Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

IGC - the diplomacy thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
The problem I have with diplomacy in EU is that if you do nothing all your relationships quckly decline to -200. This does not seem right. Why should relations between two powers who have no common interests and whose land possesssions do not touch be so negative? Neutral should be a default setting and relations should never drop below neutral unless there is a war etc.
 
The diplomatic settings are a bit of a problem as they are based on 'historical' perceptions. If the game does not play exactly as in history then you are penalised or blessed for events which may not habve happened in your game.

Eg. Eire has -8 relations with Scotland. Why? Because historically Ulster was planted by Scottish Calvinists in 1607. Before then Eire and Scotland were very close friends with many join military campaigns against the English. If Ireland rebels before 1607 though it is now at a major disadvantage for no reason. There are many cases throughout EU of this situation.
I feel that no modifier should be greater than 5 to reflect the possible changes in history (but still encourage the historical results). Also no country should be modified with respect to more than 5 other countries (only the main historical relationships should be encouraged. Minor relationships should be allowed develop +0)

For Ireland I would suggest the following settings changes.

-> Scotland +3
-> England -5
-> France +5
-> Spain +3
-> Papal States +5

For England

-> Scotland -1
-> France -3
-> Spain -3
-> Ireland -5

Paul.
 
I would feel alot better about the Baltics if LAT, or the Teutonic Order, started out as a vassal of PRU. Trust me, it makes no difference in how things go down there as the computer plays things out, but greatly improves play of PRU for a human player, and more importantly is historically accurate. Until the secularization of PRU, its head appointed the person who administrated the rest of the Order. I know I have gone about this before, but this seems a minor change that would go along way to improving human play in the Baltics. Also, 180 relations would be good, do not fear of PRU getting to early annex LAT, since LAT is so much more powerful. Only a weakened LAT and a PRU with some HSL or POL provinces is large enough to even attempt a successful annexation of LAT, and I am sure as many of you know PRU's starting position makes that very hard indeed.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
I would feel alot better about the Baltics if LAT, or the Teutonic Order, started out as a vassal of PRU. Trust me, it makes no difference in how things go down there as the computer plays things out, but greatly improves play of PRU for a human player, and more importantly is historically accurate. Until the secularization of PRU, its head appointed the person who administrated the rest of the Order. I know I have gone about this before, but this seems a minor change that would go along way to improving human play in the Baltics. Also, 180 relations would be good, do not fear of PRU getting to early annex LAT, since LAT is so much more powerful. Only a weakened LAT and a PRU with some HSL or POL provinces is large enough to even attempt a successful annexation of LAT, and I am sure as many of you know PRU's starting position makes that very hard indeed.
Click to expand...

Well... I made the current reconstruction of the diplomatic relations of the countries LAT, KUR and PRU. This was my basic plan... :)

In the orgins of the Orders there was one 'The Teutonic Order', from it 'The Livonian Swordsbrothers' became semi-independent much thanks to the vast political influence of the Archbishop of Riga (Independent until 1629 I think). That's why Courland is a vassal of the Teutonic Knights. Secondly after the above mentioned sundering the former Grandmaster of the Teutonic Knights , Albrecht of Hohenzollern, was given the opportunity to become a secular Duke of Prussia by the Polish King (of course as a vassal of the latter). Now the relations between Albrecht and the Teutonics were at a very low point at that time as the latter viewed him a traitor. Earlier on the Ducal Prussia was a fief of the Polish king that is why it in my opinion should be a polish vassal.

I concure GulFalco that your solution may give a better playbalance as Prussia (I tried two times yesterday and I was not very successful), but it will IMHO be at a cost of realism.

/Greven


[This message has been edited by Greven (edited 20-02-2001).]
 
Smart choices Greven. I admire how you as a team made these decisions. As you can see, despite some disagreements with your setup, the changes are minor and involve a tweak here or there in largely historically obscure areas. You guys rock!

------------------
~ Salve ~
 
Yes, thanks for the explanation, Greven. I always thought that the Baltics are well designed in the original GC. :)
Only we reattributed Ingermanland to Russia now. And due to Your info I will lower the relations between the Order and Prussia again (I had boosted them somewhat).

Hartmann
 
Yes, I view the IGC as a Independant Player/Forum work a thing that I do not want to influence. It is independant and that is good for the game.

I will only try to help you out here as a 'Game's Historian' giving you the 'Game Designers'Notes' so that you guys know why the original designers did this or that. Though I have not designed this game I have read the original design document with the eyes of a game designer.

A small second thing... Do not hesitate to discuss things that might not go into the IGC as for example the 'provincial goods'. The more research and corrected material that exist among you guys the more probable it be that it could perhaps be put into the Official Version.

Third, my personal view is that as much of the Good Work that the paradox team (Read: Johan) approves should be 'officialized' (i.e. go into the official version). This is because I believe that it is good for the product and what is good for the product is good for the gamers.

