular actions, one of which would be "declaration of friendship". Pure, abstracted "improve relations" action is not among them. And yes, super good relations of country X with an enemy of mine would be an obstacle for becoming friends with X. I can't imagine Austria being super friendly to Russia with Russia still maintaining their strong friendship with Serbia. So...

No, you don't have total control over all officials in your country. And we're not just talking about diplomatic personnel here: an ambassador might talk to a Senator, a union leader, a member of the local clergy, or any other manner of powerful people in your country who will have an impact on how your state views that nation.

Still, don't you think that complete unwillingness of a country to improve relations with another country would somehow impact the effectiveness of his tireless efforts?

 

[Spartakusbund]

If you read my post carefully, you would understand that in my idea, improving relations consists of series of particular actions, one of which would be "declaration of friendship". Pure, abstracted "improve relations" action is not among them.

Right, I forgot. You renamed it to something else. Very big change!

Not all diplomatic work is as public as a "declaration of friendship." In fact in the 19th century, diplomacy was often extremely secretive!

And yes, super good relations of country X with an enemy of mine would be an obstacle for becoming friends with X. I can't imagine Austria being super friendly to Russia with Russia still maintaining their strong friendship with Serbia. So...

It certainly could be, if Austria wanted to be super friendly with Russia. If it doesn't, it can expend Influence Capacity to keep relations with Russia low. It shouldn't be automatic.

Still, don't you think that complete unwillingness of a country to improve relations with another country would somehow impact the effectiveness of his tireless efforts?

It very well could! That should, as in the example of Austria that you bring up, be reflected in other actions that the hostile country is taking. It should not mean that when Ambassador Kislyak goes to talk to Senator Jeff Sessions about American-Russian relations, Sessions automatically rebuffs him just because the sitting President is trying to cool relations with Russia.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Right, I forgot. You renamed it to something else. Very big change!

Not all diplomatic work is as public as a "declaration of friendship." In fact in the 19th century, diplomacy was often extremely secretive!

And what exactly are you arguing against here? Sure, it was sometimes secretive, and? Secretive pacts should not affect other relations ofc, because they are secretive.

It certainly could be, if Austria wanted to be super friendly with Russia. If it doesn't, it can expend Influence Capacity to keep relations with Russia low. It shouldn't be automatic.

Exactly the opposite. It should spend influence capacity to keep it high, depsite obstacles like friendship with enemies.

It very well could! That should, as in the example of Austria that you bring up, be reflected in other actions that the hostile country is taking. It should not mean that when Ambassador Kislyak goes to talk to Senator Jeff Sessions about American-Russian relations, Sessions automatically rebuffs him just because the sitting President is trying to cool relations with Russia.

Okay then, so what is the problem? My point is, that if I play Great Britain and Afghanistan tries to improve relations with me, I can simply ignore it, instead of having to expell its ambassador. Maybe I don't want to go that far, I just want relations to stay as they are right now. Makes sense, right?

 

[Spartakusbund]

And what exactly are you arguing against here? Sure, it was sometimes secretive, and? Secretive pacts should not affect other relations ofc, because they are secretive.

But under your proposed system, they would. If I increase relations with the Ottomans, it will lower relations with the Russians.

Exactly the opposite. It should spend influence capacity to keep it high, depsite obstacles like friendship with enemies.

No, I was talking about a situation where Austria wants low relations with Russia. If they want high relations, then yes they should invest Influence to do that. And if Russia backs Serbia in Diplomatic Plays against Austria, that should lower relations. But Russia having high relations with Serbia in and of itself should not impact relations between Russia and Austria.

Okay then, so what is the problem? My point is, that if I play Great Britain and Afghanistan tries to improve relations with me, I can simply ignore it, instead of having to expell its ambassador. Maybe I don't want to go that far, I just want relations to stay as they are right now. Makes sense, right?

If you don’t want to go as far as expelling the ambassador, then you can invest influence in lowering relations. You cannot unilaterally block Afghanistan from raising relations unless you, you know, unilaterally block them by banning their ambassador. And in that case, there should be costs.

