Suggestion: dice-roll diplomacy and tech trading

[AKicebear]

Edit: trying to open this up more to general discussion on diplomacy system suggestions - I've summarized some key points so far here.
---
Dice-roll diplomacy
One major shortcoming in strategy games is that making diplomatic decisions includes zero risk. In essentially all 4X/GS games the outcome of the diplomatic action is known before making an attempt, and in many the exact factors impacting that decision are described perfectly. While diplomacy in many of these games remains functional, and in some like EU4 quite rich in depth, I feel like the perfect determinism takes away from the strategic experience.

I think a diplomatic system that included risk would create richer strategic choices. Before getting into that, its worth considering what a diplomatic system in a strategy game should include. In my view, it should allow for exchange of resources (in the broad sense, i.e. including military alliances), it should approximate (not simulate) real world diplomacy, and it should create scenarios that are fun/interesting/strategic for the target player.

I suggest a system where instead of positive and negative attributes exactly determining the outcome of a diplomatic request (as in EU4 and most 4Xs), instead they determine the probability of success - which is more similar to the dice-roll method used in many games' combat systems. Suggested factors that would impact the probability of success:

• Value of request - value of offer = base probability (rebased to 0-100 scale, of course)
• Diplomatic relations status
• Length of time with overlapping rulers that have a compatible ethos - great leaders that are old friends, implying a hit to diplomatic chances after a change in leadership as the relationship recalibrates
• Length of time on negotiations - before launching negotiations on a set request/barter, the player sets the amount of time for their diplomat to spend on that specific effort - the more time they are willing to invest in a single negotiation, the higher the chance of success
• Frustration - a counter that rises with each diplomatic request within a set period of time (particularly with repeated requests), and decays slowly afterwards. Coupled with the 'length of time on negotiations', this is intended to reduce diplomatic request spam that might otherwise be common in a probabilistic system. The frustration generated by a very low probability negotiation would be higher than from a high probability negotiation, making "hail Mary" attempts high risk/cost, high reward. If frustration rises enough it could negatively impact the diplomatic relations status (which has a longer decay).
• Etc

I suggest that there be a maximum probability <100% for all diplomatic requests. Even between long standing allies negotiations can sometimes fail. This is balanced by the fact that even with a minimum 1% chance of success you might still succeed. Whether the above factors are additive, multiplicative, etc would be an issue for developers to tackle in balance.

Tech-trading information and values (assuming tech trading is allowed at all)
Another shortcoming of many 4X games is that technology trading is too transparent and standardized across all games. The typical arrangement is that you can initiate negotiations with another civilization, allowing you to see a full list of all the technologies they own that you do not. This is tantamount to a perfect spy service. Instead, I think the amount of technology (or territory, etc) that you see as options in negotiations that you initiate should depend on what you've become aware of already, either via observing usage in combat (as an ally or opponent) or via covertly infiltrating their military service.

Another issue is valuations. Technology is incredibly valuable, although you wouldn't know it from most 4X games. Advanced weapons technology, for example, in many cases has R&D budgets that exceed the GDP of a small sized country. In most 4X games techs are so cheap and the system so easily abused that its essentially a mini-game of "Collect them all" that is played every few turns.

The "frustration" mechanic above tries to address the abuse aspect. Additionally, technology values should be very high across the board, especially if they are advanced relative to neighbors/the galaxy. EU4's technology cost system vis-a-vis neighbors tech levels is already a good way in that direction, so I imagine Paradox is on the right track with regards to overall valuations. In addition to a simple check of how relatively advanced or not a technology is, I'd also like for AI to adjust tech values according to their play style (be it determined by ethos, race, government type, etc). For example, an ultra aggressive militarist should covet military technology, and thus pay more for an advanced tech you offer (but at a great sacrifice to your own edge!), and similarly be very cautious about selling their own (i.e. charge much more, or even not sell it at all!). Normally tech values are proportional to the number of technology points they require - in a standard 4X the AI's ranking of what to research first could be used to create a multiplier of base tech values. While Stellaris won't use a standard tech tree, it surely will have a tech-card selection AI that could also be used in valuing trades from different civilizations' perspectives.

Thoughts?

 

[Jamey]

I've played strategy games that are random chance diplomacy. They tend to result in either frustration or save scumming when critical deals are on the table.

I think a system like EU4, where you see all of the factors and it is deterministic is much better.

 

[ahhheygao]

From what I've observed on the CK2 and EU4 forums, players here tend to favor less RNG and more transparency with hard numbers. Some of those factors you listed already contribute to positive diplomatic relationship/reputation, which result in higher likelihood of agreement, though I do like the idea of an annoyance/frustration counter to curb the AIs from spamming me with royal marriage requests.

I'll have to see the tech trade balance to comment further, but I'm definitely on board with having different AI personalities value tech differently. Tech is not always valuable, though; too many games have sprawling tech trees full of fillers. I've been more frustrated when AI factions wouldn't trade me some insignificant techs even though I offer valuable strategic resources, monies, and other concessions in return.

 

[AKicebear]

I've played strategy games that are random chance diplomacy. They tend to result in either frustration or save scumming when critical deals are on the table.

I think a system like EU4, where you see all of the factors and it is deterministic is much better.

Completely agree that one problem with dice-roll diplomacy is it may encourage save scumming if a likely negotiation fails. I think balancing the "frustration" mechanic could help alleviate this - for example, close to zero percent frustration is accumulated in deals that fail near the upper probability bound, which means all you've lost is the time (and can take another shot at it). Balance would be key in making sure players feel like they aren't being arbitrarily punished. Also, I think save scumming behavior should be considered but not entirely determine game mechanics - some people will scum no matter what, we shouldn't let strategic mechanics be sacrificed because of it. If designed correctly the diplo system could be deterministic in a normal game and probalistic in a iron man game, or a option in either, for example.

Separately, a suggestion I read on another forum was that when trading tech or alliances there be a "Time investment", similar to how a province can't be cored instantly in EU4. I think this would help a lot with reducing save scumming and/or diplo-spam, in either a deterministic or probabilistic system.

Regarding EU4/CK2 players not liking RNG - how do they feel about the dice system in combat? Or have I misunderstood how combat works in these games?

 

[Cinigs]

Completely agree that one problem with dice-roll diplomacy is it may encourage save scumming if a likely negotiation fails. I think balancing the "frustration" mechanic could help alleviate this - for example, close to zero percent frustration is accumulated in deals that fail near the upper probability bound, which means all you've lost is the time (and can take another shot at it). Balance would be key in making sure players feel like they aren't being arbitrarily punished. Also, I think save scumming behavior should be considered but not entirely determine game mechanics - some people will scum no matter what, we shouldn't let strategic mechanics be sacrificed because of it. If designed correctly the diplo system could be deterministic in a normal game and probalistic in a iron man game, or a option in either, for example.

Separately, a suggestion I read on another forum was that when trading tech or alliances there be a "Time investment", similar to how a province can't be cored instantly in EU4. I think this would help a lot with reducing save scumming and/or diplo-spam, in either a deterministic or probabilistic system.

Regarding EU4/CK2 players not liking RNG - how do they feel about the dice system in combat? Or have I misunderstood how combat works in these games?

There is a big difference between losing a few hundred more men and not getting a major alliance. I'd be fine with the amount increase from improve relation varied a bit but having accept alliance as "maybe" was the worst in V2. If you want to have RNG in diplomacy have random events not random chance of deal going through.

 

[ahhheygao]

Regarding EU4/CK2 players not liking RNG - how do they feel about the dice system in combat? Or have I misunderstood how combat works in these games?

I don't want to go too off-topic, but to answer your question: the dice rolls are tolerated because players can stack and skew so many other factors in their favor that even catastrophic dice rolls won't matter if they know what they're doing.

 

[Cinigs]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but to answer your question: the dice rolls are tolerated because players can stack and skew so many other factors in their favor that even catastrophic dice rolls won't matter if they know what they're doing.

A couple 0 to 9's are fine if you have 120% discipline, you out number them 2-1, and have a god general.

 

[Knightfall52]

Nearly all targets of diplomatic actions are binary, yes or no situations, is there peace or war now? did we get that province or not? are we allies or not?

Thus a chance to increase/decrease the value of diplomatic deals for the parties is generally silly because either it would be unimportant (who cares if alliance costs your 12 credits or if you get 447 credits or 425 as a result of the peace deal) or it would be stupidly critical to the detriment of gameplay (removal of actions).

edit: I would really smash my screen in if i got a white peace or just gold out of 100% peace deal versus emperor austria...

 

[sterrius]

RNG is not needed. You can use a lot of ways to make diplomacy morei nteresting building around the existing system.

The actual system actuall is very good as you can add/remove bonus to balance the system.

It just actually needs something to stop changes that happens overnight and make a escalation or de-escalation possible (From +200 to -100 from rival in EU4 for example), the favor system in EU4 is a system towards that direction .

HOI system is also going towards this as you can´t go to war on day 1. You need to justify it, and would be nice to also have something like this in stellaris. (A warlike race would be easy, but even them would need a little time to prepare and say "hey, we're going to fight".

 

[Zarine]

I'm in favor of a fixed result because randomness on something repeatable is bad.
On most game you just have to spam the same request over and over again until it's accepted (or save/load). And it sometime doesn't really make sense.

After, there are 2 points that could be interesting:
- counter offer (would be a first in a paradox game afaik) - compensating the missing randomness hiding the fact that it's not fixed
- discussion between known or unknown result

Counter offer would be really great considering that the diplomacy seems to be quite important with the existence of federation and such.


For the known vs unknown result, I always find it a bit strange to known the result before asking.
Knowing what favor or not is needed, but the actual result ?! I'm not sure.
After, unknown result without consequences is useless. It could be hidden statuses describing your behavior.

For instance, if you always propose trade agreements tight so that you almost always are at the limit could, if you fail to have a good offer, increase a greedy meter imposing a malus on the future trade chances with the nation. On the other hand, proposing a generous offer would have the opposite effect.

 

[zukodark]

I'd be more in favor of random events that influence their directly influence others to say yes or no to an alliance. Thus we get randomness, but you still know if they are going to accept or not. The general public opinion of your nation should influence their decision.

 

[bz249]

I'm in favor of a fixed result because randomness on something repeatable is bad.
On most game you just have to spam the same request over and over again until it's accepted (or save/load). And it sometime doesn't really make sense.

After, there are 2 points that could be interesting:
- counter offer (would be a first in a paradox game afaik) - compensating the missing randomness hiding the fact that it's not fixed
- discussion between known or unknown result

Counter offer would be really great considering that the diplomacy seems to be quite important with the existence of federation and such.


For the known vs unknown result, I always find it a bit strange to known the result before asking.
Knowing what favor or not is needed, but the actual result ?! I'm not sure.
After, unknown result without consequences is useless. It could be hidden statuses describing your behavior.

For instance, if you always propose trade agreements tight so that you almost always are at the limit could, if you fail to have a good offer, increase a greedy meter imposing a malus on the future trade chances with the nation. On the other hand, proposing a generous offer would have the opposite effect.

Why not add randomness on the information screen? So you can be quite sure that if you are winning a war yet still offering a tribute the enemy will accept it. You can also be sure that he will not capitulate. In between there is a gray zone where your "diplomatic advisor" say he is likely to accept that deal etc. So you can go a safe way and pay more/earn less to be really sure to get the treaty... or risk loosing the time and diplomatic resources because you tried to maximize the gain.

 

[aitaituo]

They had this in EU3 and it was boring and terrible.

Send request, wait a month, send a gift to make up for diplomatic relations drop due to failure, wait a month, send request, wait a month, send a gift... Repeat as many times as necessary to make them accept vassalization.

 

[bz249]

They had this in EU3 and it was boring and terrible.

Send request, wait a month, send a gift to make up for diplomatic relations drop due to failure, wait a month, send request, wait a month, send a gift... Repeat as many times as necessary to make them accept vassalization.

Yes the EU3 implementation was boring because the diplomatic model was overly simplicistic and repetitive (as France you have to collect all those pesky little duchies). But would it be different if you would have seen that it is 75.416% chance that they accept this vassalization?

 

[aitaituo]

Yes the EU3 implementation was boring because the diplomatic model was overly simplicistic and repetitive (as France you have to collect all those pesky little duchies). But would it be different if you would have seen that it is 75.416% chance that they accept this vassalization?

It did show the chance roughly. And it did not help when "likely" meant "40 months of trying."

 

[zyphial]

Eww. Sorry, no, I've had my fill of random diplomacy. EU3 was bad, Vicky was worse in that department. There are three possible outcomes: definite yes, definite no, or screw this I'm playing something else that doesn't feel needlessly random. I couldn't really enjoy anything involving Vicky 2's diplomacy until very recently when that nonsense went away. Let it smolder in the depths where it belongs.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

A dice roll can be frustrating, but diplomacy can also be disappointing if things are too obvious or mechanical. It seems to me that the desire for a random factor is more about trying to avoid the mechanicalness than a statement that it's impossible to know whether a country could accept a deal.

It seems to me that the process of negotiation is not well modeled by rolling a die OR by stacking modifiers until the positive is greater than the negative. I wonder if what's missing is too-easy access to information? It seems to me that a large part of diplomat's job is to go to a country and try to understand what they are thinking, what the climate of opinion is. The other part is to try to influence that opinion in ways that help the home country. In EU4, it seems like the first part of the job is instant and free. You know for sure in advance whether country X will accept treaty Y, even if yesterday you weren't even aware of the existence of country X. In reality, it would take some time and diplomatic investment to talk with the movers and shakers in X, understand the politics to come up with an assessment of what they would accept and what they wouldn't. Before that investment is made, the response to any treaty request would probably be "It's too soon", with more consequential treaties requiring more investment.

So maybe in Stellaris you send a diplomat to a Star-Empire, and gradually you learn more about their current attitudes and different diplomatic options gradually resolve from "Too Soon" to "Yes" or "No", with the associated list of why and why not.

 

[Umega]

No, please I don't want to go back to the fustrating diplomacy of EU3. RNG/dice-roll is tolerated for things like events and a bit of combat.

 

[CptWilly]

Agreed that there is uncertainty to real-life negotiations, but maybe not as much uncertainty as you might think. Negotiating teams are usually not working in a vacuum. Preliminary talks and deals have laid some groundwork for whatever is being discussed, preliminary positions have been staked out, some public posturing has been carried out by both sides. Everyone comes to the table knowing their own preferences, "must haves," and "could do withouts," but also knowing a lot about the other side. Finally, once talks begin face-to-face negotiators can get a pretty good handle on the parties' moods on different details, where compromise might be possible and where it will not be. Often negotiators can discover pretty quickly where they have leverage on certain issues and where they do not. This process is tense and dramatic and fun, but would almost have to be a game unto itself to recreate faithfully.

The way Paradox currently handles diplomacy does a great job of recreating the outcomes of this sort of process (i.e. you can go back and forth trying to use what leverage you have to create a deal acceptable to all parties and then ultimately decide to move forward with such a deal or not) without recreating the process itself. I think this is exactly right for a strategy game on the scale of what Paradox does best.

 

[Botox]

I dont like some kind of dice diplomacy where I just sit and hope I roll a 9 instead of a 0 and if it fails I reload (or get frustrated cause my 99% Chance to sign an alliance fails 2 times in a row cause of bad luck...).

What I would like is that diplomacy does take time. In most games you propose something and the answer is directly delivered. There are no real negotiations, consultations, counsellings or anything like that. I send a message to another empire to sign an alliance or offer them to affiliate themselfs to my Federation and they directly say yes or no, but all these offers and answers are instant.
What if diplomacy would take time? I dont know how much, as I dont know how time is going on in this game, but it should take time and I can help with the odds of the outcome not only by - say - handing over some money, but to send a) my best diplomat and b) give them more time to negotiate. Other factors could increase or decrease the time aswell.

So if I want to negotiate an alliance it would take... 3 months. If both sides would be pacifist it would take longer, say 6 months.
If both empires are threatened by another, militaristic empire it would half the time as they'd feel the urge to pool themselfs together to discourage the agressiv empire to get some planets out of both.