Why not Diplomatic Capacity, like Governing Capacity? Instead of Relations limit.

[Dvd Avins]

It seems wrong to me that, for instance, Guarantee Independence takes up a whole slot, just like an Alliance does. So how about if different kinds of relationships used up different amounts of an available pool of Diplomatic ability (call it dip...capacity?, ...prominence?, ...relations, ...whatever). Even Colonial Nations could use a little, or you could have the option of counting them in your pool and it would help keep Liberty Desire down.

 

[Jorlaan]

It seems wrong to me that, for instance, Guarantee Independence takes up a whole slot, just like an Alliance does. So how about if different kinds of relationships used up different amounts of an available pool of Diplomatic ability (call it dip...capacity?, ...prominence?, ...relations, ...whatever). Even Colonial Nations could use a little, or you could have the option of counting them in your pool and it would help keep Liberty Desire down.

Excellent idea!

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

It could also be weighted by size. I always found it weird that it takes my administration the same amount of paperwork to maintain an agreement with Ulm or Ottomans.

 

[RAID186]

Could also tie into Dip Rep somehow, maybe a cost modifier depending on your diplomatic reputation in the international community.

 

[Canute VII]

Could also be integrated with "accepted cultures".

 

[Sidolowka]

Could also be integrated with "accepted cultures".

Culture as a whole needs a complete rework. I'm sure we all know the countless errors and mistakes the current iteration of 'Culture' has. (Slovak is apparently closer to Romanian than Czech, Turks are in the same group as Khaleejis but not Azeris, Vietnamese (will be) in the Chinese group, Albanians are Slavs apparently, Beja is not in Cushitic, Finnish is not in the same group as Karelian/Estonian, Ryazanian culture is a thing for a reason, Korean is still the worst culture group in the game, language is supposedly not the standard for culture groups but Sinhalese is in the East Aryan group (but Maldivian isn't?), etc.) Culture needs to have a dynamic cultural similarity meter instead of the fixed groups we have now. Integrating say, Danes as a German nation should be easier than integrating Swahilis.

It seems wrong to me that, for instance, Guarantee Independence takes up a whole slot, just like an Alliance does. So how about if different kinds of relationships used up different amounts of an available pool of Diplomatic ability (call it dip...capacity?, ...prominence?, ...relations, ...whatever). Even Colonial Nations could use a little, or you could have the option of counting them in your pool and it would help keep Liberty Desire down.

This would make much more sense. Right now simple diplomatic moves such as military access and fleet basing take up full diplo slots that are equal to a full blown alliance/royal marriage, but for some reason diverting an entire nation's trade to another or a tributary/overlord relation doesn't take any diplomatic management at all?

 

[Link76]

Agree. Does Victoria II not have something like a hidden Diplomatic capacity? You normaly have max two big allieds or 1 big allied and a dozen small allieds, you can't have both.

 

[Thorum]

The basic mechanisms behind culture and religion are probably the main things we'll have to await EUV for, unless the basic "one province one culture one religion" problem is much less hard coded than I remember paradox having stated...

As to the idea, sounds great . Maybe post it in the "suggestions" forum, so devs will see it ? After integration of a few genius addendums in the posts between yours and mine, obviously

 

[Ziul]

@Groogy
@Johan

I almost never ping but this could be a massive idea would you give us our opinion on this ?

 

[Dvd Avins]

It could also be weighted by size. I always found it weird that it takes my administration the same amount of paperwork to maintain an agreement with Ulm or Ottomans.

I think the extra cost for alliances with big countries is the big wars they drag you into.

 

[JCommander]

Culture as a whole needs a complete rework. I'm sure we all know the countless errors and mistakes the current iteration of 'Culture' has. (Slovak is apparently closer to Romanian than Czech, Turks are in the same group as Khaleejis but not Azeris, Vietnamese (will be) in the Chinese group, Albanians are Slavs apparently, Beja is not in Cushitic, Finnish is not in the same group as Karelian/Estonian, Ryazanian culture is a thing for a reason, Korean is still the worst culture group in the game, language is supposedly not the standard for culture groups but Sinhalese is in the East Aryan group (but Maldivian isn't?), etc.) Culture needs to have a dynamic cultural similarity meter instead of the fixed groups we have now. Integrating say, Danes as a German nation should be easier than integrating Swahilis.


This would make much more sense. Right now simple diplomatic moves such as military access and fleet basing take up full diplo slots that are equal to a full blown alliance/royal marriage, but for some reason diverting an entire nation's trade to another or a tributary/overlord relation doesn't take any diplomatic management at all?

In the EU Dev past, Cultural groups used to be MUCH more linguistic. Turkish used to be in the same culture group as Azeri and some of the central Asian cultures, there was a Finno-Urgic group, etc.
As the devs have redone specific regions they've redone culture groups to be less focused on language and more on God only knows what. You're absolutely right that the whole system needs an overhaul.

 

[JCommander]

I took some time to write up these ideas into a detailed and comprehensive proposal

Diplomatic Capacity

This is an elaboration on the ideas laid out by @Dvd Avins, @Canute VII, and @Sidolowka in this thread. They get credit for coming up with the concepts here. Some of my numbers are definately wildly unbalanced so feedback is welcome. Diplomatic...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Thorum]

and more on God only knows what.

Mainly to make historical outcomes reality more often, it's almost always mentioned in the relevant development diaries.

 

[Runite Drill]

I like the idea. The current system is very indiscriminate. I have never chosen "Enforce Military Access" as a peace deal because I do not value military access to a small country the same as an alliance or PU with a larger country.

If larger nations cost more "diplomatic capacity" to coerce, then it probably follows that the limit increases over time (e.g. with tech & ideas) - especially since in the endgame every country is typically rather large. Additionally, if it were a soft-cap and similar in style to governing capacity, what would be the penalties for going over? I'm imagining some combination of negative modifiers to AE/Improve Relations, Opinion, Dip Rep, Trade Power, Liberty Desire, Coalition Threshold, Trust and/or Favour Generation?

I have the feeling it might be something that could be modded into current EU4 in a very roundabout way...

 

[Lucododosor]

That's actually a pretty good idea - and I've never even though about it!
Probably you could do diplo capacity related to development and diplo tech level. Opinion modifiers such as "historical friends" (I know it happens between Castille/Spain and Portugal, don't know of any other) could, for instance, down the use of diplo capacity between these specific nations. The idea is that, if you're in a long-time diplomatic relation with another country, as time goes by, it should be easier to keep it running. And if you're already allied to a nation, minor agreements like military/navy access should cost none or less diplo capacity. Just throwing some ideas.

 

[Ziul]

That's actually a pretty good idea - and I've never even though about it!
Probably you could do diplo capacity related to development and diplo tech level. Opinion modifiers such as "historical friends" (I know it happens between Castille/Spain and Portugal, don't know of any other) could, for instance, down the use of diplo capacity between these specific nations. The idea is that, if you're in a long-time diplomatic relation with another country, as time goes by, it should be easier to keep it running. And if you're already allied to a nation, minor agreements like military/navy access should cost none or less diplo capacity. Just throwing some ideas.

You made me think about trust and favor !

Favor could be used to weight ligther some diplo-action during a period (to create some circumstance alliances "i helped you you could be more gentle") and the more thrust the less weight it could cost.

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

After some more thinking i realized this would just be adjusting a weird arbitrary system making it a little less weird and arbitrary.

The cost of alliances should be that you need to honor them or get bad reputation.

The cost of guarantees is that you need to honor them or get bad reputation.

The cost of vassals that they will revolt if they are too powerful and too many.

Royal marriages should be limited by number of available family members (so a slowly renewable resource).

Etc. Etc.

Why not just remove the diplo slot system from the game? Does it add any value at all?

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

Also found a thread from 2016 suggesting almost exactly this:

Make vassals use up only 0.5 diplo relation slots

The idea is not limited to vassals, and it does not have to be 0.5. It evolved with new posts, so please look at more than just the opening post. Thank you :)! Hello, I thought someone would finally make this suggestion (maybe someone did and I...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

We may just have to accept that this is a bad legacy system we will have to live with until EU5 since a lot of the game is balanced around it.

 

[Battlex]

In the EU Dev past, Cultural groups used to be MUCH more linguistic. Turkish used to be in the same culture group as Azeri and some of the central Asian cultures, there was a Finno-Urgic group, etc.
As the devs have redone specific regions they've redone culture groups to be less focused on language and more on God only knows what. You're absolutely right that the whole system needs an overhaul.

It's for ease of expansion, the levantine group means that you won't get an independent Syria if the Ottomans get beaten up as they become an empire ASAP so cultural union

After some more thinking i realized this would just be adjusting a weird arbitrary system making it a little less weird and arbitrary.

The cost of alliances should be that you need to honor them or get bad reputation.

The cost of guarantees is that you need to honor them or get bad reputation.

The cost of vassals that they will revolt if they are too powerful and too many.

Royal marriages should be limited by number of available family members (so a slowly renewable resource).

Etc. Etc.

Why not just remove the diplo slot system from the game? Does it add any value at all?

If you can ally everyone to stop someone annexing you, outside of a coalition, how would that be balanced?

Culture as a whole needs a complete rework. I'm sure we all know the countless errors and mistakes the current iteration of 'Culture' has. (Slovak is apparently closer to Romanian than Czech, Turks are in the same group as Khaleejis but not Azeris, Vietnamese (will be) in the Chinese group, Albanians are Slavs apparently, Beja is not in Cushitic, Finnish is not in the same group as Karelian/Estonian, Ryazanian culture is a thing for a reason, Korean is still the worst culture group in the game, language is supposedly not the standard for culture groups but Sinhalese is in the East Aryan group (but Maldivian isn't?), etc.) Culture needs to have a dynamic cultural similarity meter instead of the fixed groups we have now. Integrating say, Danes as a German nation should be easier than integrating Swahilis.


This would make much more sense. Right now simple diplomatic moves such as military access and fleet basing take up full diplo slots that are equal to a full blown alliance/royal marriage, but for some reason diverting an entire nation's trade to another or a tributary/overlord relation doesn't take any diplomatic management at all?

The carpathian culture group is another one to stop the tag breaking apart ahistorically

It seems wrong to me that, for instance, Guarantee Independence takes up a whole slot, just like an Alliance does. So how about if different kinds of relationships used up different amounts of an available pool of Diplomatic ability (call it dip...capacity?, ...prominence?, ...relations, ...whatever). Even Colonial Nations could use a little, or you could have the option of counting them in your pool and it would help keep Liberty Desire down.

Dip capacity sounds good in theory, but in practice you'd have issues if your allies expand too much, as well as being impossible to ally China or Russia. The gradual drift to autonomy and seperate vassal so that nations break up more easily is what I'd prefer the devs focus on

 

[Dvd Avins]

Dip capacity sounds good in theory, but in practice you'd have issues if your allies expand too much, as well as being impossible to ally China or Russia. The gradual drift to autonomy and seperate vassal so that nations break up more easily is what I'd prefer the devs focus on

I don't advocate cost scaling with the size of the target. And if it does scale, the cost shouldn't be both linear and unlimited.