Should diplomatic relations count for more?

[manager2525]

Probably one of my biggest gripes at the current state of the game is how unstable and ever-changing the alliances are at the current moment.
The AI seems to have little regard about what a loyal ally you have been over the past 100 years or on the other hand how you have sold them off or declared 5 times on them already. I understand that is close to what historically happened more than once (Rome's divide and conquer strategy comes into mind) but imho this is something that does not work that well gameplay-wise. It does not make the game more challenging since it works both ways, meaning that a long time ally can easily turn against you but on the other hand it is easy to persuade 3 or 4 neutral or formerly hostile nations to ally with you when you need some additional forces early on for a difficult war and afterwards to quickly dissolve the alliance.
I personally would like to see a simular mechanism to the trust (I don't quite recall the name) there is in EU IV. This makes the game more interesting as you also need to plan along also for the diplo part of the game in advance. Probably some adaptations to the time period would be also welcomed.

What do you think, are you OK with the current diplomatic relations setup or would you like something different?

 

[IsaacCAT]

I would like characters to play more on the diplomatic game. The unpredictable behavior you were describing should be a feature of the ancient times.

Treaties will depend on the ruling character and you could negotiate new terms when this character changed. Specially in monarchies, less in Republics, where some kind of voting should be passed for changing/setting treaties.

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

Treaties will depend on the ruling character and you could negotiate new terms when this character changed. Specially in monarchies, less in Republics, where some kind of voting should be passed for changing/setting treaties.

If that's any help, I remember reading somewhere that the Hellenistic monarchs didn't always consider that they were bound to respect the provisions of the peace treaties signed by their predecessors.

 

[manager2525]

Yes, the backstabbing seems ok from a historical point of view (although I personally don't like it that much from a game play point).

As for allying (with two or three countries) and after a month declaring war and calling them in I think even from a historical point of view it doesn't make much sense. The newfound allies would probably not be that willing to help in such a war most of the times.

 

[Ixtli613]

I mentioned in another thread that, from what I've read of the history of Rome, they were very good at making alliances/tributaries/etc. and getting what they wanted, then breaking the deal on some trumped up or spurious charge so they could conquer their former 'friends' as well. So WAD historically speaking I suppose, as others have pointed out.

P.S. Isn't it funny that a nation so concerned with law and decorum and the like would get so far by being devious traitors...

 

[Daft]

I mentioned in another thread that, from what I've read of the history of Rome, they were very good at making alliances/tributaries/etc. and getting what they wanted, then breaking the deal on some trumped up or spurious charge so they could conquer their former 'friends' as well. So WAD historically speaking I suppose, as others have pointed out.

P.S. Isn't it funny that a nation so concerned with law and decorum and the like would get so far by being devious traitors...

I mean, in those days, you didn't really get far without some sort of ruthless instinct.

Diplomacy is in many ways dictated on power, and the wielding of of it.

 

[Poliut]

Bonuses to long-term alliances?

 

[Nostalgium]

If that's any help, I remember reading somewhere that the Hellenistic monarchs didn't always consider that they were bound to respect the provisions of the peace treaties signed by their predecessors.

The Hellenistic monarchs, according to how they acted, seems like they didn't always consider that they were bound to respect provisions of peace treaties signed by themselves, either.

 

[Hellua]

Diplomacy could use more features and opties. For example you could add an option to a treaty to extend the terms of tribute/provided manpower after a rules death (or not). Or make a event when a new ruler comes the leader he/she has an option to rebuke and previous agreements made by his/her predecessor

 

[IsaacCAT]

Diplomacy could use more features and opties. For example you could add an option to a treaty to extend the terms of tribute/provided manpower after a rules death (or not). Or make a event when a new ruler comes the leader he/she has an option to rebuke and previous agreements made by his/her predecessor

IMHO this should not be an option to the player but a change that characters traits will provoke when confronted between leaders.

Traits go in opposed pairs, like abrasive and good natured:

Trait - Imperator Wiki

imperator.paradoxwikis.com

When two opposed traits characters lead a nation and they have a treaty, this treaty should pass a continuity check.

 

[Will Steel]

I would like characters to play more on the diplomatic game. The unpredictable behavior you were describing should be a feature of the ancient times.

Treaties will depend on the ruling character and you could negotiate new terms when this character changed. Specially in monarchies, less in Republics, where some kind of voting should be passed for changing/setting treaties.

Original EU Rome also had characters become ambassadors (every time you clicked on a diplomacy thing, you had option of sending someone). If they somehow bring it back, I think it can make characters play a big role in diplomacy.

Diplomats could sometimes make or break things in this era.

Historical example - Heliodoros was the permanent ambassador of Seleucid Empire to the Mauryan Empire. He was very successful in strengthening the Mauryan-Seleucid alliance, and became a member of the imperial court in Pataliputra during the reign of Emperor Ashok, who even awarded him with a temple at Sanchi. Similarly, Dionysus was sent as the Ptolemid Egyptian ambassador to Mauryan India in the same era, and the resulting flourishing of Indo-Egyptian trade went on unabated for next 8 centuries, created the wealth of Nubia and later opened up the Swahili coast in Africa.

Or for the opposite - Quintus Baebius asking for Carthage to "surrender" angered them enough to break down relations and eventually created one of the deadliest war in the history.

 

[manager2525]

Bonuses to long-term alliances?

To be honest this is more or less what I would wish for. I don't know if it is really that historically accurate though. On the flip side using Rome or the Diadochi as your attack dogs and calling them to one aggressive war after another doesn't (imho) classify as historical accurate either.

Original EU Rome also had characters become ambassadors (every time you clicked on a diplomacy thing, you had option of sending someone). If they somehow bring it back, I think it can make characters play a big role in diplomacy.

Diplomats could sometimes make or break things in this era.

Historical example - Heliodoros was the permanent ambassador of Seleucid Empire to the Mauryan Empire. He was very successful in strengthening the Mauryan-Seleucid alliance, and became a member of the imperial court in Pataliputra during the reign of Emperor Ashok, who even awarded him with a temple at Sanchi. Similarly, Dionysus was sent as the Ptolemid Egyptian ambassador to Mauryan India in the same era, and the resulting flourishing of Indo-Egyptian trade went on unabated for next 8 centuries, created the wealth of Nubia and later opened up the Swahili coast in Africa.

Or for the opposite - Quintus Baebius asking for Carthage to "surrender" angered them enough to break down relations and eventually created one of the deadliest war in the history.

I would love to see such a mechanism making a comeback. With a little bit more polish of course.
I remember back on those days, for some weird reason, all the powerful members of the populist party had the nasty habit of always being picked to be the ones to be send to declare war to other tags. Spoiler alert, this did not usually end very well for them...

Also on the topic of ambassadors I remember recently hearing about the roman ambassador to the Seleucids during one of their wars with the Ptolemies and how he made a circle on the ground around the Seleucid King saying that he shouldn't even step outside before considering Rome's proposal to end the aggressive war with the Ptolemies. In the end this caused him to peace out due to the fear of Romans despite having a clear advange in that specific war!

 

[Pirarucu]

Not a long time ago, someone made a post on the forum asking people what they think should be improved. Turns out diplomacy was one of the most requested things, I think second or third (I voted for it myself). Remember that the devs were trying to do something about this for the 1.5 patch, but unfortunately had to drop it, so I'm optimistic that we will see improvements on that area in the future