• 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.

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
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.

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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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
Finally, as always, Belligerence should come with a Map Mode whereby we can view the Belligerence of all States (that we have information for)

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:
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Upvote 0

Todie

Doer of things and stuff in the videogame
38 Badges
Mar 9, 2018
1.963
2.090
www.twitch.tv
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • War of the Roses
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Magicka 2
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
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.
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.
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.
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.

Interesting stuff..!

If I were you I'd think more and look to elaborate on in particular political action, cause of war and aggressive expansion- with regard in particular to how you would propose these aspects of a belligerence system would relate to the way they are currently represented in the game; political action and cause of war has a lot to do with claim-fabrication and other means of getting a cb, like insults, threats or demanding access.

also, if Belligerence is to replace war exhaustion, in what ways would it replace that which is currently the impact of WE ? would one of the impacts still be pop unhappiness? would belligerence impact from different sources shift depending on modifiers and circumstances?


... its a cool idea. at some point you probably want to narrow it down and focus on the core coolest / most important aspects, then open doors for adding more to it and on how it could tie in with established systems that already solidly exist in the game.
 

Rabid

Field Marshal
40 Badges
Jan 4, 2008
4.047
3.417
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
I rather like your diplomat idea. This could work functionally as a combination of many of the current diplomatic options, and perhaps a bit like diplomats in CK2. I think it has a lot of potential; one small issue is that if diplomats are to be individual characters then this would give you very many more offices to fill with some corresponding issues (pay, and the ability to make more happy families). So I would suggest that simply the regional diplomacy mechanic is put forward as another competence of the regional governer. Not only does this make governers even more powerful but it also makes their traits and stats more important. You might let an administratively weak but diplomatically brilliant governor control a particular border if you want to try to peacefully integrate minor powers there into your empire, for example.

I'll be honest, I think many of the items you've only touched on sound more interesting than reworking war exhaustion. I can appreciate what you're getting at, but I don't see how it would improve the gameplay much. We have existing systems which can achieve many of the same things with less work.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Tension

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
Thanks both!
I had originally mapped out a nice order of how each idea flowed to the next (Belligerence gives a state level feedback loop with Tension, Tension is mostly influenced by Diplomats, Diplomats should be the route to handle these other aspects of the diplo game) - but the story grew in the telling. I had work to go to, so just cut off there and dumped the cliffnotes! Belligerence was a bit of a "missing piece" for me, and I thought about it most recently - but I totally get that with the existing set of systems, it adds by far the least to the game by itself! I could never do sales...
I'll try to get another section down and then get back to the (very good) feedback. Detaching parts of this from the whole for use with existing systems is definitely something I'd want before moving forum!

Regional Tension
So leading on from the idea of Belligerence as a state-level indicator, I come back to my issue with the current war gameplay loop. Currently we have a system with very few Cassus Belli, and almost every war comes from the Claim system, which essentially trades Political Influence for reductions in War Cost (external from AE, and internal from WE and Stability). It's a little...bland? It doesn't really feel like there's anything actually going on between you and the state you're going to declare on beyond the opinion modifier. There's nothing that either side can do to really dissuade the other, or obstruct their path to legitimate invasions.

My proposal is essentially that every Province* would have its own value (let's say from 0-100) that exists independently of any particular state, but naturally is observed by each state that has any territory in that Province. The general idea is that a Province with very little Tension will incur higher Internal Costs for any state to initiate a war in, as there is little appetite for it in the populace; whereas a Province with high Tensions is absolutely ripe for being the trigger for a war. I'd also hope that this value could also be something that the AI can use to set priorities, as having to raise Tension in a region would act similarly as claims do now for warning a state that, hey, war is going to happen here. However, beyond the AI, it would be good to have actual consequences for players, and hopefully allow for a bit more depth in justifying wars in general.

A major issue with having this defined purely at a Provincial level, is that we will generally see Provincial borders become state borders; so I think this will mean that calculations will usually have to take into account actions in adjacent Provinces also, which I can see making things pretty complicated pretty fast. Let alone talking about potential Naval invasions, so it might be that we have to include as adjacent any state where migration could happen to a territory in that province... Not a part of this I'm happy with.

*I know Regions are a level above Provinces, but Provincial Tension just sounds weird to me.

