Relations

[Duke of Wellington]

I always felt these were somewhat useless in EUII. Afterall the player was generally hated by everyone except their allies and when you wanted something from someone you just bribed them then forgot about them.

I'm uncertain as to what any improvements could be but possibly more links between relations and badboy. E.g. If you have good relations with many nations then BB decreases quicker and if everyone hates you then possibly even BB could increase. Ideally though I would like to see something of an amalgamation of the two values into one.

 

[unmerged(17581)]

A more nuanced model than EUII would be nice. By nuanced I mean that the end result is that there is no sharp dividing line between Allies, +200, keep placated with gold and Enemies, -200, don't care.

 

[Okawoa]

agreed, its because of this that I sometimes think of axing relations all together... its stupidly easy to insult the enemy, and once you make an enemy, its not too easy to rebecome friends... ever... although there are plenty of examples.

 

[Registered]

agreed, its because of this that I sometimes think of axing relations all together... its stupidly easy to insult the enemy, and once you make an enemy, its not too easy to rebecome friends... ever... although there are plenty of examples.

It would help a lot if the AI sent you the occasional gift to get into your good books. Though that might make the game too easy.

 

[George LeS]

It would help a lot if the AI sent you the occasional gift to get into your good books. Though that might make the game too easy.

Perhaps the AI's gifts might be set up so you get the relations +, but don't actually get the money. The AI nation would still have to pay, but the player would get zilch, except the relations. Or, you could have a sliding scale, so that at VE, you'd get all the $, at VH, 0, & in between you'd get only a fraction (75, 50, 25 %). Something like that.

 

[unmerged(11427)]

The main problem about relations in EU2, IIRC, was that relations were converging on +200 for some and -200 for others. The values should converge to 0 (neutral relations) if no actions are taken.

 

[jonti-h]

The main problem about relations in EU2, IIRC, was that relations were converging on +200 for some and -200 for others. The values should converge to 0 (neutral relations) if no actions are taken.

You are right, as relations decay over time - especially when BB gets high - I end up with about 2 or 3 countries who like me, and all the rest are -200.

I would like it if those countries who hate my guts got over it in time, just as those who like me stop over time. Perhaps exceptions should be these with PCB on me (who should always hate me unless I do something to make them like me) and alliance members/vassals/RM countries who sohuld always like me.

Also I would like it if my vassals were positive to me. It happens in HOI2 and Vicky, as you install a government pro you.

 

[unmerged(485)]

..............

Also I would like it if my vassals were positive to me. It happens in HOI2 and Vicky, as you install a government pro you.

But you don't install new govts. in EU. Some vassals are only vassals because you kicked their butts.


The original relations thing was supposed to be what BB is today. But it did not work properly so BB was invented. I think over time relations should slowly drift toward zero unless things like religion and RMs make it increase. Trade should also increase relations except there is no bilateral trade.

 

[unmerged(59064)]

I think over time relations should slowly drift toward zero unless things like religion and RMs make it increase.

Well, I dont think relations should increase over time with marriages, or at least with all marriages. As there were plenty of marriages that went bad and soured relations .

 

[George LeS]

While I generally agree with the ideas here, I do not thing relations should tend toward 0. Such matters as religion & tolerance, & certain sliders, & possession of cores, cultures, etc, should give a varing "natural level" for relations, which they should tend toward. Originally, IIRC, this was what was promised, but I really haven't seen this reflected anywhere in the game (even when my BB is 0).

& RM's should naturally improve relations; those which fail might be a good field for events.

 

[seboden]

In my opinion, there should be modifiers assigned to the different relations between nations (for example):
Royal Marriage +50
Personal Union +150
Alliance +100
Temporary CB -50
Permanent CB -100
same State Culture +10
etc.
These would then be added (or multiplied or whatever) and give the "natural relation" (or however you would like to call it) between the two states.
The actual relation (like in EU2) would then slowly converge towards this value, unless something is done to stop it (like a gift, an insult or a DOW).

 

[Rotten Venetic]

In my opinion, there should be modifiers assigned to the different relations between nations (for example):
Royal Marriage +50
Personal Union +150
Alliance +100
Temporary CB -50
Permanent CB -100
same State Culture +10
etc.
These would then be added (or multiplied or whatever) and give the "natural relation" (or however you would like to call it) between the two states.
The actual relation (like in EU2) would then slowly converge towards this value, unless something is done to stop it (like a gift, an insult or a DOW).

Hmm. Not a bad idea, though I don't really like the numbers.
My elaboration on it would be the following:
Relations naturally evolve each year by +3 or -3 (i.e. +1 or -1 every four months to what value is the "true" relations value).

