Concerns with diplomatic plays from aars - can it still be fixed?

[Al-Khalidi]

To begin: I LOVE diplomatic plays. It can be the best system that ever existed in paradox games. But it has also big ugly flaws at this stage that (i think?) could be fixable. Those flaws are very visible in latest aar.
Basically GB joins guatemala's every aggressive war of conquest without even asking for anything in return. This leads to frequent confrontations of GPs dragged (eagerly) into player's tiny conquests.
But worst part was when player, supported by GB attacks Cuba, which is defended by France. Player to avoid fighting French quickly captures Cuba and then CAPITULATES to preserve the captured Cuba. It pains me to say this but this is just pathethic. Let's imagine Austria Hungary who just realizes they started most horrible war humanity ever fought. So they send everything they have on Serbia to annex it and then when entente armies are closing in, they quickly capitulate to keep Serbia. "HAHAHAHA and what are you gonna do to us, pitiful entente boys? Gonna watch you butchering each other in mud with Germans while Im enjoying vienerschnitzel in Belgrade! "
To sum up:
1. As i said many times. Small states shouldn't be able to manipulate GPs, it should be opposite. Why the hell would Germany treat seriously Zulus promicing them London in exchange for saving them from British? In order to get GP's support, those tiny states should be forced to give them SOMETHING THEY ACTUALLY POSSES (this would most likely mean their independence) . If small states can promice whatever, we might see a state of constant war between GPs manipulated by the countries they would probably later colonize.
2. If there is a goal to annex a country in diplo play, opposite side should have automatic goal of restoring all taken territory. Capitulating to actually WIN is not a logical feature.
I will love the game regardless but I hope there is yet time to fix or balance this a little. Is it?

Guatemala AAR Part 4:

Spoiler: Guatemala ARR

View attachment 863202

Spoiler: Guatemala ARR

View attachment 863203

Spoiler: Guatemala ARR

View attachment 863204

Spoiler: Guatemala ARR

View attachment 863205

 

[Delterius]

It should be simple enough right? Colonialism and the Great Wars should be the most consistent in-game moments where countries promise to partition land. Britain might offer Alsace-Lorraine to France in exchange for support in WW1. Likewise Britain might join Russia in partitioning one of the central asian nations when setting up their spheres of influence. Outside of Great Power competition you have instances like the Paraguayan War where both Brasil and Argentina took some land from the former. In all three cases you have comparable powers making plans with each other. Just this one concept might save us a lot of headaches.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

It should be simple enough right? Colonialism and the Great Wars should be the most consistent in-game moments where countries promise to partition land. Britain might offer Alsace-Lorraine to France in exchange for support in WW1. Likewise Britain might join Russia in partitioning one of the central asian nations when setting up their spheres of influence. Outside of Great Power competition you have instances like the Paraguayan War where both Brasil and Argentina took some land from the former. In all three cases you have comparable powers making plans with each other. Just this one concept might save us a lot of headaches.

Idk if i understand, the point is that only equals can do such deals? That could solve part of the problem discussed here, yeah.

 

[Enska]

Remember that we also have this neat feature called strategic regions: What if the promised goal would have to be in the same strategic region where the play is located? This could also depend on stuff like technology and country rank. Thus, a WW1 era greatpower could get goals in Western Europe even if the play takes place in the balkans. Meanwhile, an unrecognized early game country would have to offer something close home to entice an outsider to join.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Capitulating to actually WIN is not a logical feature.

Yes.

I once made a thread covering this topic. I can't really believe this still has to be said and no dev adressed the issue yet

 

[Muezzinzade]

Yes.

I once made a thread covering this topic. I can't really believe this still has to be said and no dev adressed the issue yet

@Wizzington ? @lachek

 

[Markusw7]

The only thing I think is needed is for the possibilty of a new war goal to be added when a country is annexed or otherwise capitulates.

In the case of the Cuba war France should have at least been given the war goal "liberate Cuba" and perhaps even Cuba's initial war goal so that in the event they defeat USCA either the status quo for Cuba is returned to or Cuba is rescued and gets what it wanted.

