Limiting unjustified diplomatic actions

[Stue (DC)]

In short - realms are allied say 2 rl years, but as soon as some good gang-bang opportunity opens, one realm betrays another, turn to side of enemies within days.

explanations like "we are pragmatical, we want to be successful" carry little sense for me in game where we value long-term claims, honor, want to form our characters as persons with their own values.

this simply leaves bad taste, or no taste at all for the whole concept of diplomacy, for some continents.

two possible measures:
- large h/p penalties for rulers who make awkward diplomatic actions
- long time delays for unnatural diplomatic actions - if two allies war with some realm, and one of realms suddenly wants to make peace, every step should have delays, like, first setting to neutral, than one moth after that breaking alliance is possible, than another month after that signing peace would be possible, than another month before declaring war to former ally, etc.

diplomatic ties should not be taken lightly, should be binding and played as such, an long-terms efforts should be necessary for change of stance.

than, developing in-game trust and friendship would have more value. such approach could also possibly limit monster-alliances, as not everyone is in long good terms with everyone else to be able to join gang-bang alliance easily.

currently diplomatic game can easily fall (and that happens quite often) int some sort of gang-bang lottery - first one who makes wrong step is quickly surrounded by gang-banger who suffocate him. long delays would force diplomats to act differently.

[De-Legro]

In short - realms are allied say 2 rl years, but as soon as some good gang-bang opportunity opens, one realm betrays another, turn to side of enemies within days.

explanations like "we are pragmatical, we want to be successful" carry little sense for me in game where we value long-term claims, honor, want to form our characters as persons with their own values.

this simply leaves bad taste, or no taste at all for the whole concept of diplomacy, for some continents.

two possible measures:
- large h/p penalties for rulers who make awkward diplomatic actions
- long time delays for unnatural diplomatic actions - if two allies war with some realm, and one of realms suddenly wants to make peace, every step should have delays, like, first setting to neutral, than one moth after that breaking alliance is possible, than another month after that signing peace would be possible, than another month before declaring war to former ally, etc.

diplomatic ties should not be taken lightly, should be binding and played as such, an long-terms efforts should be necessary for change of stance.

than, developing in-game trust and friendship would have more value. such approach could also possibly limit monster-alliances, as not everyone is in long good terms with everyone else to be able to join gang-bang alliance easily.

currently diplomatic game can easily fall (and that happens quite often) int some sort of gang-bang lottery - first one who makes wrong step is quickly surrounded by gang-banger who suffocate him. long delays would force diplomats to act differently.

It is however historically accurate for some nobles and realms to forgo their "honour" to further their power. After all in a real context honour only matters between the contemporaries you care about. If those within that circle are willing to buy in to what ever justification you create, then in that context honour is preserved or even enhanced.

[Bedwyr]

And long delays would make no sense.  Betrayals are an inherent part of the game as they are a part of real life, and the longer I play the more I see that "gang-bangs" usually happen for a reason when you see all the stuff that goes on.  People still bitch at me on occasion about the "gang-bang" of Soliferum, but that started with the Southern Federation in a much more powerful position, and got reduced to everyone fighting Soliferum through a series of incredibly bad decisions and a couple of lucky breaks by Mosesadelphia and Soliferum.

Alliances in the real world are a binding as the alliance members make them.  People make unnatural alliances and fight those they might want to be friends with all the time.  England and France allying in the prelude to WWI, for instance, and Austria and the Ottomans for that matter.  US and Japan fought in WWII, then became very close friends.  US and USSR allied in WWII, and almost immediately there after began fighting proxy wars.

[Heq]

If anything there should be more, not less, reasons to suddenly go ape!@#$, especially in !@#$ries of differing religions.

After all, of what worth is a heathen's word?  If you jack your co-religionists there are lots (believe me) of in game consequences, otherwise meh, why would the common people care about foreign infidels?

[Chenier]

Alliances need to be maintained, and I don't mean by that stupid treaty friction. If you don't make your ally care for the alliance as much as you do, then don't go expecting much of it.

