"Crisis level" and "GP conferences" as mechanisms for diplomacy in the early game?

[unmerged(75409)]

So here's an idea I just had:

I think we all would love to see a sort of Great Powers conference system in the game. Ideally, the game should be able to replay events like the Congress of Vienna (1814/15), the London conference (1867) or the Berlin Conference (1878), all of which were events attended by diplomats from all the Great Powers (UK, France, Austria, Russia, Prussia) who would decide how a particular crisis in Europe should be resolved. But the devs said, it would not be in, instead the game would have improved systems of bilateral diplomacy, such as the sphere of interests system, the loans system and the war goals system.

Hmm well okay. But maybe it is still possible to put together a system, which could be implemented in later expansions?

So about those conferences:

The most notable feature of these conferences was that the countries, whose fate was to be decided, were not consulted - the great powers essentially met and decided what was to be done, on the simple basis of them being the Great Powers.

One or more GPs would convene a conference, when there was an unusual "crisis event" somewhere in Europe, or when a "crisis level " was reached: For example, the London conference took place after Prussia shattered the German conferedation, and the Berlin conference was convened after Russia defeated the Ottoman Empire, and was about to enforce a carthaginian peace on them.

So here's my model of how a conference of Great Powers (GPs) should be convened, and what it would do:

1. An armed conflict, or a revolution somewhere in Europe escalates to such a level that an "international crisis threshold" or "Crisis Level" is reached. Think of this as the Concert of Europe's DEFCON levels... Crisis Level 4 is your average Balkan or other local uprising which no one outside the affected country cares about; Crisis Level 3 is a locally confined war that has no effects on the stability of the Status Quo (a border war or some such); Crisis Level 2 is a war or uprising which has the Great Powers of Europe paying close attention; and Crisis Level 1 is the big war where the warring parties are fighting for such expansive war goals that the Status Quo is threatened; or it may be the big War of Independence that has resulted in the spawning of a new rebel country from the territory of another major European country.
   (Political uprisings that only aim at a change of government, rather than the secession of a country, don't show up as Crisis Levels, since they do not affect the Status Quo in restaurationist Europe.)
2. Once Crisis Level 1 is reached, any conservative or monarchist great power may invoke the decision "Call for Great Power Conference to settle conflict XYZ". This will ask all other GPs whether they will support the motion to settle this conflict in the interest of the Status Quo and in the interest of the established conservative political order.
3. The other GPs can support the call, or not support. If a supermajority of GPs supports the move, the conference takes place; if not, the events end here and it's back to bilateral diplomacy.
4. If the conference takes place (it's instananeous), the GPs get to choose from a range of solutions to the crisis: Return to Status Quo, support side A, support side B. The selection of choices is assembled from those war goals of the "crisis countries" that are "status-quo-compatible", i.e. only minor territorial changes, no total annexations, and only limited release of independent nations; plus a selection of choices which any conference could impose: white peace, humiliation, reparations, return to status quo, establishment of a proper conservative government.
   Voting of the GPs is determined by their relations with the "crisis countries".
5. One or two rounds of "yay"/"nay" voting determine if there is a consensus among GPs. If there is one, the countries whose war or uprising caused the crisis are presented with the diktat of the conference, and must accept or refuse. If there is no consensus, the conference ends inconclusively and it's back to bilateral diplomacy.
6. The countries who are presented with the decision of the GP conference may have a choice whether to accept or defy the decision. (Countries that are not GP always auto-accept the decision of a conference.)
7. If a country defies the GP conference, all GPs get a casus belli on them with the war goal "enforce conference decision".

Note that the other Great Powers only back your Call for Conference, if they have good relations with you. If relations between GPs become poisioned (as happened in the 1860s and later) there will therefore be no more conferences, because you can't get that supermajority of GPs together. However under a skilled diplomat (Bismarck) a country could of course attempt to reestablish good relations with other GPs even in the late game, to reestablish some sort of Concert of Europe.

About the Crisis Level:

Nations in Europe in 1836 may be tagged with a label "part of the Concert of Europe", kind of like how nations in EU3 may be tagged as part of the HRE. If there is a war involving on both sides countries with this tag, then a "Crisis Level" will be computed daily for this conflict. It is a number which shows how potentially threatening this war is to the Status Quo. The number is above zero if the participants are fighting for certain war goals deemed dangerous for the Status Quo, i.e. annexation of more than one state, total annexation, national liberation, or similarly upsetting goals. If the war is stalemated the number is low, however if it looks like one side is winning, then the number is high. If the number exceedes a certain threshold, the Concert of Europe goes into DEFCON 1, so to say, and GP intervention through a conference becomes imminent. (As a participant in such a war, you would of course always see what the number is so you can end it before the GPs come in to spoil your war.) If there is a nationalist rebellion and a revolter like Belgium or Lombardy breaks free, then this too shows up as a threatening conflict. The GPs would seek to intervene, and either incorporate the new country into the Concert of Europe (by recognizing their independence and installing a conservative government) or carving up the new country among themselves.

