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

[Goblin-Cookie]

The thing that is not being considered here is the possibility of giving overlords *of* vassals the ability to promote them into full allies. This solves much of the problems vassals cause when combined with the ability of powerful vassals to rebel against their overlord by declaring war.

If a vassal gets powerful enough it can end it's vassalage by declaring war against it's master. But the overlord can, at any time give a vassal of any strength the status of full ally but the AI would only give that status to vassals powerful enough to declare war on them. That means a weakened overlord might avoid their vassals declaring war on them while they are temporarily weakened and the vassals have a genuine choice, whether to aid the faction that is defeating their overlord by declaring way on them or demand promotion to full ally and turn things around *for* their former overlord.

 

[Fluksen]

I'm unsure what methods a Vassal player could potentially use to weaken their Overlord?
If their military was just crushed, forcing them into Vassalage, the Overlord can't be expecting any military support and clearly has better military anyway.
Giving troop movement information to their Overlord's enemies is an option. But that assumes PvPvP minimum, and with the scanners on scout units doesn't sound like the Overlord's Enemies couldn't do that themselves in most cases.

Directly after he beat his now vassal he can't expect military help, but several turn later he could. Wasn't it you in the first place that proposed vassals breaking free when they have a stronger military than their overlord?!
Yes 3+ human players are assumed. Did you assume a vassal in a 1v1?
And regarding scanners: The vassal is at peace with the overlord so the overlord probably (?) can't just shoot their spies out of the sky as he could with enemy scouts.

Offensive Strategic Ops would be blocked against your Overlord.
Maybe you could use the adjacent hex rule and friendly fire with units or tactical ops? But you would just be at War again instantly...
Covert Ops are an option. And probably should be. But if you get caught. War.

At the moment vassals can't declare war on their overlords so I guess what you describe is probably not possible.

All I can really see is not helping your Overlord. And as pointed out above, how much help can you really be?

I think this is the main point here! If the vassal is not of much help, then why should an Overlord accept a vassal in the first place?!

If its balanced out with the option of gaining independence and changing to Alliance for good behaviour, and the fact that you are in an alliance with the potential winning side. I'm not sure backstabbing would be a frequent occurrence.

Yes! and the question remains what is this option that would free you from your overlord and release you into an alliance. I suggested buying yourself out, but I'm fine with any other idea as long as it encourages the vassal to support the overlord. This is why I am so much against all those kind of "Once the vassal has a relative power XYZ to his overlord he can become free" proposals, as realistic as they may sound I fear they will lead to the vassal sabotaging the overlord and therefore no one ever accepting a vassal (in PvP)

 

[Jolly Joker]

I still don't see that "vassalization" with an intact player identity makes sense. If you "neuter" a surrendering opponent's remaining empire to some kind of "vassal existence" the way a vassal worked in AoW 3 that's fine (considering this for AIs against each other as well), but more than that - in my opinion - still doesn't make sense. Keep in mind that it's more difficult to start a war in the first place, so if a war breaks out, it's probably it's probably a serious affair, and losing or not, ALL diplomatic activity of the losing side should be driven by the desire to keep an independent realm.
If that's not possible, surrender is just an option for the benefit of the winner, as opposed to fighting to the last drop of blood and make the aggressor pay, which would, in wars against someone with a locally extremely bad reputation, a lot likelier option. The worse the relationship between two warring empires is, the less likely a surrender becomes, while the better the relationship is, the more likely is a regular peace.

I mean, I've played a lot Diplomacy boardgame in my time, and what is rage-quitting in modern pvp has been rage-suicide there: people who feel wronged (backstabbed, for example), are highly unlikely to accept an offer of "junior partnership" later (and if they do, expect a backstab). So the likely action in any kind of 3+ player situation by a losing player is to try and get the support of a 3rd party, even for the price of suicide (surrendering to anyone coming to help, opening territory for them).

So if you want to improve the diplomatic system, a vassalization should be possible only to someone NOT at war with the losing side. The situation would be:

A and B are at war; B is losing, tries to broker peace by offering some compensation, but A says no, going for the throat.
In this situation, as a last resort, B might offer C to become THEIR vassal (not A's), because in this case a failure of A to make peace with B would automatically lead to a declaration of war by C on A.

THAT makes sense.

