I like the fact that you might be forced to compromise in comparison to Vicky's win or lose!
Developer Diary 9 – Diplomacy
- Thread starter King
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Are there any plans to allow mediation between countries at war, or perhaps an option to force a country to offer peace? I always felt it was a shame I couldn't do anything to stop a war.
I think this can become a simple, yet interesting diplomatic option for Great Powers, where the Great Power(s) can pressure the aggressor in war to seek quicker peace through compromise.
I just copied this from the magna mundi forum, cause it equally applies here:
My wish for diplomacy is that it is actually there. I haven't played many of the recent Paradox titles, but what I always missed in the older titles was the actual diplomacy itself. What you used to have was a framework for diplomacy and the end result, but the actual diplomacy was never there.
What do I mean? I mean that there has to be meaningful interaction with allies and enemies. I don't want to declare war on someone and then having to find out how my allies feel about it. I want to be able to ask them beforehand and get a reasonable feel for their position. I also liked to be asked by allies what my position is on a possible action of theirs.
Similar I don't like every DOW to fall out of the blue sky. War most of the time wasn't just declared, it is almost always used by a country as the final consequence if a country wouldn't comply with their demands.
What would this mean in practise? It would mean that I first get message from another country that they want me to do this or to give up that and that relations would suffer if I don't comply. If I refuse sometime later I might get a second message that the country will strongly consider actions (for instance military) if I still refuse to comply. Before answering that message, I should be able to check with my allies and ask if they would support me in case of being DOW-ed by that specific country and/or it's alliance so I know how strongly I would stand.
If the diplomatic system is designed like that you will achieve two things:
1 Diplomacy will get a more realistic meaning, as in a means to try look after your nations interests in relation to other countries.
2 It becomes a lot more subtle, meaningful, rich, logical and thus fun in the process. It becomes more of a game in it self instead of a compilation of messages, information and "faits accompli".
My wish for diplomacy is that it is actually there. I haven't played many of the recent Paradox titles, but what I always missed in the older titles was the actual diplomacy itself. What you used to have was a framework for diplomacy and the end result, but the actual diplomacy was never there.
What do I mean? I mean that there has to be meaningful interaction with allies and enemies. I don't want to declare war on someone and then having to find out how my allies feel about it. I want to be able to ask them beforehand and get a reasonable feel for their position. I also liked to be asked by allies what my position is on a possible action of theirs.
Similar I don't like every DOW to fall out of the blue sky. War most of the time wasn't just declared, it is almost always used by a country as the final consequence if a country wouldn't comply with their demands.
What would this mean in practise? It would mean that I first get message from another country that they want me to do this or to give up that and that relations would suffer if I don't comply. If I refuse sometime later I might get a second message that the country will strongly consider actions (for instance military) if I still refuse to comply. Before answering that message, I should be able to check with my allies and ask if they would support me in case of being DOW-ed by that specific country and/or it's alliance so I know how strongly I would stand.
If the diplomatic system is designed like that you will achieve two things:
1 Diplomacy will get a more realistic meaning, as in a means to try look after your nations interests in relation to other countries.
2 It becomes a lot more subtle, meaningful, rich, logical and thus fun in the process. It becomes more of a game in it self instead of a compilation of messages, information and "faits accompli".
I always hated how Mexico was partitioned between France, Great Britain and who ever felt like it!
So if France (or whoever feels like it) adds a war goal asking Mexico for territorial concessions, would that trigger an U.S. reaction due to the Monroe Doctrine?
Similarly, if somebody attacks Switzerland, will the independence guarantee kick in? Swiss independence (in exchange for "eternal" neutrality) was guaranteed by the Big Five on the Congress of Vienna 1815.
As someone else already said: implementing this right will take quite an effort. But I sure hope you succeed!
Cheers,
Tully
Could something like a 'neutral status' be added? Declaring war such a neutral status (ie Switserland, and maybe Belgium) would take a massive prestige hit.