Influence Factors
  • Positive or Negative
    • Aggressive Expansion values of all states with a Territory inside, or ajdacent to, the Province
      • Note that this is opening up war for Aggressive states, by reducing Internal Costs for them; but it is also opening up the likelihood of a war on every front they have from other states, ideally forming coalitions against them
      • The idea being that AE doesn't punish Internally by itself, it instead causes everyone around you to fear and oppose you, as you're causing Tension in every province. This continues even as your state loses the willingness to fight as you lower your Belligerence through extended time at war
    • Belligerence values of all states with a Territory inside, or adjacent to, the Province.
      • Weight of each State in this calculation could scale with size, could be based simply on their Rank (Great Power etc).
    • Diplomatic Stances of every Diplomat in the Province.
      • "Appeasing" style stances naturally decrease Tension, while "Bellicose" style stances would increase Tension, "Subjugative" stances could reduce Tension that comes from your Subject States, and so on.
      • Diplomat efficacy, mainly from Charisma, would influence the relative effects of each Diplomat.
      • More generally, Diplomatic actions (Demands, Threats, Bribes/Tribute etc) would have wider effects within the neighbourhood of the participating states by contributing to the Tension in the region.
    • Governor Policy of every Governor in the Province
      • For example, a Governor Policy of Religious Conversion could contribute Tension for all other states in the Province that have that Religion in their Pantheon (so it could be useful to include a religion in your Pantheon, just so you can "protect" those people from conversion); or the Assimilation Policy could generate tension from other states that accept a Culture that you're now assimilating...and so on.
      • As noted above, merging the Diplomat/Governor roles is a good option if Character numbers are a concern! That could give another choice when sending someone to a factured Region - do I care more about their ability to govern (Finesse), their diplomacy (Charisma), their ability to lead troops (Martial) or Loyalty?
    • Missions and Events
      • For example, helping Political refugees could spark Tension in any shared Provinces.
  • Increasing Tension
    • Presence of Military Forces within the Province, or adjacent Provinces.
      • Even moreso for Military Forces that are Drilling.
    • Fortifications
      • Not sure which side these should be on really, if either. On one hand, fortifying can be considered aggressive, while demilitarising would be reducing tension; on the other hand fortifications could be considered as contributing to the stability of the current Balance of Power
    • Violation of Border arrangements, border skirmishes and raids
      • I think borders should generally be a bit more fluid than they are now, I'll try to discuss this along with Diplomatic Access/Control.
    • Diplomatic Actions: Declarations of War, Insults, Demands etc.
    • Unrest and Starvation could all be argued to contribute too.
  • Decreasing Tension
    • By far the largest source should be Peace declarations. Note that this does not mean full Annexations, as they aren't agreements.
    • Alliances, Guarantees and Leagues, especially between those present in the Province.
    • Other Diplomatic Actions: offering subjugations, rather than having them demanded, should really reduce hostilities in a region. This would work well with a more gradiated form of submission than the current Master-Subject exclusive forms we have now. So currently you can offer Military Access, but potentially you could go a step further and offer Military Access with Supply, which would reduce Tensions more, but obviously could put strain on your food supply. Or perhaps you could offer Manpower Tribute/Levy Obligations, without necessarily being a Diplomatic subject, and so on.
Effects
  • High Tension
    • Decreased Internal Costs of Declaring Wars, where the Wargoal involves this Province, or other states projecting power in the Province. This could be applied generally, or more ideally if a particular source of Tension gets high enough, a new CB could become available.
      • You could have a system where the Overall Tension reduces the threshold to unlock a CB from a particular Source of Tension, or something like that.
      • As above, I would generally have Stability/Tyranny/Legitimacy/Senate Approval costs that come from War Declarations scale more directly with "Our Opinion of Them".
      • These costs would therefore be reduced when attacking states our people like, if there is High Tension.
      • Could even argue to get benefits from attacking a state where your people have a very low opinion of them.
    • Polarising Opinions: I would heighten the effectiveness of Opinion modifiers between states where they share a High Tension Province. This should help bring together "sides" in the Province. Only when Tensions die down is there then likely a chance for a diplomatic quadrille to come about.
      • High Tension and Good Relationship --> Banding together even more
      • High Tension and Bad Relationship --> Hating each other even more, and wanting to go to war
  • Low Tension
    • Increased Internal Costs of Declaring Wars: pretty much reverse of the above.
    • The obvious benefit to me of maintaining a Low Tension border should be in Commerce. Whether this be a simple modifier to commerce income, or the ability for Nobles and Citizens to generate Trade Routes, I'm ambivalent.
      • If Belligerence is skipped over, then it could be argued to just directly influence happiness in the Province.
    • Increased Migration Speed?
Once again, Tension should come with a Map Mode whereby we can see the levels of Tension by province.

Next post should be Diplomats, which is probably the meat of what I actually wanted to say, but naturally put it way too late :rolleyes:
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Rabid

Field Marshal
40 Badges
Jan 4, 2008
4.047
3.417
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
That sounds fun, claims just kind of appearing out of nowhere magically has always been a bit weird. Echoes of some V2 mechanics in a few places (crises, colonial escalation). More organic systems like this are always good, as long as the player feels like he can put a good controlling thumb on the scales to get the desired outcome.