[Stue (DC)]

having good or bad alliances, betrayals and their in-game justificitions are one thing, while completely unnatural course of events the other.

if you have long alliance with realm A, but they leave you first moment when realm B attacks you, that is already betrayal which needs all kind of in-game justifications and politics.

if, however, realm A not only breaks the alliance but declare war on you, and ally with your new enemy, all within several turns, that is only tasteless play with buttons, such things cannot pass any test of rp-ing sense. not to mention that many even don't care to seek for some justification, couple of mumbling sentences and pressing the buttons is all.

that reduces depth of diplomatic play and depth of game in general. i doubt any medieval background could be found for blitzkrieg wars and blitz realm change of loyalties.

While quick changes of loyalties on level of single noble or even the largest city could have lot of sense (though it is seen very rarely) I see none for realm diplomatic buttons acrobatics.

[De-Legro]

having good or bad alliances, betrayals and their in-game justificitions are one thing, while completely unnatural course of events the other.

if you have long alliance with realm A, but they leave you first moment when realm B attacks you, that is already betrayal which needs all kind of in-game justifications and politics.

if, however, realm A not only breaks the alliance but declare war on you, and ally with your new enemy, all within several turns, that is only tasteless play with buttons, such things cannot pass any test of rp-ing sense. not to mention that many even don't care to seek for some justification, couple of mumbling sentences and pressing the buttons is all.

that reduces depth of diplomatic play and depth of game in general. i doubt any medieval background could be found for blitzkrieg wars and blitz realm change of loyalties.

While quick changes of loyalties on level of single noble or even the largest city could have lot of sense (though it is seen very rarely) I see none for realm diplomatic buttons acrobatics.

You speak of a "long" alliance as if the time itself somehow lends weight to it. While it might be a consideration, an alliance of convenience could well last a long time, and be broken either when it first becomes no-longer convenient, or some power grab comes up. Dominic was trying to point out that the duration the treaty has been in play is far less imporatant then factors like how the treaty came about, what has been the current relationship between the allied realms? Take for example FEI. Cathay and GA have had an alliance since GA sent military aid to Cathay during the Great Crusade. Recently GA moved through Cathay lands in order attack another realm, explicitly  after Cathay refused them passage through their lands. Should they have to go through some long process just to get a revenge war going?

The problem is you are trying to use game mechanics to solve a behavior problem. Some realms do indeed not take Alliances seriously enough, but the solution you propose limits ALL realms, in order to try and prevent the behavior of some. Besides read up some history about just how greedy and ready to betray each other nobles could be. Take the 100 year war for example. Edward King of England was also the Lord of Gascony, a fief of France. After some argument revolving around one king not wanting to swear homage to another, King Edward finally did swear homage, and kept Gascony and in the process gave up his own claims to the throne of France. Almost as soon as Edward was distracted fighting Scotland, King Philip of France saw the opportunity to take Gascony, after initially accepting the ritual of homage.

Later in that long war, 1356 I think A truce was signed between then kings Edward of England and John of France. Edward took possession  Aquitaine in return for freeing King John. The peace lasted but 2 years before Edward again invaded, since revolts and trouble in France led him to believe he could claim the throne.

Given the time differences between the game and real life, in that game time is rather compressed in terms of actual events (nobody wants peace of year and years, or taking years to rebuild from an invasion) I would think this is just one example of how fast the diplomacy of the age could change, and just how little the nobility of the time really cared about honour in the romantic way that we think of it.

[Peri]

All these things need not to be coded. If a ruler/realm behaves in a particularly bad way, it will have some consequences. And if it has none, then he played it right.

[Stue (DC)]

You speak of a "long" alliance as if the time itself somehow lends weight to it. While it might be a consideration, an alliance of convenience could well last a long time, and be broken either when it first becomes no-longer convenient, or some power grab comes up.

exactly, i think duration has much of weight, but it is really not my own singular opinion, many things in game mechanics revelve about quality duration gives - from ability to change class to frequent granting of titles to those with longest loyalty to the realm, so that idea is i believe very much aligned with general concepts of the game.

