Diplomacy, in it's current implementation, is dull and very linear, with no character or intricative details to it. You click through the usual chain of NAP-DP-Fed agreements, probably repeat the same mutual Research Pact trade deal every 30 years, or just rival everything. Diplomacy is instant, unlimited and with no actual purpose or discernible agenda.
To remedy that, I suggest the following:
Diplomatic Warfare
We create a new Leader type 'Diplomat'. For each foreign empire, exactly one Diplomat must be assigned to perform any kind of diplomacy. However, a single Diplomat can be assigned to as many foreign empires as you wish. Additionally, if you do not assign a Diplomat, per default your ruler acts as a Diplomat for to those foreign empires. (Bonus gimmick: in the diplomacy screen, the alien you are talking to is the assigned Diplomat, not necessarily the ruler or the original species.) Note that a ruler working as Diplomat saves you 'a leader slot', but since rulers do not gain Diplomat-specific traits, he will likely be less useful at that position (albeit an experienced high level ruler might outperform a freshly hired level 1 Diplomat).
Instead of beign able to instantly sign treaties and trade agreements, every form of diplomacy but basic hostile ones (aka, declaring rivalry, closing borders, declaring war, and offering peace deals) is locked behind a new mechanic named 'Negotiation'.
Any empire can open a negotiation towards any other known empire (and can only have one such negotiation per other empire), which can include any kind of uni- or bidirectional demand. Demanding a onesided Research Agreement is just as possible as asking for a bothsided NAP.
To complete a negotiation (and cause the demands to take effect), a certain amount of 'progress' points has to be achieved. The number of points needed depends on the size of the demand being negotiated (i.e. a few for 'Open Border's, a lot for vassalizing a multi-planet star empire).
The diplomat assigned to the foreign empire will start generating a base income of progress per month, based upon his level, leader traits, species traits and other modifiers (i.e. tech, diplomatic traditions, etc). Important to note: A diplomat working on multiple negotiations for multiple foreign empires will split his base progress generation across those negotiations (prior to applying modifiers), meaning that any empire intending to do a lot of parallel diplomacy will need to have multiple Diplomats.
An empire can support it's Diplomat's efforts by investing additional political ressources, represented by influence. A toggle in the negotiation can add +1 base progress (which is the same amount a non-modified level 1 diplomat produces) to the monthly progress, at the expense of -1 Influence per months. (This option is not avaible to the 'other' side of the negotiation.)
A foreign empire can react to each currently running negotiation, either taking a 'Welcoming' or a 'Protesting' stance. When Welcoming, a large (+200%) bonus is applied to the progress made on the negotiation, and the assigned foreign diplomat will add his own base progress in favor of the negotiation (so basically both sides' diplomats will work together with a significant boost). When Protesting, the foreign Diplomat will instead subtract his own progress income from the negotiation, either stalling or at the very least slowing it.
Alternatively, the empire may remain 'Undecided' and have a neutral stance (which may also be relevant to avoid splitting up the foreign diplomats attention further, in case he's working on a more important negotiation on a entirely different diplomatic channel). Furthermore, the foreign empire can make a counter-demand, which is another set of negotiable conditions, which it wants to see added to the negotiation. The empire that originally initiated the negotiation can then decide to accept these additional conditions, merging them into the currently ongoing negotiation, which automatically locks the foreign empire into a 'Welcoming' stance. (Trivial case: You demand X minerals, and the other empire counter-demands Y energy, you agree, the negotiation switches to welcome and is done with in a month or two.)
To make this system more than just a 'more complex' and 'less instant' version of current diplomacy, unfavorable negotiations (aka, those the foreign empire is Protesting against) contain a more complex mechanic simulating 'diplomatic combat':
Whilst a negotiation is running against a Protesting Stance, each month generates 'tension', up to a level of '100%'. This applies, regardless of whether the negotiation is stuck at 0% or progressing rapidly. Diplomat leader traits (think 'Skilled Appeaser') can reduce the build-up of tension.
Active tension has a direct impact on relations, and will decay slowly if there is no active negotiation (i.e. because the negotiation was cancelled by the initiator, or finished).
Additionally, certain levels of tension can have additional adverse effects. Once tension surpasses 25%, the other empire can 'intervene', which is a instant action triggered by button, which consumes a lump sum of Influence, but significantly reduces the progress of the negotiation, whilst increasing the tension in return. This represents the empire's official 'stop trying to force this bullshit onto us' proclamation and similar actions.
