Please add some Diplomacy...

[avante]

Paradox,

I've just started another game, for the first time in about 5-6 months. The begin expansion is really great (the many stories, choosing your first stations and colonies, etc) and the looks of the game really get me hooked; most of you fanbase know the game has great potential!

But honestly I am quite disappointed to find that the Diplomacy STILL hasn't been made interesting...
Just please read this; it is no bashing. And others please respond, especially if you agree!


You know what I do when I get a pop-up of some newly contacted race?
I click it away! Know why?

Because it does not mater anyway; I cannot engage in any (let alone interesting) diplomacy with them!
So after 3 hours, this is where I am at diplomacy wise: 1 non-agression pack with a inferior neighbour...yeah!


Please, very very please, just look into this! I see tons of possibilities, based on race / strength / distance between / mutual enemies / etc / etc !!!


Here is 3 examples out my current game:
I'm with 1 (known) other fungoid species (like me) who is getting raped from all sides; don't we all want an galaxy full off fungoid?! Why not make it possible to do a "help me - help you" deal with them?

My direcly neighbouringing empire which is 'squashed in' between me and another empire; how about the possibility that this (mutual rivals) can trigger a 'start war' option, by which we both attack and devide ther area (I mean you already have that with war goals...but for the life of me I cannot get an alliance).

Last one: i've extended a bit to far to early; Empire A has declared war on me for it. Empire B is also interested in my far-outpost, and most of all is an border rival of Empire A...How about me asking Empire B to join the war, and give them the (my outpost) region whatever the outcome + maybe divide some spoils of Empire A?


This game could be so much more fun, if it had just these kind of things; I mean wouldn't you agree? I am not a game programmer, but am formiliar with VBA coding a bit. Since the game is basically one giant math formula...well it got me thinking; these kind of things could be done, right?

Come on guys, make this actual grand strategy!

 

[Fourthspartan56]

While I agree that improving the diplomacy is important I highly doubt that Paradox will not address it at some point.

 

[avante]

While I agree that improving the diplomacy is important I highly doubt that Paradox will not address it at some point.

Well I just wonder...when?
With the lack of diplomacy, the other species are just...pretty much empty. And I just end up conquering them all, every game, because that basically is the only option (as far as I've played).

 

[Fourthspartan56]

Well I just wonder...when?
With the lack of diplomacy, the other species are just...pretty much empty. And I just end up conquering them all, every game, because that basically is the only option (as far as I've played).

When they do it, patch 1.5 is focused on internal issues and offering more options for internal development which I consider just as important as expanding diplomacy. So logically they would address it sometime after patch 1.5.

 

[Chilled Legumes]

You know what I do when I get a pop-up of some newly contacted race?
I click it away! Know why?

I really wish the starting statement you give a newly contacted race would affect diplomacy, or initial standing (instead of a generic -10 decaying malus to diplomacy due to 'new contact') But otherwise, i agree, its pointless at the moment. Because the game forces you to make a selection (you cant just right click the new empire alert away), i think they may have plans to do something similar to just this in the future. I'd like to think its just a placeholder for now.

I'm with 1 (known) other fungoid species (like me) who is getting [snip]ed from all sides; don't we all want an galaxy full off fungoid?! Why not make it possible to do a "help me - help you" deal with them?

Technically you can, the game just doesn't acknowledge species phenotypes in diplomacy. That said, i'm not sure how I'd implement that into the game. I'd be surprised if ALL sapients had a generic attraction to those even vaguely similar to their physiology.

My direcly neighbouringing empire which is 'squashed in' between me and another empire; how about the possibility that this (mutual rivals) can trigger a 'start war' option, by which we both attack and devide ther area (I mean you already have that with war goals...but for the life of me I cannot get an alliance).

I'm hoping im not misunderstanding you, but from what i got, if you're asking to be able to have a joint war without forming a federation/alliance, all you need to do is click the "invite attackers" button on the wardec screen.

Last one: i've extended a bit to far to early; Empire A has declared war on me for it. Empire B is also interested in my far-outpost, and most of all is an border rival of Empire A...How about me asking Empire B to join the war, and give them the (my outpost) region whatever the outcome + maybe divide some spoils of Empire A?

Hmm, Adding the trade system into the wardec interface to entice others into accepting a war? I like the idea, though should the person making the offer be able to specify the trade is conditional pending victory in the war? (meaning a loss in the war would invalidate the trade) I really like this idea!

 

[Brettwardo]

Technically you can, the game just doesn't acknowledge species phenotypes in diplomacy. That said, i'm not sure how I'd implement that into the game. I'd be surprised if ALL sapients had a generic attraction to those even vaguely similar to their physiology.


I think species should have some impact on a diplomacy overhaul. Maybe not every empire, but if I have a species of humans not named human(just some trivial difference), it seems silly for my xenophobic populus to be hating on other humans. If they could implement some recognition that a slightly different human species isn't as bad as some blorg, that would be nice.

 

[Liquidbones]

One aspect of diplomacy I really dislike is that materialists and spiritualists automatically hate each other. While I get that religious fanatics or hardcore atheists might look down on each other, why does a pacifistic spiritual empire hate their materialistic neighbors? I feel like only spiritual races that seek to spread their faith, like the Evangelizing Zealots, and warlike materialists should have these opinion penalties.

 

[Brettwardo]

Yeah it seems like everyone dislikes the arbitrary diplomacy resulting from ethics that can't really be altered

 

[Oscot]

why does a pacifistic spiritual empire hate their materialistic neighbors?