With that said, the focus on this being handled on a per-province basis sounds like it could be a bit awkward to manage particularly as you grow and have more border to cover (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is worth considering). It also restricts you to influencing neighbouring states only. I wonder if perhaps we could borrow an idea from EU4 - instead of this being regionalised, we take the same sort of ideas, but instead of having regional "stances" they are dealt with on a per-state basis. I'm not sure how well your proposed system would work for something like a border between two major powers containing a number of minor powers, but it would work perfectly with EU4's diplomatic attitudes system; the major powers are hostile or rivals towards one another, and both have friendly or domineering attitudes towards the minor states. You could still have the diplomatic influence of the regional governers felt in these interactions, retaining the implications of that, without the actual decisions being made on a province (or regional) basis.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

Jays298

Lt. General
16 Badges
Mar 21, 2011
1.387
2.199
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Imperator: Rome
I agree with the idea of a "thirst for conquest" mechanic but not so much regional diplomacy.

Maybe further development of regional loyalty / disloyalty / rebellions, etc.
 

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
That sounds fun, claims just kind of appearing out of nowhere magically has always been a bit weird. Echoes of some V2 mechanics in a few places (crises, colonial escalation). More organic systems like this are always good, as long as the player feels like he can put a good controlling thumb on the scales to get the desired outcome.

With that said, the focus on this being handled on a per-province basis sounds like it could be a bit awkward to manage particularly as you grow and have more border to cover (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is worth considering).

Yeah, this is definitely good feedback, I think in trying to get Diplomacy on the map, I've probably focussed too much on trying to use the existing map divisions. You can probably see the second guessing there as I tortured the general idea into handling borders, so I think this is definitely something I need to rethink!

It also restricts you to influencing neighbouring states only. I wonder if perhaps we could borrow an idea from EU4 - instead of this being regionalised, we take the same sort of ideas, but instead of having regional "stances" they are dealt with on a per-state basis. I'm not sure how well your proposed system would work for something like a border between two major powers containing a number of minor powers, but it would work perfectly with EU4's diplomatic attitudes system; the major powers are hostile or rivals towards one another, and both have friendly or domineering attitudes towards the minor states. You could still have the diplomatic influence of the regional governers felt in these interactions, retaining the implications of that, without the actual decisions being made on a province (or regional) basis.

I'm definitely going to have a bit more of a think before the next part!

My next step was broadly going to to be bring in Diplomats appointed to Regions, so that every Capital based in that Region would imply that the state there was under the remit of that Diplomat; however they could only have Diplomatic Stances facing each one of them per Province. I was moving towards this idea simply because the current map currently starts out incredibly fractured in many parts, and by clustering diplomacy it would reduce the amount of states you'd have to handle in general, rather than having 7 different relationships with the 7 states in a Province, you'd set a general policy for the region, and that would guide your relationship with all 7. The place where this absolutely falls down is when dealing with larger powers, who are spread across multiple Provinces; and in trying to handle important players that are more distant to you, but nonetheless relevant to interact with. Carthage-Rome being the obviously important case, we shouldn't have to wait until they're butting heads in Sicily or Spain to have diplomatic relations.

Maybe something more of a compromise is that Diplomatic Stances can only be assigned to a Province with at least one Foreign Capital. This would retrict cases where there are two big powers with a border across a ton of Provinces, there would only be one Diplomatic Stance for them, set in their Capital Province. This Diplomatic Stance would then flow into every part of their border and help guide the Tension in all of those Provinces. However, if there are a load of buffer states between them, then I think it might be easier to handle a Diplomatic Stance along the borderlands at a Provincial rather than per-state level.

I was initially planning to distribute Diplomatic Slots (to replace the Diplomatic Relations cap) as follows: Capital Region defaults to Ruler, each Region that has a Governor (ie you haven't completely annexed the entire Region) would give a free Diplomat Slot (I would now add in the condition that a Foreign Capital exists in the Region); there would also be one dedicated slot for your League/Overlord, should that exist. To send a Diplomat to any other region would require a hefty PI and Gold cost to "Establish Diplomat" or something like that. I think this should keep the number of Character slots required pretty low, unless you're a state that covers an awful lot of Regions that contain foreign capitals, in which case I'd argue that you're overextending and struggling for decent Administration should be a consequence of that.

Sidenote: I really need to get better at reducing verbosity :oops:
 

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
Interesting stuff..!

If I were you I'd think more and look to elaborate on in particular political action, cause of war and aggressive expansion- with regard in particular to how you would propose these aspects of a belligerence system would relate to the way they are currently represented in the game; political action and cause of war has a lot to do with claim-fabrication and other means of getting a cb, like insults, threats or demanding access.

also, if Belligerence is to replace war exhaustion, in what ways would it replace that which is currently the impact of WE ? would one of the impacts still be pop unhappiness? would belligerence impact from different sources shift depending on modifiers and circumstances?


... its a cool idea. at some point you probably want to narrow it down and focus on the core coolest / most important aspects, then open doors for adding more to it and on how it could tie in with established systems that already solidly exist in the game.
Broadly, thanks! On the last point, definitely agree - I definitely suffered from trying to put everything down in one go, so picking out smaller parts that work by themselves is definitely something I'm after before putting them forward as actual proposals or anything.