To summarize, what would a "Conference System" do?

• any conflict deemed "significant enough" to threaten the balance of power in Europe in the Restoration Era may lead to a conference of great powers. Conferences aim at ending conflicts in the interest of Status Quo.
• conferences are a way for GPs to pursue their interests regarding minor countries, and issue ultimata against warmongering Great Powers.
• conferences happen as long as a supermajority of GPs has cordial relations with each other. They stop happening when the GPs start regarding each other as rivals, rather than fellow supporters of the Status Quo.
• Conferences discourage overly aggressive warmongering by minor countries in the early phase of the game, before the "Concert of Europe" (cordial friendship between the conservative European GP) breaks down. Just like the HRE system in EU3. They would not discourage limited warfare, and they would not discourage warfare if you have one GP on your side and benevolent neutrality from other GPs.

What do you think?

 

[unmerged(193246)]

I'm sure a sole/group of dedicated modder(s) will be able to code in something like this.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

I'm sure a sole/group of dedicated modder(s) will be able to code in something like this.

I'm more hoping for an expansion by Paradox... some things are difficult to mod, f.ex. if EU3 did not have the HRE, it would be a hell of a job to mod it in o

 

[unmerged(207113)]

This seems incredibly labyrinthine, but in principle I do support the idea.

Would you care to expand on it?

Austen.

 

[unmerged(138342)]

I don't think a conference should always try to preserve status quo.
If Russia was to take the beating in the Russo-Turkish War, which was quite realistic, Britain and Germany would have been quite happy in further weakening Russia. Russian imperial ambitions were still regarded as a threat in that era. Only latter Germany became a rival of Britain.

 

[Botox]

I like the idea. But i think it will be problematic to implement. Well anyway, perhaps the GPs should get a flag which indicate what they politicaly stand for. Either you are interested in maintaining the balance of power (as Great Britain did a long time), you want to get prestige from a possible outcome that shows, you are still a GP and can act like it (France after 1871 when it was isolated in europe) or you want your share of the raid for supporting either side (trade aggreements, provinces, or stuff like that).

I would also like to see armed interventions (dont know the correct english translation for "Bewaffnete Vermittlungen") as France tried during the German-German war 1866. So as a GP, if a war breaks out (which has to be near your sphere of influence or is between neighbours of your SOI) you could call out your armed intervention to negotiate a peace. I know you can intervene in a war on the a side which took "Remain Status Quo" as a war goal, but often enough it was enough threat that you just called out that you are willing to support one side with arms to get the other side draw back and settle the dispute.

And please excuse my english

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I don't think a conference should always try to preserve status quo.
If Russia was to take the beating in the Russo-Turkish War, which was quite realistic, Britain and Germany would have been quite happy in further weakening Russia. Russian imperial ambitions were still regarded as a threat in that era. Only latter Germany became a rival of Britain.

Indeed, the Berlin Conference made some extensive changes to the international political landscape.

But what I would really like to see is an option for Great Powers to force minor nations to the peace table, a feature that has been sorely lacking in Paradox gamers so far.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Expand on it or summarize?

The idea is to introduce a level of inter-GP diplomacy which resolves conflicts between countries, or between a GP and other minor countries (within the Concert of Europe).

This is to make the early years more GP- and more status-quo oriented, as long as the GPs get along among each other. The Concert of Europe, as Metternich and the restaurationists designed it - Great Powers peacefully resolving conflicts, stepping in where the balance of power is threatened, and deciding -together- what is best for the continent.

Like when Russia and Turkey had their 1877/78 war: At the start, Russia told Austria that they would only ask for minor territorial gains, and that they would not try to establish a large Slavic puppet state if they should win. So Austria and the other GPs stayed neutral. But when the Russians had the Turks on the run, they expanded the scope of the war, they were now fighting for the establishment of a huge Bulgarian puppet state. (In game terms: Russia added a new war goal, "Liberate Bulgaria") This caused Austria and Britain to object to such a far reaching destabilization of the status quo. They threatened Russia with war, should Russia not back off and consent itself with limited gains against Turkey. Germany, who had more or less decent relations with all Great Powers, called for a conference to resolve the crisis. The conference brokered a compromise solution, whereby Russia would get some territorial gains in the Caucasus, and a gimped Bulgaria would be released as a principality with a German monarch, but would stay a vassal of the Ottomans. Russia was furious, but had to accept the arbitration because Britain and Austria threatened war if Russia should refuse.

I want to design an in-game mechanism, whereby ANY war that "gets out of hand" (i.e. one side is winning by a huge margin) can lead to a conference of great powers, who step in to propose a comprise and basically force the winner of the war to "play by the rules" and consent himself with limited gains, at the risk of war.

