HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Alliances & Diplomacy

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Alliances & Diplomacy   Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:12 am

Discuss alliances & diplomacy here. Currently:

We all know that the problem here is alliances are both A) Far too easy to set up, B) Have many advantages with few disadvantages, and C) Can be set up instantaneously. In the interest of making alliances have both advantages and disadvantages, as well as instituting a bit more realism, here the following is proposed:

1. The transfer of resources between factions must be conducted using Caravans. Ideally, this would mean Player A sends a Caravan of 10,000 Wood from one of his settlements to a settlement owned by a foreign power. The distance between those two towns would be determined based on the military movement system, and would also allow for routes to be plotted out according to the "danger levels" of the regions in the route (determined by scouting, perhaps). This would also allow armies to be used more realistically, i.e. being used to guard Caravans.

Expanding on this, and creating an incentive to official alliances, the Caravans have a chance to be ambushed in any region that is owned by non-allied factions. For instance, if a Caravan has a route that goes through 2 of his regions, and the route then goes through two of Bandos's regions, there would be a chance to be ambushed in 4 regions if Saradomin and Bandos were not allied. If they *were* allied, the only chance to be ambushed would be if the route went through a region that neither of them owned.

Gold would be treated the same way as any resource, and a Gold Caravan would have a higher chance of being attacked.

When moving across water, Caravans don't require a military ship to carry them, but military vessels can be used to guard Caravans as they sail.

2. When non-allied armies work together in a battle, there is a Morale penalty inflicted on both sides due to injured pride and cultural barriers.

3. Diplomats will be used to travel to other factions' lands and propose things - trade agreements, research exchange, and declarations of alliance. A diplomatic unit (tentatively called a Diplomatic Entourage) will exist for each faction - one, at the start, more can be added via buildings. This unit will have to be sent to either A) Another faction's capital city, or B) A meeting with a Diplomatic Entourage of another faction in order to initiate talks.

So, there are disadvantages to working together in secret (i.e., maintaining a facade of neutrality when you're really helping each other out) which can be reduced by announcing an alliance. So, what are the disadvantages?

1. Political repercussions. Since we're creating NPC factions as more concrete entities this time 'round, that means they can react to player alliances appropriately. This can apply in both the early and the late game; let's say, for instance, both Saradomin and Zaros start near Misthalin (perhaps Zaros in Edgeville, Saradomin in Lumbridge). 10 turns into the game, Saradomin and Zaros have both gained some minor regions and they decide to form an alliance. Well, you can expect Misthalin to be none too pleased with THAT arrangement; two potential enemies, to the north and the south, banding together? Misthalin could react in one of several ways: By making their future diplomacy with both Saradomin and Zaros more difficult; by allying with an NPC faction of their own; or by military action (the most extreme response).

2. No joint victory - this means that both players will know the alliance will have to be disbanded at some point, so they'll hopefully judge carefully how much they share and cooperate in the short-term, because it'll have long-term repercussions (I seriously doubt they will, though).

3. They'll have to come up with an name!!! Okay, I'm half-joking about this one - well, I'm serious, they'll need a name for an official alliance - but it's only a disadvantage if they're about as creative as a rock.


Last edited by Jasband on Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:00 pm

I feel like Alliances need to have more repercussions, but that's just me.

Everything else looks good!

Quick question, though, should Caravans be allowed to be teleported?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:50 pm

Yes, though at a huge cost. Resources are massive. I'll type more into teleportation when I get the time (about now).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:16 pm

I also have my own ideas for teleportation. I would not mind Caravans being teleported if my suggestions were implemented.

Lime, I agree that alliances need more repercussions as well, but I can't think of any at this point. Perhaps once we develop some of the other game mechanics, there will be opportunities to relate them to alliances.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Thu May 02, 2013 2:52 am

About politics in general, I'm going to say it here: Besides these rules and restrictions we set before the game begins, I will not touch the politics. It is not my place to regulate the flow of the game or influence the players in this manner. There won't be any "GM-enforced" treaties, there won't be random extremist outbursts (Okay, there might be those, but not because I want to break alliances). Players can basically do whatever they want.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Fri May 03, 2013 3:16 pm

I think we should expand a it more on trade. I want to make it so that trading the right resource, depending on the Territory, gets you different levels of... Well... Money/Stuff. Let me give an example.

Perhaps Ardougne wishes to build a Massive Effing Castle. Well, for that, they'll need a lot of stone and metal, as well as large amounts of gold/gems for decorative purposes/paying the workers. Well, not only will they no longer trade ANY(except Gold) of those resources to you, since it's all going towards the construction effort, but trading them Stone, Metal, and Gems will make them like your more than if you trade them, say, cloth.

Do you get what I'm saying?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 1:58 am

Definitely. When a player sends a Diplomat to negotiate a Trade Agreement, the NPC faction can lay out how much they're willing to pay for each resource (and whether or not they're even interested in certain resources). It will be less like saying, "Hey, I've got 30k extra Wood, let me see if I can dump it on these noob druids in Taverley" and more like asking, "What does this faction need from me, and what do I need from them?"

