Tamur
10-14-2004, 22:17
We've all had a good go at the diplomatic side of things, and have begun to understand how the system works. Although that understanding is nowhere near complete, there are a few items in the diplomatic arena that could be modified, added to, etc. Feel free to add to this list -- I've tried to cull through the forums and gather comments/suggestions:
The first four here are very consistently mentioned and talked of. Those that follow are less often mentioned but they "would be nice".
1. Transgression
Problem: This is good feedback that we're doing something wrong in the view of another faction, and it's good we know which faction thinks we're doing something wrong. However, this popup/sound comes 1) at ambiguous times -- after the end turn button is pressed, for example, or 2) after diplomatic negotiations where we're left unsure exactly what we did wrong in the negotiating session.
Suggestion:
clear statements regarding the cause of the message. There must be conditionals that generate these messages. Being able to read a description of these conditions would help tremendously.
2. Military Access treaties
Problem: Factions without Military Access treaties seem to feel free walking anywhere they please. While this is "real", we do need a diplomatic way to respond. Attacking and destroying the transgressing army
Suggestion:
add some sort of a 'Get Off My Lawn' option to our Make Offer options where we open a diplomatic session with a faction who have an army in our province, and that faction has no Military Access. The slave/rebel faction is, of course, the exception.
3. Stance feedback
Problem: Though we do have some feedback when we irritate or bebother our allies, we generally have very little regarding the reactions of other factions to our actions -- e.g. we have no feedback regarding the positive effects of our actions (such as "Well done, thank you for assisting us against the Rebels")
Also, there are cases where we definitely step over the bounds of diplomatic propriety -- such as marching our armies on land where we have no Military Access, but surely there are others -- where there is no feedback telling us the effect of our actions. Although the diplomatic field is by nature rather obscure, we need a little more understanding of the effect of our actions on another faction's stance toward us.
Note: This is much different than the immediate feedback of a diplomatic advisor of some sort, who would tell you "Yes, this looks like a proposal they'd accept" or "No, that one is right out!". That sort of feedback, though it may be helpful, may also server to minimise the difficulty of diplomacy (which would be a shame, IMO)
Suggestions:
Give the player qualitative feedback (not percentages or '+10 to standing', etc) when we:
march on land without Military Access
make an offensive diplomatic proposal
make a confidence-inducing diplomatic proposal
fulfill a diplomatic promise*
break a diplomatic promise*
do a "kind" deed that has no diplomatic counterpart (i.e. bribe a Rebel army who are on another faction's lands)
bribe a faction's army, diplomat, or family member
* i.e. the type of feedback we get from the Senate on missions
4. Ally/Protectorate Options
Problem: Currently the player cannot work with allies. Instead, the relationship is "they tolerate you, you tolerate them". To have a real feel of alliance, we need more interaction options -- one in particular would be a great step.
Suggestion
When negotiating for a Demand of Attack Faction, allow us to specify a location where we'd like them to attack. This is of course subject to all the current conditions (i.e. whether the location is an ally or neutral to them, etc)
?? 5. The Bribed-City brute squad -
Problem: Although we should definitely have to work hard to handle the backlash from a city being bribed out from under another faction, it is nearly impossible to sneakily accomplish a handover of power. This is because currently, all army units disappear when a city is bribed.
We can deal with this by parking one of our armies on the border of said province and waiting until the bribe goes through to march. However, it's often too late before that army gets there to keep the city from re-revolting back to the faction who owned the settlement pre-bribe.
Suggestion:
This needs some thought. It doesn't work from a code reality perspective to just turn them blue (or white or whatever), and a conversion to "similar" unit types would be a nightmare, I imagine. Suggestion 1 is allow diplomats to hire mercenaries. Suggestion 2 is allow a greater range of units to be bribed and "kept". However, that causes a fundamental shift in the way the game is programmed currently.
The first four here are very consistently mentioned and talked of. Those that follow are less often mentioned but they "would be nice".
1. Transgression
Problem: This is good feedback that we're doing something wrong in the view of another faction, and it's good we know which faction thinks we're doing something wrong. However, this popup/sound comes 1) at ambiguous times -- after the end turn button is pressed, for example, or 2) after diplomatic negotiations where we're left unsure exactly what we did wrong in the negotiating session.
Suggestion:
clear statements regarding the cause of the message. There must be conditionals that generate these messages. Being able to read a description of these conditions would help tremendously.
2. Military Access treaties
Problem: Factions without Military Access treaties seem to feel free walking anywhere they please. While this is "real", we do need a diplomatic way to respond. Attacking and destroying the transgressing army
Suggestion:
add some sort of a 'Get Off My Lawn' option to our Make Offer options where we open a diplomatic session with a faction who have an army in our province, and that faction has no Military Access. The slave/rebel faction is, of course, the exception.
3. Stance feedback
Problem: Though we do have some feedback when we irritate or bebother our allies, we generally have very little regarding the reactions of other factions to our actions -- e.g. we have no feedback regarding the positive effects of our actions (such as "Well done, thank you for assisting us against the Rebels")
Also, there are cases where we definitely step over the bounds of diplomatic propriety -- such as marching our armies on land where we have no Military Access, but surely there are others -- where there is no feedback telling us the effect of our actions. Although the diplomatic field is by nature rather obscure, we need a little more understanding of the effect of our actions on another faction's stance toward us.
Note: This is much different than the immediate feedback of a diplomatic advisor of some sort, who would tell you "Yes, this looks like a proposal they'd accept" or "No, that one is right out!". That sort of feedback, though it may be helpful, may also server to minimise the difficulty of diplomacy (which would be a shame, IMO)
Suggestions:
Give the player qualitative feedback (not percentages or '+10 to standing', etc) when we:
march on land without Military Access
make an offensive diplomatic proposal
make a confidence-inducing diplomatic proposal
fulfill a diplomatic promise*
break a diplomatic promise*
do a "kind" deed that has no diplomatic counterpart (i.e. bribe a Rebel army who are on another faction's lands)
bribe a faction's army, diplomat, or family member
* i.e. the type of feedback we get from the Senate on missions
4. Ally/Protectorate Options
Problem: Currently the player cannot work with allies. Instead, the relationship is "they tolerate you, you tolerate them". To have a real feel of alliance, we need more interaction options -- one in particular would be a great step.
Suggestion
When negotiating for a Demand of Attack Faction, allow us to specify a location where we'd like them to attack. This is of course subject to all the current conditions (i.e. whether the location is an ally or neutral to them, etc)
?? 5. The Bribed-City brute squad -
Problem: Although we should definitely have to work hard to handle the backlash from a city being bribed out from under another faction, it is nearly impossible to sneakily accomplish a handover of power. This is because currently, all army units disappear when a city is bribed.
We can deal with this by parking one of our armies on the border of said province and waiting until the bribe goes through to march. However, it's often too late before that army gets there to keep the city from re-revolting back to the faction who owned the settlement pre-bribe.
Suggestion:
This needs some thought. It doesn't work from a code reality perspective to just turn them blue (or white or whatever), and a conversion to "similar" unit types would be a nightmare, I imagine. Suggestion 1 is allow diplomats to hire mercenaries. Suggestion 2 is allow a greater range of units to be bribed and "kept". However, that causes a fundamental shift in the way the game is programmed currently.