So if, say, Prussia goes to war with Denmark over a Holstein crisis in 1848, beats up Denmark badly and uses the opportunity to add the war goal "Annex all of Denmark except Kopenhagen", this should cause Russia and Britain to regard this as a Crisis which threatens the Status Quo. They would have tolerated Prussia annexing Holstein, but not such a blatant power grab. So they call for a conference, where the other GPs propose a compromise peace, awarding Prussia the province of Holstein and some money as compensation. Prussia, whose armies are occupying all of Jutland and are marching on Copenhagen, gnashes her teeth and angrily accepts the peace proposal, since the alternative would be Britain, Russia and maybe other GPs entering the war on the Danish side.

In game terms: Adding the war goal "Annex all of Denmark" turned the Prusso-Danish war from an uninteresting minor cabinet war into a DEFCON 1 level Crisis. Russia and Britain get a decision "Propose conference to settle the Prusso-Danish War", Britain chooses the decision, in response Russia, France, Prussia, Austria and whoever else is a Great Power in Europe gets a popup saying: "United Kingdom has proposed a conference to settle the Prusso-Danish War, in which Prussia threatens to upset the Status Quo. Do you support this call for a peace conference?" If a supermajority chooses "Yes" then a new screen appears:

​

Something like this would be the main conference screen. You can see what the current proposal is, who would accept it, who would not and so on. Someone with a more firm grounding in game theory than me would have to work out how to EXACTLY design the "negotiations" - i.e. the process by which the great powers can come to a a consensus, or to the consensus that there is no consensus. A conference fails if no proposal finds acceptance by a supermajority. A supermajority could be defined as a majority that consists of all but one of the GPs.

However obviously not all conflicts would be resolved this way. Check with history: Prussia beat up Austria really badly in 1866, and Austria would have LOVED to have France, Russia and England call for a conference. But a conference did not come to pass for several reasons:

• The Prussian war goals were not seen as overly threatening (no annexation of Austrian territory)
• The non-involved European Great Powers -Russia, Britain and France- had bad relations with each other (In game terms: A call for conference would be rejected by at least two GPs - by Britain and Prussia if Russia issued the call, by Russia and Prussia if France or Britain issued the call.)
• Prussia had really good relations with Russia, and decent relations with Britain. (A call for conference is more likely to be supported if the GPs dislike the warring party who is seen as "threatening the Status Quo".)

To keep this from becoming an annoying feature that hinders gameplay, various conditions would be needed to get a conference: The GPs need to get along and not be too involved with the conflict, the conflict must be seen as a threat to the Status Quo, and the warring party seen as "offender against the Status Quo" must not be too popular. If you play Russia and you think the time is right to crush and dismember the Ottoman Empire, you better make sure beforehand that you have good relations with other Great Powers!! Or even better: Choose a time when they are fighting among each other.

Conversely, if you play Austria or the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Bear comes to tear you apart, make sure you're on the sweet side of whoever is the current "arbiter of Europe", i.e. the Great Power who has good relations to the other GPs, and who would call for that vital peace conference, should Russia crush your armies and seek to dismember your empire.

 

[Sid Meier]

My problem with this is that it would automate the diplomatic system and remove much of the nuance of diplomacy during multiplayer games and as such should be a little cautious with this.

 

[unmerged(136147)]

??
What stops the MP Players from holding the "conference", or any other diplo, in Chat instead of using this feature?

 

[unmerged(75409)]

My problem with this is that it would automate the diplomatic system and remove much of the nuance of diplomacy during multiplayer games and as such should be a little cautious with this.

Hmm, good question. I thought of the feature as something to improve immersion and gameplay options in single player mode. I suppose if you play an MP game, you could either "relax" some of the requirements for conferences to take place --thereby letting you use it as an "improved diplo chat tool"-- or you could disable the feature altogether.

The mechanism is fairly complicated, because it's supposed to make Great Power AIs behave more like the defenders of the Status Quo. In an MP game, you don't need it once the Great Powers are human controlled, also humans would probably not care about the Status quo, their interests being inherently different from those of the AI.

I don't know what that says about the possibility of actually ever having it in the game... should the AI try to compete with the human in human ways, and "win" the game? Or should it just consent itself with playing a part in a 19th century reenactment? Did Bismarck try to "win" when he ran Germany? Did WW1 start because Germany and France both tried to "win" before the 1936 game end, rather than keep playing an open-ended sandbox game and content themselves with the results?

 

[Sid Meier]

There is some evidence of Bismark just being a really really good oppurtunist but yeah, IF were put in MP it would ahve to be "scaled" so that you can have maybe the AIs still using it but other people not be lassoed into it, my biggest concern is getting declared war on players who wouldnt have otherwise but sticking into it now because "might as well".

 

[greendevil]

??
What stops the MP Players from holding the "conference", or any other diplo, in Chat instead of using this feature?

The absence of province trading!

 

[Sid Meier]

Why not have province trading but make the AI auto reject?

 

[Galaahd]

The absence of province trading!

lol

 

[unmerged(75409)]

The absence of province trading!

Ack!! Don't mention it. Makes my blood boil.