Alliances & Diplomacy

Reputation is a big part of it, but then, I don't want to condemn people into forging through their surroundings with the power of their military just because they took out a small village in their early game. It just isn't right.

Well, Reputation in previous deals (I.E. used it as a cover to surprise-attack another village, Calling off numerous deals and instead threatening for stuff, being disrespectful to potential trading partners, yet still didn't attack them yet) Should go into question with trade

And also, fine, We can merge Religion and Trade. It's just diplomacy, then.

I know you're butthurt over Toa calling off the deal, but in GW5, It will only constitute as "backing off" if you agree on a deal, a caravan is sent, and he will refuse to pay or demand a higher price afterwards.

Still, Threats should not be taken lightly.

A person who conducts himself dishonorably in matters of diplomacy should garner a negative reputation, that's all I know. While we can't prevent players from acting dishonestly, there should be realistic consequences for doing so.

William, I may have misphrased my opinion. Tying into what I said above, dishonorable military actions should be looked upon negatively, not just using your armies to capture regions. For instance, promising a trade but instead using it to attack. If we want to be even more realistic, we can take into account what a player does with the regions he captures when deciding his reputation. Someone who more or less preserves the social and cultural structure of a region is "more honorable" than someone who enslaves the people and crushes dissent with force.

^Exactly.

Hmm... Then we need to provide some mechanics for dealing with conquered regions, since as much as I like fluff and think it needs to be incorporated more heavily into the game, I don't think I want to go around punishing people for it.

Well, it was just an idea to be that realistic - we don't have to. I agree with leaving the fluff as fluff, but in most cases, I'm sure players won't go into detail as to what they do once they conquer a region. They'll just add it to their list and move on, which is fine. If they feel they need to make a point of how to handle the region - let's say it was a city that had been giving them trouble since the start, and they indulge in a bit of well-earned vengeance via executions - then that action can have reputation consequences. If they don't do anything special, though, no one will react to it.

Jasband wrote:

- let's say it was a city that had been giving them trouble since the start, and they indulge in a bit of well-earned vengeance via executions -

Ouch! Low blow.

Wat?

You weren't referring to my troubled history with Al Kharid?

No, I just came up with an example. The thing I most remember about you and Al Kharid is aviansie ninjas attempting to steal your "powerful" artifact, lol.

Toa is the Hielan of GW4, sticking his nose in things not belonging to him...

I'm pretty sure they think the same thing about me and my aggressive expansionist policy.

To be honest, I think they're not doing anything just because to them, I look powerful, even though I'm not. I feel like this semblance-of-power/evil-maniacal-will-instantly-crush-them-with-epic strategy is the only thing protecting me from invasion at this point.

Either that or they honestly don't give two flying fucks (yet).

Yeah, I don't think you need to worry about them being afraid of your über-strategies after what I did to you in the battle of the Desert Quarry... In any case, if we ignore the fact that this isn't what this forum is for, you two need to be afraid of Toa getting those 7 nexi and rolling over you guys with 7 simultaneous firestorms. I suggest 7 Aegises.

I figured just one aegis would do it.

Back on topic...

So... The options we have now is Military or Diplomacy?

What would all the conditions be for them? I mean, military is pretty obvious, but what would be the processes of diplomacy conversion?

On the argument of trade... For a smaller-medium nation... perhaps a faction could try to make the other nation dependent on them? That way there is a lot of ways to do early-game diplomacy rather then just conquering the poor saps left and right - For those who want to establish a good reputation right from the get-go.

Because I'm assuming in early game the first thing people do is build up big armies and then conquer left and right before anyone can grow too big - We should open up the diplomatic option for those who are in close proximity to the new NPC states.

And for people who ARE close to NPC states at the beginning, then perhaps they can start up an "alliance" of sorts, building up to a co-dependency that could eventually lead to co-ownership? I mean, it's not THAT horrible if the various factions have to rename themselves for their allies, amirite?

And then people who are conquering militarily, while being faster in the short term, will quickly ruin their reputation and almost destroy their chances of expanding in the long term <3

Like you said, military defeat is pretty easycake. Politics, however, not so much. I can't offer you a set-in-stone political takeover-o-meter to look at. Politics is just one of those case by case things there is no generalisation of. good tips are to judge the character of the leader and get a good grip on their opposition.

Also, don't do what Yuccon is doing right now and try and walk in and buy the region off the bat. They won't like it.

There's certainly no takeover-o-meter to specifically state how much progress you're making in a region, but the different Reputation tiers can give you an idea of how well you're doing. Asking a faction that is Neutral or that Dislikes you to "sell" one of their regions to you would be pretty foolish. However, if they're Friendly with you, they're much more likely to listen. Keep in mind that Reputation applies to another faction as a whole, not a specific city or region, though we could include that in the system if need be.

Just be careful about asking for things that may be offensive or insulting. For instance, don't ask a faction to give up and hand over all they own because they're not active enough. Even if your relation is Friendly, they're probably going to be pissed off.

^Yeah, like Yuccon, who is basically going to the Coal Fields without invitation, with ACTUAL SOLDIERS, and not even TALKING to those guys and saying "I'm buying your house."

Limes wrote:

^Yeah, like Yuccon, who is basically going to the Coal Fields without invitation, with ACTUAL SOLDIERS, and not even TALKING to those guys and saying "I'm buying your house."

Or how about "Hey, Nameless One, you're kind of, well, not doing much, so why don't you just quit? By the way, can I have your stuff?"

I'm tempted to create a vote thread: "Should Toa be allowed to play GW5?"

Jasband wrote:

I'm tempted to create a vote thread: "Should Toa be allowed to play GW5?"

No. The only thing you will achieve with that is me forbidding you from playing GW5. I will not look at anyone bullying others and nobody will be prevented from playing the game just because they may not be the sharpest tool in the shed or the most liked person. This is not a popularity contest, it is a text strategy game. While Toa is indeed extremely annoying, I can't help but think he's actually understood the whole concept better than the two of you. Take brown text for what it is, it is Othrod Vun'grund's taunts at your two empires, not Toa personally threatening to murder your families. If he wants to commit political suicide, that's his prerogative.

I don't think he's understood that HE SHOULD NOT BRING IT INGAME.