Post by alias72 on May 26, 2019 12:42:00 GMT -6
Hello.
I have been thinking about how the games diplomacy feature could be overhauled so as to provide a more interesting environment in which players design for the war their government chooses instead of orchestrating international conflicts for their own benefit Black Hand style. What follows will be a list of suggestions, some of which interact with each other, some of which may function independently.
Naval Missions
A nation may request (or offer?) a Naval mission from another nation. If tensions are sufficiently low, and no truce exists, this mission will further reduce tension and may result in the transfer of technology from the host to the visitor.
Elections for non-dictatorships
Nations with democratic assembly's will get an election every 4 years. The "Parties" will differ in their support for the navy. Maybe have an event in which you can try and influence the election through propaganda. If the side you support wins but you are discovered they shall distance themselves from you (less support). If the side you oppose wins and you are discovered they become extremely hostile (much less support and loss of prestige). Support effects how much funding your funding changes for the 4 year period.
Colonial policy
Nations have a colonial policy. If the government is a democracy this is set every 4 years and is visible during the elections. If the nation is HM's government or a dictatorship this is set by the autocrat and changes only by event. Colonial policy increases the probability of acquiring a colony but also increases tension with other colonial powers.
Alliance of Desperation
When a nation has a high tension with another power, and that other power is in an alliance, the nation will seek allies themselves. This means that alliances between nations, in periods of high tension, tend to cascade into global factions. This means that crisis that spike tension will be limited in scope but periods of high tension tend to culminate in massive conflicts.
Naval war influences but does not decide land conflict
Every nation would have a domestic military value. If they are at war with a physically connected nation they will "Engage" with that power (Every turn they will reduce their comparative strength) The presence of a naval blockade will reduce military strength on top of that. In this way a nation such as Germany cannot be defeated solely by the destruction of their navy but must be starved to be defeated. This would create interesting asymmetric situations where a nation with a weak army must achieve considerable naval victories to cripple the enemies economy while others only need to hold out.
Revanchism
The longer a war has gone involving core territory the less likely either side is to accept defeat. This means that a conflict over core territory, if it lasts more than 1.5 years, will likely only end if one side collapses (The probability of a surrender rising as military forces become less balanced and radical dictatorships having a very low chance).
Imposition of government
If a nation is conquered completely during a war the victors may impose a government (democracies create other democracies and dictatorships create a puppet and an alliance). If a nation devolves into revolution the war does not end but the chance of a negotiated surrender increases significantly. The result is that a nation may revolt and then negotiate a truce (Soviet Union). Alternatively a nation may revolt and continue to fight (Kerensky's republic).
Categories for naval treaties
Negotiate separate limits on different ship classes. large ships such as battleships may have the limit "Holiday" which essentially means don't build any new ones. Also give a 6 month grace period in which ships under construction are halted but not canceled. This would provide the opportunity to redesign the ships (perhaps as carriers) and rebuild them while still in the dockyard (perhaps at a cost that is the ratio of new build to rebuild cost. (1000 cost new 200 rebuild build is 60% complete so final cost is 520).
Quenched militarism
Governments start off unlikely to agree to naval treaties. If a war is fought for a considerable period nations may get "Quenched militarism" resulting in reduced budgets and a much higher chance to negotiate an arms treaty (unless a dictatorship).
I may think up other ideas later and add them here but for the moment I would like to know what you think? Does anyone else feel that we have a little too much influence over our nations foreign policy? Perhaps you would like to see more intricate relations between the great powers?
I have been thinking about how the games diplomacy feature could be overhauled so as to provide a more interesting environment in which players design for the war their government chooses instead of orchestrating international conflicts for their own benefit Black Hand style. What follows will be a list of suggestions, some of which interact with each other, some of which may function independently.
Naval Missions
A nation may request (or offer?) a Naval mission from another nation. If tensions are sufficiently low, and no truce exists, this mission will further reduce tension and may result in the transfer of technology from the host to the visitor.
Elections for non-dictatorships
Nations with democratic assembly's will get an election every 4 years. The "Parties" will differ in their support for the navy. Maybe have an event in which you can try and influence the election through propaganda. If the side you support wins but you are discovered they shall distance themselves from you (less support). If the side you oppose wins and you are discovered they become extremely hostile (much less support and loss of prestige). Support effects how much funding your funding changes for the 4 year period.
Colonial policy
Nations have a colonial policy. If the government is a democracy this is set every 4 years and is visible during the elections. If the nation is HM's government or a dictatorship this is set by the autocrat and changes only by event. Colonial policy increases the probability of acquiring a colony but also increases tension with other colonial powers.
Alliance of Desperation
When a nation has a high tension with another power, and that other power is in an alliance, the nation will seek allies themselves. This means that alliances between nations, in periods of high tension, tend to cascade into global factions. This means that crisis that spike tension will be limited in scope but periods of high tension tend to culminate in massive conflicts.
Naval war influences but does not decide land conflict
Every nation would have a domestic military value. If they are at war with a physically connected nation they will "Engage" with that power (Every turn they will reduce their comparative strength) The presence of a naval blockade will reduce military strength on top of that. In this way a nation such as Germany cannot be defeated solely by the destruction of their navy but must be starved to be defeated. This would create interesting asymmetric situations where a nation with a weak army must achieve considerable naval victories to cripple the enemies economy while others only need to hold out.
Revanchism
The longer a war has gone involving core territory the less likely either side is to accept defeat. This means that a conflict over core territory, if it lasts more than 1.5 years, will likely only end if one side collapses (The probability of a surrender rising as military forces become less balanced and radical dictatorships having a very low chance).
Imposition of government
If a nation is conquered completely during a war the victors may impose a government (democracies create other democracies and dictatorships create a puppet and an alliance). If a nation devolves into revolution the war does not end but the chance of a negotiated surrender increases significantly. The result is that a nation may revolt and then negotiate a truce (Soviet Union). Alternatively a nation may revolt and continue to fight (Kerensky's republic).
Categories for naval treaties
Negotiate separate limits on different ship classes. large ships such as battleships may have the limit "Holiday" which essentially means don't build any new ones. Also give a 6 month grace period in which ships under construction are halted but not canceled. This would provide the opportunity to redesign the ships (perhaps as carriers) and rebuild them while still in the dockyard (perhaps at a cost that is the ratio of new build to rebuild cost. (1000 cost new 200 rebuild build is 60% complete so final cost is 520).
Quenched militarism
Governments start off unlikely to agree to naval treaties. If a war is fought for a considerable period nations may get "Quenched militarism" resulting in reduced budgets and a much higher chance to negotiate an arms treaty (unless a dictatorship).
I may think up other ideas later and add them here but for the moment I would like to know what you think? Does anyone else feel that we have a little too much influence over our nations foreign policy? Perhaps you would like to see more intricate relations between the great powers?
