The concept of diplomatic capital as a resource came from the beta community and WOW does it provide a lot of use.
Diplomatic Capital can be earned through the diplomacy tree as well as certain very rare resources on the map.
If you hold onto it, you gain advantages in the value of trading things.
Now, when trading with the AI, you never get a 1 to 1 ratio (you can’t trade 10 materials for 20 materials). But what happens is that as players get better diplomatic capital ratios, they get better and better deals.
But on the other hand, if you need the money right now, you can spend it:
I think there’s a lot we can do with this concept as we go forward. It definitely gives diplomacy some teeth, especially when we get into getting various players to declare war on each other.
There are some cold, hard facts that justify Stardock's decision though. Only a tiny fraction of TBS players ever play multiplayer. In fact, I bet most people would be surprised at how small that fraction is. On top of that, the fraction of people who won't purchase a game if the multiplayer is disappointing is a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction.
It's not much consolation to the folks who are in that tiny fraction, but it's reality.
There's something else to keep in mind. The players who are visible on forums are more likely to play multiplayer. They're participating in the community and making acquaintances with whom they can play. The invisible majority are the hundreds of thousands of customers who've never posted here, have neither the time nor the inclination to take part in a game's community, and who will likely never even click on the Multiplayer button in the menu.
Personally though I would like to have a concrete value/use for diplomatic capital even in single player. Or at least some explanation of what it represents... Once we get that we can go from there in giving it uses.
I agree with you. However, my point is that it doesn't have to be that way.
I love the concept, but PLEASE give it another name besides "Diplomatic Capital." IMHO, it's too cumbersome. There is probably a word far more succinct and elegant. Something along the lines of "prestige," although currently that word is in use in other areas of the game, if I'm not mistaken...
How about even switch the current term of "prestige" with a word like "legacy/sovereignty/dominance" and then "diplomatic capital" with "prestige."
Seems to make more sense thematically that way as well.
Diplomatic Capital should be used to force trades then? I like the idea of diplomacy being used to force the human to do what he doesn't want to do. I mean, we humans do it to the AI.
In MP that would be my suggested use of it. Maybe being able with large amounts to force peace treaties or alliances.
How about if Diplomatic Capital could be used to enact certain laws in your Kingdom/Empire? I'm thinking of something similar to the National Decisions in EU3 and its expansions. As an example, I could spend Diplomatic Capital to enact a Kingdom-wide policy that attracts more adventurers/champions (the kingdom hosts a series of tournaments), or enact something that increases immigration (the kingdom hosts a series of festivals). Host a feast to celebrate the recent accomplishments of one of your champions, thereby giving him bonuses. As others have mentioned, you could perhaps also have hostile Diplomatic Actions that are detrimental to another Kingdom/Empire but which don't trigger wars. Some of them could even be done without revealing who performed the hostile act.
Combine this with using Diplomatic Capital to manipulate minor powers, and I think it would be useful in both singleplayer and multiplayer.
I don't really mind if Diplomatic Capital (DC) is useful for MP or not, but if given the choice and time I'd definately try to make work though. Regardless there are always ideas that could be adapted, I personally liked the "Espionage" use for DC but there are other good ideas floating around.
The only idea that popped in my head for MP purposes was to compare 2 players DC and if your DC exceeded that players DC by a certain threshold (1.5x, 2x?) then maybe they could have a negative effect on their population growth (influence?) and have that population come to your cities. Their citizens would see you as a more powerful civilization and desert to join you. Or something along those lines, also idk if this had been suggested before.
I can see the potential for frustration, but if you want pure diplomacy to be able to compete with the other trees it will have to be powerful. It would definitely have to be well balanced so that you can't just screw with players, and the other good thing about this method is that the balance values for singleplayer could be the same for multiplayer and vice versa.
The more I think about it the more it reminds me of espionage, but more open... "steal" 100 gold, persuade a unit to join you, "steal" a tech.
I think it could work well as long as it is well balanced.
I agree that forcing a player to do something would be really frustrating, for example forcing a peace treaty. Let's say you spent a lotta effort to take someone by surprise and attack them, like going around the whole map in a ship for 20+ turns, then you attack them and bam DC screwed.
That would really suck, at least for war you could use DC to try and force a war to stop but if you didn't you should have severe penalties if you chose to continue on. But you would have the choice to go to war or suffer the consequences of going against the DiploCapital treaty attempt. How harsh is harsh, well idk, maybe lose production, gold and morale nationwide. Maybe you could "bleed" your own DC's as long as you're in war (lose DC's every turn?).