For the Belligerence-War Exhaustion comparison, I've pretty much left WE intact as the negative side of Belligerence - including Happiness Penalties and the sources of WE counting as negative values towards Belligerence. They aren't really opposites, but for the purpose of game mechanics it seemed to work nicely to me.
 
Regional Diplomats

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
Apologies for the hiatus before the more interesting part - here goes:

Regional Diplomats
The proposal is the indroduction of a new office for Characters - the Diplomat. This would be an office where there are a variable number of slots to be assigned, that increases with the size of a state; where the key personal attribute is Charisma. This makes it the counterpart to the Martial offices (General/Admiral), and more similarly the Finesse office (Governor). Zeal Offices should be created for large Holy Sites.

Diplomats would be assigned to a Region, but have the capacity to set a Diplomatic Stance at a Province level, just as Governors are assigned to a Region and have a Governor Policy per province. Just as Governors will only set a Policy per Province where there is some annexed territory, a Diplomat will only be able to set a Diplomatic Policy in a Province that contains a foreign capital.
For a Diplomat that is assigned to a Region dominated by a single state, they may effectively just become your Diplomat to that one state by setting their Diplomatic Stance in the Capital Province; however in a very fractured Region, there may be various Provinces where they can set different Diplomatic Stances, and they could generalise policy across a number of smaller states.
Note: If there is a Region that is wholly dominated by a power with their capital elsewhere, then there would be no available Provinces to set a Diplomatic Stance for, and thus there would be no slot to assign a Diplomat for anyone. So if you grow into a Major Power that fully owns many of your Regions, there is every chance you would see the number of Diplomats you employ begin to stabilise or even decrease, unless you prefer to keep a ton of Client States within your empire.

I would not have any of these offices be exclusive (General/Governor/Diplomat), just as currently Governors can act as Generals within their Region. Indeed, I would prefer there to be some synergy bonuses to come from them, generally at the cost of Powerbase. When selecting someone to take up an office, I'd have the counterparts appear at the top of the list for selection, to make it clear who they are.
  • General + Governor: As now, troops that are commanded by a Governor provide a reduction in Unrest.
    • I'd personally add a caveat that a Governor's Martial ability should be divided (rounding down) across every separate army under their command, to temper the usefulness of this in place of a dedicated General.
    • I'd even go as far as to make the presumptive General of an army with no assigned General to be the Regional governor - ie the Governor claims some Powerbase from them, to help undermine the exploit of having nobody command an army in peacetime. Recuiting to an existing army should bypass this though.
  • General + Diplomat: Diplomats in command of troops should exert greater threat in all of their Diplomatic Policies, if it exists: Tension.
    • Tempting to also make them more efficient at extracting Tribute/Obligations - so maybe provide increases in efficacy of Bellicose/Subjugative/Exploitative Diplomatic Stances
  • Governor + Diplomat: Governors who control Diplomacy in their Region should have bonuses towards diplomacy with Client States, notably Integration.

The question then becomes how to determine where you will be assigning Diplomats. I think a general approach of assigning free slots for various Regions alongside the option to "Establish Diplomat" in any other Region (within Diplomatic Range, if that remains a thing, which I hope is altered) for some cost should generally work. For free slots I would propose:
  • Similar to how Governors work, the Leader would be fixed as the free Diplomat within the home Region, so very small states may be unlikely to need to assign any Regional Diplomats until they get larger, and retains some Powerbase potential for the Leader.
  • Any Region in which you hold direct Territory, and there exists a Foreign Capital, would provide a Slot.
  • Any Region in which you control a Client would provide a free Diplomat Slot, as they would be required for oversight there.
  • For any foreign state that you border, their Capital Region (and the Capital Region of their overlord, should they have one), would grant a slot. This is likely to overlap heavily with Regions where you control territory (as that is how you border things after all), but should ensure Diplomatic relations with any large states that are playing in your neighbourhood.
This is scaled back from the earlier version where you could set different Stances across every Province with a Foreign presence - I agree that would quickly have gotten messy. This reduced form pretty much brings things back to having one Diplomat per Major Power, but also the potential for them to set policies that affect many states in fractured areas, rather than having to waste a Diplomat at each of the City States.


So cool, rules established for where they can exist, but what is their point/what do they do? Well simply, they create personalised impacts into the Diplomacy game - excellent Diplomats should grant you advantages in pursuing your diplomatic goals in a Region, be they engineering wars, extracting resources, conducting espionage if this becomes a more relevant factor in the game, persuading others to join your cause, or smoothing over affairs with your neighbours; while terrible Diplomats may be corruptly enriching themselves from the bribes and tribute that should be making it to you, pissing off your allies or even instagating a war you didn't really want yet.