I don't understand what you don't understand.
It's an obvious "These godless, soulless xenos reject muh Yahweh" vs. "Lol you think an magical sky man can save you in the year 2317? In this moment I am euphoric"

 

[Liquidbones]

I don't understand what you don't understand.
It's an obvious "These godless, soulless xenos reject muh Yahweh" vs. "Lol you think an magical sky man can save you in the year 2317? In this moment I am euphoric"

No I understand that, but I have a custom race that essentially amounts to space-Buddhists. Materialists hate them, but I don't think they should; they just want everybody to get along. They don't try to wage religious wars or anything, and they don't try to convert anyone. I just feel like pacifistic materialists/spiritualists should have a live and let live attitude about this. On the other hand, my materialistic warmongers can destroying any foolish religions they want, because they already hate everybody anyway.

 

[Grinsel]

have the workshop not some solutions?

 

[zukodark]

It might have something to do with the settings you can play on. I have had a lot of diplomacy even playing as a purging collectivist, having my own federation with many associates despite conquering and purging or enslaving several empires. Most of my allies weren't even collectivist. Though that might be because I played on normal difficulty/AI aggression.

 

[aea]

Improving diplomacy needs to go hand-in-hand with having a real use for other empires besides war (or helping prevent war). There needs to be meaningful (i.e. civilian) trade, and small empires need to be more useful than a buffer, a conquest target, or somebody to eventually tribute / vassalize.

Unless an empire is either an equal match (or stronger), either individually or as part of an federation / alliance / defensive pact, I don't even care about them.

 

[Xoatl]

The dev diaries about planned updates did make mention of unifying federations under one empire as the route to diplo victory. That and offering vassalization then subjugating would let you "conquer" the galaxy without fighting.

 

[grommile]

No I understand that, but I have a custom race that essentially amounts to space-Buddhists. Materialists hate them,

They don't hate them. They have a (mutual) opinion penalty towards them, because of the incompatibility of their respective world views. If it's the only applicable ethos-related opinion penalty, it can probably be worked around.

"Hate" would be something like "Fanatical Purifiers vs. everyone" or "Metalheads vs. everyone".

 

[Subjugation]

I agree. The diplomacy part of the game is very weak. Strangely enough I find the same issues in other Paradox games. The treaty system in Hearts of Iron 4 is seriously broken in multi-player. Maybe they should put a specific team on it or something, I don't know. I would love to see diplomacy features in Stellaris though.

 

[Liquidbones]

They don't hate them. They have a (mutual) opinion penalty towards them, because of the incompatibility of their respective world views. If it's the only applicable ethos-related opinion penalty, it can probably be worked around.

"Hate" would be something like "Fanatical Purifiers vs. everyone" or "Metalheads vs. everyone".

I see where you're coming from, but I still think the opinion penalty is the wrong way to represent conflicting worldviews. If I'm playing a pacifistic xenophilic spiritualistic empire, another pacifistic xenophilic empire shouldn't hate them just because they are materialists. There should be something in there to represent the differences, certainly, but the opinion malus they currently have in place just doesn't make any sense. I mean, I don't meet someone who really religious and automatically hate them just for that, so why would one species dislike an entire different species just for having/not having a faith?

 

[grommile]

I see where you're coming from, but I still think the opinion penalty is the wrong way to represent conflicting worldviews.

What would you suggest?

I mean, I don't meet someone who really religious and automatically hate them just for that, so why would one species dislike an entire different species just for having/not having a faith?

Because the materialists think the spiritualists are deluded and the spiritualists think the materialists are ignorant and misguided. That's liable to lead to friction in negotiation, accidental offence being given in conversation, proposed treaties foundering on incompatible choices of wording, etc. They're otherwise fairly relaxed people when it comes to state philosophy (hence Pacifist Xenophile), though, so these incidents result in rolled eyes and shaken heads and unusually protracted negotiations rather than in fisticuffs at diplomatic dinners and escalating exchanges of threats.

 

[Liquidbones]

What would you suggest?

Because the materialists think the spiritualists are deluded and the spiritualists think the materialists are ignorant and misguided. That's liable to lead to friction in negotiation, accidental offence being given in conversation, proposed treaties foundering on incompatible choices of wording, etc. They're otherwise fairly relaxed people when it comes to state philosophy (hence Pacifist Xenophile), though, so these incidents result in rolled eyes and shaken heads and unusually protracted negotiations rather than in fisticuffs at diplomatic dinners and escalating exchanges of threats.

I see what you mean. My main problem is that I've played several games where my neighboring species will barely speak to me, just because of the minor opinion penalty from spiritualist/materialist differences. It needs to be represented in a different way; perhaps materialists would view spiritualists as being too stupid to get into a research agreement with, and spiritualists would constantly try to force a migration treaty so that they can go around converting people. Spiritualists and materialists not getting along is fine, but the opinion malus is the wrong way to go about it. A warlike materialist should hate his spiritualist neighbor and try to crush him, but a peaceful materialist should be willing to negotiate, which unfortunately has not been the case in most of my games.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

I see where you're coming from, but I still think the opinion penalty is the wrong way to represent conflicting worldviews.

I understand your viewpoint but what would a better way? Opposite ethos dislike each other, it makes sense IMO.

If I'm playing a pacifistic xenophilic spiritualistic empire, another pacifistic xenophilic empire shouldn't hate them just because they are materialists

But they don't have to hate them, they'll have an opinion penalty but their overall opinion may still be positive.

There should be something in there to represent the differences, certainly, but the opinion malus they currently have in place just doesn't make any sense. I mean, I don't meet someone who really religious and automatically hate them just for that, so why would one species dislike an entire different species just for having/not having a faith

I disagree, the idea is that their fundamental difference of opinion towards reality causes some bad feelings. And it isn't two species disliking each other, it's two governments disliking each other because they have intrinsically different ideologies which is something that makes sense.