AhhI just got another idea. Maybe there could be a high level Diplo tech that allowed you to interact with certain powerful "monster" tribes and you could use DC to make a pact with em and enabling you to hire them in a city to use for yourself. It would be like making a "reserve" for those "monsters". This could be useful for MP since you could get kickass high lvl mobs and cool at the same time
Cool!
Best regards,Steven.
Yeah, I know it would be frustrating. The player could avoid it by building up DC themselves though, at least in a decent enough ratio. Larger empires would also naturally build up more DC as well in the later game, so it would mostly be an anti-rush, one-shot card.
Plus you can always just attack again in a few turns (DC spent would determine length of forced peace, anything besides a few turns would be exponentially more expensive) It would be cheaper more likely to get a war ally.
as far as multiplayer goes.. the between human interactions should remain separate from DC and more like the game of risk.. as far the the AI's in multiplayer should have same effects as in single player as frogboy has hinted at.. i.e while i am bamboozling my human enemies in to thinking its me and them against the others while say the same to the others... i might be using my dc to get one or more AI factions to go to war with the same human player softening them up for when I move in for the kill... mean while they are using their dc to talk peace with same AI factions oh the realistic back stabbing politics of risk ahhh those were the days...
Just thought of a way to expand upon my idea.
As a way for the other player to defended against a forced agreement: after one player (the first player) uses Diplomatic Capital to force an agreement (as in hits the agree button), and before the meeting ends, the meeting goes to a sort of bidding system. The second player (the one being forced into the agreement) can use Diplomatic Capital or gold to raise their perceived value, and the first player (the one trying to force the agreement) can use more Diplomatic Capital to raise their perceived value in response (can't use gold). This continues until one player gives up or runs out of Diplomatic Capital (and gold for the second player). The player that has the higher perceived value in the end wins; they both lose the Diplomatic Capital that they put up, and the gold that the second player put up goes to the first player. If the first player wins the trade or treaty goes into effect, and if the second player wins it doesn't go into effect.
This is starting to get a little complicated, but the core idea is there. I hope this is understandable, I went back and made edits many times so some things may be out of place.
That's a good idea, though unsure if it would work in relation to AI, even in MP, if AI's are in MP.
Another use for Diplo capitral- absorbing minor cities into your empire without a fight, and getting a hero out of it to boot potentially?
Wow, Frogboy comes in here to let everyone know that they implemented something that we the beta community helped create, and he seems to be immediately jumped by unhappy people. At least they listened to you guys.
Anyway, however Stardock decide to do this I'll be happy. They have my support, whether Dip. Cap. has MP value or not.
I really like the idea of needing to use DC to declare war and force a cease fire, as this is something that will work in both SP and MP. Im not too fond of the use of DC that will only be viable in SP...but I can live with it ... as long as there is a good use for it in MP.
To declare war on a player (NPC), a player spends DC which is modified by several factors (mimicking RL, to declare war you must convince your people that its a good idea....and the DC is spent to convince them of that). Higher DC costs if the other side was a past ally, non-aggressive (never has attacked you) or someone you already have declared war on (war weariness)...and so on. Lowered DC cost for basically the opposite reasons. A player/npc can then force a ceasefire/peace treaty by spending DC. To ensure wars are not stopped instantly by this, the cost to stop the war the very next turn is incredibly high, however each passing turn lowers the DC cost significantly (war weariness).. until it becomes affordable. Empires could get a bonus in lowered war declaration DC costs, while kingdoms get a bonus in lowered cease fire/peace treaties DC costs.
I also like the ideas of using DC for espionage, champion recruiting/subterfuge, and Cauldyth's idea of using DC to enact certain laws (kingdom/empire-wide bonuses/attributes). All of which could be used in both SP and MP.
I'm more of a singeplayer person as well, but please make it work for multiplayer. The AI needs to be able to use it on me as well. The AI should offer me diplomatic offers, and they should have value. This resource needs to have actual value. As charisma of diplomats discussing deals between nations cannot be modeled, why not make DC have actual value, like a trade good, or being able to use it to force players to do something they wouldn't otherwise do?
I want this game to still be "realistic" in a sense, and "DC" as it is sounding really will ruin immersion.
