The way backing down is punished disincentives deescalation

[strattonthebard]

I think it should be a temporary prestige hit scaled based on the cost of the initial war goal. The fact that you get infamy when starting a diplomatic play or adding a war goal regardless of whether you enforce it already creates a cost to starting a diplomatic play, making it so backing down from a play automatically enforces a war goal of the target's choice is overkill, especially because that war goal could be absolutely anything, even ceding a whole state or releasing a subject. This is particularly annoying with annex subject plays where any time you want to annex a subject even with low liberty desire you risk starting a diplomatic play that might result in significant consequences if you back down from it.

 

[Dman1791]

Yeah, it's pretty BS that the defender can just enforce whatever they want if the attacker decides to not follow through. The attacker backing down should give the defender the choice of either letting them go, or trying to keep the play going. Keeping the play going would swap which side is the aggressor, probably involve an infamy hit, and give backers of the now-aggressor a chance to bail.

 

[bizkit]

I've been advocating this for years. It doesn't quite make sense to pay war reparations for a war.. that didn't exist in the first place

Latest change to make defender's automatic primary goal 'humiliate' is a good direction, unless defender calls a big boy who enforces a land grab as primary goal which you'd have to give up still doesn't make sense though

 

[BeauNiddle]

The downside of the system you propose is the player will poke the AI constantly, and then throw a hissy fit if the AI tries to escalate.

By making it clear up front that there is a cost it makes diplomatic plays meaningful from the outset.

They do need to fit a better treaty negotiation route in now they have improved the possibilities of treaties, and leave diplomatic plays for the big decisions.

 

[Voidian]

So why shouldn't I just start spamming these against everything and everyone if the consequences are negligible?

If even one nation backs down and accepts my demand without a war it was worth it to annoy the entire world already.

 

[Froonk]

So why shouldn't I just start spamming these against everything and everyone if the consequences are negligible?

If even one nation backs down and accepts my demand without a war it was worth it to annoy the entire world already.

Because you already get the infamy hit for starting the diplomatic play, without any war goals being enforced by either side.

 

[Voidian]

Because you already get the infamy hit for starting the diplomatic play, without any war goals being enforced by either side.

What infamy hit? Not every diplomatic play costs infamy.

I can just spam asking GB if it wants to release india or see if china wants to let go of korea with impunity, perhaps do it until I can get a great power on my side and only then ask for what I really want.

No, this idea can't work.

 

[Froonk]

What infamy hit? Not every diplomatic play costs infamy.

I can just spam asking GB if it wants to release india or see if china wants to let go of korea with impunity, perhaps do it until I can get a great power on my side and only then ask for what I really want.

No, this idea can't work.

This is not something that cannot be adjusted, compared to backing off leading to massive losses for no reason without it ever coming to war it is trivial to solve this.

For example you could just add a token baseline infamy cost to starting a diplomatic play (which makes sense, you are rocking the boat after all) and scale infamy costs on actual war goals accordingly so that spamming diplomatic plays will rack up your infamy quickly if you don't follow them up while being able to occasionally back down without it coming to war. In that case if you start a war goal to conquer state and back down, you eat the infamy cost which is punishment enough in most cases (due to opportunity costs) and if it is something with little to no infamy cost by default like releasing subjects or countries those can be balanced out by a default infamy cost. Countries occasionally probing to see what they can get away with and then resolving that crisis is sensible anyway, this could even be tied to lobbies in some way.

Infamy costs for war goals are already all over the place anyway, there are many things that should get a balance pass so this change would be an opportunity to also adjust those..

 

[Voidian]

This is not something that cannot be adjusted, compared to backing off leading to massive losses for no reason without it ever coming to war it is trivial to solve this.

For example you could just add a token baseline infamy cost to starting a diplomatic play (which makes sense, you are rocking the boat after all) and scale infamy costs on actual war goals accordingly so that spamming diplomatic plays will rack up your infamy quickly if you don't follow them up while being able to occasionally back down without it coming to war. In that case if you start a war goal to conquer state and back down, you eat the infamy cost which is punishment enough in most cases (due to opportunity costs) and if it is something with little to no infamy cost by default like releasing subjects or countries those can be balanced out by a default infamy cost. Countries occasionally probing to see what they can get away with and then resolving that crisis is sensible anyway, this could even be tied to lobbies in some way.

Infamy costs for war goals are already all over the place anyway, there are many things that should get a balance pass so this change would be an opportunity to also adjust those..

Yes, the only possible balance would involve removing the ability to back down from any diplomatic plays, any alternative means exploiting a system with impunity.

The period in which you can leave without having any losses is BEFORE you start a diplomatic play, if you intimidate or demand something from a country then it's on, and they are free to negotiate or add anything and anyone they want against you.


You could argue that a treaty, with very unfavorable terms could be signed instead, using the new system, but there is no world in which you can pretty much start a war and say "just kidding, frens?".

Besides, the other side accepting negotiation ALSO have added infamy to join that play against you, and they are not going to be happy about the slight possibility of receiving nothing for it.

Besides, the last thing these modern paradox games could ever need is anything that makes these games easier in any way shape or form.

