Adding some depth to increase/decrease relations

[The Goldfinch]

treaties affecting relations is okay. Relations affecting relations is circular with no guarantee of stability.

It could be very easily solved with a tiny bit of effort. Just like this: as I stated 20 times, in my concept relation score is sum of relevant diplomatic actions. Border treaty, high ranking visit. Russian high ranking visit to Serbia gives +5 relation boost. Serbia has hostile relations with Austria, so Austria gets malus with Russia: -1: due to russian high ranking visit to Serbia. Then again, declaration of friendship: +5 between Russia and Serbia, and -1 between Russia and Austria (this applies to other serbian enemies, maybe bulgaria). France makes high ranking visit to Italy, +5. Italy is hostile with Austria, so Austria gets -1 with France. And so on.

Basically extend the scope of treaties to all diverse diplomatic actions I am suggesting. Naturally, some of modifiers would decrease and disappear over time, and some of diplomatic actions would not be relevant in regard to other countries.

 

[Spartakusbund]

2. Okay, basically you are saying that countries should still be able to show christian love to aggressor, and so on. To act unreasonably. Like, they conquered my land but I might still choose to love them. Well sounds like a great idea, totally worth discussing it further

No, I am demonstrating that even if we for some reason talk about states as if they are people, your description is not true. I may react to a friend being rude by thinking less of him. I may not. I decide how I respond, not him.

3. Read the OP again. You will notice I indeed envisioned some unilateral diplomatic actions that increase relations. I mentioned only declaration of friendship, but actions like "renounce claims" and "lower tariffs" could also fit quite nicely. It just has to make sense. Unlike +50 increase just because you said so. Compared to these three your example with ambassador talking to people looks rather poorly.

Diplomats talking makes sense. Diplomats sending out press reports makes sense. Diplomats buttering up foreign dignitaries makes sense. These are all real things that diplomats do and are clearly abstracted into the “increase/decrease relations” action.

Also it’s not me that says so. It’s Paradox. This is how the game currently works.

Finally, you have once again conceded while pretending you haven't. Let’s run the tape back over the past few posts. You rejected the idea that:

a diplomat can UNILATERALLY and ALWAYS SUCCESSFULLY increase relations with a country that does not want it.

I responded that the Ems Dispatch was unilateral, and you lobbed back:

Just read carefully. INCREASE against the will of the other country. OBVIOUSLY you can unilaterally DECREASE. That is just common sense

So now we have your position: unilateral decreases are fine. Unilateral increases are not, and are self-evidently absurd and violate basic common sense. Okay. I respond with a very simple thought experiment about how Bismarck could have used the Ems Dispatch to increase relations. You then respond:

I indeed envisioned some unilateral diplomatic actions that increase relations. I mentioned only declaration of friendship, but actions like "renounce claims" and "lower tariffs" could also fit quite nicely.

So now we have the very thing you once said was absurd: a country increasing relations with another country through a unilateral action even though said other country potentially does not want it.

You don't even know what you're arguing, man. This is absurd. Diplomats doing what diplomats have done for centuries should be a part of the game! It should not lead to other countries becoming offended!

 

[The Goldfinch]

No, I am demonstrating that even if we for some reason talk about states as if they are people, your description is not true. I may react to a friend being rude by thinking less of him. I may not. I decide how I respond, not him.

And your demonstration is completely useless with regard to countries. Especially since there is one relation score for both countries. A case when offended country would choose to keep liking the offender is not even worth serious discussion.

So now we have the very thing you once said was absurd: a country increasing relations with another country through a unilateral action even though said other country potentially does not want it.

In the OP I clearly presented example of unilateral action by a country that leads to relations increase. So yep I guess I conceded to...err... my original post? Whatever makes you feel better dude

No, actions I presented simply CANNOT be carried out against countrys will. You seriously try to argue that it might be against countries consent to lower tariffs, or renounce territorial claims on its lands? There is nothing to consent here, to begin with, its just elimination of a problem in bilateral relations. If this makes it easier for you to swallow, on example of territorial claims: it is unilateral increase through elimination of malus in relations. Dude I get it, you seem to be really obsessed with idea of me conceding to something you said, but you have to make a claim that actually makes sense.