I'm worried about making DC ANOTHER required resource, like Gilder and Materials and Iron.
It should be a useful resource to have, like Enchament Crystals or Shards. It shouldn't be something that you need in order to conduct warfare. Maybe forcing peace or a small cease fire. Not to do normal things such as go to war.
I agree with this. It should be enough to make diplomacy a viable option, but forcing certain agreements or being necessary to go to war? That seems way over board. I wouldn't mind if it could be used for espionage or things like that. It should be a bonus to diplomatic/foreign affairs, not something you need to do anything. It'll be tricky to make it viable for MP, but it shouldn't be daunting.
It is really awesome to see Brad so excited about something the community suggested though
Going to war should be easy and shouldn't cost capital.
I'm just afraid of the human being able to cheese the AI with diplomacy, without the AI being able to get something out of it in return- resulting in the factions playing by different rules, which is what we're trying to avoid here.
Pulling out of the other thread and refining:
...
Make diplomatic capital a resource like food. You build up a capacity, you use that capacity on the cooperative treaties, open borders etc. Have buildings which let you do dastardly things and consume capital (assassins/saboteurs, making your units appear to be someone else's for a turn or two, etc.)
When something which uses that capacity is removed, have it regenerate slowly (to prevent treaty hopping).
Combine this with Rogue Captain's suggestion of "gray areas" and see how it plays.
I'm okay with AI's being manipulable against other humans (as in Sins of a Solar Empire: Diplomacy), but diplomatic capital needs to be worth something in all human games IMO.
The system can also work with Diplomatic capital being something you can store up and use as a normal resource as well, but I like the food system to represent capacity rather than accumulation - since it takes up diplomatic power to maintain historically good relations.
Looking at this again, elaborating using it as a consumable, more like materials than food, since that's the direction we're going. I am trying to make it useful to both Human-AI and Human-Human interactions.
Current Traits:
New Trait/Ideas:
Additional Thought:
If you want to go another step. If there is a diplomatic meeting like the UN/Apostolic Palace of CIV or the Galactic Council of GalCiv here's how I would use dipcap in it.
Council is set to be held (player spends dipcap to call it, some space necessary between councils) - players get a popup asking them two questions.
You need at least a majority or plurality of players to agree to attend or the council doesn't happen. All council attendees are at truce (cannot attack, but can move through each other's territory) during the council (eg. a player who is campaigning abroad does not want to attend the council if his opponent is likely to attend).
This reminds me of the system that was in Seven Kingdoms (an RTS).
That game had Reputation. If it was positive, other nations would get mad at their rulers if they went to war with you or took hostile diplomatic actions against you (like initiating a trade embargo against you, and anyone who joins would take a hit as well - yeah, that RTS had trading) or breaking an alliance (go from Allies to Neutral), or doing spy actions against you. Also what rep did was influence the loyalty of solider, worker, and peasant. If soldier loyalty got too low, they'd defect to another kingdom. If it's a general, you get their whole unit (so if it's a stack leader, you'd get the whole stack) If peasant loyalty got too low, they'd riot and maybe found their own city (after damaging yours, lowering the loyalty of that city that's rioting).
If your rep was negative, then their people would LIKE you doing hostile things to you, you'd have a harder time swinging agreements, and any alliance/trade agreement would be very short lived.
Things like this in Elemental would be good additions, imo. The MP part could be defections to the kingdom with a lot of Diplo. Cap. compared to you. If you're hostile to a nation with much more (or just plain high) Diplo. Cap. then the risk of defections/riots would be much higher for some turns (and maybe cost you D.C. which would further increase the odds - maybe causing a ripple effect).
In MP it could still impact the perceived value. Whether or not the humans go for it, that's up to the humans, but it still could have an impact.
I don't think DC should be a resource, per se, as it is, like one person put it, the respect of the people - but it's the people of ALL THE WORLD instead of just your people. High DC would mean that people in some far flung corner of the random generated world know about your great nation. A very negative diplo would mean that those same people hate you, even if they never actually met you yet.
Multiplayer Idea:
Diplomatic capital used for toggled spell like abilities - e.g. enforced cease-fire = drains your diplomatic capital and prevents additional troops entering your borders - each unit in your territory drains diplomatic capital for it's owner and requires a large inital cost to enter. (while active your capital cannot increase, i.e. if you earn 20 per turn, it costs 10 per turn while active your income is set to -1 maximum)
Missionary troops - units generate diplomatic capital in own lands and decrease it in enemy lands, can enter enemy territory and use diplomatic capital fueled culture bombs (DoT or instant) on towns and resources. Causes diplomatic capital penalty upon death to owner of current location and unit owner.