I guess there would have to be a double impact (national and international), but I was more thinking in war goals: If you guarantee independence to a country and come to its aid, will you automatically get a war goal "restoration of independance of ..."?
The tricky question is: What happens if one of your allies attacks a country you have guaranteed...
Weird things happened in the first versions of HoI3 even without this "complication"!Cheers,
Tully
Historically not all war goals were published (see Hitler-Stalin Pact: all goals were put down in a secret appendix).
So the question is: Can there be secret war goals and what happens if they are revealed? Espionage was not all that great in this period, but it did exist.
I would love to see more strategic options in diplomacy like having treaties and alliances coupled "future" war goals. Eg. if Osman Empire stays neutral in the Balkans it will be rewarded with parts of Georgia and Russian Armenia in a peace settlement.
Cheers,
Tully
of course, how else will you be bale to offer peace to them if you don't know what they are actually offering?
will we be able to see the goals of nations in wars we are not actually involved in?
To see what we would be fighting for before joining the fight
To see what we would be fighting for before joining the fight
I think, if in HttT it was possible to see CB other countries, in V2 too it will be possible.
I was just thinking that it'd be nice if diploannexation ala Europa Universalis was in. With this, the "Doctrine of Lapse" in India for example, as represented by event in VIP, could be simulated organically, and would be a useful thing all around.
What about settling border disputes via diplomacy? For instance, how the US and Britain settled on a border in the northwest.
It would be a case of US and USA agreeing not to found colonies (as the area in question was mostly vacant) and trading any existing ones they had on the other side of the line.
A dream option would be to have the option for big, multi-lateral conferences to divide up the map, like the one they had for Africa.
It would be a case of US and USA agreeing not to found colonies (as the area in question was mostly vacant) and trading any existing ones they had on the other side of the line.
A dream option would be to have the option for big, multi-lateral conferences to divide up the map, like the one they had for Africa.
at King:
is there any incentive for the player to claim rather ambitious war goals already at the beginning of the war instead of subsequently adding more war goals when you can already be quite sure to win? Having things at stake always adds immersion to a game.
I could imagine that the effect of adding war goals depends on the militarism of your population and war exhaustion. Hence, claiming ambitious goals in the beginning might have a more pronounced effect on the morals of the population than adding them later when their enthusiasm has already somewhat cooled of despite of a favourable course of the war. Have you considered things like that? If there is no incentive to announce war goals early on the human player will only claim goals that are in line with the course of the war. Thereby, a lot of the excitement that results from ambitious goals and the insecurity to achieve them will be lost. The player should really feel tempted to claim his "true" war goals very early on!
is there any incentive for the player to claim rather ambitious war goals already at the beginning of the war instead of subsequently adding more war goals when you can already be quite sure to win? Having things at stake always adds immersion to a game.
I could imagine that the effect of adding war goals depends on the militarism of your population and war exhaustion. Hence, claiming ambitious goals in the beginning might have a more pronounced effect on the morals of the population than adding them later when their enthusiasm has already somewhat cooled of despite of a favourable course of the war. Have you considered things like that? If there is no incentive to announce war goals early on the human player will only claim goals that are in line with the course of the war. Thereby, a lot of the excitement that results from ambitious goals and the insecurity to achieve them will be lost. The player should really feel tempted to claim his "true" war goals very early on!
Ok couldn't "Preserve the balance of War" war goal just mean keep the status quo, or return to prewar borders after the war?
Think it is a matter of national focus and available military units. No clue if some sort of "don't colonize here" diplomatic option will be in though, would probably be too easy for a human to abuse. Might make sense for EU3 as well.
King,
Tell please what for is necessary "Call Ally" function. I think, not all allies will participate in the certain war? We can choose, the help in war is necessary for us or not?
If I am right, it is magnificent.
Tell please what for is necessary "Call Ally" function. I think, not all allies will participate in the certain war? We can choose, the help in war is necessary for us or not?
If I am right, it is magnificent.
This would be a great addition - always a pain in EU3 to have your ally of some centuries drop you because some OPM declares war on you and they don't particularly feel like fighting them.