I think that once a Trade Agreement is established, a Diplomat won't be necessary to negotiate changes in that Agreement. So, for instance, if Kandarin doesn't need any more Stone after 5 seasons, they can request to trade Cloth instead. This will facilitate the situational changes in a faction's resource needs. If the Trade Agreement is broken for any reason, however, a Diplomat will be needed once more.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 6:02 am

Actually, I disagree with that a diplomat is not needed to change the trade agreement. I do think it is necessary, but consider this: Even npc states have their specialists. If it's a change on their part, they will send their diplomat to you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 8:40 am

Well, are we going to have bonuses for lots of back-and-forth trade, or will it be a ton of one-off deals?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 9:57 am

I'm not exactly in the favour of players getting cities and stuff just by trading a lot with them and then the leaders just being "Hmm... We've had a lot of trade with these guys so I like them. Let's just join up with them!" Getting control of a city through politics will involve a lot of dirty work. That is, assassinations, bribes, rebellions, and all that. Having trade with someone is a good start, starting an embassy should be the next step. Then just dig in deep and hope you'll come out on top.

As for price reductions on further deals, maybe. It's case by case, I believe.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 10:05 am

Well, I feel like Trade should be a valuable tool in the game as well, and not get back-seated to Military and Religious means.

I believe there are three main ways of getting control of the city: 1. Taking it over Militarily, 2. Using Religion to get the bottom of the Society to love you, and then eventually rebel, 3. Trading with the top of the society until they like you enough for you to buy them out.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 10:29 am

But why would anyone really allow themselves to be bought? Religious conversion and influencing the top aren't mutually exclusive. Religion is often the tool you get someone in a position of power to allow you to go take control. Most likely the political takeover involves someone of high status trading their independence for even higher status. Religion may play a role in this (maybe they've been converted). But trading as a tool of obtaining a city isn't logical. It can help, it will help, but you won't get anything just through trade.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 10:33 am

Trade isn't a means to buy a city; trade is a means to help both empires prosper. One side gets the resources they need, the other side gets the cash they need. Trade Agreements will be an important first step in fostering better relations with a faction, as they are a sign of goodwill and an interest in mutual benefit. After enough trading, you could always propose that the city join your empire; nothing's stopping you from asking. However, it's unlikely that they will, unless they are a very small nation and you offer to include them as a Protectorate. You also risk the chance that they will be offended by your proposal, which will destroy some of those better relations you were building up. Basically, for anything major, it's going to take more work than (even more than) a few seasons of trading.

As for requiring a Diplomat to change the terms of a Trade Agreement, that's fine. I forgot they'll move faster than armies, lol.


Last edited by Jasband on Sat May 04, 2013 10:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 10:34 am

Well, why would companies ever allow themselves to be bought? Because it's more profitable. Through lots of trade, you show to the Governors of the City that you really care about the city and are willing to pay for it. They may also have a small spot for you, since you've been dumping so much money into their profits. They may decide to sell you the city in the end, so all the money goes to them, and they can go and retire somewhere else.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 10:37 am

Limes wrote:
Well, why would companies ever allow themselves to be bought? Because it's more profitable. Through lots of trade, you show to the Governors of the City that you really care about the city and are willing to pay for it. They may also have a small spot for you, since you've been dumping so much money into their profits. They may decide to sell you the city in the end, so all the money goes to them, and they can go and retire somewhere else.

Again, if it's a very small city unaffiliated with a larger nation, the best you could do is convince them to become your Protectorate. Let's just assume, for a moment, that sovereignty is sacred and power is not easily given up, hmm? The city's leaders don't need to go retire somewhere else, because they've already got the sweet life where they're at. You might be able to convert them and then convince them that they'll retain their power if they join your empire, but you won't win them over via trade alone.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 10:40 am

Yes, but nobody is EVER content with the position where they are at: People always want something more if they can get it. Everyone wants more money, so there will always be a chance that you can convince them that selling a territory is more profitable than keeping it under the circumstances.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 11:01 am

Limes wrote:
Yes, but nobody is EVER content with the position where they are at: People always want something more if they can get it. Everyone wants more money, so there will always be a chance that you can convince them that selling a territory is more profitable than keeping it under the circumstances.

Do you really think a foreign nation could convince an American city to leave the country? To not be a part of America anymore? Do you really think that, under any circumstances, that would happen? First of all, the Government would object - with guns, if it came to that. Second of all, every city would have the pride to say, "Fuck you, [foreign nation]. We're part of the USA." It doesn't matter how much money was offered. It doesn't matter what promises were made. It wouldn't happen.