Resource embargo - prevents trading while active for player - disables caravans with external links and at higher costs can disrupt internal caravans.
Research embargo - temporarily disables any research trade deals and reduces research rate, can cause research adventurers to avoid the empire territory
Convince NPC - can spend diplomacy points to (temporarily) turn an empires NPCs when the empire doesn't have the diplomacy points to sustain prevent the actions. Or can revert an NPC to neutral and eject from territory for a single large payment.
General thoughts... need some use for diplomacy capital that can be powerful in offensive or defensive ways but cannot make someone invulnerable. Diplomacy ability should be possible as a counter or have other costs as a soft counter. - e.g. you can spend gold instead of diplomacy capital when required to enter borders or to save an NPC but it's cost would be based on it's perceived value. So you'd be flat broke because each military unit would pay a massive toll to attack a peaceful nation. However while active the enemy would be losing the ability to gain diplomatic capital which for a diplomatic nation this would be very painful to maintain.
Whilst it's good that diplomacy has a resource dedicated to it, as I've mentioned in my previous post in the game mechanics thread, I fear that the immaterial nature of it in raw game mechanics terms ultimately cripples diplomacy against human opponents, though I'll try to keep such things to a minimum here and focus on the AI's trading in general.
Diplomatic capital needs to be able to buy things that give it real, tangible benefits to trade and other diplomatic pursuits. Want a neighbour to love you? Send over PR-guys (as marketting is inherently evil, death mages get a discount), who make AI and human players alike love you by giving them something. Want favourable trade deals with a neighbour? Send over sales guys who make trading better. The AI liking you more because you have some arbitrary resource, or "relationship value" that does nothing is a cop-out embraced by too many strategy games out there and doesn't lend itself to a decent AI anyway. AI players need to be self-interested, hoping to win, and, at least in the higher difficulty levels, every bit as ruthless, mean and unpleasant as a human player.
And I have to know.... why does the AI automatically offer an unfavourable deal? Why would the AI be arbitrarily unfriendly about it? Equal comparative value so long as you both need the materials being exchanged seems perfectly reasonable to assume as a baseline (though the expense of your contribution to a deal could be reduced by purchased game-mechanics effecting diplomats). 50 gold for 50 gold? Sure, why not. It wastes your (hopefully limitted) number of total trades per turn.
If you're trying for one-of-a-kind "dragon butt" resource however, then the AI might be reluctant to exchange at an equal price, just like a human player would, since they know you'll use that dragon butt for some kind of burning grenade equipment, and don't want you to benefit from that.
If a farming empire with 1000 food stockpiled was offered a slightly weaker deal for food (50g for 60g's worth), they might even agree to it. Why not? They have a thousand food, they're making more than they can use. Free gold, and you're indepted to them - and they might ask you a favour for it later, especially if they spy network told them your empire was starving without it.
Supply and demand are both relevant and important, and ideally - though I know working with AIs to do so is a pain - AIs should react as closely to a human player in this regard as possible.
The biggest capacity for abuse here is that a diplomacy heavy player could invariably profit on small, every day trades (with the right investment to put game mechanic effecting diplomats into place), offering 60g (but only spending 40g to do so) in exchange for 55g. Honestly, with a sensibly enforced maximum trades per turn, that sounds great. A trading/diplomacy nation should have this sort of option - heck, it should be their primary source of income, and one that makes everybody think they're getting the better deal out of the equation to do it (and two similarly diplomatic nations both thinking they got the better deal).
Who wouldn't want to play as a trading/diplomatic empire that's every bit as potent and wealthy as a magical or military one?
Great to hear about the Diplomatic Capital. It's a great idea for another intangible resource that provides benefits. Glad to hear the community came up with it and I'm personally glad it came along.
As far as it being the multiplayer and having some or no use.. well doesn't bother me. To me it's an intangible force that let's you buy materials or gold or whatever, for the equivalent of being highly diplomatic. And for folks who don't realize the value of it yet, even as it currently stands in the form presented, that's their issue.
I think it's a great idea.. it's an intangible that you can use to spice up numbers.
Great idea community!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
