I was initially hesitant to talk about Diplomacy when I saw that a Vassal overhaul was already in the works, but it looks like that has been paused for now. War overhaul could easily stray into Diplomacy itself, but for now I'll assume that overhaul will be looking into battle/sieges etc. So I think it might be the right time to discuss potential changes that could be made to the Diplomacy side of IR.
I think it is a pretty uncontroversial opinion that this part of the game is still pretty barren at the moment and in need of changes, and IR has now started to show itself as willing to be a bit more innovative. So it might be worth throwing down some ideas of thing's we'd like to see flesh this out, and if any seem worthwhile, then put that aspect into the Senatus Populusque forum to vote on (closer to Mondays).
This is a bit of backseat driving, for which I apologise (but enjoy), but some ideas I've been playing around with, that kinda work together but could also have aspects taken out for their own sake:
I'm not a big fan of the copy-paste claims system that guides conquest in this game. It seems a little weird in this time period - what are we supposed to be fabricating? Who are we justifying ourselves to? How does our internal Political Power matter to the other states around us when conquering? Was this really a thing back then?
Likewise, I'm a little underwhelmed by the use of War Exhaustion in the game at the moment. I think the link between it and the growth of Military Traditions is really good, and does elevate it above the standard use of war weariness as a mechanic, but it is still something that doesn't really factor that much into my decision making, especially compared to something like Aggressive Expansion in the current verison of the game.
War Enthusiasm is likewise pretty much an AI-only consideration that I think should become a more formal consideration for players.
Enter Belligerence.
That was longer than I expected, so I'll hold off on the other sides for now. As referenced above, I'll be posting on ideas around:
"Tension", which I'm thinking of as a value that exists in each Province independent of the States that are present there, but is influenced by the actions of all of the States that are present there - and should guide countries into wars or Alliances. Not so subtly guided by HOI4 "World Tension", but instead regionalised.
"Regional Diplomats", which would piggyback on the Governor system in that you send one character per region, they set a Diplomatic Stance per province (rather than a national level diplomatic stance) in the same way governors have a Policy (using Charisma instead of Finesse), which in turn could heavily influence the overall Tension there, along with general relations, trade, access, oversight of Clients and so on. These characters then serve in between diplomatic actions, potentially gaining their own friends and power as they go (sticky fingered diplomats could get very wealthy from bribes, for example).
Finally on into Alliance/League/Hegemonies, and the various levels of Diplomatic Access/Control states could have over one another.
I think it is a pretty uncontroversial opinion that this part of the game is still pretty barren at the moment and in need of changes, and IR has now started to show itself as willing to be a bit more innovative. So it might be worth throwing down some ideas of thing's we'd like to see flesh this out, and if any seem worthwhile, then put that aspect into the Senatus Populusque forum to vote on (closer to Mondays).
This is a bit of backseat driving, for which I apologise (but enjoy), but some ideas I've been playing around with, that kinda work together but could also have aspects taken out for their own sake:
I'm not a big fan of the copy-paste claims system that guides conquest in this game. It seems a little weird in this time period - what are we supposed to be fabricating? Who are we justifying ourselves to? How does our internal Political Power matter to the other states around us when conquering? Was this really a thing back then?
Likewise, I'm a little underwhelmed by the use of War Exhaustion in the game at the moment. I think the link between it and the growth of Military Traditions is really good, and does elevate it above the standard use of war weariness as a mechanic, but it is still something that doesn't really factor that much into my decision making, especially compared to something like Aggressive Expansion in the current verison of the game.
War Enthusiasm is likewise pretty much an AI-only consideration that I think should become a more formal consideration for players.
Enter Belligerence.
Belligerence
I propose looking into changing the way wars work by changing War Exhaustion as a state-level indicator into a new one called Belligerence, which would also take over from the war-level War Enthusiasm factor. This would balance out at 0 and vary positive or negative (or with the current design ethos, rest at 50 and vary above/below this, though I preferred the 0-based numbering personally). Negative values indicate a state where the people are generally opposed to war, and occupy a similar space to the current War Weariness; Positive values would indicate a people clamouring after war. I'm not sure a "Decay" system would work for this, I'd be more inclined to look to the "World Tension" model from HOI4 - there are transient factors that come into play, positive or negative, that reduce over time back to zero - more like Opinion and Loyalty are now.
