Slitherine

I know there's a plan to start a proper Diplomacy Suggestions thread but I thought I'd throw out a few questions/ideas around diplomacy that could be incorporated into it later.

First question that comes to mind is, how much warning should there be before a faction declares war? Should it be a surprise, or obvious? I get the feeling that different players would have different preferences, so can it be an option at startup e.g. whether to display an "aggression level". Or can an impending declaration of war be deduced by paying a cost - e.g. placing spies/bribing officials.

Second question is whether a player should be able to avoid war by paying tribute and so not have to build much of an army at all (the ultimate builder strategy). This might appeal to a lot of players. It would have to be roughly equivalent in cost to building an army and could require a bit of strategy to pull off (e.g. figuring out who and when to pay off). Diplomacy effects might have to be transparent (but difficult to optimise) to let players figure out a good strategy.

Third is how much influence diplomatic effects should have on AI strategy vs. other considerations e.g. gaining more room or strategic resources. Why should the AI only attack people it doesn't like, rather than invade areas it would be beneficial to control (like the player).

Fourth, what if there were scripted events that affected diplomatic relations - e.g. a plot-based improvement/deterioration of relations between specific factions either following the same story, or semi-random. So you could play like an "Earth" game with predictable allies and enemies or a random game. (Maybe not fully random - at least not contradictory. So a positive Togra/Dynasty event will most likely be followed eventually by additional positive T/D events, letting you plan ahead without being completely in control.) This could also be cool for scenario design.

fortydayweekend wrote: First question that comes to mind is, how much warning should there be before a faction declares war? Should it be a surprise, or obvious? I get the feeling that different players would have different preferences, so can it be an option at startup e.g. whether to display an "aggression level". Or can an impending declaration of war be deduced by paying a cost - e.g. placing spies/bribing officials.

There is a sort of aggression level already, in the diplomacy screen, after each faction's name. I haven't observed this closely, but I would imagine a faction with 'Furious' relation is likely to declare a war at any moment, if it has a competitive or stronger military compared to player's.

I think I'd like more depth to the stages between peace and war though. Maybe more options in addition to paying tribute or initiating two-way pacts, to reduce chance of war. Ways to be beneficial to the other faction that they'd 'appreciate'. Not sure what that could be, but I'm a bit tired of the "suck up to us with money or we'll destroy you" scenario. How about a faction demanding some sort of military support from you in case of a war? A sort of insisted military alliance. Maybe instead of locking your faction into a war in such alliance, any units you move to the ally's territory becomes owned by them, so you can give them units without actually waging war yourself, but over time it would deteriorate your standing with the other factions as they see you contributing to their enemies' war efforts. If the ally doesn't receive units regularly enough, they might break the alliance as non-beneficial. If such an alliance is created between roughly equal factions, or if the ally is satisfied with your contributions, the ally might even give you some of its units from time to time.

In any case, I think at least tribute should be payable in forms other than credits as well, be it resources, units, or whatever.

I agree with Hitman's suggestions.

I'm not sure how to balance it, but you should only be able to pay off a faction to keep the peace if the payoff is worth it to them. Let's say they have 2 possible targets and there isn't a strong preference on which to attack. Might as well try to extort some money or resources from one and attack the other.

I do wish relations were more transparent and affected by logical factors, such as sharing a border. I'm OK if there is a tendency for some to have ideological differences that are harder to overcome, but I don't think it should be impossible. If there were strategic / luxury resources it would add another factor to cause tensions over because the other guy may feel he has to get access to your stuff.

I'm OK with surprise attacks, but there should be repercussions for it. Factions should deem you less trustworthy and raise tensions with them. Even factions the aggressor is friendly with should take a relations hit since they may be next. And by surprise attack, I mean declaring war on someone you are friendly with, not stationing all your troops around a city and then declaring war. That is kind of frustrating.