Treaty friction is boring

[Indirik]

Halfway between courtiers and ambassadors ... How about diplomats?

[Gustav Kuriga]

This is an artificially induced mechanism that isn't logical. Treaties are agreements that can either last forever, expire, get cancelled or be ignored. Agreements are not tangible things that can degrade (except the paper on which it's signed).

If the purpose for this is to promote or reduce a justification for acts of war (casus belli) through the mood of the populace then relations would be a better idea. Relations are tangible in the sense that it can be observed in people's attitudes, feelings, etc. Relations between realms can improve or degrade. The people can either start to demand war or peace and if denied, region stats could drop or revolts could occur.

The current idea that treaties need to be maintained jars the senses.

I think the idea is that treaties can be overcome, gradually, through red tape.

RL example: Free trade agreement is signed. Yay, we can trade freely! Of course, the Consumer Protection Agency wants the childrens toys inspected for lead. And of course, the company doing the importing should pay for the inspection, right? And then we need to scan the containers for nuclear weapons, so let's tack on a $50 "security charge" to every container, to pay for the guy to run the scanning equipment. Pretty soon, the 'free' trade agreement is costing companies in the other country more than they would have paid under the tariff system that was in place previously. Treaty is, for all practical purposes, destroyed.

That means it was signed and then ignored. A treaty isn't going to decay by some arbitrary means. Whether the signers of the treaty follow the treaty is another story, and doesn't affect the treaty itself but the relations between the two signers instead. They may decide to then cancel the treaty, which is a decision made by the government, not by some arbitrary number.

[Chenier]

That would make a lot of sense.

However, I am not really complaining on a justification basis. I understand why it would work that way. My argument is that it makes for poor gameplay.

Agreed, if, as sole ambassador of one of the realms I play in (or perhaps even both, though I doubt it for Enweil (which would be negated anyways by the amount of people the realm must have dealings with), this looks like it will become a full-time job. Clicking to lower friction of said treaties.

Who the hell thought this would actually be fun? I've got enough with region maintenance and religion maintenance, I need to have treaty maintenance added on top of it all?

Also, some realms may want to get out of a treaty without breaking it. They will have the option to increase friction. It's only fair that the other side have the option to decrease it.

Sucks to be them! Treaties, if they lack a clause stating when they end, are permanent in nature. They can't just be dropped as null for being old. You either respect them, renegotiate them, or break them. There's no other way. It is in no way fair that a faction can weasel their way out of a treaty by using friction. If they want out, then have them break it.

If you don't like it, then don't be a diplomat. There's nothing saying that every class has to be interesting for every player, only that every player gets to be whatever class they desire. If sitting in the capital maintaining treaties every turn and sending messages, drafting treaties, etc, does not appeal to your particular playstyle, then play a different class that does.

We don't have enough diplomats to deal with friction as it is, imo. What is the system gonna look like if people switch out because of how lame the mechanic is?

I think the idea is that treaties can be overcome, gradually, through red tape.

RL example: Free trade agreement is signed. Yay, we can trade freely! Of course, the Consumer Protection Agency wants the childrens toys inspected for lead. And of course, the company doing the importing should pay for the inspection, right? And then we need to scan the containers for nuclear weapons, so let's tack on a $50 "security charge" to every container, to pay for the guy to run the scanning equipment. Pretty soon, the 'free' trade agreement is costing companies in the other country more than they would have paid under the tariff system that was in place previously. Treaty is, for all practical purposes, destroyed

Treaties can degrade, but they don't just stop existing. It's not because the free trade isn't really free that all these laws about it stop having effect.

When you think of ambassadors historically, you'd think of someone who is constantly discussing political matters with equals, right? Maybe a seperate system should be made for ambassadors where they actively have to discuss and agree upon matters to maintain the treaties and relations or something, to create a bigger difference between courtiers and ambassadors.

Too few ambassadors to have anything rely upon them. Many realms don't have any, many realms' sole ambassador is their ruler.


Honestly, devs, what are you thinking? We've been making treaties since god knows how long? Since the game started, I assume? We saved them on our hard drives, we saved them on the wiki. If the game treaties are such a royal pain in the arse, why the hell would we switch over to them? Why would we stop making wiki treaties? We'll have the few treaties we need to have actually in-game mechanics impacts, and for the rest, we'll stay the hell away from that system.

This is a shame. I honestly though that the new treaty system would simply better formalize what was already being done while allowing extra complexity. But you are turning diplomacy into such a dreadful chore. Actually getting a treaty signed is so painful, I really disliked the deed every time I did it, there was nothing exciting about it, just a great many days lost to traveling. But hey, what are a few days in a lifetime? Treaty permenancy is the *only* thing that can compensate for the hassle that signing treaties is. Friction only makes a bad thing worse.

[vonGenf]

This is a shame. I honestly though that the new treaty system would simply better formalize what was already being done while allowing extra complexity. But you are turning diplomacy into such a dreadful chore. Actually getting a treaty signed is so painful, I really disliked the deed every time I did it, there was nothing exciting about it, just a great many days lost to traveling. But hey, what are a few days in a lifetime? Treaty permenancy is the *only* thing that can compensate for the hassle that signing treaties is. Friction only makes a bad thing worse.