Take for example FEI. Cathay and GA have had an alliance since GA sent military aid to Cathay during the Great Crusade. Recently GA moved through Cathay lands in order attack another realm, explicitly  after Cathay refused them passage through their lands. Should they have to go through some long process just to get a revenge war going?

they actually did take care of rp-ing and did not enter war, but lowered relations to neutral, and did not enter war for at least next month i was still there, so they would not need my device.

negative example is in my opinion arcarea, that quickly moved from long-negotiated peace to war, even if she was not party directly involved in ga-cathay troubles, in my opinion just to use favorable disposition of military forces. ordering attack and than declaring war 15 minutes before turn-change is one of my the least respected things in the whole game, and falls into similar category. there is no any rp-ing justification for use of diplomatic buttons for military tactical purposes, in my personal opinion, that just leaves bad taste.

that could lead to another proposal - after ruler clicks "war" button, that should come into power at least at beginning of next turn, if not even later, something like "messanger is coming toward you" warning to ruler who will receive war declaration.

there are marshals who should organize military tactics, that shouldn't be allowed to rulers.

The problem is you are trying to use game mechanics to solve a behavior problem. Some realms do indeed not take Alliances seriously enough, but the solution you propose limits ALL realms, in order to try and prevent the behavior of some.

you are right on this, this only comes from my opinion that such behavior degrades game, and therefore should be partly dealt with through game mechanics.

again, that is not my invention. something related to federation already exists, i just think it should be enhanced to the whole diplomacy.

as regards to limits, the only limit would be that rulers would need to wait for radical changes of diplomatic stances. that would give them large opportunity to better prepare it, justify it and rp it, and could actually imporve game quality. the only limit would be that quick diplomatic changes could not be used for military tactical operations and too-easily agreed gang-bangs.

Besides read up some history about just how greedy and ready to betray each other nobles could be. Take the 100 year war for example. Edward King of England was also the Lord of Gascony, a fief of France. After some argument revolving around one king not wanting to swear homage to another, King Edward finally did swear homage, and kept Gascony and in the process gave up his own claims to the throne of France. Almost as soon as Edward was distracted fighting Scotland, King Philip of France saw the opportunity to take Gascony, after initially accepting the ritual of homage.

in these old times, did any real change really happened within days? as far as i read, english king accepted that middle solution just to formally end too long war, while even being aware how things will go later, he could not give up everything in one step, so that could possible me more in favor of proposal 

Given the time differences between the game and real life, in that game time is rather compressed in terms of actual events (nobody wants peace of year and years, or taking years to rebuild from an invasion) I would think this is just one example of how fast the diplomacy of the age could change, and just how little the nobility of the time really cared about honour in the romantic way that we think of it.

well, that is matter of personal opinion. i think that, when further diplomatic changes are expected, that would increase tensions among both realms, they would prepare for war, actively seeking for new allies, and, on contrary, that could be more interesting on wide continental scene. buliding fortifications, preparing troops for first hit, running around for new diplomatic ties, attempting political trade, all that would happen, while in instant war it is often too late for that.

[Stue (DC)]

All these things need not to be coded. If a ruler/realm behaves in a particularly bad way, it will have some consequences. And if it has none, then he played it right.

particularly bad was is, for instance, when alliances A and be fight, alliance A suffers series of losses, than some realm that are part of it quickly change side, and we have gang-bang war.

would such ruler suffer consequences? no, he would likely enjoy additional benefits. consequences too often fall on those who behave excellently. i saw more than one realm which ultimately disappeared because their rulers did not accept awkward diplomatic changes which were not justified by anything but mere desire to save the throne.

in that respect, i believe that current game mechanics to some extent encourages too flexible pragmatism. medieval history does not actually remembers too much of those who survived ,after they are defeated, because they are pragmatical.

if harakiri is not expected from european rulers, they were at least expected to die in battle, or go to exile to the end of their life after they are defeated, not to quickly change diplomatic stance and stay on throne.

