Should diplomatic opinions converge at some point?

[Victor Cortez]

In the diplomacy dev diary, Johan confirmed that IR will have the now usual two way diplomacy, meaning that country A loves country B, while B hates A.

Now my question is: is this something historically accurate or is it for gameplay reasons?
I can think of countries looking up to others, while being looked down or simply ignored, but love/hate?
So I was thinking that perhaps opinions should converge, meaning for example that after 100yrs of being hated by someone, it should be very hard for me to keep on loving them.

Opinions?

 

[Hugus]

Concerning a love/hate situation in history I cannot recall any.

Are you think about something along the lines of a modifier?
Like if B hates A (B -200 about A) then A should get a modifier to general opinion of B, like ''B hates us'' -20/y

 

[Zarine]

I don't think hating someone force him to hate you, unless he takes actions.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Like EU4 opinion ?

 

[Stanleykubrick]

In terms of convergence I think this is already there at most paradox games, because you have 2 types of negative opinion modifiers :
- Permanent : e.g. I dont like country X because they are allied to a rival (EU4) , the character is craven (CK2) etc. I like country Y because we have same religion etc.
- Modifiers with cool down : This would be something like Aggreesive expansion in EU4 etc

So already relationships tend to normalize to an equilibrium value set by the permanent modifiers. This is not necessary 0.

Are there historical examples of love/hate relationships? Not easy to find and to be honest , what does it actually mean that country X hates country Y? Countries do not have "feelings". In my opinion it is an abstraction that works very well to capture complex diplomacy in a video game and how the state may respond to requests from other countries ( e.g. I would never trade with you , you just destroyed my ally!)

 

[Kliwarrior]

in EU4 I have never seen a "Love vs. hate" situation. Usually, bad relations are based on quite objective facts ( AE, different religions, claims/core .. )
So for standard situation relations goes toward a -10 / +10 is nobody does nothing to actively change it.

Anyway I'm wondering is the mechanism of "trust" will be also implemented, as long as the "attitudes" of eu4.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Are they thinking of Rome v Carthage here ?

Hannibal hated Rome according to the historians, but because the Romans has defeated his father in the first Punic War. Hannibal had friends/supporters in Carthage but he seems to have had a role similar to a viceroy in representing Carthage in Iberia. He had the power to provoke a conflict.

Did the average Carthaginians in the street or the Roman on his farm hate each other ? Probably not, not until blood had been spilled.

 

[PanzerCorps]

So I was thinking that perhaps opinions should converge, meaning for example that after 100yrs of being hated by someone, it should be very hard for me to keep on loving them.

I wish this worked with people in real life

Ha ha

Ha

 

[Kliwarrior]

Are they thinking of Rome v Carthage here ?

In EU4 it would be

Rome vs Carthage :
-100 Rival
-25 Allied to Rival ( Carthage and Macedonia )
-10 Different Religion
-10 Border Friction
-15 Was at War
-xx Aggressive Expansion ( expansion in Hiberia )

Carthage vs Rome:
-100 Rival
-10 Different Religion
-20 Have a Core ( Sicily and Sardinia )
-10 Border Friction
-15 Was at War
-xx Aggressive Expansion ( effect of 1 Punic War )

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

My gut is saying we might be focusing too much on the edge case (A absolutely loathes B; B absolutely adores A). I think the modifiers to A to hate and B to love would likely be mutually assigned.

What I see is more of an "A likes B, B is neutral to A" asymmetry. This might be a big nation uninterested in a small nation who has been using them as a shield, this could be a nation that has been lavished gifts in order to get a good trade deal, but the gift-giver isn't interested in more than the access to trade. Something like that.

 

[griffus]

Are they thinking of Rome v Carthage here ?

Hannibal hated Rome according to the historians, but because the Romans has defeated his father in the first Punic War. Hannibal had friends/supporters in Carthage but he seems to have had a role similar to a viceroy in representing Carthage in Iberia. He had the power to provoke a conflict.

Did the average Carthaginians in the street or the Roman on his farm hate each other ? Probably not, not until blood had been spilled.

But this game is not about characters, is about countries, so...

 

[Andrzej2]

I think that something like relations ideally shouldn't matter or even be in the game. Every state should constantly calculate their goals, interests, threats and according to them decide who they need to ally. Politics should be far more flexible. Only thing that could ovetcome national interests should be dynastic marriages not such a silly thing as opinion.

 

[Victor Cortez]

Are you think about something along the lines of a modifier?
Like if B hates A (B -200 about A) then A should get a modifier to general opinion of B, like ''B hates us'' -20/y

Yes. And if the B -200 about A persists (for whatever reason), -20/y should increase.

I don't think hating someone force him to hate you, unless he takes actions.

Not force, the modifier shouldn't be instantaneous of course.

In terms of convergence I think this is already there at most paradox games, because you have 2 types of negative opinion modifiers :
- Permanent : e.g. I dont like country X because they are allied to a rival (EU4) , the character is craven (CK2) etc. I like country Y because we have same religion etc.
- Modifiers with cool down : This would be something like Aggreesive expansion in EU4 etc

So already relationships tend to normalize to an equilibrium value set by the permanent modifiers. This is not necessary 0.

Are there historical examples of love/hate relationships? Not easy to find and to be honest , what does it actually mean that country X hates country Y? Countries do not have "feelings". In my opinion it is an abstraction that works very well to capture complex diplomacy in a video game and how the state may respond to requests from other countries ( e.g. I would never trade with you , you just destroyed my ally!)

That's true. A sort of convergence is already there, but maybe it could be a bit clearer. In the case of the AE, for example, if you hate me for expanding in a third province (initially neither mine nor yours), maybe I should be resentful of you not agreeing that it was a good given right for me to acquire that province. I had a causus belli after all.

For the second point, that of countries not having feelings, you're absolutely correct. Someone once said that countries don't have friends, they only have interests. In practical terms, the day after a war, if a favourable trading opportunity arises, two countries will trade, regardless of having killed each other until a few hours before.
I don't know to be honest if despotic dictatorship of the past were less pragmatic, perhaps back in the day an all powerful king would actually turn down a trade opportunity because of pure pride.
In real life terms, the factors that influence diplomacy in practical terms are a bit abstracted in Paradox games. Refusing a royal marriage because of a difference in religion should probably be seen as the religious establishment of the country pressuring the government not to go ahead with the marriage for internal matters (ie: losing credibility).

I wish this worked with people in real life

Ha ha

Ha

I think that something like relations ideally shouldn't matter or even be in the game. Every state should constantly calculate their goals, interests, threats and according to them decide who they need to ally. Politics should be far more flexible. Only thing that could ovetcome national interests should be dynastic marriages not such a silly thing as opinion.

Unfortunately all of this has to be translated into numbers in order for the game to actually be playable

 

[Tisifoni12]

But this game is not about characters, is about countries, so...

But at certain times particular individuals were key drivers of 'national policy'.

'Dynastic marriages':

• Intermarriage between Carthaginian nobility and the ruling families of Numidia and allied Iberian tribes
• Marriages between the ruling dynasties of the Hellenistic Kingdoms
• Marriage alliances between leading Roman families

 

[griffus]

But at certain times particular individuals were key drivers of 'national policy'.

'Dynastic marriages':

• Intermarriage between Carthaginian nobility and the ruling families of Numidia and allied Iberian tribes
• Marriages between the ruling dynasties of the Hellenistic Kingdoms
• Marriage alliances between leading Roman families

Not saying it wasn't, just saying that the game is not focus on that part of history.