The general game loop that I'd like to see result from this mechanic is that a state that wants to go to war would seek to pump up this number in order to do so, but war itself would drag the value down. Essentially, it would take over the boom-bust mechanic of AE, but focusing on the internal side of things rather than AE, which should be handling how foreign states respond to you. Likewise, bringing down the Belligerence of the enemy through inflicting War Exhaustion would be a more explicit goal in wars where you want to bring them to the table for peace talks.
Finally, as always, Belligerence should come with a Map Mode whereby we can view the Belligerence of all States (that we have information for)
I propose looking into changing the way wars work by changing War Exhaustion as a state-level indicator into a new one called Belligerence, which would also take over from the war-level War Enthusiasm factor. This would balance out at 0 and vary positive or negative (or with the current design ethos, rest at 50 and vary above/below this, though I preferred the 0-based numbering personally). Negative values indicate a state where the people are generally opposed to war, and occupy a similar space to the current War Weariness; Positive values would indicate a people clamouring after war. I'm not sure a "Decay" system would work for this, I'd be more inclined to look to the "World Tension" model from HOI4 - there are transient factors that come into play, positive or negative, that reduce over time back to zero - more like Opinion and Loyalty are now.
The general game loop that I'd like to see result from this mechanic is that a state that wants to go to war would seek to pump up this number in order to do so, but war itself would drag the value down. Essentially, it would take over the boom-bust mechanic of AE, but focusing on the internal side of things rather than AE, which should be handling how foreign states respond to you. Likewise, bringing down the Belligerence of the enemy through inflicting War Exhaustion would be a more explicit goal in wars where you want to bring them to the table for peace talks.
Influence Factors
- Positive Factors (On the icon, have a +/- like in Stability to indicate overall direction of travel)
- Political Action: The main way to increase Belligerence during peacetime would be through dedicating Political Influence into it (rabble rousing speeches, however you want to put it to get the public onside), taking over from the "Invoke Devotio" action.
- Factors such as Leader Popularity/Legitimacy/Senate Support and Tyranny could influence the efficacy of using this Political Action.
- Overpopulation: going over the Pop Cap in a particular territory could generate Belligerence in addition to Unrest.
- Excess Manpower: reaching your Manpower Cap should transform excess Manpower into Belligerence.
- This way, even if you are trying to play peacefully, there is going to be some latent Belligerence you'll want to deal with; perhaps handled by sending out troops as Mercenaries.
- If a Levy style system is introduced, this would no longer work and would need a different influence.
- High Average Tension across Provinces: see "Regional Tension" section.
- This means as a state gets larger, they are more likely to have a core of provinces away from the borderlands, which are therefore Low Tension, making it harder to convince that population that they want to go to war
- Without Tension as a game mechanic, this would also include actions such as having your borders violated, or being raided.
- If Diplomats are introduced, their Diplomatic Stances in each Province would influence the Tension there, which in turn would influence the Belligerence of every state with a territory there. Without Diplomats, the state-level Diplomatic Stance would effect Belligerence instead.
- Time at War: when war begins, Belligerence should recieve a boost, however as months pass this value goes from a Positive contributor down into a Negative one.
- Cause for War: when a state is the one that is attacked, they should recieve a much larger boost to Belligerence than when they are the ones that initiate war. The trick of war is then to provoke the enemy into being the aggressor - or at least convincing your people this is the case.
- Political Action: The main way to increase Belligerence during peacetime would be through dedicating Political Influence into it (rabble rousing speeches, however you want to put it to get the public onside), taking over from the "Invoke Devotio" action.
- Negative Factors
- Low Stability: it should be harder to get the public to support warmongering when they are already fractured.
- Alternatively, have Stability be impacted by Belligerence
- High Aggressive Expansion: I'd be inclined to have this system replace AE's current impact on stability directly, but I'm not convinced either way here.
- Low Average Tension: see "Regional Tension" section
- Time at War: the longer a state is continuously at war, the more this factor builds up as a negative, representing war weariness. Only when war ends can this factor decay away back to zero.