 

[Froonk]

You could argue that a treaty, with very unfavorable terms could be signed instead, using the new system, but there is no world in which you can pretty much start a war and say "just kidding, frens?".

That's not what Diplomatic Plays are supposed to be though, they are meant to be diplomatic engagements with goal to acquire something. It leading to war every time as it is currently doesn't mean it should been seen as the official start of a war that's just a design failure. It is definitely more sensible to try to demand some things and back off if the escalation is disproportionate with neither side gaining anything but the side which engaged in it gaining more infamy and worsening its relations. Considering developers also mentioned they want to add a way to draft treaties to resolve Diplomatic Plays before they come to war, it only makes more sense to adjust them in a way that starting and ending them without it coming to war is more common.

 

[L-Histidine]

(we've had this thread before)

My own opinion (detailed further there) is that it should be possible to white peace out of a diplo play if you can persuade the other side not to push the matter; if you can't, well, that's how the great game works.

 

[Desseabar]

The latest beta changed it to a humiliate war goal, finally. So backing down is much more feasible now. However I haven't checked if the AI is actually backing down as a result now.

 

[Dman1791]

Yes, the only possible balance would involve removing the ability to back down from any diplomatic plays, any alternative means exploiting a system with impunity.

Or just have a cost for backing down that isn't "other side gets all their main goals"? For example, a percent prestige hit (so spamming would eventually knock you off of your GP spot for a while), the infamy that you have nothing to show for, LD for subjects, lobby approval, radicals... There's a lot of options.

It should certainly be possible for the defender to go "nah, we're doing this, square up", but not without cost to them and not without their backers having a chance to nope out.

 

[blallo]

you can just cap the number of yearly offensive diplomatic plays to avoid the spamming issue, or have a diplo cost for diplo plays that lingers for 10 years.

 

[bizkit]

I can just spam ...

No, this idea can't work.

Ever heard of 'truce' ? It's extremely easy to avoid spamming, just set a one sided truce to aggressor.

 

[Voidian]

Or just have a cost for backing down that isn't "other side gets all their main goals"? For example, a percent prestige hit (so spamming would eventually knock you off of your GP spot for a while), the infamy that you have nothing to show for, LD for subjects, lobby approval, radicals... There's a lot of options.

It should certainly be possible for the defender to go "nah, we're doing this, square up", but not without cost to them and not without their backers having a chance to nope out.

That still means no cost whatsoever, when did you ever let a prestige hit not take an event choice you wanted?
And this is events we're talking about, the rewards usually don't even matter, imagine if we're weighting worthless prestige vs the possibility of releasing india from GB, or taking free land from asian countries?

It's absurd. If anything the current system is too lenient as enemy great powers often join enemy wars in exchange for nonsense wargoals instead of something actually useful, like taking your capital state.

I don't even look at prestige the entire game on my way to a billion GDP.

Ever heard of 'truce' ? It's extremely easy to avoid spamming, just set a one sided truce to aggressor.

With the entire world, all at once?
Otherwise it will do nothing.

 

[cyberrb25]

I had already proposed one idea on this once, but in the end, it kinda ended up being used to make the Treaties as a separate(ish*) from the Diplo Play itself.

Maybe the idea should be more like (considering this is a "delayed" war threat):
- You get a baseline of infamy from creating the Diplo, AS well as a relations/attitude hit with the target and their potential allies. Small, and maybe scalable compared to the target's relations to the related parties, but a hit.
- You spend maneuver points and get a trick of infamy for stating your demands, regardless of whether you enforce them or not, similar to how it works now.
- You can deactivate your demands, which does not refund the maneuver points, but makes you more or less likeable to rally with. Also, demands deactivated return like 50% of the infamy spent (reactivating the demands would restore that infamy refunded, so it would go back to 100%).

This way, parties can decide to leave their more unreasonable demands off the table (before the war – still think we need the Diplo Play as a way to end the war) and make themselves more likeable and less likely to be cut down to size from others outraged by what they demand.

*I say ish because you can use the Diplo Play to force certain Treaty articles onto someone.

 

[bizkit]

With the entire world, all at once?
Otherwise it will do nothing.

What does this even mean?
You said : I can just spam asking GB
No you can't, once you ask and if you back off you get a one sided truce with GB so you can't ask again. Not sure what's so tricky to understand

 

[Voidian]

What does this even mean?
You said : I can just spam asking GB
No you can't, once you ask and if you back off you get a one sided truce with GB so you can't ask again. Not sure what's so tricky to understand

"I can just spam asking GB if it wants to release india or see if china wants to let go of korea with impunity, perhaps do it until I can get a great power on my side and only then ask for what I really want."

 

[jaredstanko]

The way diplomatic plays work needs to be changed and there is no sense pushing against that.

There are ways the system could be made worse, that doesn't mean there arent ways the system can be made better. Currently diplomatic plays in victoria 3 do not reflect the way they work in real life, and they are a frustrating element for the playerbase to engage with. One or the other isn't enough for a system to be in need of refinement, but both certainly is.

A diplomatic play is supposed to be a lot of sabre rattling and diplomatic manuveering, not a countdown to war. there should be options for a white peace or even a negotiated settlement. This is hard to achieve, just look at treaties in the current iteration of the game. But it should be a priority of the dev team to be lurching toward that goal