  • Charisma: Fundamental Attribute, determines the general efficacy of every Diplomatic Stance.
  • Corruption: Dictates how much the Character siphons off Tribute and Bribes into their own personal wealth. Generally applies a smaller Opinion Penalty with all foreign states under their remit.
  • Statesmanship: I wouldn't have Statesmanship modify ability here, following the general model of the game, but holding the office would give growth.
  • Friendships/Rivalries: Diplomats that are Friends with any Leaders/Diplomats within their Region will have more powerful Diplomatic Stance effects on that state; the reverse is true for Rivals. Both are much more likely to occur - ideally Friendships should be much more likely to occur with matching non-Antagonistic Stances, while Rivalries would be likely with mutual Antagonistic Stances.
    • However, foreign states should generally be much more likely to enter Civil Wars started by their Friends, which could make Diplomats very dangerous should they end up opposing you.
  • Loyalty: Disloyal Diplomats will not be sackable without a Trial, will set their own Diplomatic Stances that cannot be altered, will siphon all Bribes and Tribute regardless of Corruption.

Changing Diplomatic Stances would be through Political Influence and Tyranny, just as with changing Governor Policies. Though I think for both that Tyranny costs should scale down with Loyalty. I don't know what the optimal number of Diplomatic Stances should be, but ideally fewer than the massive list of Governor Policies we have at the moment, which should probably be consolidated tbh.

For now I'll just translate the existing State-level Diplomatic Stances into potential Provincial Stances, but this could easily be thrown open a bit more, especially if there is more expansion in the options for Obligations and Agreements between states. Needs work, but:
  • Bellicose
    • Reduces mutual opinion of non-Allied States present in this Province.
    • If a Claims system is used rather than a Tension system, then either reduce claim cost in this Province, or passively generate claims over time, rather than manually pressing claims on individual states; and have the claims potentially decay when not Bellicose.
    • Increases Tension in this Province by a large factor; increases tension in all provinces shared by you and any foreign states present in this Province.
  • Appeasing
    • Increases foreign opinion of all states present in this Province, up to a cap determined by overall Efficacy (ie mostly from Charisma).
    • Decreases Tension.
  • Mercentile
    • Increases trade value when Importing from this Province.
    • Increases mutual opinion of all other Mercentile states present in this Province.
    • Decreases Tension, perhaps modified by the value of mutual trade routes.
  • Subjugative
    • Increases Subject Loyalty
      • Perhaps based partially on presence of troops providing a threat?
    • Reduces foreign opinion from all other states in the Province.
    • Vastly improves Integration Speed (maybe even make it a prerequisite to Integrate at all?)
    • For any expanded sets of Oligations/Agreements, should provide a bonus to creating Demands for Obligations (increasing internal costs for the foreign state to reject such demands)
  • Exploitative?
    • Increase efficiency of gathering Tribute from states in this Province (not necessarily just Clients).
      • Perhaps a Stance only available to Diplomats who are also Generals?
      • Perhaps efficacy can depend on Troops commanded by the Diplomat relative to troops in the state paying tribute
    • Bonus to creating Demand for Obligations.
    • Increases Tension.