On the Ingermanland issue I can only say that there are more play-balance issues to it than many of you who have discussed it realise. I will not discuss it here as above. Play-test it (russian colony) and see... :)

/Greven (very enthusiastic supporter of the IGC-project)
 
Thanks, Greven! :)

I will only try to help you out here as a 'Game's Historian' giving you the 'Game Designers'Notes' so that you guys know why the original designers did this or that. Though I have not designed this game I have read the original design document with the eyes of a game designer.

Your comments on the original design decisions are very valuable info for us. :) Be assured we will pester You with zillions of questions in the future. :D

A small second thing... Do not hesitate to discuss things that might not go into the IGC as for example the 'provincial goods'. The more research and corrected material that exist among you guys the more probable it be that it could perhaps be put into the Official Version.

We hear You. :)

Third, my personal view is that as much of the Good Work that the paradox team (Read: Johan) approves should be 'officialized' (i.e. go into the official version). This is because I believe that it is good for the product and what is good for the product is good for the gamers.

I can´t speak for the whole team here of course, but I for one would be glad if the IGC would go 'official' some day (like the leader additions already did). But as we´ve changed so many files, then there would have to be some nice installation routine contributed by Paradox, allowing the player to conveniently 'switch' between standard scenarios and the IGC (shouldn´t be too difficult to program, I think).

On the Ingermanland issue I can only say that there are more play-balance issues to it than many of you who have discussed it realise. I will not discuss it here as above. Play-test it (russian colony) and see... :)

I tested and saw ... nothing really weird yet! :) The main issue was avoiding too early Russian ship building. But this will not be a problem now, as they can´t build as long as Ingria is a colony (it starts a level 1 with 6000 Ingrians to join later). I added a minimal fortress, so that Ingria isn´t lost to another power too easily. The other issue is the hampered economy of the Order, but I think I can take care of this by carefully boosting provincial wealth and pop (and giving a slight treasury bonus). But now I´m curious: What did we overlook gameplaywise?

Cheers, Hartmann
 
Hartmann said:

'But now I´m curious: What did we overlook gameplaywise?'

The problem is complexed. The long time effect can be very severe. With the change Sweden is now complete surrounded on land by the Russo-danish alliance. This means that Sweden will have to get at it at a earlier date. When Sweden/Russia and Denmark are AI countries Sweden might last the first war, but then she will start to be cut into pieces. She has nowhere to expand, but into Russia and Denmark. Note also that she has no 'natural allies' against Russia, mainly because of Poland-Lithuania (-200). I mean allying the Ottomans will inevitably drag Poland-Lithuania into conflict with Sweden. An overview of this would tell that this is historically correct, BUT... Sweden as an AI can't protect herself good enough... game-play will loose.

The Long-term effects... try them out. :)

/Greven
 
Ah! I will have an eye on this in future testing. The really, really real problem is, that at the moment no testing outcome can be taken fully serious - because of this weird peace treaty bug spoiling the simulation all too often:(. Just yesterday, when I tested the new Ingria setting, Sweden seemed to be doing very well in war against Russia only to pay 250d in indemnities to the Russians in the peace treaty later. This occured (as so often now) two times in a row. A couple of days ago, the situation was quite different. Russia suddenly decided to disband all it´s armies (along with Austria in the same game) and then both countries were torn to pieces by their neighbours. :(

Hartmann
 
@Greven: Actually I forgot something. Doomie has already strengthened Sweden quite a bit sometime ago:

- Sweden starts with landtech 1 (instead of 0)
- Sweden has cheaper artillery
- Sweden has a cot to begin with

Maybe this will effectively counter the Russian threat? :)

Hartmann
 
Yes, Sweden gets cut to pieces, the main problem I had here is that they need allies. So I have given them more diplomats, lo and behold, I finally get an early 1500's Baltic war that is not everybody vs. Courland.
 
Originally posted by GulFalco
Yes, Sweden gets cut to pieces, the main problem I had here is that they need allies. So I have given them more diplomats, lo and behold, I finally get an early 1500's Baltic war that is not everybody vs. Courland.
Click to expand...


Everybody against Kurland. That´s part of the reason why I introduced them into the diplomaticalmatrix (they were simply missing there). But I didn´t set values (except relations to Order and maybe Prussia) yet. Any suggestions? :)

Hartmann
 
I have been toying with putting in a military alliance between PRU, LAT, and KUR that would expire by 1502. Even though these people really did not like each other, I doubt that they would have stood by and let Poland gobble one of them up, that is before the Reformation, which a 1502 expiration date would not go into.
 
Wow, wow, wow, I just have to say that 1.05D rocks, and speak of some the changes that I have made and the effect they have had. I talked somewhere else about Scotland, but the real fun for me is the dynamic area of the Baltic during the 1500's. The alliance between PRU, KUR, and LAT I added often produces an early explosive war. Poland is almost always the one who starts it, but who wins is generally determined by who she has for allies. Somewhere in the mix are Russia, Pskov, Denmark, der Hansa, Sweden and even England. It is a great war to watch, and even funner to be involved in. Oops, maybe this was better put in AAR.
 
Gul -

Does having that alliance at the start still allow you to invite others to join it if you are the alliance leader? BTW, did you set an alliance leader and which nation was it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back