[Indirik]

they actually did take care of rp-ing and did not enter war, but lowered relations to neutral, and did not enter war for at least next month i was still there

But GA betrayed the alliance to begin with, disregarding Cathay's sovereignty by moving armed troops across Cathay land for the express purpose of attacking OW, which Cathay explicitly denied to them. (GA seems to make it a habit to ignore territorial sovereignty, and go wherever they want, whenever they want.)

negative example is in my opinion arcarea, that quickly moved from long-negotiated peace to war, even if she was not party directly involved in ga-cathay troubles, in my opinion just to use favorable disposition of military forces. ordering attack and than declaring war 15 minutes before turn-change is one of my the least respected things in the whole game, and falls into similar category. there is no any rp-ing justification for use of diplomatic buttons for military tactical purposes, in my personal opinion, that just leaves bad taste.

Mrh? No RP justification? Arcaea's involvement in the war did not start because of Cathay/GA troubles. It was because of GA's attack on OW, which violated a treaty to which GA and Arcaea were party. If GA didn't know that attacking OW would would result in a swift, and strong, reprisal from Arcaea, then they were the only ones. (and I'm pretty certain that GA knew /exactly/ what they were doing.) This is one of the things I counted on when provoking the OW/GA war. The GA/Cathay troubles didn't develop until much later.

that could lead to another proposal - after ruler clicks "war" button, that should come into power at least at beginning of next turn, if not even later, something like "messanger is coming toward you" warning to ruler who will receive war declaration.

What? That makes no sense at all.

"Listen up, men! We're going to war with Greater Aenilia. Now, I now they're camped right there in the other end of that clearing. And I know that they know that we're going to be going to war with them, and I know that they know that we know they know. But unfortunately I can't let you attack. Not until sunrise two days hence. Until then, we must just sit here and hurl insults at each other until then. Sorry, but that's the rules."

as regards to limits, the only limit would be that rulers would need to wait for radical changes of diplomatic stances. that would give them large opportunity to better prepare it, justify it and rp it, and could actually imporve game quality. the only limit would be that quick diplomatic changes could not be used for military tactical operations.

Quick diplomatic changes are already strictly limited. Going from Alliance to War requires no less than two full turn changes to pass. This means that your former ally has at least 24 hours notice. And that's assuming that the ruler lowering relations is hovering to click the buttons exactly at turn change. More likely you'll probably get a good 36 hours notice, if not more.

and too-easily agreed gang-bangs

GA did not get gang-banged. They screwed up. Badly. They had every opportunity to avoid this war. They walked right into it, with eyes wide open. (Or screwed tightly shut in denial. Whatever.)

well, that is matter of personal opinion. i think that, when further diplomatic changes are expected, that would increase tensions among both realms, they would prepare for war, actively seeking for new allies, and, on contrary, that could be more interesting on wide continental scene. buliding fortifications, preparing troops for first hit, running around for new diplomatic ties, attempting political trade, all that would happen, while in instant war it is often too late for that.

If you wait until the enemy is marching before you prepare for war, you deserve to lose.

[De-Legro]

negative example is in my opinion arcarea, that quickly moved from long-negotiated peace to war, even if she was not party directly involved in ga-cathay troubles, in my opinion just to use favorable disposition of military forces. ordering attack and than declaring war 15 minutes before turn-change is one of my the least respected things in the whole game, and falls into similar category. there is no any rp-ing justification for use of diplomatic buttons for military tactical purposes, in my personal opinion, that just leaves bad taste.

This shows WHY this is a bad idea. Arcaea declared was because we were treaty bound to defend OW. Yes it had little to do with the Cathay-GA issue, and had everything to do with GA marching through Cathay to attack OW. See how easy it is to assume something has no RP basis simply because you aren't personally privy to it?

in these old times, did any real change really happened within days? as far as i read, english king accepted that middle solution just to formally end too long war, while even being aware how things will go later, he could not give up everything in one step, so that could possible me more in favor of proposal

How could it when it took weeks simply for a message to get from England to France? You have to extrapolate relative time frames here. In the real world it might take weeks to march a large army the distance between our regions, we can often do it in 12 hours and have instant messaging. Given such constraints, several diplomatic changes in a few years is very rapid

The only limit would be that quick diplomatic changes could not be used for military tactical operations and too-easily agreed gang-bangs.