 

[BloodyBattleBrain]

Directly after he beat his now vassal he can't expect military help, but several turn later he could. Wasn't it you in the first place that proposed vassals breaking free when they have a stronger military than their overlord?!
Yes 3+ human players are assumed. Did you assume a vassal in a 1v1?
And regarding scanners: The vassal is at peace with the overlord so the overlord probably (?) can't just shoot their spies out of the sky as he could with enemy scouts.

At the moment vassals can't declare war on their overlords so I guess what you describe is probably not possible.


I think this is the main point here! If the vassal is not of much help, then why should an Overlord accept a vassal in the first place?!

Yes! and the question remains what is this option that would free you from your overlord and release you into an alliance. I suggested buying yourself out, but I'm fine with any other idea as long as it encourages the vassal to support the overlord. This is why I am so much against all those kind of "Once the vassal has a relative power XYZ to his overlord he can become free" proposals, as realistic as they may sound I fear they will lead to the vassal sabotaging the overlord and therefore no one ever accepting a vassal (in PvP)

I don't see why we can't have both.

So yes a vassal can buy themselves out, if their economy supports it, or they can rebel out of the blue (and suffer a huge reputation hit) or slowly break relations down (no or less reputation hit, but telegraphed intentions.)

Now a vassaled player gives the Overlord essentially free resources, free Intel and a buffer zone. Pretty good reasons to have one.

edit: I'm not sure why people seem to think vassalage has to occur just due to war, I.e. be purely antagonistic.. May be because it's been discussed as an upgraded surrender mechanism?

one could vassal oneself to a third power to fend off a nearer rival.

Scotland allied with France for a long time to do precisely this! (Alliance not hardware but same idea.)

Benefit to the vassal is having a defender. And the incentive to cooperate is inherent in this case.

 

[Jolly Joker]

You don't give up your independence lightly, only under pressure, otherwise it's called alliance. And as history shows, a country A may be prepared to threaten to declare war on B, if B declares war on C, without C being a vassal of A. (Say, England and France being A, Germany B and Poland C.)

This is still part of REGULAR diplomacy,. Vassalage in this context means, that you are not a souvereign entity anymore, and that won't happen without an existential threat.

 

[Goblin-Cookie]

Yes! and the question remains what is this option that would free you from your overlord and release you into an alliance. I suggested buying yourself out, but I'm fine with any other idea as long as it encourages the vassal to support the overlord. This is why I am so much against all those kind of "Once the vassal has a relative power XYZ to his overlord he can become free" proposals, as realistic as they may sound I fear they will lead to the vassal sabotaging the overlord and therefore no one ever accepting a vassal (in PvP)

Vassals sabotaging their overlords is quite a realistic situation, it is the source of Machavelli's statement "kill don't wound". The drawbacks are that if you are weaker than your overlord and you get caught, your overlord can declare war on you and easily wipe you out. While if you are of parity of strength with your overlord, the power that is defeating your overlord can also defeat you afterwards, so it needs your help. If you are stronger than your overlord, you should simply be able to demand your full independence outright, with no need for sabotage.

Promotion to alliance makes sense for strong vassals because it deals with a situation where if the overlord takes a beating from another power the vassal won't immediately sabotage the overlord in order to bring him down. The prospect of alliance-promotion allows an overlord to dangle the carrot of defeating the overlord's enemy and then jointly winning the game before the vassal.

The cinch here is always "whose next?". The alternative is to declare war on your overlord and hope to form an alliance with his enemy, but that is hope. The overlord on the other hand can offer you certainty, a "you will be free", which is better than the "might be free" the overlord's enemy can offer.

You don't give up your independence lightly, only under pressure, otherwise it's called alliance. And as history shows, a country A may be prepared to threaten to declare war on B, if B declares war on C, without C being a vassal of A. (Say, England and France being A, Germany B and Poland C.)

This is still part of REGULAR diplomacy,. Vassalage in this context means, that you are not a sovereign entity anymore, and that won't happen without an existential threat.

No, places give up their independence quite often. What people don't generally accept easily is to be made subordinate without becoming fully part of the thing that is subordinating them. Most powers prefer to fully lose their independence than to accept eternally subordinate independent status, in effect this tends to happen because the overlord wills it rather than the vassal; that being because the people of the winning side to not want to promote the loser's people to equal status as themselves.

 

[J.P.Cliffer]

@Jolly Joker Yep rebelling is fun but what if the guy that help you get independance is in reality your new overlord and will be like the oriole that eat the mantis (your old overlord) that eat you cicada (you) You will be fucked "game over" he gonna maybe be vassalized when you mr or mrs 2-faced guy or gal get the purge.