 

[Kipsta]

Game is designed for multiplayer, bots and their play are an afterthought. Doesn't matter in the big picture. Keeping the most freedom for real players in the system will be for the best.

 

[InvisibleBison]

Game is designed for multiplayer, bots and their play are an afterthought. Doesn't matter in the big picture. Keeping the most freedom for real players in the system will be for the best.

Nonsense. Even if the game was designed for multiplayer, having good AI would still be important, since even in a multiplayer game the vast majority of nations would be AI controlled.

 

[luxfelix]

Do obligations come into diplomatic plays and, if so, are they limited with regards to these events?

 

[masteriw]

I think it was Cuba who capitulated, not Guatemala. Still not optimal that a major power will just give up fighting like that, though. But it's not as silly it seems.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

The only thing I think is needed is for the possibilty ofa new war goal to be added when a country is annexed or otherwise capitulates.

In the case of the Cuba war France should have at least been given the war goal "liberate Cuba" and perhaps even Cuba's initial war goal so that in the event they defeat USCA either the status quo for Cuba is returned to or Cuba is rescued and gets what it wanted.

That's not the "only thing needed" as it only solves one of two issues discussed here. The other, gaming GPs into fighting their wars by small countries, is still there, and its quite serious imo.

Do obligations come into diplomatic plays and, if so, are they limited with regards to these events?

I'm not sure but I think they might serve as a leverage?

 

[Al-Khalidi]

I think it was Cuba who capitulated, not Guatemala. Still not optimal that a major power will just give up fighting like that, though. But it's not as silly it seems.

No, first Cuba capitulated and then player capitulated as Guatemala in order to keep Cuba while not being forced to fight french army to defend this gain.

 

[MfgLuckbot]

Loads of this could be solved by making the AI better. Having it be selfish and calculating in diplomatic plays.

Like, why would the British Empire care to split off Panama at the risk of fighting another GP? Why would they help some tiny oversea country for free? They have all the bargain power, they should ask for much much more.

The capitulation issue should in my opinion be solved by immediately giving new wargoals on the war leader when one is prematurely enforced. I annex a state by making a minor nation capitulate, their GP ally receives a liberate wargoal on that state immediately. Then the AI can still evaluate that's not worth fighting for anymore, but it shouldn't be immediately over.

 

[Spartakus]

Making demands in a diplomatic play should be limited to the strategic region the play is located in. The ability to escalate a conflict into more regions should be gated behind a late game technology that enables the World War.

That doesn't solve the issue of keeping your gains by capitulating, but it keeps a conflict between CA and cuba and their allies within the carribean. That this suddenly becomes a conflict over indian ocean territory is madness.

Otherwise it very much defeats the entire purpose of strategic regions. Prussia just can't walk into the Netherlands/Belgium without getting France and possibly GB (assuming they spend an interest there as they should) on the table. But somehow a colonial uprising in West Africa or Indonesia gives the opportunity to grab Flanders and Holland without anyone noticing?

 

[Wizzington]

1. The diplomatic play AI hasn't had its final pass yet. It's definitely too easy to manipulate right now.
2. Yes, this is something that I intend to add before release (as I have mentioned before). Enforcing an annex/conquest wargoal via capitulation should add the opposite wargoal on the other side.

 

[Wizzington]

Making demands in a diplomatic play should be limited to the strategic region the play is located in. The ability to escalate a conflict into more regions should be gated behind a late game technology that enables the World War.

That doesn't solve the issue of keeping your gains by capitulating, but it keeps a conflict between CA and cuba and their allies within the carribean. That this suddenly becomes a conflict over indian ocean territory is madness.

Otherwise it very much defeats the entire purpose of strategic regions. Prussia just can't walk into the Netherlands/Belgium without getting France and possibly GB (assuming they spend an interest there as they should) on the table. But somehow a colonial uprising in West Africa or Indonesia gives the opportunity to grab Flanders and Holland without anyone noticing?

