Ambassador Help

[Galvez]

I don't get the whole friction idea. Nobles decide what's best for the peasants and the realm. Not the other way around.

[Peri]

I don't get the whole friction idea. Nobles decide what's best for the peasants and the realm. Not the other way around.

The following is the text given when treaties reach high friction:

Treaty Criticised   (5 hours, 56 minutes ago)
The treaty xxx is under intense criticism from the minor nobility and the bureaucrats tasked with overseeing its administration. You should send some diplomats to talk to your partners, because if this keeps up, it could spell trouble for the maintenance of the treaty.

No peasants involved apparently.

I kinda agree with Chenier that the true point is the numbers involved. Perhaps the ruler could be allowed to exert maintenance, but anyway spending an entire turn of an ambassador to lower the friction a handful of percentage points when the treaty receives 1 or 2% friction every turn is a bit too much. One could compare treaty maintenance to courtier work in regions far from the capital: something that ought to be done every now and then, but a single courtier spending there some turns will fix the problem for a while. The problem is that 2-3 troublesome regions are what one realm will find to have at most, while treaties are way more numerous.

[Telrunya]

The ingame text:

As a Diplomat of your realm, you can work to improve the views of the locals on treaties and declarations your realm has signed. Or, if you're feeling particularly disillusioned toward your realm today, you can work to discourage people about the treaty, and make them think it's no longer worth keeping around. By and large, you will speak with the minor nobility (because really, who wants to mix with peasants?), though sometimes wealthy merchants will be acceptable to deal with.

You talk with the minor NPC Nobility and the odd wealthy merchant or two. They also have an opinion on Treaties, one that actually needs to be taken into account, and that is what causes friction. If you could continue an Alliance without their support, it probably would cause a lot of problems in your regions.

[Chenier]

The ingame text:

You talk with the minor NPC Nobility and the odd wealthy merchant or two. They also have an opinion on Treaties, one that actually needs to be taken into account, and that is what causes friction. If you could continue an Alliance without their support, it probably would cause a lot of problems in your regions.

Which is giving more importance to minor NPC nobles than to knights, lords and dukes... And why would they oppose every treaty, just because it is old? Makes no sense, just fields like grief.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

It might be the case that your realm's sympathies play a factor. My hostile declarations against Summerdale have not increased in friction since the day they were signed into effect, 01/31/11. I simply badmouthed Summerdale to no end in the period before the official treaties were drafted.

[Darksun]

It might be the case that your realm's sympathies play a factor. My hostile declarations against Summerdale have not increased in friction since the day they were signed into effect, 01/31/11. I simply badmouthed Summerdale to no end in the period before the official treaties were drafted.

I would expect treaties and declarations to function differently in these respects.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

In Sirion, people hate Fontan and SoA, yet declarations against them are at about 40% friction.

I think the more logical answer would be that treaties require high sympathies to the target realms in order to slow down friction, whereas declarations require low sympathies. However, Sirion's declarations make me confused.

[Anaris]

The most logical answer, of course, is that it's still a bit spotty, and not quite finished

[vonGenf]

It might be the case that your realm's sympathies play a factor. My hostile declarations against Summerdale have not increased in friction since the day they were signed into effect, 01/31/11. I simply badmouthed Summerdale to no end in the period before the official treaties were drafted.

You badmouthed Summerdale in every single region your realm controls? Don't you see that could be a bit much?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I think I saved the letters their king wrote. Not exactly very smart words. I daresay they would sooner have to be destroyed than come a time when I'd have to praise them in the least.

Also, most of the regions hated Summerdale anyway for some reason. I just worked on some areas where sympathy was slightly higher. I don't consider it too much, because what else would you do with that badmouth option? Besides, I managed that as one single ambassador when some other realms have multiple ambassadors and diplomats running around yet still can't figure out how to keep their treaties in shape. So far the highest any of my treaties have gone in friction is 5%, and the oldest was signed in December of last year.

[Vellos]

Maybe it also has something to do with:
1. The type of treaties
2. Other treaties a realm has? (kind of like you cannot ally both sides of a war: maybe treaties that "conflict" drive up friction?)
3. Realm size (big realms have a harder time sustaining treaties?)

[cjnodell]

It would make sense that how a realms minor nobility and officials feel about the target nation would influence treaty friction. It this was the case, it would mean that keeping a treaty alive would require both treaty maintenance and also influencing NPC opinion of the target realm. From what Artemesia has said it sounds to me that influencing the NPC opinion is pretty key and if done well makes maintaining treaties much more reasonable. Perhaps the issue is not the numbers but our lack of knowledge...

[Chenier]

It would make sense that how a realms minor nobility and officials feel about the target nation would influence treaty friction. It this was the case, it would mean that keeping a treaty alive would require both treaty maintenance and also influencing NPC opinion of the target realm. From what Artemesia has said it sounds to me that influencing the NPC opinion is pretty key and if done well makes maintaining treaties much more reasonable. Perhaps the issue is not the numbers but our lack of knowledge...

Does it add realism? Yes.

Does it add fun? Prove it. I'm 100% convinced that this will lessen the fun of the game. Realms should not require specialist classes, they should rather be outputs for people who like doing things differently. Diplomats are rare enough as it is, making them mandatory for good realm and diplomacy running when player count is eternally declining is absolutely foolish.

[egamma]

Does it add realism? Yes.

Does it add fun? Prove it. I'm 100% convinced that this will lessen the fun of the game. Realms should not require specialist classes, they should rather be outputs for people who like doing things differently. Diplomats are rare enough as it is, making them mandatory for good realm and diplomacy running when player count is eternally declining is absolutely foolish.

I think the idea is to give people more options, and to ensure that realms only keep the treaties that they really need--to prevent the eternal alliances that you see between certain realms. Or at least, limiting the number of alliances that can be easily maintained.

[Chenier]

I think the idea is to give people more options, and to ensure that realms only keep the treaties that they really need--to prevent the eternal alliances that you see between certain realms. Or at least, limiting the number of alliances that can be easily maintained.

Where are these eternal alliances you speak of?

I see war on all continents that I know of. Long-lasting alliances already have great strains on them: player boredom, short memory, and noble replacement. You might be best buds with the realm you just helped form, but if you just sit on your ass without talking to them for the next year, no treaty will bring back that lost relation.