P.S : Dev will be always right even if they are wrong except if it don't sell.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Let me repeat for the umptieth time: that's not my point!

My point is, if "vassalage" is a somewhat more involved SURRENDER mechanic (like in AoW 3, only more involved and keeping the remaining empire together), then it makes no sense (with all the strict rules) to keep the player identity alive; make it a "neutral vassal" in the AoW 3 style, that has an army, pays tribute and may join for a fee (depending on size), period.

If, however, the aim is to somehow offer kind of an escape route to keep the player identity alive, then "vassalage" CANNOT be something that shackles the player, and IF it shackles the player then it shouldn't shackle them to the guy they are at war with, because we are at a surrender again in that case.
Instead, this is more or less regular diplomacy:

1) In a world that does a more involved diplomacy than in AoW 3, if you are at war with another power and you feel that you are losing, you will try to make peace (and maybe make amends, but not vassalage) and/or try to get someone else to pressure your enemy.

2) If your enemy is hellbent on NOT making peace (short of you surrendering unconditionally), instead of offering vassalage to THEM, bowing your knee, you may want to offer vassalage to someone prepared to go to war for that (you'll be on better terms, obviously).
Or you may want to make it as difficult for your enemy as you can.

Because your enemy isn't cooperative at all.

So the problem isn't that you can't be active against your overlord - the problem is that you can offer vassalage only to the guy you are at war with.

 

[Goblin-Cookie]

Let me repeat for the umptieth time: that's not my point!

My point is, if "vassalage" is a somewhat more involved SURRENDER mechanic (like in AoW 3, only more involved and keeping the remaining empire together), then it makes no sense (with all the strict rules) to keep the player identity alive; make it a "neutral vassal" in the AoW 3 style, that has an army, pays tribute and may join for a fee (depending on size), period.

If, however, the aim is to somehow offer kind of an escape route to keep the player identity alive, then "vassalage" CANNOT be something that shackles the player, and IF it shackles the player then it shouldn't shackle them to the guy they are at war with, because we are at a surrender again in that case.
Instead, this is more or less regular diplomacy:

I think you are obsessed with the idea of surrendering VS not-surrendering. For conquerers to allow conquered people's semi-independance is a common thing, that is how modern Russia's capital came to be Moscow, the Mongols made them the capital of a puppet regime analogous to what we are talking about here. Yes the player should be shackled to their conqueror, that is how this works.

If we give the player the ability to cease to be a vassal and become an ally once they get powerful enough and potentially win the game jointly with their old overlord then it is not just a means to keep the player identity alive but an actual strategy for defeated players to use when dealing with a powerfully placed foe they cannot defeat. Since promotion to ally is an option, there is no reason for overlords, human or otherwise to necessarily worry about their vassals getting too powerful.

They lose a weak vassal and get a powerful ally instead as a result of us prospering as their vassal. It's a win-win situation.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Win-win situations are crap in non-cooperative games ...

And you might want to read about the actual situation in the OP.

 

[HousePet]

Allied victory has been a thing for a while, so why is this a non-cooperative game?

 

[Jolly Joker]

Allied victory has been a thing? In team games (that is, in games with fixed and previously defined alliances), yes. In single player games against the AI (that is, with changing alliances)? You could just as well cheat.

 

[BloodyBattleBrain]

@Jolly Joker seems like you're still arguing against one thing whereas everyone else has moved on to proposing how to make it better, how to make it *more* than an evolved surrender mechanism, because imho a good diplomacy system could be a game all of its own.

 

[Jolly Joker]

I think the propositions suck, because the whole idea sucks - for a couple of reasons. Quasi-bondage relationships are no fun, unnecessary and for sure a b!tch to balance - not to mention a b!tch to teach them to the AI. Chances are that all rules the AI will have to follow by the book can be exploited by human players, and in the end all exploits haunt the players to ruin a game.

 

[Goblin-Cookie]

Win-win situations are crap in non-cooperative games ...

And you might want to read about the actual situation in the OP.

I am not assuming the OP is the final state, we all agree that we need some means to cease to be a vassal or we end up with ridiculous situations where a vassal is 10X stronger than it's overlord but is still unable to play the game.

Win-win situations are crap in non-cooperative games? You state that like it's a self-evident fact but you make no attempt to demonstrate why.

