Refinement of initial ideas discussed here, this is hopefully a less long mechanical proposal. I suck at picture mockups too, which would definitely help, so apologies for the mass of text instead!
I think there is a broad agreement that the current warfare gameplay loop is both ahistorical (the concept of "claims" just makes no sense in the time period) and more importantly: boring and arbitrary. I propose that this is replaced with a more dynamic system that looks to react to the current map situation, the appetite of populations for war, and so on.
I envision the system being composed of two concepts: one at a state (empire) level, representing the appetite for warfare within a population, which I call Belligerence; and one that exists at a geographic level, which I call Tension, representing where warfare would break out, and at least initially be a wargoal in such contests.
The loop between the two concepts would be that Belligerence determines which states want to be going to war, this would lead to increased Tension in the areas they are contesting for control (especially with other Belligerent states); likewise states that exist in areas of high Tension would in turn have their Belligerence increased to reflect impending warfare in their lands.
Belligerence
Belligerence would be a state-level indicator for every player (alongside Stability, Tyranny etc), which represents the appetite for Warfare of the population. This takes some inspiration from faith-level Fervour in the CK games; when the value is high, the population is agitating for War and the effects reflect this; when the value is low, the population is War-averse and the effects reflect this. Because of the heavy overlap, this could supercede War Exhaustion to keep the number of moving parts down, but that isn't necessary.
Tension
While Belligerence takes inspiration from Fervour, geographic Tension takes some inspiration from HOI Global Tension...but puts it on the map. I don't know what level of geographic unit would work best, I lean Province but I could see the argument for Region too. It should be relevant to every state with a stake in that Province - which I'd define as holding a territory or clients there, bordering the Province, or having a mission objective there. Although each Tension value would exist locally, it would be able to propogate through the feedback loop with Belligerence.
With a Map Mode for both Belligerence and Tension, this should give a quick overview for players of where problem areas of war are likely to spring up, but more easily than checking individual states for their Claims/Diplomatic relationship webs. Hopefully, by generating contested areas more naturally than with the arbitrariness of Claims, it should help reduce absurd borders, ideally with a Control system like @starchitect's working alongside this.
This is a pretty stark overhaul proposal that may potentially be too large for this game, but I think would be a good start for any GSG, so why not one with desperate need of a diplomatic revolution like IR? It definitely has holes still, so let me know any ideas to tighten it up too. Thanks!
I think there is a broad agreement that the current warfare gameplay loop is both ahistorical (the concept of "claims" just makes no sense in the time period) and more importantly: boring and arbitrary. I propose that this is replaced with a more dynamic system that looks to react to the current map situation, the appetite of populations for war, and so on.
I envision the system being composed of two concepts: one at a state (empire) level, representing the appetite for warfare within a population, which I call Belligerence; and one that exists at a geographic level, which I call Tension, representing where warfare would break out, and at least initially be a wargoal in such contests.
The loop between the two concepts would be that Belligerence determines which states want to be going to war, this would lead to increased Tension in the areas they are contesting for control (especially with other Belligerent states); likewise states that exist in areas of high Tension would in turn have their Belligerence increased to reflect impending warfare in their lands.
Belligerence
Belligerence would be a state-level indicator for every player (alongside Stability, Tyranny etc), which represents the appetite for Warfare of the population. This takes some inspiration from faith-level Fervour in the CK games; when the value is high, the population is agitating for War and the effects reflect this; when the value is low, the population is War-averse and the effects reflect this. Because of the heavy overlap, this could supercede War Exhaustion to keep the number of moving parts down, but that isn't necessary.
I've dropped a few ideas in the link above, but there are a few key areas I believe this should impact:
- Tension - states that have high Belligerence should impose Tension on every province that they are contesting, while low Belligerence leads to more peaceful borderlands
- Costs of waging War - currently the claims system removes internal costs from declaring war, whereas Superiority wars impose heavy costs to Stability and War Exhaustion. This should be a more gradiated system rather than the cliff-edge we see now, I'd argue this should generally vary with "Our Opinion of Them", with Belligerence mitigating any internal costs of declaring War. This should also influence the internal politics of declaring war, with Characters and Factions being more favourable to war in states with high Belligerence, and vehemently opposing under low Belligerence.