The "true" relations value is what relations tend to, default at 0 and modified by values like:
Rulers and their families:
+50 royal marriage (this was right)
+200 personal union (the monarch/ruling body makes the state's decisions so if it's the same, naturally, the two states should converge and if the people don't like it they can revolt)
State cultures:
Same culture: +50
Cultures that like each other (ex. Polish and Lithuanian): +25
Cultures that are neutral to each other (ex. Polish and Chinese ): +1 or 0 but not -1
Cultures that dislike each other (ex. German and Scandinavian/equivalents): -25
Cultures that hate each other (ex. English and Scottish): -50
State religion:
Same religion: +50
Diffrent religion with no rivalry (ex. Orthodox and Konfucian): 0
Diffrent religions with a bit of rivalry (ex. Konfucian and Buddhist): -20
Diffrent religions with moderate rivalry (ex. Pagan and all other non-Christians, Catholics, Orthodox and Sunni in triangle): -50
Diffrent religions with bitter rivalry (Christians and Pagans, Catholics/CRC with protestants/reformed, Sunni and Shi'a): -100
After hanging religion: the value is doubled for 10 years.
Casus belli:
Permanent CB: -50
Temporary CB: -1*duration in months, capped at -50
Allies affecting relations:
Example: It is the first of January. Countries A and B are allied. Study of C's relations with them.
C currently has -25 relations with A and +2 with B.
Thus, the "true" relations value of C towards A will be modified by +2 from relations with B and the "true" relations value of C towards B will be modified by -25 for the remainder of the year. Then they will be updated and so forth every new year until the alliance breaks, or either one of the tree countries is annexed.
Alliances, trade and other aggreements and disagreements:
Military alliance: +100 (right again)
Vasslage: -50 (that's right, vassals don't have to be happy with being vassals)
Trade agreement: +25
Trade embargo: -100 (historically a lot of fuss has been made over embargo's)
Having the monopoly in another country's CoT: -50 for each CoT of theirs monopolized by you (again something they will not like at all).
Having more merchants than the owner in their CoT: -10 per extra merchant per CoT (stacks with monopoly).
Having less merchants in another country's CoT if you DO have at least one:
+10 per merchant per CoT.
Giving military access: +100 (this they will like a LOT).
Being at war: -100 (obviously nobody likes a nation they are at war with).

Note: Paradox needs not implement this, but giving ME the ability to do it would be very nice

 

[unmerged(11427)]

I don't know if this has been mentioned earlier, but we are going to have a system of relations similar (-200 to 200) to EU2. I hope the dynamics will be better as suggested by some posters above.

Here is a link to one of development diaries. Check out the screenshot.

 

[seboden]

I like many of your numbers.
I had thought of mine as an example only.
However, I think your term of "true relation" (though not worse then "natural relations") can be a bit misleading or you misunderstood me.
Because I think that all effects, that relation has should only be based on on the current relation which of course has a tendency to move towards the "true/natural relation".
I think of it really as an "under-the-hood"-mechanism to properly represent relations between countries without going for the one or the other extreme.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Yes, that is correct. Thus you will notice that the word true is between inverted commas meaning that it signifies something else: what you suggested

I guess I just couldn't find a better phrasing at that time. "Ideal relation" is also misleading.

Also, the rate at which relations evolve should also be inconstant and decided by factors such as stablility (positive stab boosts positive relations normalization and hinders negative relations normalization while with negative it's the other way around), common borders (more border => relations normalize faster), monarch DIP which should have an effect akin to stab where DIP above average helps and below average it hurts; special political conditions such as being in the HRE or being the Pope or the Order of St John or Sweden .

 

[Bismark776]

I also think that relations between two countries doesn't necesarily have to be the same. Its possible for one nation to like another nation but the other nation may not like them. This could be complicated but useful. Also, there should be a differentiation between the feeling of the nobles toward a nation and the feeling of the leader. In some cases they may be one and the same but in others they could be extremely different.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

I also think that relations between two countries doesn't necesarily have to be the same. Its possible for one nation to like another nation but the other nation may not like them. This could be complicated but useful.

Hmm. Yes but they should tend to normalize toward each other (and with Seboden's system, they would).

Also, there should be a differentiation between the feeling of the nobles toward a nation and the feeling of the leader. In some cases they may be one and the same but in others they could be extremely different.

This can be reflected as political turmoil when you like a nation your elite hates (i.e. rebellions, stab hits, scandals etc). A secondary relation value is not required but it could be useful. And maybe a third for the masses and a fourth for the bourgeois if we're at it?

 

[seboden]

Yes, that is correct. Thus you will notice that the word true is between inverted commas meaning that it signifies something else: what you suggested

I guess I just couldn't find a better phrasing at that time. "Ideal relation" is also misleading.

I was thinking about "longterm/strategic relations" as opposed to "current/actual relations".
Anyway, how it is called is a secondary point, more important would be, that Paradox actually decides to implement something like this.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

I made a post on this perhaps they could be merged?

 

[Rotten Venetic]

I made a post on this perhaps they could be merged?

You mean a thread. I don't know about merging threads; contact an admin by pm to see what can be done.