I've never seen a "gang-bang" that was set up in a few days. Sure the act of lowering diplomacy might only take that long, but it was likely organised long before. So all your change would do is let the target realm panic and worry for longer before the attack. If it is a true gang-bang that everyone seems to fear, then it is unlikely the rulers will be swayed to attack for any IG reasons. If it is not, well then there is really nothing wrong with several realms attacking another for IG reasons, except that it can infringe upon personal ideals of fair play.

particularly bad was is, for instance, when alliances A and be fight, alliance A suffers series of losses, than some realm that are part of it quickly change side, and we have gang-bang war.

Throughout history there have been those that would change alliances when it became clear they would lose. Often those realms only allied in the first place because they thought they had picked the winning team. It would indeed be odd to see a strong ally do such a thing, but then allies are not always closely aligned, no matter how long the alliance has been in place.

if harakiri is not expected from european rulers, they were at least expected to die in battle, or go to exile to the end of their life after they are defeated, not to quickly change diplomatic stance and stay on throne.

Depends on the realm and the particular age. While many Kings did fight on the battlefield, certainly not all did. Yes losing completely would result in exile, but the eqvalient in BM would be the realm being taken over, revolting or something of that nature, which also has the potential for exile. A European King was unlikely to face exile for losing some battles. Again look at the 100 year war, France lost several battles early in the war, and land but the royal family stayed on. King John was even captured by the British, but was released and returned to his throne.

One more consideration. One thing I have noticed is the use of diplomacy setting by a third party to either prevent a battle or to limit who fighting in one. For example If Realm A is fighting Realm B and C, and a fourth realm Realm D is at war with realm B but has peace or better with A and C, then realm D can prevent realm C from fighting in large battles against realm A. Under you system such tactics could be used long term, and it would take realm C some time to lower their diplomatic stance to counter this.

[Stue (DC)]

This shows WHY this is a bad idea. Arcaea declared was because we were treaty bound to defend OW. Yes it had little to do with the Cathay-GA issue, and had everything to do with GA marching through Cathay to attack OW. See how easy it is to assume something has no RP basis simply because you aren't personally privy to it?

on contrary, it exactly shows why it is a good idea, and i am trying to state firm facts, where there is issue of personal preference, all are equal in value, your or mine.

Arcarea did not have alliance with OW, to conduct commando actions in case OW is attacked, and that is what exactly proves my point, as quick actions have nothing to do with medieval wars (and with slow-paced game what BM intentionally is, to allow us more time)

Moreover, the mentioned help has nothing to do with proposal, it would be completely sufficient that they lowered relations to neutral, and all actions to help OW would be available, but no, Arcarea used the fact that GA army was far away to quickly change relations from peace to war, to gain tactical advantage.

With enough good preparations they could gain crucial advantage only for the fact that mechanics allows such low-taste actions.

GA actually entered that whole war because they did not expect Arcarea will act in such commando-manner, which was large disappointment in RP-ing sense.

They conducted risky and hard-to-organize action, but did not expect to fight against "buttons-pragmatism" is not FEI advertised like RP-ing continent?

[Stue (DC)]

But GA betrayed the alliance to begin with, disregarding Cathay's sovereignty by moving armed troops across Cathay land for the express purpose of attacking OW, which Cathay explicitly denied to them. (GA seems to make it a habit to ignore territorial sovereignty, and go wherever they want, whenever they want.)

that is matter of personal opinion that would fit much better to i-c grievances. my opinion is, for instance, that cathay betrayed alliance as they had obligation to help against annoying third parties, and they completely rejected to provide it.

Mrh? No RP justification? Arcaea's involvement in the war did not start because of Cathay/GA troubles. It was because of GA's attack on OW, which violated a treaty to which GA and Arcaea were party. If GA didn't know that attacking OW would would result in a swift, and strong, reprisal from Arcaea, then they were the only ones. (and I'm pretty certain that GA knew /exactly/ what they were doing.) This is one of the things I counted on when provoking the OW/GA war. The GA/Cathay troubles didn't develop until much later.
What? That makes no sense at all.

having different opinion about i-c issues should be natural way of developing conflicts, and devs would not have to make efforts how to adjust too-much-peace code. unfortunately, there is tendency to align opinions both ic and ooc, which eventually leads to ... g-b wars.