Allied victory has been a thing? In team games (that is, in games with fixed and previously defined alliances), yes. In single player games against the AI (that is, with changing alliances)? You could just as well cheat.

The AI does not generally give you an alliance just because you ask for it. What is the reason for you ultra-competitive obsession with 'fixed teams' and single winners?

I think the propositions suck, because the whole idea sucks - for a couple of reasons. Quasi-bondage relationships are no fun, unnecessary and for sure a b!tch to balance - not to mention a b!tch to teach them to the AI. Chances are that all rules the AI will have to follow by the book can be exploited by human players, and in the end all exploits haunt the players to ruin a game.

Yes quasi-bondage situations are no fun, that is why we fight to not be subjugated in such a way. What we are working on is how to eliminate the exploits and win-win situations are generally the way to go there. If you give your overlord no reason to annex you but still manage to do very well, the ability to be promoted to full ally and jointly win the game provides a reason to keep playing aside from the sabotage your overlord.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Give ONE good gameplay reason why you should have asymmetric long-term treaties that would make one player an overlord and one a vassal. What would the game gain, how would this be an improvement of gameplay?

 

[Fluksen]

Give ONE good gameplay reason why you should have asymmetric long-term treaties that would make one player an overlord and one a vassal.

I think there are several already with the current status:

In PvAI it can significantly reduce the endgame grind. You beat an opponent, he becomes your vassal which means you don't have to worry
- about spawners from that direction
- You have intel in that direction
-You don't have more cities to manage.

In PvP with friends:
- A beaten player can tag along maybe even have an impact, instead of being out of the game and wait for hours until your friends have finally finished to start a new game.

Imho the only problem is currently in PvP with players you don't know personally because imho there are no benefits for the overlord to have a player controlled vassal in the current system with the risk of the vassal actively playing against the overlord being very high.

So several people (me among them) think the vassal system could/should be improved and this is what the discussion about the vassal system is mostly about.

 

[Jolly Joker]

What I find pretty curious is the idea that the game gets better by playing less of it and leaving more to the AI. You'd think, it's not a game, but a chore, and if it IS such a chore, why play it then? I mean, in essence you delegate part of the game, and you delegate it to the AI, and everything you WANT to delegate to an AI (which means, a dogbrain can do the job) is redundant one way or another anyway. After all, it's not YOU who does the playing anymore.

Why the need for a refined empire management systems, when you don't want to have more then a few cities to manage anyway? Why not just play smaller maps or maps with not much stuff and so on?

Not that I would concur with the points as such. If you can actually leave a sizable part of your empire to an AI to manage and still win the game cannot be that difficult, right? And if AOW 3 is the game to look at - vassals in AoW 3 do nothing at alle against spawners

 

[HousePet]

I'd actually find it interesting to try playing the game where I was Vassalled to an AI. Its a different way to play the game, and as someone who prefers more RP aspects in games (and will choose suboptimal builds for flavour and challenge), I would not find it unfun to be playing an empire that gets defeated and then acts as a Vassal State to protect my people (backstabbing optional).
Hopefully the AI is up for it.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Yes, but now we are back at square 1. In my first post I wrote: "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?"

I agree - one thing I would like to have for Planetfall random maps is an option to set-up each player separately, which might include set-ups with one or more dominant AI players. In such a situation you might be placed rather awkwardly and find yourself quite soon in a situation that means surrender or die.

However, the downside is, that you'd want a sporting chance to free yourself eventually - or would you want to win the game as a junior ally, not having much of a fight, winning in the shadow of your overlord a secondary victory? Nah, not really.

I think, this can't really work because too much depends on the AI "giving you a chance". It COULD destroy you, but doesn't. It MIGHT "realize", you are not really acting in their best interest - and still doesn't kill you. It may be an untrustworthy rogue with illusions of grandeur - but still, you survive to fight.

Worse, you'd have to allow this for AIs with each other.

Generally, I think "diplomacy" is quite a difficult thing to handle for an AI. the more meticulous the rules are, the more predictable and manipulable an AI gets, and if there random "personality traits", you'll get stuff no one likes either, like sudden declarations of war out of the blue and so on. Diplomacy is basically a field in which humans can gain (more) advantages, the more options there are. This may have a use in games in which "battle" is more or less a last resort, which concentrate on empire building, management and optimization, but Planetfall won't be such a game. Which in turn means, diplomacy options, while meaningful, shouldn't allow to play the AIs like puppets, and "asymmetrical" relations will give humans on both ends an advantage.