- Capacity to wage War - Belligerence should greatly influence Cohort Morale, Manpower Recovery, and/or costs of levying which I suspect may be coming. Populations that aren't interested in warfare should be pretty poor at it, and so be looking to get out of wars asap, even if it means accepting some losses this time.
- Tension - I would have the Base Belligerence come from the average Tension that the pops face: this should be weighted by the Class of pops. This way, having loads of Nobles in the core of an Empire with Low Tension would cause a state to have a naturally low Belligerence, providing an intuitive drag on the ability of the state to wage war; alternatively, smaller states, or states with more Pops at the borders, would become highly sensitive to the Tension of their province, and so may have an easier time getting Belligerence up and down.
- Warfare - Having War declared on you should give a big boost to Belligerence, giving a defender advantage; while factors like "Time at War" and other War Exhaustion factors should drag the value down, giving the boom-bust cycle of Warfare - you want Belligerence to declare wars, but being at war (and especially doing badly) saps Belligerence and makes your populace want peace.
- Character Action - Characters should have the option to engage in rabble-rousing Schemes which would pump up Belligerence, and as with other schemes the player should be able to select this for the leader. Power of these actions should come from Charisma and Popularity. I'd have this in two flavours: directed towards another state "Carthago delenda est", which would additionally deteriorate mutual Opinions; and directed towards a Province (ie the Character has holdings there), which would additionally induce Tension there. There could likewise be dovish character schemes to reduce Belligerence.
Tension
While Belligerence takes inspiration from Fervour, geographic Tension takes some inspiration from HOI Global Tension...but puts it on the map. I don't know what level of geographic unit would work best, I lean Province but I could see the argument for Region too. It should be relevant to every state with a stake in that Province - which I'd define as holding a territory or clients there, bordering the Province, or having a mission objective there. Although each Tension value would exist locally, it would be able to propogate through the feedback loop with Belligerence.
- Belligerence - as above, states would have their Belligerence values depend on the Tension their pops are facing
- Polarising Opinion - Opinions of states with a stake in a Province should be influenced by the Tension levels in their borderlands. I would have both Positive and Negative effects - obviously antagonistic states should hate each other more, leading them towards war; but friendly states should like each other more if they're faced with Tension, as this would represent a third party becoming a threat to both of them.
- Reduce Costs of War - declaring wars in areas of high Tension (eg as a wargoal), both in warscore and internal costs for declaring war.
- Economic Cost - areas of high Tension should be less productive, especially with Trade. I'm agnostic as to how this would be done: it could be through direct Happiness or Output Modifiers, or even by influencing control; could effect different Classes or Cultures at different rates. Importantly, it would provide a counterbalance from the gains to Military efficacy from Belligerence by having economic losses from the Tension it generates. It also adds in a more natural cost for Aggressive Expansion, as your (contested) borderlands become useless from the Tension you generate there.
- Belligerence - I would have the Base Tension of each Province come from the Belligerence values of states with a stake in the Province. Tension impact from Belligerence should be larger when states have a poor Opinion of each other, therefore making it possible to be Belligerent overall, without necessarily causing excess Tension with allies (although some Tension would of course be natural).
- Aggressive Expansion - states with high AE should generate more Tension everywhere, putting their neighbours on notice, and potentially inducing coalitions against them through the Polarising Opinion effects above.
- Warfare - obviously, existing wars between states with stakes in the area would pump up Tension there, inviting in other interested parties to join the fray. Peace declarations, on the other hand, would massively dissapate Tension in a region, thus requiring it to build up again for more war to break out.
- Diplomacy - areas with Allies, Subjects, Defensive Leagues etc should benefit from reduced Tension there, perhaps on top of the reduced Tension coming from their good Opinions of one another.
- Troop deployment - holding troops in contested territory should be a big factor. Taking actions with them like Drilling or raiding should make things worse.
With a Map Mode for both Belligerence and Tension, this should give a quick overview for players of where problem areas of war are likely to spring up, but more easily than checking individual states for their Claims/Diplomatic relationship webs. Hopefully, by generating contested areas more naturally than with the arbitrariness of Claims, it should help reduce absurd borders, ideally with a Control system like @starchitect's working alongside this.
This is a pretty stark overhaul proposal that may potentially be too large for this game, but I think would be a good start for any GSG, so why not one with desperate need of a diplomatic revolution like IR? It definitely has holes still, so let me know any ideas to tighten it up too. Thanks!
- 10
- 1
