I miss demands from diplo options

[Seridor]

Is there a particular reason we can't make demands in Stellaris without creating war goals? Sure, you can surrender and give the opposing party these wargoals, but those are often extreme: losing large swathes of territory, being subjugated, or worse. Subjugation in Stellaris, in particular, often feels like a final sentence, especially for AI empires.


instead, we could make demands such as:

"Pay X amount of a resource monthly" or "Transfer 5% of your monthly [resource] income" not like 45% of all your stuff and become totally subjugated..
"Adopt [ethic]" would apply increased ethic attraction pressure on your pop
"Cede one or two systems" (this and possibly other demands would cost influence if accepted)
"Cease trade with my enemy"
"adopt policy"

etc...

If accepted: A 5-year enforced truce is created, and the agreement couldn't be broken during that time. After that, breaking the agreement (e.g., stopping tribute, stop the ethics attraction, start trading again etc) gives the other party a casus belli, but no auto war or something.

If rejected: Nothing happens immediately, could just be a bluff or a threat. The demanding party may choose to declare war, but it wouldn’t be automatic.

This would create more room for roleplay, balance, and tension without needing to go to war, give up your independence whatever. I also miss some kind of reputation system, but that's probably not that important.
What do you think?

 

[Calvax]

I think more variety would be good, the issue is the AI. Victoria 3 recently added more detailed treaties allowing you to agree to all sorts of things from law changes to agreeing not to expand in certain areas. Which is a good change except the AI is terrible at judging the value of a treaty leading to it to agree to absurd proposals like paying massive amounts of resources in exchange for the player not colonising regions of the world the player had no intention to colonise.

System trading was removed in stellaris because it was easy to cheese the AI into giving away it's entire empire piece by piece. I'd love to have it back in a working form (if only to solve border gore) but it doesn't seem particularly easy to implement in a robust way.

 

[Seridor]

System trading was removed in stellaris because it was easy to cheese the AI into giving away it's entire empire piece by piece.

Yes, I agree it is not that easy to implement. Staying with this particular example, to succeed you would need at least superior strength, be close to the demanded systems (1–2 steps away at most), ensure there is no colony in it, pay the influence cost (which might be higher than claiming it), and optionally you would gain a "bully" reputation. Then you must agree to a 5–10 year truce, giving the bullied party time to prepare for revenge...

The other option we have right now is to claim everything and kill them in a blitz or in a series of wars, or subjugate them and drain them completely of their resources (and they are even forced to fight for us).

 

[thestarsseeall]

Proposal:

1. Be directly connected to/bordering the system in question (Already implemented AFAIK, only systems you border show up in trade as possibilities)
2. Empires default get -50 willingness to trade a system, plus an extra resource cost or equivalent in trading depending on whether it is inhabited or uninhabited?
3. For uninhabited systems, (20?) years worth of the value of the resources produced by it.
4. Inhabited Systems are determined by the average amount of resources the theoretical maximum amount of population in that system could produce over (20? years), assuming all housing is filled, plus some more extra cost?
5. Capitol Planets cannot be traded at all. Maybe also no to systems adjacent to their capitol planet?
6. Overlords get a discount on system cost (I don't want to have to integrate you then release you again without the one system of border gore, just give me the system already, I own you.)
7. Small discount on systems which are not connected any other of that empires systems? I hate border gore.
8. Extra cost for systems that would isolate a system next to it if sold to balance out point 7.

Also, I think claiming a system maybe should provide a discount on the willingness to trade a system. Shows that the empire desires a system, and gives an option to settle things peacefully prior to war. Appeasement.

There should also be more options to deal with claims. Right now, they just kinda build up over time as empire gain more influence, and result in diplomacy debuffs from vassals, between vassals, federation members, etc. Options for removing all claims via diplomacy or war, Federations, vassals, would be nice.

 

[Seridor]

I don't think system trading could be implemented, at least not with a simple AI. Eventually rich civs would just buy up everyone.

Demanding a system would be different-you'd get a diplo hit just for the demand-maybe not just with your target civ, that's why a reputation system would be nice. Then you might succeed or not, but likely got an enemy for yourself. Also if you get a system or two this way subsequent demands will be much less successfull, since they will see you can't be trusted.

When I was thinking about demands I was thinking more about demanding and getting tributes (resources) without completely subjugating your target. and not really about systems, though it could be done.

(Just an off topic note on claims: I think lost systems in a war should be automaticly claimed by the loser, and would give a valid casus belli for some years (so even a pacifist civ should be able to do some reconquista).