This being a hard restriction doesn't make much sense, the AI should be quite reluctant to engage in or accept this sort of escalation though, or to pay any real attention to a minor country offering them grand prizes they have to take themselves. Like, if Britain were to start something over a French West African colony, wouldn't it make perfect sense for the French to demand a British East African colony in the same play?

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Making demands in a diplomatic play should be limited to the strategic region the play is located in. The ability to escalate a conflict into more regions should be gated behind a late game technology that enables the World War.

That doesn't solve the issue of keeping your gains by capitulating, but it keeps a conflict between CA and cuba and their allies within the carribean. That this suddenly becomes a conflict over indian ocean territory is madness.

Otherwise it very much defeats the entire purpose of strategic regions. Prussia just can't walk into the Netherlands/Belgium without getting France and possibly GB (assuming they spend an interest there as they should) on the table. But somehow a colonial uprising in West Africa or Indonesia gives the opportunity to grab Flanders and Holland without anyone noticing?

What you propose might be solving ANOTHER gamey issue but it doesn't solve this problem at all. Imagine I'm Laos and Thailand wants to annex me, so I offer whole Thailand to French if they support me, while Thais offer French Vietnam to the British for support. All happens within one strategic region.
And confining plays to strategic regions isn't even plausible historically - see Prussia attacking Austria for domination in Germany and offering Venice to Italy for joining. There are other examples too - Japanese war with China in Korea resulting in cession of Taiwan maybe.

1. The diplomatic play AI hasn't had its final pass yet. It's definitely too easy to manipulate right now.
2. Yes, this is something that I intend to add before release (as I have mentioned before). Enforcing an annex/conquest wargoal via capitulation should add the opposite wargoal on the other side.

That's great to know, thank you! This system is really lovely and would be shame if lack of balance ruined it. Have you considered making it like there should be a leverage behind such promices? (Strong country's promices are taken seriously, weak country's aren't). Also, will there be some realism in what countries might be interested in? Like, Prussia asked to join against Austria might not be interested in taking Hungary (lots of not tolerated population) even if they border it at that point?

 

[Al-Khalidi]

This being a hard restriction doesn't make much sense, the AI should be quite reluctant to engage in or accept this sort of escalation though, or to pay any real attention to a minor country offering them grand prizes they have to take themselves. Like, if Britain were to start something over a French West African colony, wouldn't it make perfect sense for the French to demand a British East African colony in the same play?

Exactly. AI not paying real attention to minor country offering them grand prizes - this, please.

 

[Spartakus]

What you propose might be solving ANOTHER gamey issue but it doesn't solve this problem at all. Imagine I'm Laos and Thailand wants to annex me, so I offer whole Thailand to French if they support me, while Thais offer French Vietnam to the British for support. All happens within one strategic region.
And confining plays to strategic regions isn't even plausible historically - see Prussia attacking Austria for domination in Germany and offering Venice to Italy for joining. There are other examples too - Japanese war with China in Korea resulting in cession of Taiwan maybe.

That's great to know, thank you! This system is really lovely and would be shame if lack of balance ruined it. Have you considered making it like there should be a leverage behind such promices? (Strong country's promices are taken seriously, weak country's aren't). Also, will there be some realism in what countries might be interested in? Like, Prussia asked to join against Austria might not be interested in taking Hungary (lots of not tolerated population) even if they border it at that point?

Hmm, you do have a point here with Germany offering Venice to Italy. Unfortunately that raises the question when exactly can you offer a potential ally something. Cuba offering Indian Ocean Territory to France is nonsene, but Germany offering Venice to Italy is not. Problem is I can't quite put my finger on what the differnce here is. Sure, Prussia is more powerful and Venice is more in the immediate vicinity of the conflict, but where do you draw the line here?

This being a hard restriction doesn't make much sense, the AI should be quite reluctant to engage in or accept this sort of escalation though, or to pay any real attention to a minor country offering them grand prizes they have to take themselves. Like, if Britain were to start something over a French West African colony, wouldn't it make perfect sense for the French to demand a British East African colony in the same play?

Same problem here: France demanding an Esat African colony sounds plausible, France demanding Australia or London less so.