I also think as well as Regional slots for Diplomats, there should be one other source of diplomatic-dealings to appoint Characters to that would behave differently - as your Representative to any League you are a member of...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
Assuming everything up to this point is TLDR territory, I'll just bullet some maybes for more granular state-state diplomatic actions:
  • Military Access - I would remove the current default, where for most non-Tribal nations any Trespass requires a Declaration of War
    • Hostile: Foreign armies may enter, but they can be attacked by the holders without declaration of war, opinion penalty
      • Ideally there should be some potential benefit to "Raiding" armies in general, perhaps converting their supplies into gold for you
    • Neutral: Foreign armies may enter at opinon cost
    • Open: Foreign armies may enter at no opinion cost
    • Supporting: Foreign armies may enter, and use local supply when capital controlled by non-hostiles
      • Potentially split into two, one level may only use excess Food, the other can deplete stockpiles
  • Military Coordination
    • Hostile/Closed: Units cannot be hired as Mercenaries
    • Mercenary/Neutral: should this foreign state flag any army as such, you may offer to hire their troops as Mercenaries
      • Their Opinion of You, their Monthly Income, and the overall level of threat they feel should modify the asking price form the AI
    • Auxillary: will offer Mercenaries, but only to you, and cannot unilaterally withdraw Mercenaries once sent
    • Tributary: may levy their troops at no additional cost, whether or not they want you to, albeit at Opinion/Loyalty cost
      • If a Pop levy style system is introduced, should be able to levy their Pops, albeit at an Opinion/Loyalty cost
  • Protection Status:
    • Guarantee: if they are attacked, you are obligated to join that war to assist them
      • Leagues, as now, will grant Guarantees between all members
    • Support: if they are attacked, you will not necessarily join their war, but will default to Supporting Military Access
      • Maybe also moves Military coordination to Auxillary, albeit with a different name
      • AI would be inclined to offer Mercenaries, should be some incentive for players to do so too, most obvious choice being a direct boost to Military Experience
      • Could be an option for looser "League" levels where only Support is offered between member states
    • Allied: as now, available to call in to offensive and defensive wars
  • Trade Access
    • Closed: will refuse all trades, ideally would be able to block trade passing through their land, or that of their Clients
    • Open: usual status, will trade where it suits them
    • Dominant: you can demand that any exports they have be diverted to a regular trade route with you; they cannot unilaterally cancel existing trade with you
    • Puppet: you can demand trades from them without concern for their opinion, even to remove their final example of a trade good
      • Economic puppets would therefore guarantee you access to their materials, yet get the gold benefit of external trade routes
  • Diplomatic Access - altering access to their Foreign Policy
    • None: as now
    • Limited: May demand cancellations of rights of others (so only moves toward Neutral statuses) at Opinion/Loyalty cost
      • Right to Intervene in wars (ie they can "ask" you to join) without any Alliance etc being offered
    • Puppet: May demand changes in Diplomatic Stance(s), can demand changes to all diplomatic availability with other states, including Enforce Peace
  • Political Access - altering the access to their Internal Politics and Characters, should be a relatively high resistance to this/high level vassals
    • None: as now
    • Limited: generally have access to interactions with their Characters, hire them to your own Offices without making them defect
      • Would be nice to see the option to favour their internal factions as if it is your own state; and have Character interactions to sway Successor support in monarchies
    • Puppet: May demand changes in Governor Policy (that cannot then be altered for some time), at the usual cost of PI, but AE rather than Tyranny.
      • Can be useful to put your puppet to work Assimilating for you, and so on
      • Tempted to add the option to put their Office holders on trial yourself (even the rulers?), at the risk of Rebellion rather than Civil War
      • Could also be useful having the ability to enforce Law changes, and Culture laws
Obviously a lot of these are perhaps options that wouldn't really be the most applicable to the time period, but they might give a bit more variety in Diplo, and some reasons to not just annex everything.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Provincial Influence

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
Just an idea on how the "Efficacy" of Diplomats I vaguely referred to above could formally work.
TLDR: Each state with a Diplomat in a Province has a "Provincial Infuence" value there that Influences their weight on Tension etc from their Stance. Diplomat Charisma largely acts as a modifier for the Influence, and also has an impact on the ability to Accrue and maintain a transient Influence value. High Influence allows you to control foreign opinion of us, and the overall Tension of a Province, making War more or less likely to break out between States present in the Region as you see fit.

Provincial Influence
  • Base Influence
    • Number of Pops controlled in Province, including Subjects
    • Number of Cohorts controlled in Province
    • Number of Pops in Empire (minor value normally, but makes the Great Powers weightier everywhere they stick their nose in)
    • Accrued Influence (transient value, cannot go below 0)
  • Influence Modifiers
    • Diplomat Charisma and Corruption
    • Capital is in Province (to give a boost in Influence to all locals)
  • Provincial Influence
    • Proportion of all (Base Influence * Modifiers) from all States with Diplomats acting in this Province, given as a %
Diplomatic Stances
  • Influential
    • No Impact on Provincial Tension, No Impact on Foreign Opinion of Us
    • Accrues Influence (adding to the "Accrued Influence" value of Base Influence over time) at a rate determined by Diplomat's Charisma
    • Basically the "Neutral" move if you're fine with the Tension in a Province, will make you more and more relevant to the politics of the Province over time, which you can use to increase the usefulness of your other Stances later
  • Appeasing
    • Large Decrease for Provincial Tension, value contributed is modified by Provincial Influence
    • Large Increases in Foreign Opinion of Us for non-Allied States
    • Loses Accrued Influence (nobody respects Appeasers), mitigated by Charisma
    • If you do not want Tension/War in a Province, you'll want to "use" your influence to stave it off and make war more internally costly
  • Bellicose
    • Large Increase for Provincial Tension, value contributed is modified by Provincial Influence
    • Large Decreases in Foreign Opinion of Us for non-Allied States
    • Loses Accrued Influence (provocations do not aid influence), mitigated by Charisma
    • Opposite of Appeasing, you can "use" your influence in the region to provoke everyone else into war being the desired path, as high Tension would reduce costs of War breaking out in this Province, and increase the Belligerence of all states with a stake there
  • Mercentile
    • Small Decrease for Provincial Tension, modified by Provincial Influence
    • Small Increase in Foreign Opinion of Us, Large Increase for other States with Mercentile Stance in the Province
    • No Impact on Accrued Influence
    • Increase in value of Trades with Territories in this Province
  • Exploitative
    • Small Increase for Provincial Tension, usual modifier
    • Small Decrease in Foreign Opinion of Us, Large Decrease for States that owe Us Tribute (Subjects)
    • No Impact on Accrued Influence
    • Increase in value of Tribute
  • Subjugative
    • No Impact on Provincial Tension, No Impact on Accrued Influence
    • Increase in Foreign Opinion of Us for Subject States, and Subject Loyalty
    • Integration Speed Increased (or unlocked as an Option)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
As I've been reminded that this exists (thanks @The Goldfinch!) and it looks like the proposal there to address the Diplo/War game in some way is pretty popular, I think it would be good to get back to these ideas.