"Listen up, men! We're going to war with Greater Aenilia. Now, I now they're camped right there in the other end of that clearing. And I know that they know that we're going to be going to war with them, and I know that they know that we know they know. But unfortunately I can't let you attack. Not until sunrise two days hence. Until then, we must just sit here and hurl insults at each other until then. Sorry, but that's the rules."

well, yes, that is my idea. i truly do not understand why slow paced war in slow paced game should revolve about first, quick/commando, attacks. and they are not just sitting there, they are preparing themselves, train, scout, develop plans, while tension increases.

Quick diplomatic changes are already strictly limited. Going from Alliance to War requires no less than two full turn changes to pass. This means that your former ally has at least 24 hours notice. And that's assuming that the ruler lowering relations is hovering to click the buttons exactly at turn change. More likely you'll probably get a good 36 hours notice, if not more.

which means thoughts about that already exist...

GA did not get gang-banged. They screwed up. Badly. They had every opportunity to avoid this war. They walked right into it, with eyes wide open. (Or screwed tightly shut in denial. Whatever.)
If you wait until the enemy is marching before you prepare for war, you deserve to lose.

they "screwed" in way most of them did since i've been playing - they tried to create some drama and thrill and are in danger to be gang-banged by idyllically friendly "peace-lovers", medieval hippies, whose common agenda is one single - they jointed to deal with trouble makers, those who create hostilities. once peaceful gang-bangers prevail, eternal peace is guaranteed.

just to note, i did not initiate this thread having any particular continent in mind.

[Indirik]

i contrary it exactly shows why it is a good idea, and i am trying to state firm facts, where there is issue of personal preference, all are equal in value, your or mine.

Arcarea did not have alliance with OW, to conduct commando actions in case OW is attacked, and that is what exactly proves my point, as quick actions have nothing to do with medieval wars (and fir little to slow-paced game what BM intentionally is, to allow us more time)

Arcaea was allied to OW before any of this happened. OW knew that Cathay was denying passage to GA. (They told us this.) We also knew that if GA ignored this, and marched anyway, that GA would be violating a treaty they had signed with Arcaea and Cathay. And If that happened, we knew that Arcaea would attack GA. We knew that Arcaea *wanted* to attack GA, and had wanted this for some time. The Peace of Ahael (I think that's the name) was the only thing holding them back. Once GA broke that, it was Game On for Arcaea.

I'm assuming that GA knew all of this, and *expected* to be attacked by Arcaea. They almost certainly knew that Arcaea would attack them back, but probably thought that Arcaea was too busy in the north with Arcachon to free up enough forces to act quickly. Too bad for GA that they telegraphed their intentions for a week or so before the attack, so that Arcaea had plenty of time to prepare.

And, to be brutally honest, isn't this the kind of thing that you're advocating for? GA gave plenty of warning as to what was going to happen, giving Arcaea plenty of time to prepare for the war. Isn't this exactly what you wanted? Except that this time it apparently worked against you, thus you don't really like the results.

Moreover, the mentioned help has nothing to do with proposal, it would be completely sufficient that they lowered relations to neutral, and all actions to help OW would be available, but no, Arcarea used the fact that GA army was far away to quickly change relations from peace to war, to gain tactical advantage.

So you're using a scenario to justify the new rule that you are openly admitting won't change anything other than the specific word that appears on the Relations chart, and will have absolutely no impact on the game in any other way whatsoever?

GA actually entered that whole war because they did not expect Arcarea will act in such commando-manner, which was large disappointment in RP-ing sense.

A bit of simple, preparatory scouting before-hand would have told them *exactly* where the Arcaean army was waiting for them.

This wasn't an unexpected commando/ninja/specop raid. You seem to be the only who didn't know that Arcaea would attack GA. And if GA didn't know, too bad for them. It just underscores how blind they were to the political situation on the island. (But I don't believe that. I think they knew exactly what they were provoking.)

They conducted risky and hard-to-organize action, but did not expect to fight against "buttons-pragmatism" is not FEI advertised like RP-ing continent?

Hard to organize? They marched 12 nobles through a Cathayan region to loot some undefended OW regions. What's so hard to organize about that?