Okay, so let's translate that to a world where large player and NPC factions exist; large dominions, empires, kingdoms, etc. Large countries, if you get my drift. If you start trading with Yanille, and you garner relations with the city itself as well as the Kingdom of Kandarin, you're doing pretty well. There's nothing wrong with trade, because both sides benefit. But, no matter how good your relations become, Yanille won't simply join your dominion because you try to convince them it is "economically sound." First of all, they're under the control of Kandarin. Second of all, they're proud to be Kandarin... Kandarinian... Kandarinish... Kandarini (I like that one the best)... err, citizens. Third of all, in the case of a city belonging to a player faction, THEY'RE ALL PART OF ANOTHER RELIGION LUL. The religion bit doesn't even affect the America analogy, but it's valid in GW5.

So then you look at a small village that's not part of a bigger kingdom. Well, it's perfectly valid to think that after trading with them for a while, after exposing your culture and ideas to them and vice versa, they'll be open to joining you, because A) It truly is in their best interest, since they have no higher ties, and B) They probably wouldn't have the military strength to resist if they refused, and they don't want to lose lives. I'm sorry, Lime, it's just unrealistic to expect to be able to buy out a major city. Smaller settlements and wild regions? Those can be negotiated for.

Using that as a springboard, I think we should think of Diplomacy, as a whole, as an umbrella term that combines the three aspects we've established: Military, Religion, and Trade. Diplomacy is nothing more than talk, and you need to back it up. You need to threaten (with your Military), assimilate (with your Religion), or persuade (with good relations borne from Trade) someone to do something you want. Diplomacy is a means to an end, not explicitly a method of capturing territories (though it can be used for that purpose, with varying levels of success).

What we need to determine is how to handle Trade with a player faction, in regards to Diplomacy. See, while we can manipulate NPC factions to see reason and logic, a player can reject anything he wants because he doesn't fear any repercussions. Thinking of ways to enforce some consequences of his diplomatic decisions will be necessary.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 11:17 am

Yes, but in those scenarios, trade becomes not as important as religion or Militarism.

Let's just say, for a second, that all the countries of Europe simultaneously collapsed into Anarchy. Each Mayor of each city become his or her own king of his little, new Citystate. Well, then China, the United States, Russia, and several other powers would work towards expanding their control over all of theses places.

Under your example, there is absolutely NO WAY WHATSOEVER that a city will EVER decide to leave a country, simply because 'They're proud to be Kandarian.' Lumbridge, Lumbridge Hamlets, or whatever will never leave Misthalin because they are 'too proud.' Draynor? Ditto.

The scenario here is that all the major powers have collapsed. All bets are off, and nobody's above selling cities. Misthalin, Kandarin, Asgarnia, Morytania, Isafdar, and everywhere else have all shattered into teeny little city-states. There are no more major powers, all of them are tiny. If a Player gains enough control, there will be ways to buy any of them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 11:37 am

They have? Since when did we agree that everything is an anarchy of tiny village/city states? The kingdoms and such may not be as powerful as they were, and some villages may have detached themselves from their higher powers, but that's it. No matter how hard you want it to, trade will never be enough on its own.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 11:41 am

Ascertes seems resolved that all the major nations have broken down into city-states, and you have also seemed resolved as much.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 12:00 pm

The major nations still hold some territories, but I said (optimally) no more than 5, to balance out the player starting with only 1. They will be working to reclaim territory as well, though at a less aggressive pace than the players. I mentioned that certain settlements - minor settlements, like Draynor - have seceded because of horrible rulership (or natural disaster, or whatever reason we come up with). This is simply to allow there to be settlements players can capture without invoking the wrath of major NPC factions. As of this point, I expect all major cities to be owned by an NPC faction, since those cities will likely be their capitals.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 12:04 pm

I was under the impression that former Major Cities would have become much smaller, the former suburbs now claiming themselves to be independent towns.

Nevertheless, I am under the impression that Trade should be equally as powerful a tool as Religion or Militarism. It should not be relegated as simply a lead-in to either of those two.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 1:02 pm

Stop separating religion and trade. They're both tools of the same obtain method, political takeover. Religion in itself won't be enough to obtain a city, either. Military will only be enough in itself if you attack. You won't scare anyone to join up with you just like that.

Now, the real problem with diplomatic takeover is this: Is it worth waiting for the other side to give you what they have when you can just attack and take it? That is, we need to make diplomatic takeover a viable method of getting cities. Need ideas for this one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 6:08 pm

For me, the chief motivator to go the diplomatic route is two-fold: A) What kind of military does the other faction have, and B) Can I obtain multiple regions quickly. Players shouldn't want to throw their armes against a foe of equal or greater power, for all the obvious reasons.This will prompt the use of Diplomacy to get what they want. However, under the right circumstances, negotiation may be able to win you multiple regions whereas your armies would have to travel and fight. We can also take into account the relations with more distant factions, who'll likely view an intemperate, militarily aggressive faction as barbaric and not worth talking to.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   Sat May 04, 2013 6:09 pm

Well, I misread the part where you mentioned cities specifically, but at least the worldwide reputation point is still valid Razz.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Alliances & Diplomacy   

Back to top Go down
 
Alliances & Diplomacy
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Discussions-
Jump to: