Victoria 3 | Monthly Update #5 | November

[lachek]

Question for the devs - Can diplomatic plays end in a negotiated settlement or can they only end in war or with one side backing down?

Yeah, I knew that could happen in a war but the devs have always made it sound like a diplo play has to end in war or backing down, which would be strange. Hopefully they can it's covered when peace settlements.

A Diplomatic Play is not to be thought of as a negotiation between two sides to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution. It is best thought of as a demand and implied threat by one side, which they at least pretend is totally legitimate - much like a Casus Belli / War Justification.

The other side can add demands of their own, again not to negotiate an agreement, but to up the stakes. The Diplomatic Play can only escalate, never de-escalate, much like how in poker nobody can take their ante back if they also agree another player may return theirs.

So no, a Diplomatic Play cannot end in a negotiated agreement where both sides walk away having won some/lost some. Either one side submit to the other's demand, or this chest-puffing leads to an actual conflict with both greater risks and greater rewards. That conflict can end in a compromise agreement, but that's because all pretense that the claimant was fully justified in their demands is now gone and participants are bargaining with their lives.

 

[lachek]

Thanks for the info. Follow up question - can to powers negotiate for things they can get through war without having to go to war to get it? For example, if I want province X can I pay the nation that owns that province for it? Of offer them market access and favorable trade deals? Or offer territory in exchange?

These sorts of transactional tit-for-tat deals are not part of our diplomatic system repertoire, no. Certain effects (e.g. I'll trade you 10% of my income for 10% of your Influence, or whatever) could theoretically be modeled using bilateral Pacts and one might argue that e.g. Subject pacts are all about trading autonomy for protection and economic benefits. But freeform diplomatic negotiations that you might see in Stellaris or Civ, where you put some stuff of yours in a bucket and asks for a similarly-valued bucket of stuff in return, is not modeled for a couple of reasons: 1, it's very gamey and often pretty unrealistic in practice (100 barrels of oil per week plus a suitcase with £645k in unmarked bills in exchange for a research pact and the entire state of Loire seems to have equal value, sign on the dotted line please!) and 2, it's very difficult to balance to make it worth your while while not also being extremely exploitable.

 

[lachek]

So no buying of Alaska in CK3? We need war for that?

There are situations in which land can change hands outside of Diplomatic Plays and peace deals, which includes the Alaska Purchase. It just isn't dealt with through a diplomatic trade system, for the aforementioned reasons.