 

[The Goldfinch]

But under your proposed system, they would. If I increase relations with the Ottomans, it will lower relations with the Russians.

No, it would not because it would be secretive. Honestly IF devs decided to create some "secret agreement" category, they could well enough create "secret relations" category, so a relation score that is not visible and accessible to other countries. Which will almost certainly not happen.

But Russia having high relations with Serbia in and of itself should not impact relations between Russia and Austria.

Okay, and I say that it should. Since they were enemies, it would be harder to maintain a friendship with someone openly friendly to your enemy. Again, relations in Vic3 matter. Devs stated that cordial relations equal non aggression - so warm relations would probably equal a guarantee, or defensive alliance, etc etc. Austria would not welcome warm relations between Russia and Serbia, because it implicates that in case of a conflict Russia would probably support Serbia. This would obviously affect relations. Maybe try again to provide some decent refutation of this very obvious conclusion.

If you don’t want to go as far as expelling the ambassador, then you can invest influence in lowering relations. You cannot unilaterally block Afghanistan from raising relations unless you, you know, unilaterally block them by banning their ambassador. And in that case, there should be costs.

Again, I am repeating that I see no reason why should I pay diplomatic influence in order to block increase relations attempt. Please, think about it for a while, I am sure eventually you will realise how ridiculous it sounds.

 

[Spartakusbund]

No, it would not because it would be secretive.

The way you described things in the OP, it absolutely would.

Honestly IF devs decided to create some "secret agreement" category, they could well enough create "secret relations" category, so a relation score that is not visible and accessible to other countries. Which will almost certainly not happen.

So now you want the Devs to create another, second relations system entirely to make your unrealistic idea work (which it still would not: see Oglesby’s post which you have continued to ignore).

I have a better idea: just use the current system where your relations with country Y do not in and of themselves affect relations with country X.

Okay, and I say that it should.

Oh. Well then.

Since they were enemies, it would be harder to maintain a friendship with someone openly friendly to your enemy. Again, relations in Vic3 matter. Devs stated that cordial relations equal non aggression - so warm relations would probably equal a guarantee, or defensive alliance, etc etc. Austria would not welcome warm relations between Russia and Serbia, because it implicates that in case of a conflict Russia would probably support Serbia. This would obviously affect relations. Maybe try again to provide some decent refutation of this very obvious conclusion.

You have invented that out of whole cloth. Given that there is an Alliance pact, it is certainly not true.

Again: if Russia actually interferes with Austria over Serbia, relations should go down. Just having friendly relations, though, does not interfere, and so should not have an impact.

Again, I am repeating that I see no reason why should I pay diplomatic influence in order to block increase relations attempt. Please, think about it for a while, I am sure eventually you will realise how ridiculous it sounds.

Just as you anymore than you get to decide how powerful people in your country react to, for example, abolishing the monarchy, you do not get to decide how powerful people in your country respond to diplomatic outreach efforts by foreign ambassadors. If you want to block those efforts, then you either need to spend diplomatic resources of your own to counter them or kick the ambassadors out of your country.

 

[The Goldfinch]

The way you described things in the OP, it absolutely would.

No, because I didn't take into consideration secret agreements, and other fantasy ideas.

I have a better idea: just use the current system where your relations with country Y do not in and of themselves affect relations with country X.

And your idea is better because...? Because of this "secret treaty" refutation? Come on man Where exactly did I say that "now I want secret deals?". This is just awkward, dude. Just read what I say

Oh. Well then.

Yep you scored some points by taking this sentence out of context.

Just having friendly relations, though, does not interfere, and so should not have an impact.

Honestly, you are just repeating the same line for like 7 past comments. I am trying to very patiently explain to you that indeed, even having friendly relations can be harmful to some extent. It is a basic common sense. If you have a neighbor, that you hate, a local shop owner will have a harder time to be very friendly to you both. He still can do it, but it will be a tad more complicated than in case all three of you were friends. There will be some distrust.