Once tension passes 50%, there's a (small) monthly chance for negative events to fire, which basically indicate the conflict of interests between the two sides. Squabbles in the embassy, political intrigue, public unrest and other topics come to mind. Generally, the events should be negative in nature, moreso for the instigator of the negotiation, and frequently contain choises that either penalize the empire or increase tension further (or offer expensive options to reduce tension).
The events become mor frequent, the higher tension rises.
Until the tension htis 100%, at which point the negotiation 'escalates' and fails. At that point, it 'becomes clear' that there is no way to reach an agreement 'diplomatically' and the instigator of the negotiation can either chose to back down (which may have adverse effects similar to humiliation) or go to war over the issue (potentially tearing alliances and NAP's apart, assuming they haven't already broken apart due to the negative relations incurred by having a long-running 'protested' negotiation). Using the new casus belli system from Cherry, I feel like a 'Enforce demands by military might' situation would be great for both small and large-scale conflicts (i.e. trying to negotiate your small isolationist neighbour to finally stop being an ass and open his borders for your fleet to fight the Devouring Swarm on the other side, before finally just declaring war on the neighbour to force him to comply).
Additional lines of thought regarding this concept:
Overall, I think this concept would make diplomacy less 'default 4X', give Stellaris more of it's unique storyteling character and furthermore add a significantly large layer of 'peace time interaction' towards other empires.
To remedy that, I suggest the following:
Diplomatic Warfare
We create a new Leader type 'Diplomat'. For each foreign empire, exactly one Diplomat must be assigned to perform any kind of diplomacy. However, a single Diplomat can be assigned to as many foreign empires as you wish. Additionally, if you do not assign a Diplomat, per default your ruler acts as a Diplomat for to those foreign empires. (Bonus gimmick: in the diplomacy screen, the alien you are talking to is the assigned Diplomat, not necessarily the ruler or the original species.) Note that a ruler working as Diplomat saves you 'a leader slot', but since rulers do not gain Diplomat-specific traits, he will likely be less useful at that position (albeit an experienced high level ruler might outperform a freshly hired level 1 Diplomat).
Instead of beign able to instantly sign treaties and trade agreements, every form of diplomacy but basic hostile ones (aka, declaring rivalry, closing borders, declaring war, and offering peace deals) is locked behind a new mechanic named 'Negotiation'.
Any empire can open a negotiation towards any other known empire (and can only have one such negotiation per other empire), which can include any kind of uni- or bidirectional demand. Demanding a onesided Research Agreement is just as possible as asking for a bothsided NAP.
To complete a negotiation (and cause the demands to take effect), a certain amount of 'progress' points has to be achieved. The number of points needed depends on the size of the demand being negotiated (i.e. a few for 'Open Border's, a lot for vassalizing a multi-planet star empire).
The diplomat assigned to the foreign empire will start generating a base income of progress per month, based upon his level, leader traits, species traits and other modifiers (i.e. tech, diplomatic traditions, etc). Important to note: A diplomat working on multiple negotiations for multiple foreign empires will split his base progress generation across those negotiations (prior to applying modifiers), meaning that any empire intending to do a lot of parallel diplomacy will need to have multiple Diplomats.
An empire can support it's Diplomat's efforts by investing additional political ressources, represented by influence. A toggle in the negotiation can add +1 base progress (which is the same amount a non-modified level 1 diplomat produces) to the monthly progress, at the expense of -1 Influence per months. (This option is not avaible to the 'other' side of the negotiation.)
A foreign empire can react to each currently running negotiation, either taking a 'Welcoming' or a 'Protesting' stance. When Welcoming, a large (+200%) bonus is applied to the progress made on the negotiation, and the assigned foreign diplomat will add his own base progress in favor of the negotiation (so basically both sides' diplomats will work together with a significant boost). When Protesting, the foreign Diplomat will instead subtract his own progress income from the negotiation, either stalling or at the very least slowing it.
Alternatively, the empire may remain 'Undecided' and have a neutral stance (which may also be relevant to avoid splitting up the foreign diplomats attention further, in case he's working on a more important negotiation on a entirely different diplomatic channel). Furthermore, the foreign empire can make a counter-demand, which is another set of negotiable conditions, which it wants to see added to the negotiation. The empire that originally initiated the negotiation can then decide to accept these additional conditions, merging them into the currently ongoing negotiation, which automatically locks the foreign empire into a 'Welcoming' stance. (Trivial case: You demand X minerals, and the other empire counter-demands Y energy, you agree, the negotiation switches to welcome and is done with in a month or two.)
