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

[svalan_i_dalen]

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

Why would everyone want to ally you? Is it in their strategic interest? If it is, then it is fine.

 

[Battlex]

Why would everyone want to ally you? Is it in their strategic interest? If it is, then it is fine.

Because the AI is super accepting of alliances? If we got a return of the protectorate mechanic, minors on other continents wanting to ally wouldn't be so bad tho

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

Because the AI is super accepting of alliances? If we got a return of the protectorate mechanic, minors on other continents wanting to ally wouldn't be so bad tho

Fix the AI?

If you view this from a systemic perspective countries that build huge alliance networks also have huge obligations. It means they will be at war a lot and not able to honor their alliances. This makes them less valuable as allies. So the system will balance itself if AI understands that.

 

[Eruth]

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.

You're just making an agreement with the leader of the nation and then they take care of all the administration. Your diplomats just tell their diplomats to steer trade/support in war/whatever, they go tell their leaders and the leaders figure it all out.

 

[Johan]

While its a good idea, its also a very risky one when it comes to code.

 

[jacopus95]

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.

That is an actual good idea! It would improve the system by a huge margin. It might be a heavy rework for the developers though, i can't imagine the numbers of checks and features dependent on the current diplomatic system.

EDIT: well, this message is exactly what Johan wrote at the same time.



(hire me if you need another dev Kappa)

 

[Xdevo]

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.

Vic2 has a hard cap (1) on the number of great power allies you can have until "Great Wars" are unlocked (~1890ish).

There's a small scaling penalty to getting new allies based on the power of the allies you already have. I don't think I've ever seen it really matter in getting allies though as there's either an incredibly positive value (ie you're a great power) overriding it, or there's an incredibly negative value (ie you're a weak nation) overriding it.

Vic2's diplomacy with regards to alliances (not the sphering system and whatnot) is pretty bland and opaque because there's so many incredibly "swingy" variables (woops, a nation's at war for more than 15 days, better drop all alliances with them). There's a few interesting concepts hidden in the alliance system, but its pretty awkward to try to take them out given how rarely they really matter compared to the other Vic unique systems.

 

[PtY]

While its a good idea, its also a very risky one when it comes to code.

Why, out of curiosity? Are you worried about the AI being able to handle it, balancing issues, a plethora of bugs, or something else?

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I like this idea.

 

[Ziul]

While its a good idea, its also a very risky one when it comes to code.

So sad ! i could be a way of tweaking a lot of things in term of diplomatic actions ! Thanks for your response though

 

[swagmeister]

This is exactly what we need, more player targeted guarantees on minors.

 

[Sidolowka]

This is exactly what we need, more player targeted guarantees on minors.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because this

isn't fun to fight against. A OPM Burgundy in Europe is allied to Japan, Nepal, Yemen and Kongo, while being guaranteed by Jaunpur, Vijayanagar and France because...?

 

[Mindel]

While its a good idea, its also a very risky one when it comes to code.

A compromise solution that would be less risky to code would be to (say) triple the number of diplomatic "slots", and then scale the price of certain diplomatic relations accordingly.

Full-price ones would be for alliances and personal unions with peer powers. Alliances and vassalages with much smaller powers could be 2/3 price. Minor relations such as guarantees, military access, and maybe royal marriages could be 1/3 price.

 

[Ziul]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because this
View attachment 636640
isn't fun to fight against. A OPM Burgundy in Europe is allied to Japan, Nepal, Yemen and Kongo, while being guaranteed by Jaunpur, Vijayanagar and France because...?

On this example the rework could add a distance modifier on the cost of garantie. As jawnpur a garantie could cost 25 out of your 250 diplomatic relation pool, this cost multipied by a distance modifier of *3 (because 3 continent distance for the example) meaning 75 points, also because i don't have trust nor favor with burgundy the cost could be modified with trust score, i got 40 trust between Jawnpur and Burgundy so i got to multiply it *1.6 (100-trustscore) so it would cost finally 120 meaning this sole garantie cost me half of my diplo interaction pool !

It would permit to deepen interactions and make some dipomatic decisions decisive, why garantie burgundy for the price of 3 garanties on my own continent ? why investing so much points of my pool for this ? I should use favor and trust with this country to reduce the diplo cost of our relations so in 3 years i'll be able to garantie another country because i accumulated trust on my ally during a war so now i go full trust to reduce the cost of our alliance and trade agreement ... etc

Each interaction would have a base cost, modifiers like : distance, trust, use of favor, natural allies, doctrines, policies ...

The diplopool could also be used in combination with espionnage, meaning espionnage could have a diplo interaction cost / malus / bonus. Espionnage could use the diplo pool for adding effect to some interactions for example.

 

[Johan]

A compromise solution that would be less risky to code would be to (say) triple the number of diplomatic "slots", and then scale the price of certain diplomatic relations accordingly.

Full-price ones would be for alliances and personal unions with peer powers. Alliances and vassalages with much smaller powers could be 2/3 price. Minor relations such as guarantees, military access, and maybe royal marriages could be 1/3 price.

thats the same though.

 

[Mindel]

thats the same though.

Well, by that reasoning, so is the current system. Everything just happens to be the same price.

 

[Ololorium]

While its a good idea, its also a very risky one when it comes to code.

By "risky" you mean that the current system is so intertwined with different aspects of the game (AI behaviour, NIs and events, etc.) that replacing it with a new system would require an enormous amount of work to make the game functional and balanced again?

 

[Dvd Avins]

People can run with this and maybe what they come up with is better than mine. But as the original suggester, I'm not a fan of judging whether some ohter nation is a peer or what have you. That could lead to your number of dip capacity changing based on what other nations do, without you even realizing it. Or if you freeze the cost at the entry point, it leads to more gaming the system in a way I don't think most folks would prefer.

I just want to see different costs for relationship types that are inherently different levels of commitment. An alliance is 2-way, so it should cost more than 1-way relationships like supporting independence or guaranteeing independence. Access should be less than either (but still has the initial cost of sending the diplomat, so there's still a limit on gaining short-term paths for armies).

 

[Ziul]

People can run with this and maybe what they come up with is better than mine. But as the original suggester, I'm not a fan of judging whether some ohter nation is a peer or what have you. That could lead to your number of dip capacity changing based on what other nations do, without you even realizing it. Or if you freeze the cost at the entry point, it leads to more gaming the system in a way I don't think most folks would prefer.

I just want to see different costs for relationship types that are inherently different levels of commitment. An alliance is 2-way, so it should cost more than 1-way relationships like supporting independence or guaranteeing independence. Access should be less than either (but still has the initial cost of sending the diplomat, so there's still a limit on gaining short-term paths for armies).

I didn't not though about it this way you are right with the "over-time" effect

The only useful data should be fervor / trust because this mechanic is not integrated with diplomatie but should be and fervor could be used to ponderate diplo interaction ^^

 

[agonistes]

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.

And can we use it for culture conversions? You know how expensive it is to make China muscovite?