To reiterate, I argue that it is absurd to be able to increase relations (very significantly) with whoever you want by unilateral action, and with no preconditions, and without this countries consent. What makes way more sense is the system I presented in OP - various relevant diplomatic actions, each having material consequences closely related to other mechanics. Some of them can be unilateral, some of them require consent. It is simply better idea (as shown by relatively high reaction score of my OP), and you failed to present any serious arguments to refute it.

To finish this lenghty exchange: In fact it is you who seems rather lost in this discussion - you took numerous, unrelated attempts to undermine my idea, like claiming point 2 of OP is no different from existing mechanics, other irrelevant and quite funny claims I don't even have energy to quote. You keep fixating on the issues of this unilateral relations increase, which is insignificant in relation to the topic. I suggest you divert your attention to something else, because as of now, you really didnt contribute much to the matter, apart from obsessive repetition of same arguments for last 3 pages

 

[Spartakusbund]

And your demonstration is completely useless with regard to countries.

Yes... that was my point, remember? That's why I said it was a half-baked analogy.

In the OP I clearly presented example of unilateral action by a country that leads to relations increase. So yep I guess I conceded to...err... my original post? Whatever makes you feel better dude

Yes, I agree that you have contradicted yourself constantly throughout this thread because your ideas are not very well thought out.

No, actions I presented simply CANNOT be carried out against countrys will. You seriously try to argue that a country might not want lowered tariffs, or renunciation of territorial claims on its lands? Dude I get it, you seem to be really obsessed with idea of me conceding to something you said, but you have to make a claim that actually makes sense.

Okay. What if I don't want my relations with France to go up, but France chooses to drop tariffs anyway. Do our relations change? If yes, how is that not exactly what you're complaining about with regard to the increase/decrease relations action? It has happened against my will, hasn't it?

To reiterate, I argue that it is absurd to be able to increase relations (very significantly) with whoever you want by unilateral action, and with no preconditions, and without this countries consent.

If a country doesn't consent to you doing basic diplomacy with them, they can kick out your ambassador. Otherwise, your ambassador is going to do basic diplomacy and increase or decrease relations between your countries. The country can respond with their own diplomatic actions to counter, but this will cost influence.

This is not complicated. It is not strange. It is a big part of what diplomats do in the real world.

What makes way more sense is the system I presented in OP - various relevant diplomatic actions, each having material consequences closely related to other mechanics. Some of them can be unilateral, some of them require consent. It is simply better idea (as shown by relatively high reaction score of my OP), and you failed to present any serious arguments to refute it.

I don't in theory have a problem with more specificity in increasing/decreasing relations instead of two abstract categories (though I do think the Devs could better spend their time as most players will just pick the option that gives the biggest impact). That is not what I have been taking issue with in this thread.

To finish this lenghty exchange: In fact it is you who seems rather lost in this discussion - you took numerous, unrelated attempts to undermine my idea, like claiming point 2 of OP is no different from existing mechanics,

Never claimed that. For instance, you decide to make the cost monetary instead of based on influence capacity. I think that's a dumb change that will make a country like Britain with huge money reserves OP. I'll just spam the "send high ranking dignitary" until I'm maxed out with relations with whoever I want.

other irrelevant and quite funny claims I don't even have energy to quote. I suggest you divert your attention to something else, because as of now, you really didnt contribute much to the matter, apart from obsessive repetition of same arguments for last 3 pages

 

[The Goldfinch]

Never claimed that. For instance, you decide to make the cost monetary instead of based on influence capacity. I think that's a dumb change that will make a country like Britain with huge money reserves OP. I'll just spam the "send high ranking dignitary" until I'm maxed out with relations with whoever I want

Wow, what a crazy idea... Who would have thought that Britain might be powerful in game like Victoria because it has money... Unthinkable!

(Also this argument is wrong on so many levels its not even worth serious refutation,; just few points: there would obviously be max relation cap you get from dignitary visit. There, we made it!)

If a country doesn't consent to you doing basic diplomacy with them, they can kick out your ambassador. Otherwise, your ambassador is going to do basic diplomacy and increase or decrease relations between your countries. The country can respond with their own diplomatic actions to counter, but this will cost influence.

Or it can simply ignore ambassadors efforts. Again, you repeating the same thing.

Okay. What if I don't want my relations with France to go up, but France chooses to drop tariffs anyway. Do our relations change? If yes, how is that not exactly what you're complaining about with regard to the increase/decrease relations action? It has happened against my will, hasn't it?

That is just a case with playing dumb, sorry for saying that. No country would seriously object it, you are just creating ridiculous example for the sake of not conceding to an argument.