Just as you anymore than you get to decide how powerful people in your country react to, for example, abolishing the monarchy, you do not get to decide how powerful people in your country respond to diplomatic outreach efforts by foreign ambassadors. If you want to block those efforts, then you either need to spend diplomatic resources of your own to counter them or kick the ambassadors out of your country.

The very idea that relations between countries have to take "powerful people" into consideration is a pure fantasy. How are you going to calculate these "powerful people"? Interest groups? What if powerful people don't want increase in relations? What if powerful people don't want decrease?
Are you simply assuming that this "increase" button will affect all powerful people equally no matter circumstances? If Benin reaches out to Great Britain, then powerful people in GB always have to comply? Dude.

Relation score is what people making decisions think. Your idea about relations being subject to some other groups is rather funny, and quite frankly, impossible.

 

[Spartakusbund]

No, because I didn't take into consideration secret agreements, and other fantasy ideas.

Secret pacts are a fantasy idea?

And your idea is better because...? Because of this "secret treaty" refutation? Come on man

It's not "my idea", it is the way the game currently works. Your idea is not only unrealistic but untenable. You still have not addressed Oglesby's point at all.

Honestly, you are just repeating the same line for like 7 past comments. I am trying to very patiently explain to you that indeed, even having friendly relations can be harmful to some extent. It is a basic common sense. If you have a neighbor, that you hate, a local shop owner will have a harder time to be very friendly to you both. He still can do it, but it will be a tad more complicated than in case all three of you were friends. There will be some distrust.

What?

The very idea that relations between countries have to take "powerful people" into consideration is a pure fantasy. How are you going to calculate these "powerful people"? Interest groups? What if powerful people don't want increase in relations? What if powerful people don't want decrease?

If this were CK3, with more of a focus on characters, maybe that could be explored more in depth. But this is Vicky 3, so it's abstracted into a diplomatic relations score.

Are you simply assuming that this "increase" button will affect all powerful people equally no matter circumstances? If Benin reaches out to Great Britain, then powerful people in GB always have to comply? Dude.

Dude. Benin cannot afford to improve relations with Great Britain. Maybe if you actually understood how the diplomatic system worked you would be less confused about why your proposed changes to it are untenable.

Benin is an unrecognized power, so it's Influence generation will be very low, probably near 200 or so. It cost Sweden 300 Influence to raise relations with Prussia back in Dev Diary 2, and the cost for Benin will be much higher since it is much less powerful than Sweden and Britain is much more powerful than Prussia. We don't know what going over your Influence Capacity does precisely, but given how the other Capacities work it will probably cripple your ability to do diplomacy.

Relation score is what people making decisions think. Your idea about relations being subject to some other groups is rather funny, and quite frankly, impossible.

Interesting! When you say people making decisions, do you mean people like, to quote someone at random, "a Senator, a union leader, a member of the local clergy, or any other manner of powerful people in your country?"

 

[The Goldfinch]

Secret pacts are a fantasy idea?

Yes.

It's not "my idea", it is the way the game currently works. Your idea is not only unrealistic but untenable. You still have not addressed Oglesby's point at all.

You literally said "I have a better idea"....

What?

Which part you have a problem with? I will help you.

If this were CK3, with more of a focus on characters, maybe that could be explored more in depth. But this is Vicky 3, so it's abstracted into a diplomatic relations score.

Where did you get this knowledge that diplomatic relations score is an abstraction of "powerful people" opinion? And not, say, "people in charge of the country"?

Dude. Benin cannot afford to improve relations with Great Britain. Maybe if you actually understood how the diplomatic system worked you would be less confused about why your proposed changes to it are untenable.

Benin is an unrecognized power, so it's Influence generation will be very low, probably near 200 or so. It cost Sweden 300 Influence to raise relations with Prussia back in Dev Diary 2, and the cost for Benin will be much higher since it is much less powerful than Sweden and Britain is much more powerful than Prussia. We don't know what going over your Influence Capacity does precisely, but given how the other Capacities work it will probably cripple your ability to do diplomacy.