To make this system more than just a 'more complex' and 'less instant' version of current diplomacy, unfavorable negotiations (aka, those the foreign empire is Protesting against) contain a more complex mechanic simulating 'diplomatic combat':
Whilst a negotiation is running against a Protesting Stance, each month generates 'tension', up to a level of '100%'. This applies, regardless of whether the negotiation is stuck at 0% or progressing rapidly. Diplomat leader traits (think 'Skilled Appeaser') can reduce the build-up of tension.
Active tension has a direct impact on relations, and will decay slowly if there is no active negotiation (i.e. because the negotiation was cancelled by the initiator, or finished).
Additionally, certain levels of tension can have additional adverse effects. Once tension surpasses 25%, the other empire can 'intervene', which is a instant action triggered by button, which consumes a lump sum of Influence, but significantly reduces the progress of the negotiation, whilst increasing the tension in return. This represents the empire's official 'stop trying to force this bullshit onto us' proclamation and similar actions.
Once tension passes 50%, there's a (small) monthly chance for negative events to fire, which basically indicate the conflict of interests between the two sides. Squabbles in the embassy, political intrigue, public unrest and other topics come to mind. Generally, the events should be negative in nature, moreso for the instigator of the negotiation, and frequently contain choises that either penalize the empire or increase tension further (or offer expensive options to reduce tension).
The events become mor frequent, the higher tension rises.
Until the tension htis 100%, at which point the negotiation 'escalates' and fails. At that point, it 'becomes clear' that there is no way to reach an agreement 'diplomatically' and the instigator of the negotiation can either chose to back down (which may have adverse effects similar to humiliation) or go to war over the issue (potentially tearing alliances and NAP's apart, assuming they haven't already broken apart due to the negative relations incurred by having a long-running 'protested' negotiation). Using the new casus belli system from Cherry, I feel like a 'Enforce demands by military might' situation would be great for both small and large-scale conflicts (i.e. trying to negotiate your small isolationist neighbour to finally stop being an ass and open his borders for your fleet to fight the Devouring Swarm on the other side, before finally just declaring war on the neighbour to force him to comply).
Additional lines of thought regarding this concept:
- Xenophobe ethics could give a -25/50% penality to all positive negotiation progress in either direction, meaning that Isolationists both suck at making diplomatic arrangements, but as well are far harder to diplomatically influence.
- Further penality for Inward Perfectionist Civic?
- Xenophile ethics could get a significant boost to diplomatic progress grain or gain a tension reduction.
- Since tension can be approximately calculated before a negotiation starts, a player designing a demand could have an interface telling them whether the negotiation will succeed (assuming no outwards influences or changes) before tension reaches 100%, or is a futile attempt in first place.
- Having a significantly more powerful empire, either in economy or/and in military, could provide a bonus to diplomatic progress, representing 'gunboat diplomacy'.
- Diplomatic Traditions could be changed to grant boni to actual diplomacy instead of federations.
- Having pops of the foreign empire's primary species in your own empire could benefit diplomacy. Same for both diplomats being of the same species.
- Closed Borders could apply a general minor (-25%?) penality to diplomatic arrangements between the respective empires.
- Forcing an empire to give up on a rival (including a one-sided rivalry towards the diplomatically initiating empire) could be a negotiateable demand. ("Stop hating on us, we don't want your planets and we would really rather focus on those Exterminators over there.")
- 'Establish Embassy' could be reintroduced as a demand that boosts diplomatic progress for the empire that established the embassy.
- Add a 'Diplomat Enclave' from which you can purchase 'Diplomatic Advice' (general bonus), hire highly skilled Diplomat Leaders or obtain new contacts. Maybe even pay them to 'smooth over' bad relations with a select group of other empires.
- Maybe create a negotiateable demand which applies a 10-year ethical influence to the target empire, to allow diplomatizing empires to swoon other empires to their ethics over time?
Overall, I think this concept would make diplomacy less 'default 4X', give Stellaris more of it's unique storyteling character and furthermore add a significantly large layer of 'peace time interaction' towards other empires.
Upvote
0
