As we'll likely be getting a diplomacy revamp sometime in the next few updates, there's a design philosophy discussion that I think needs to be had.
Diplomacy mechanics in strategy games are usually just there for single player, and are an utterly superfluous joke in multiplayer. Opinion modifiers do not matter, because only the AI cares about them. Likewise, formal agreements and alliances give no indication of actual diplomatic orientation. Any real multplayer diplomacy takes place in private chat, totally circumventing all other mechanics.
Stellaris is not alone in suffering from this problem. This problem is common. It is accepted that SP and MP are just different games and it's totally fine if none of the diplomacy mechanics apply. The result is that SP diplomacy is left feeling contrived and simplistic, while MP diplomacy can't reward and enhance the roleplay element of empire choices; it just sits atop the world as some powergamey aberration while your Fanatic Spiritualists casually ally with Fanatic Materialists.
It does not have to be this way.
The issue is that so much of diplomacy is made to rest on opinion and manipulating it when it holds no real value for non-AI opponents. That's not a given; that's a faulty design choice. The solution is to simply replace asymmetric mechanics with symmetrical ones that effect players the same as the AI.
The fear here is that players will complain about control being taken out of their hands by "gamey" mechanics, but this is selective indignation. How is it any less gamey to have to spend influence on edicts, claims and outposts? Politics requires this kind of thing. Even if both "executives" want something to happen, they have vast armies of NPC underlings and interest groups they must convince to go along with it. You cannot force too many drastic changes too quickly. You have to steward and spend political capital to do such things, and depending on your ethic and government choices some decisions are harder sells than others.
Whenever strategy games accept this and build mechanics with this realization in mind, the multiplayer design improves dramatically. Now all of a sudden global and internal politics are strings you must carefully pluck to achieve your player goals. You can no longer circumvent the process with meta. The result is deeper mechanics, greater immersion and symmetry between SP and MP game dynamics.
Paradox has been very wise to apply this philosophy to many of their other games. Stellaris would benefit from the same.
In HOI4 you straight up cannot make certain diplomatic decisions unless World Tension is high enough. Period. Regardless of what the players behind the flags want to do. A standard MP game as the USA involves constant finagling to persuade your people and government to become more involved in the war, and to eventually join it. Just like it was in real in real life.
It's an investment to create a system that accomplishes this, but ultimately less of an investment than trying to balance MP and SP independently from each other.
Diplomacy mechanics in strategy games are usually just there for single player, and are an utterly superfluous joke in multiplayer. Opinion modifiers do not matter, because only the AI cares about them. Likewise, formal agreements and alliances give no indication of actual diplomatic orientation. Any real multplayer diplomacy takes place in private chat, totally circumventing all other mechanics.
Stellaris is not alone in suffering from this problem. This problem is common. It is accepted that SP and MP are just different games and it's totally fine if none of the diplomacy mechanics apply. The result is that SP diplomacy is left feeling contrived and simplistic, while MP diplomacy can't reward and enhance the roleplay element of empire choices; it just sits atop the world as some powergamey aberration while your Fanatic Spiritualists casually ally with Fanatic Materialists.
It does not have to be this way.
The issue is that so much of diplomacy is made to rest on opinion and manipulating it when it holds no real value for non-AI opponents. That's not a given; that's a faulty design choice. The solution is to simply replace asymmetric mechanics with symmetrical ones that effect players the same as the AI.
- Opinions could apply hard limits on player actions. So for example you cannot ally with someone unless you have a good opinion with them and they with you, regardless of whether both players want to. Relations are resources you have to steward, just as you steward your economy and military.
- Diplomatic actions could cost influence/energy. Shit does not come for free. You have to spend political capital to get things out of another government, even one headed by a player. If spending influence for each deal would be tedious and prohibitive, at least allow it for more difficult and significant deals, perhaps as part of a more fleshed out diplomatic combat system.
- Alliances, Guarantees and the like could provide straight mechanical bonuses on top of the diplomatic status change itself, so that there's actually a reason to pay the influence cost on these. Defensive Pacts could provide combat bonuses in eachother's territories during a defensive war and allow upgrading at each others starports. Federations could have their own civics, applying bonuses to members but requiring commitments to certain stances and actions. Without mechanical bonuses there's no point, and people will opt for chat-based realpolitik instead.
The fear here is that players will complain about control being taken out of their hands by "gamey" mechanics, but this is selective indignation. How is it any less gamey to have to spend influence on edicts, claims and outposts? Politics requires this kind of thing. Even if both "executives" want something to happen, they have vast armies of NPC underlings and interest groups they must convince to go along with it. You cannot force too many drastic changes too quickly. You have to steward and spend political capital to do such things, and depending on your ethic and government choices some decisions are harder sells than others.
Whenever strategy games accept this and build mechanics with this realization in mind, the multiplayer design improves dramatically. Now all of a sudden global and internal politics are strings you must carefully pluck to achieve your player goals. You can no longer circumvent the process with meta. The result is deeper mechanics, greater immersion and symmetry between SP and MP game dynamics.
Paradox has been very wise to apply this philosophy to many of their other games. Stellaris would benefit from the same.
In HOI4 you straight up cannot make certain diplomatic decisions unless World Tension is high enough. Period. Regardless of what the players behind the flags want to do. A standard MP game as the USA involves constant finagling to persuade your people and government to become more involved in the war, and to eventually join it. Just like it was in real in real life.
It's an investment to create a system that accomplishes this, but ultimately less of an investment than trying to balance MP and SP independently from each other.
Last edited: