Diplomacy - Suggestions

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.

I totally agree about diplomats being able to hire mercenaries. In fact I was downright surprised that they couldn't!

I'd like to know if bribing another factions diplomat/army/general/city has any negative effct on your standing with that nation, and if so, how much. Is it expected, and merely a private matter between the two parties, or do they get annoyed? In fact, does the other nation get a slice of the bribe?

I think a better and more real solution is that the garrison stays if you bribe them. In the field I can imagine an army disappearing, but what's the point of a garrisson disappearing? They are probably pretty comfortable in the city. Or maybe they should leave on the 2nd year (4th turn).
Diplomats hiring mercenaries is not really historic, is it? I mean... have you ever heard of a diplomat trying to buy some mercenaries when he's not in the company of an army? It just seems very unreal to me. Although any option is better then now.

Good point Soulflame, this is definitely a-historical. The reality was in fact that bribes would bring a leader (and hence his sworn followers) to the cause of the other side. Changing the request, thanks for the bonk on the head, I needed that ~:)

therother, I got your suggestion incorporated. That would be great to know.

What do people think about sea-lane access being seperate from military access?

Makes a bit of sense to me since it can take up to 10 years or more just to go around the iberian peninsula.

Also I can see why factions do'nt like granting military access but sea access should be separate from military access as it would make things much easier around Byzantium and the Iberian penninsula.

Another nice option would be military passage rights where your military can pass through as long as the army never camps, always keeps marching on it wo'nt be considered offensive. Whereas military access rights should be the right to camp an army on friendly territory indefinately.

Military passage rights might be able to easily programmed since its already programmed where you get that message from the senate you have 2 turns to get off or be penalized by the senate. So when you you have passage rights you have 2 turns to make it through or it can be considered transgression

Also military access should maybe should have a time limit so let's say you ask for military access for 10 years they reply back 10 years access for xxx amount of denari for 10 years.

So how do those ideas sound. I know some of that could be considered expansion pack material but sealane access would be a nice one to make different from military access

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulflame

I think a better and more real solution is that the garrison stays if you bribe them. In the field I can imagine an army disappearing, but what's the point of a garrisson disappearing? They are probably pretty comfortable in the city. Or maybe they should leave on the 2nd year (4th turn).

---

I think that this is a consequence of a creative decision by CA. They don't want troop types from one faction to be in the army of another, except as mercenaries, and there are strict controls on them - where you get each unit type, frequency and regeneration of each unit, and so on. Plus the garrison doesn't always disappear. If you can build the units, you get them.