- War Exhaustion Factors: having your Territories Occupied (esp Regional and State Capitals), Ports/Trade Routes blockaded, Manpower/Levies attritioned/lost.
- Low Stability: it should be harder to get the public to support warmongering when they are already fractured.
- Positive or Negative Factors
- Political Faction Control: different Faction control (senate/leadership) could provide passive impacts on Belligerence, for example Boni/Traditionalists could decrease it, while Populares could increase it
- Character Schemes: characters with high Popularity/Prominence can independently rabble-rouse to push up state Belligerence, or make more conciliatory speeches in order to bring it down
- Rabble-rousing probably selected as a Scheme by characters of warmongering Factions, else by characters with high Martial
- Opposition probably selected by characters of Dovish factions
- Missions
Effects
- Neutral Belligerence
- Peak Happiness point for non-Integrated Cultures, and for Integrated Cultures while NOT at War
- Ticking increase for Stability, you gain as your population isn't agitating for War, nor exhausted from it
- High Belligerence (change icon to have our little legionary lifting his sword up rather than cowering behind a sword down)
- Integrated Culture Happiness is reduced when NOT at War
- non-Integrated Culture Happiness is reduced - belligerent states aren't great places to be as "foreigners"
- Ticking decrease for Stability when NOT at War, population is agitating for it and the state risks losing control without the war desired
- Cohort Morale is increased, Manpower Recovery is increased
- If a Pop-Cohort direct relationship is introduced, decrease costs of Levying them instead
- Internal Costs of Declaring War are reduced (external costs, eg Opinion, should remain handled by Aggressive Expansion)
- Internal Costs should include Stability Costs/PI Costs that scale with the "Our Opinion of Them" and Tension in the Wargoal Province
- Characters should probably have Loyalty impacts from War Declarations too
- AI would be less likely to accept peace
- Perhaps also introduce Internal Costs of Accepting Peace (on unfavourable terms?)
- Tension is increased in every Province you are Contesting
- This will in turn increase the Belligerence of other states there, creating a feedback loop that pushes both sides into wanting war with each other
- Low Belligerence (aka War Exhaustion, icon as now)
- Integrated and non-Integrated Culture Population Happiness is reduced when at War
- It feels a bit more odd in this framework, but maybe keep the Military Tradition buff on this side of the equation too, maybe you can argue that having the population clamouring for war makes them less innovative in how they go about warring, or something like that idk
- Ticking decrease for Stability when at War, as the population is agitating for peace
- Cohort Morale is reduced, Manpower recovery is decreased
- Internal Costs of Declaring War are increased
- AI would be more likely to accept peace (reflecting the actual decreases in their capacity to sustain war while their population opposes it)
- If there are Internal Costs of Accepting Peace (on unfavourable terms), then Low Belligerence should heavily reduce them, as the population is willing to accept more to attain peace
- Other AI states may take War Exhaustion as a factor inducing them to attack a state when it is weakened by it; but being attacked would push Belligerence up again!
- Tension is decreased in every Province you are Contesting
- Integrated and non-Integrated Culture Population Happiness is reduced when at War
That was longer than I expected, so I'll hold off on the other sides for now. As referenced above, I'll be posting on ideas around:
"Tension", which I'm thinking of as a value that exists in each Province independent of the States that are present there, but is influenced by the actions of all of the States that are present there - and should guide countries into wars or Alliances. Not so subtly guided by HOI4 "World Tension", but instead regionalised.
"Regional Diplomats", which would piggyback on the Governor system in that you send one character per region, they set a Diplomatic Stance per province (rather than a national level diplomatic stance) in the same way governors have a Policy (using Charisma instead of Finesse), which in turn could heavily influence the overall Tension there, along with general relations, trade, access, oversight of Clients and so on. These characters then serve in between diplomatic actions, potentially gaining their own friends and power as they go (sticky fingered diplomats could get very wealthy from bribes, for example).
Finally on into Alliance/League/Hegemonies, and the various levels of Diplomatic Access/Control states could have over one another.
Last edited:
- 5
Upvote
0