How is this relevant to my point? If this helps your reasoning, say, change Benin to Bavaria. If Bavaria tries to imrpove relations with GB, then GB "powerful people" have to comply?

"No matter circumstances, people, bavarian ambassador is being nice so our relations improve, no further questions"

Interesting! When you say people making decisions, do you mean people like, to quote someone at random "a Senator, a union leader, a member of the local clergy, or any other manner of powerful people in your country?"

No, I mean government.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Yes.

Sykes–Picot Agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You literally said "I have a better idea"....

Yes, I did: to use the current system.

Which part you have a problem with? I will help you.

Your example makes no sense. Why did you choose a shopkeeper? Why do you think that is analogous to what we're talking about? What makes you think that shopkeepers did not regularly do business with neighbors that hate each other? Do you think people just didn't hate each other in the past? Or that they would refuse to frequent the same shop?

Where did you get this knowledge that diplomatic relations score is an abstraction of "powerful people" opinion? And not, say, "people in charge of the country"?

Powerful people... are... in charge of the country? That's what... makes them powerful?

How is this relevant to my point? If this helps your reasoning, say, change Benin to Bavaria. If Bavaria tries to imrpove relations with GB, then GB "powerful people" have to comply?

Yes. It's a video game. Just like if I set up a building to be constructed it gets built.

If you want to make the case for increasing relations leading to random events that can increase or decrease relations like Swaying in CK3, go for it. I think it would be a bad fit for Vicky 3, but it's an entirely different idea from what you're proposing here.

"No matter circumstances, people, bavarian ambassador is being nice so our relations improve, no further questions"

Relations might not improve. It depends on what else is going on. If Bavaria is raising relations and then accrues a bunch of infamy in a region Britain has an interest in, then relations will go down.

No, I mean government.

I didn't know Senators were not a part of the government.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Your example makes no sense. Why did you choose a shopkeeper? Why do you think that is analogous to what we're talking about? What makes you think that shopkeepers did not regularly do business with neighbors that hate each other? Do you think people just didn't hate each other in the past? Or that they would refuse to frequent the same shop?

I do not believe you fail to grasp the meaning of few simple sentences.

Powerful people... are... in charge of the country? That's what... makes them powerful?

Again are you purposefully trying to make this impression, or you genuinely don't see the difference between prime minister and an influential businessman?

Yes. It's a video game. Just like if I set up a building to be constructed it gets built.

If you want to make the case for increasing relations leading to random events that can increase or decrease relations like Swaying in CK3, go for it. I think it would be a bad fit for Vicky 3, but it's an entirely different idea from what you're proposing here.

No. My point is, attempt to increase relations does not have to success if the other side is simply not interested in it. You failed to provide a single reason why country X can FORCE increase in relations on country Y. This is beyond ridiculous dude.

Relations might not improve. It depends on what else is going on. If Bavaria is raising relations and then accrues a bunch of infamy in a region Britain has an interest in, then relations will go down.

Again completely irrelevant stuff. The point being, Britain does not have to comply with bavarian increase attempt. That is just not how it works in real life.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Again are you purposefully trying to make this impression, or you genuinely don't see the difference between prime minister and an influential businessman?

Your contention is that influential businessmen... aren't influential? That their opinions wouldn't have an impact on how a foreign country was viewed?

No. My point is, attempt to increase relations does not have to success if the other side is simply not interested in it. You failed to provide a single reason why country X can FORCE increase in relations on country Y. This is beyond ridiculous dude.

Continue to call basic grand strategy game mechanics ridiculous. It is very convincing.

Again completely irrelevant stuff. The point being, Britain does not have to comply with bavarian increase attempt. That is just not how it works in real life.

Yeah, diplomats don't exist in real life. Paradox invented the concept in 2001 when Europa Universalis 1 was released.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Continue to call basic grand strategy game mechanics ridiculous. It is very convincing.

Damn, I am sorry I dare to criticize in game features. We all know that literally any feature in any Paradox game was perfect from the very beginning.