I completely lost interest in this repetitive discussion centered around you obsessively repeating same arguments that are not even important in regard to ideas presented in OP. It is rather weird, dude. You spent so much effort to flood my thread with those comments focused mostly on some sidelined issues. You plan to keep repeating this same stuff until you get some particular outcome? Again, my post was well received and I honestly don't think anyone even cares about this unilateral increase thing that you became so fixated about

 

[Oglesby]

It could be very easily solved with a tiny bit of effort. Just like this: as I stated 20 times, in my concept relation score is sum of relevant diplomatic actions. Border treaty, high ranking visit. Russian high ranking visit to Serbia gives +5 relation boost. Serbia has hostile relations with Austria, so Austria gets malus with Russia: -1: due to russian high ranking visit to Serbia. Then again, declaration of friendship: +5 between Russia and Serbia, and -1 between Russia and Austria (this applies to other serbian enemies, maybe bulgaria). France makes high ranking visit to Italy, +5. Italy is hostile with Austria, so Austria gets -1 with France. And so on.

Basically extend the scope of treaties to all diverse diplomatic actions I am suggesting. Naturally, some of modifiers would decrease and disappear over time, and some of diplomatic actions would not be relevant in regard to other countries.

At that point the relations between A and B and not dependent on the relations between A and X which removes the circular computation. This is also completely different that your point one in the OP.

 

[The Goldfinch]

At that point the relations between A and B and not dependent on the relations between A and X which removes the circular computation. This is also completely different that your point one in the OP.

They (A and X relations) would be dependent on relevant factors constituting relevant relations (between A and B)- and my OP idea was indeed, that bilateral relations should be primarily built by relevant factors (diplomatic actions and treaties). So this solves the potential problem and keeps the core of idea, and leads to intended outcome. It would have same results, minus potential computation issues that you noticed.

And In fact, if you look at last sentence of my OP, you will see "if you want to harm relations with Austria, you can send high ranking visit to Serbia". Which is exactly the same mechanism as I described above.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Wow, what a crazy idea... Who would have thought that Britain might be powerful in game like Victoria because it has money... Unthinkable!

(Also this argument is wrong on so many levels its not even worth serious refutation,; just few points: there would obviously be max relation cap you get from dignitary visit. There, we made it!)

That’s one point, not a few. And it doesn’t solve the issue. Either you set the cap so low that the diplomacy system is pointless, or it still leads to a snowballing effect.

A better solution would be to do what the game currently does, and make diplomacy dependent on another currency altogether. One that is better balanced between big powerful countries and weaker ones.

Or it can simply ignore ambassadors efforts. Again, you repeating the same thing.

Why can’t I ignore France lowering tariffs?

That is just a case with playing dumb, sorry for saying that. No country would seriously object it, you are just creating ridiculous example for the sake of not conceding to an argument.

No, read carefully. I did not say reject the lower tariffs. I said reject the increase in relations. What if France drops their tariffs and I want to keep hating them just as much? Does your diplomatic system force me to? If so, then what is the difference?

 

[The Goldfinch]

That’s one point, not a few.

Nothing gets past you! Dude, I am impressed.
Other painfully obvious points would be time intervals between visits, also the receiving country has to pay some costs of a visit so it only agrees when it sees a purpose. Which means countries that are hostile/cold will most likely refuse.

Why can’t I ignore France lowering tariffs?

Why can't you ignore a declaration of war? It is just an event in the games world that automatically unleashes its consequences, also in regard to relations. Increase via ambassador is rather a series of efforts that might be, or might not be accepted by host country. Host country might not agree to idk, exhibition, party, might deny appointment, might not invite an ambassador to an opening of a museum or a memorial. And again, this is not even a part of my idea so idk why the hell you are so desperately holding on to it.