I have to say I disagree with this; I quite like the fact that someone needs to be physically present to sign a treaty. It leads to an increase of inter-realm relations among players who are not rulers.

It's the maintenance I disagree with, not the signing process.

[Indirik]

I quite like the fact that someone needs to be physically present to sign a treaty. It leads to an increase of inter-realm relations among players who are not rulers.

It's the maintenance I disagree with, not the signing process.

I agree with this.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Seconded.

[Indirik]

Wouldn't that be "thirded"?

[Gustav Kuriga]

Depends on who I'm agreeing with, you or the post you agreed with.  8)

[Chenier]

I have to say I disagree with this; I quite like the fact that someone needs to be physically present to sign a treaty. It leads to an increase of inter-realm relations among players who are not rulers.

It's the maintenance I disagree with, not the signing process.

I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying travel should not be part of the deal. I'm just saying it's enough of a hassle in itself not to warrant anything more.

Also, while yes, in principle, it encourages non-rulers to talk with each other, I have not seen any significant difference between now and before. Ambassadors usually come once the treaty is already drafted and formalized, and their travel is for the sole purpose of clicking the "propose treaty" button, and then off they go. I've seen many ambassadors motivate themselves to doing grand diplomatic trips, but I never saw these yielding anything, except in cases where they intentionally held off discussion for their arrival (which would have otherwise been done just as easily from afar). Usually when these ambassadors left, they didn't have in mind that their hosts would have other things to do than to just sit in a region for days without end as they come to some sort of agreement.

So really, honestly, I saw just as many ambassadors doing all the same kind of interactions before the subclass was ever brought into the game as after. The thought behind it is good, but I don't think it has much impact on encouraging non-rulers to talk with foreigners. All the treaties pass by the rulers sooner or later anyways, as these can break the treaty and demote the ambassador whenever they want.

[Indirik]

As a ruler of two different realms, I never wrote a treaty myself. I always told the ambassador or diplomat to write it, and signed whatever they wrote. (After reading it, of course.) After all, that's their job. And I'm all about offloading the work to those who are supposed to be the ones doing it.

[Chenier]

As a ruler of two different realms, I never wrote a treaty myself. I always told the ambassador or diplomat to write it, and signed whatever they wrote. (After reading it, of course.) After all, that's their job. And I'm all about offloading the work to those who are supposed to be the ones doing it.

You are lucky to have always had ambassadors to do it for you.

That being said, you could have just as easily did this before the treaty system. Treaties are not a new invention, they are just a recent addition to the code of the game. Ambassadors were just as possible before as they are now. Even more so, as it wasn't a subclass with unit restrictions as it is now so people could negotiate with large units to back them up.

[Perth]

As a ruler, the couple ambassadors that I've appointed have all just eventually gotten bored with the class.

Sure, there are treaties to write and negotiate every now and then, but it just isn't something you get to go and do every day of the week. Especially like now in Atamara where it's one alliance vs. another alliance and not much is changing every day because wars take time.

The ambassadors got bored and felt they were wasting their subclass, I suppose.

[De-Legro]

As a ruler, the couple ambassadors that I've appointed have all just eventually gotten bored with the class.

Sure, there are treaties to write and negotiate every now and then, but it just isn't something you get to go and do every day of the week. Especially like now in Atamara where it's one alliance vs. another alliance and not much is changing every day because wars take time.

The ambassadors got bored and felt they were wasting their subclass, I suppose.

Alot of the fun of being an ambassador is the RP value. If you can't make use of that, then yes it is a pretty boring class. Every now and then you write a treaty, other then that you have slightly better diplo actions.

[Chenier]

Alot of the fun of being an ambassador is the RP value. If you can't make use of that, then yes it is a pretty boring class. Every now and then you write a treaty, other then that you have slightly better diplo actions.

Diplomacy is done by exchanging words, not by pressing a ton of buttons on a screen. The game will require that someone press some buttons eventually, but it does not be the same ones who do the talking.

Ambassadorship is like priesthood. For as long as priests aren't made an essential part of the realm, I don't see why ambassadors should.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Diplomacy is done by exchanging words, not by pressing a ton of buttons on a screen. The game will require that someone press some buttons eventually, but it does not be the same ones who do the talking.

Ambassadorship is like priesthood. For as long as priests aren't made an essential part of the realm, I don't see why ambassadors should.

Ha...? Priest...Ambassador... Hm...

For the theocracy, or the deeply religious realms, maybe the priest has a larger role in things. For the more secular realms (Which is pretty common since trying to force-feed people to go along with certain strictly Medieval stuff often leads to bad results), ambassador outweighs priest.

Why is this? Right now, because of the mechanic, yes... Priests also have some pretty good options too. Yeah, you lose followers when you try them. Is it really that bad though? For good oratory priests and the correct regions, they can demolish about half or more of the total population with 16 hours of fanaticism. With great power...and all that. Use wisely but in moderation, yeah?

Ambassador has fewer options and generally a smaller effect. They just have the ability to sign (what will someday have actual effect) treaties, because someone has to do it. And the ruler is only one person.