On reflection, I think adding in Diplomats as Characters is still a path worthy of exploring, but applying Diplomatic Stances on a per-Province basis is likely overkill, and not a necessary thing like Governor Policies. Perhaps having the option to have a Diplomatic Stance vis-a-vis with foreign states could work, but maybe it would work better having some cost associated with sending a Character away, rather than assigning them to handle Diplomacy for an entire Region.

As for Belligerence-Tension as the gameplay loop for Warfare, I still quite like it and will probably go to post that in the SP forum next week. The feedback loop of Average Belligerence of relevant states driving Tension in their contested Provinces, and Average Tension of contested Provinces driving Belligerence in relevant States; which in turn leads to contagion of desire for War in particular areas just strikes me as a nice natural way to encourage a boom-bust appetite for warfare that is more natural-feeling and map-based than the current loop of expansion followed by waiting for AE to cool down.

ETA: I'd also love to see a system like that function alongside a "Control" mechanic like that put out by @starchitect, with low control regions being ripe for Tension and resultant warfare; whereas high controlled provinces in a core of an Empire would lead to low Tension regions, and a resultant inertia towards Belligerence, as those Pops see less of a point to warfare when not threatened themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:

The Goldfinch

Colonel
1 Badges
Dec 11, 2018
875
9.082
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
As I've been reminded that this exists (thanks @The Goldfinch!) and it looks like the proposal there to address the Diplo/War game in some way is pretty popular, I think it would be good to get back to these ideas.

On reflection, I think adding in Diplomats as Characters is still a path worthy of exploring, but applying Diplomatic Stances on a per-Province basis is likely overkill, and not a necessary thing like Governor Policies. Perhaps having the option to have a Diplomatic Stance vis-a-vis with foreign states could work, but maybe it would work better having some cost associated with sending a Character away, rather than assigning them to handle Diplomacy for an entire Region.

As for Belligerence-Tension as the gameplay loop for Warfare, I still quite like it and will probably go to post that in the SP forum next week. The feedback loop of Average Belligerence of relevant states driving Tension in their contested Provinces, and Average Tension of contested Provinces driving Belligerence in relevant States; which in turn leads to contagion of desire for War in particular areas just strikes me as a nice natural way to encourage a boom-bust appetite for warfare that is more natural-feeling and map-based than the current loop of expansion followed by waiting for AE to cool down.

ETA: I'd also love to see a system like that function alongside a "Control" mechanic like that put out by @starchitect, with low control regions being ripe for Tension and resultant warfare; whereas high controlled provinces in a core of an Empire would lead to low Tension regions, and a resultant inertia towards Belligerence, as those Pops see less of a point to warfare when not threatened themselves.
Thanks, I will definitely give it a read!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

htimsnivek

Sergeant
55 Badges
May 20, 2008
65
178
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • 500k Club
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
ETA: I'd also love to see a system like that function alongside a "Control" mechanic like that put out by @starchitect, with low control regions being ripe for Tension and resultant warfare; whereas high controlled provinces in a core of an Empire would lead to low Tension regions, and a resultant inertia towards Belligerence, as those Pops see less of a point to warfare when not threatened themselves.
This could become strong with a link to Pop or province level manpower as multiple people discussed on @Yems' thread Pops and Military rework (refined 2). If a core province is in a high control region they may not want to supply manpower. I'm not a historian but the fact that Rome had issues with low manpower and needed the Marian reforms to fix their military when the empire spanned across the Mediterranean is fascinating. I can't imagine that happening with our current mid-to-late game manpower.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:

Bovrick

Colonel
10 Badges
Aug 18, 2019
930
2.725
So now that we have a taste of how the Levy system is going to function, and that the Devs have gone with expanding the imperium of Governors by making them your Levy Generals, I think there's some synergy to be had with the ideas I've previously floated here!

With Governors, we now aren't just picking along the Finesse-Corruption-Loyalty axes; we now have to consider Martial for Provinces where we are likely to be pulling Levies: frontier provinces (where we have integrated culture Pops). If we were to extend this line of thinking, I think it would be natural to have Governors steer some Diplomacy too, having to utilise their Charisma, in a similar manner to how I described Diplomats above.