Again, if this irrelevant matter is taking your sleep at night: within point 2 activities of my OP I could probably add small unilateral good will gestures. Or perhaps an influence/bribe attempt, that might or might not succeed (increased chance for unrecognized, decreased chance by cold relations). Or I might use the Attitude category: you define your attitude towards a country as positive, indifferent or negative. It represents casual, small good will diplomatic gestures done on daily basis: attending ceremonies, sending gratulation notes, speeches, etc. When your attitude is positive, boost slowly climbs to 5. Indifferent - stays at 0. Negative - decreases to -5. It would basically take the place of current increase/decrease - but its more elegant and takes only 10% of its current impact (5 relations score instead of 50). The remaining 90% would be taken by other relevant diplomatic actions. Also I would add some alterations, like having to use less capacity for negative attitude than for positive. Also if the other country is negative towards you, for positive stance towards it you are getting small prestige malus to represent the rule of reciprocity in diplomacy.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Nothing gets past you! Dude, I am impressed.
Other painfully obvious points would be time intervals between visits, also the receiving country has to pay some costs of a visit so it only agrees when it sees a purpose. Which means countries that are hostile/cold will most likely refuse.

Wait, the country being wooed has to pay money too? You realize how terrible that would be, right? Either you would have to make the costs low enough that they basically don't matter, or tiny nations will be unable to do diplomacy at all, either active or receptive.

The Devs have already created a great system to balance out diplomatic costs: the Influence Capacity mechanic. Why are you trying to reinvent a worse wheel here?

Why can't you ignore a declaration of war? It is just an event in the games world that automatically unleashes its consequences, also in regard to relations.

Oh, so like Improve/Damage Relations? Cool.

Increase via ambassador is rather a series of efforts that might be, or might not be accepted by host country.

We've covered this. A host country can absolutely reject an ambassador. It just has consequences (Infamy) because going around banning embassies is not viewed as kosher in the 19th century.

Host country might not agree to idk, exhibition, party, might deny appointment, might not invite an ambassador to an opening of a museum or a memorial. And again, this is not even a part of my idea so idk why the hell you are so desperately holding on to it.

Those are all represented by either banning the ambassador or running your own counter Damage Relations action.

Again, if this irrelevant matter is taking your sleep at night: within point 2 activities of my OP I could probably add small unilateral good will gestures. Or perhaps an influence/bribe attempt, that might or might not succeed (increased chance for unrecognized, decreased chance by cold relations).

What value do these add over the more abstract system currently in use? I don't see any. Just a whole lot of bad (see what I say below about instant actions and Capacities).

Or I might use the Attitude category: you define your attitude towards a country as positive, indifferent or negative. It represents casual, small good will diplomatic gestures done on daily basis: attending ceremonies, sending gratulation notes, speeches, etc. When your attitude is positive, boost slowly climbs to 5. Indifferent - stays at 0. Negative - decreases to -5.

What would be the point in such a minor mechanic? Also, you still run into the same "problem" you keep crying about: the country in question would have no say about relations moving up or down here.

It would basically take the place of current increase/decrease - but its more elegant

How?

and takes only 10% of its current impact (5 relations score instead of 50).

Yeah. I think the Devs, who have actually played the current build, have a better sense of what a balanced diplomacy system looks like. Relations go from -100 to 100, remember? Why would I bother with a 2.5% move of the needle? That's not even enough movement to get me half of the way to the next relations level (20 points).

The remaining 90% would be taken by other relevant diplomatic actions.

Oh. Like having your diplomatic corps work hard to improve/degrade relations? Paradox should implement something like that...

Also I would add some alterations, like having to use less capacity for negative attitude than for positive. Also if the other country is negative towards you, for positive stance towards it you are getting small prestige malus to represent the rule of reciprocity in diplomacy.

What capacity? You've totally killed off the entire concept of Capacities by making all of your actions instant (except for your worse version of Improve/Harm relations which no one will ever bother to use). Capacities need actions to happen over a span of time.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

They (A and X relations) would be dependent on relevant factors constituting relevant relations (between A and B)- and my OP idea was indeed, that bilateral relations should be primarily built by relevant factors (diplomatic actions and treaties). So this solves the potential problem and keeps the core of idea, and leads to intended outcome. It would have same results, minus potential computation issues that you noticed.

And In fact, if you look at last sentence of my OP, you will see "if you want to harm relations with Austria, you can send high ranking visit to Serbia". Which is exactly the same mechanism as I described above.

Hurting someone's feelings by sending high ranking visit to adversary is exactly how countries send messages to each other. I would really hope for such solution!

 

[The Goldfinch]

Hurting someone's feelings by sending high ranking visit to adversary is exactly how countries send messages to each other. I would really hope for such solution!

I have been also thinking about some sort of "military mission" diplomatic action. We know nothing about how military works, but this sort of stuff should definitely be represented - some military training boost to receiving country, prestige boost to the sending, and making rivals nervous.