Yeah, diplomats don't exist in real life. Paradox invented the concept

I think you lost it dude

Your contention is that influential businessmen... aren't influential? That their opinions wouldn't have an impact on how a foreign country was viewed?

No, that influential businessman is not in charge of foreign affairs. There already is a mechanic for influential businessman, its called interest groups

 

[Spartakusbund]

Damn, I am sorry I dare to criticize in game features. We all know that literally any feature in any Paradox game was perfect from the very beginning.


I think you lost it dude

What do you think ambassadors did in the 19th century?

No, that influential businessman is not in charge of foreign affairs. There already is a mechanic for influential businessman, its called interest groups

I didn't say "in charge of." I said they were influential and had an impact. Which they absolutely did!

 

[The Goldfinch]

What do you think ambassadors did in the 19th century?

Idk dude they were not singlehandedly increasing relations with countries against their will

I didn't say "in charge of." I said they were influential and had an impact. Which they absolutely did!

And that is why you have interest groups. Your problem is solved.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Idk dude they were not singlehandedly increasing relations with countries against their will

Countries don't have a will. People do.

Ambassadors spent (and continue to spend) a lot of time hobnobbing. Going to fancy dinners. Getting to know notables. Making connections. They did not and do not spend 100% of their time interacting with their counterparts from their host country.

And that is why you have interest groups. Your problem is solved.

What problem? You're the one with a problem with how the diplomatic system works. I think it looks like its shaping up to be pretty good.

I'm not even the one who brought up the idea of influential businessmen being involved in all this. That was you. I think they might be some of the people diplomats are swaying, but its certainly not just them. As I said, it will be powerful and influential people generally. And maybe in some cases the people generally. Think of Citizen Genet organizing demonstrations against Washington's Neutrality Policy (among other things he did to get himself removed).

 

[The Goldfinch]

Countries don't have a will. People do.

AI/PLAYER.
Hope this helps.

What problem?

A problem with demonstrating weak spots of my ideas. As of now, you presented some ridiculous examples with secret deals, businessmen and omnipotent ambassadors, and I think you are not even sure what are they supposed to refute.

 

[Spartakusbund]

AI/PLAYER.
Hope this helps.

We were talking about the real world, not videogames. Countries do not have wills. People do.

A problem with demonstrating weak spots of my ideas. As of now, you presented some ridiculous examples with secret deals, businessmen and omnipotent ambassadors, and I think you are not even sure what are they supposed to refute.

Okay, let's get you caught up then:

My point is two-fold: Your idea to have relations with country X be affected merely by the diplomatic relations score you have with country Y is both unrealistic and untenable technically. You have completely ignored the second point and only concentrated on the first.

Secret Deals

In the context of refuting the first point about realism, you said that Austria would be angry if Russia made a "declaration of friendship" with Serbia. I pointed out that is absurd to think all increases in good feelings between countries came out of overt declarations like that. You have had no response, and instead decided to hyper-focus on the idea of secret pacts, which you insisted did not exist in history (they did.)

My position on this issue is clear: if Russia took steps to protect Serbia against Austria, like for example declaring that it would protect it (Alliance Pact), then relations with Austria should suffer. Merely building goodwill in Serbia would not.

Businessmen

Businessmen came up because I said that improving diplomatic relations in part represents diplomats going out and making nice with influential people in the target country. You have somehow come around to pretending I ONLY meant influential businessmen, even though I gave a very relevant real world example surrounding Jeff Sessions back when he was still a Senator. You ignored that.

Omnipotent Ambassadors

"Omnipotent" ambassadors came up because you dislike the idea that "improve relations" actions are always successful. However, as I pointed out, this is a separate point! You could make it work like in CK3, where you get MTTF events in which your ambassador either impresses people at a cocktail party (positive impact) or says something racist to a bunch of rich Brazilians (negative impact). I don't think this would work in Vicky 3, but is an entirely separate issue from your idea that country A having positive relations with country B makes country C, who hates country B, in turn hate country A.

Any questions?