Governors could set a Diplomatic Stance for every foreign state in their Region (defined as their Capital being there), which acts as the general guide to your relationship with that state. With heavily fractured Regions with loads of City States, this could be a bit much, it might make more sense to assign a policy to a Province or Region as a whole instead, with the Policy impacting every state with their Capital there. Likewise, interactions with states in that region (such as Bribes or Insults) could be conducted through the Governors, with Corrupt ones taking a cut of Bribes or Tribute.

Obviously, as discussed above, handling Diplomacy by Region does limit things in an arbitrary manner. I'd like to see at least an extension of Governors into Regions where we have clients, in addition to Regions where we have direct territory. Such Governors over clients only wouldn't be using Finesse at all, focusing on what they can achieve with Charisma, but could theoretically need Martial skill if a system of Levying client states is introduced, which would be great. Governors where you own the full region directly, on the other hand, wouldn't need Charisma. There could also be other character slots for pure Diplomats (in the same way we will have additional Generals for Legions) that we can assign to whomever we wish, that could be unlocked through Tech/Ranks.

I also think a Belligerence/Tension type system would work really well with the Levy system too. Calling you Levy should be relatively costly/limited in a state that has no interest in going to war, while being positively demanded by a Belligerent one. Likewise, frontier provinces in areas of high Tension should be much more easy to mobilise to "defend" themselves, whereas Regions that are nice and cosy in the middle of an Empire, in no danger, should become really difficult to motivate into mobilising. Having Low Tension be a drag on the ability of large Empires to mobilise Levies, forcing them into relying on the fewer frontiersmen or professional Legions, feels both historic, and really useful gameplay to avoid the typical PDX snowball.

This even flows back into the idea of having Governors be able to Levy client states - if you have a decent amount of population in a frontier region of a particular culture, but you don't want to integrate that culture, having them as a Client State could allow you to Levy them (to a degree) and use the fact that they are of an Integrated Culture in the Client State. After all, what could go wrong with having barbarian kingdoms act as the bulk of your army along the frontiers, right?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

IsaacCAT

Field Marshal
141 Badges
Oct 24, 2018
3.390
7.653
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
So now that we have a taste of how the Levy system is going to function, and that the Devs have gone with expanding the imperium of Governors by making them your Levy Generals, I think there's some synergy to be had with the ideas I've previously floated here!

With Governors, we now aren't just picking along the Finesse-Corruption-Loyalty axes; we now have to consider Martial for Provinces where we are likely to be pulling Levies: frontier provinces (where we have integrated culture Pops). If we were to extend this line of thinking, I think it would be natural to have Governors steer some Diplomacy too, having to utilise their Charisma, in a similar manner to how I described Diplomats above.

Governors could set a Diplomatic Stance for every foreign state in their Region (defined as their Capital being there), which acts as the general guide to your relationship with that state. With heavily fractured Regions with loads of City States, this could be a bit much, it might make more sense to assign a policy to a Province or Region as a whole instead, with the Policy impacting every state with their Capital there. Likewise, interactions with states in that region (such as Bribes or Insults) could be conducted through the Governors, with Corrupt ones taking a cut of Bribes or Tribute.

Obviously, as discussed above, handling Diplomacy by Region does limit things in an arbitrary manner. I'd like to see at least an extension of Governors into Regions where we have clients, in addition to Regions where we have direct territory. Such Governors over clients only wouldn't be using Finesse at all, focusing on what they can achieve with Charisma, but could theoretically need Martial skill if a system of Levying client states is introduced, which would be great. Governors where you own the full region directly, on the other hand, wouldn't need Charisma. There could also be other character slots for pure Diplomats (in the same way we will have additional Generals for Legions) that we can assign to whomever we wish, that could be unlocked through Tech/Ranks.

I also think a Belligerence/Tension type system would work really well with the Levy system too. Calling you Levy should be relatively costly/limited in a state that has no interest in going to war, while being positively demanded by a Belligerent one. Likewise, frontier provinces in areas of high Tension should be much more easy to mobilise to "defend" themselves, whereas Regions that are nice and cosy in the middle of an Empire, in no danger, should become really difficult to motivate into mobilising. Having Low Tension be a drag on the ability of large Empires to mobilise Levies, forcing them into relying on the fewer frontiersmen or professional Legions, feels both historic, and really useful gameplay to avoid the typical PDX snowball.

This even flows back into the idea of having Governors be able to Levy client states - if you have a decent amount of population in a frontier region of a particular culture, but you don't want to integrate that culture, having them as a Client State could allow you to Levy them (to a degree) and use the fact that they are of an Integrated Culture in the Client State. After all, what could go wrong with having barbarian kingdoms act as the bulk of your army along the frontiers, right?

I have posted this suggestion that gives rulers a role on diplomacy. I would like to develop your idea of autonomous diplomacy through governors but it is difficult to avoid the arbitrariness that you have identified. About belligerence/Tension, those are nation factors, and I think It is more interesting to add those to Character's interactions. Anyway, thank you for your ideas!