(6-VT) No more need to have an embassy with another civilization to demand that it make peace with another Civ or CS

[gwennog]

Proposal : Actually, to demand to another civ to make peace with a civ or a CS we need an ambassy with it.
I propose to change that and to be able to do it whatever the conditions of agreement with the civilization which attacks.
The weight you give to the injunction will depend on the military ratio, the technological gap and the number of allies. The requester might even have an option to threaten war if his request is not granted. Of course, this would result in relational penalties.

Rational : Increase the game of influence and prevent civilizations from waging war on CS for example under your nose when they do not have the means to fight against you.

 

[adan_eslavo]

I don't find the op clear enough to undearstand it. Can you explain it more?

 

[Anarcomu]

I don't find the op clear enough to undearstand it. Can you explain it more?

Civ A and Civ B are at war.

Actually :
Civ C needs an embassy with Civ A, to ask/negociate Civ A to make peace with Civ B

Proposed :
Civ C can freely ask/negociate Civ A to make peace with Civ B

 

[Recursive]

The weight you give to the injunction will depend on the military ratio, the technological gap and the number of allies. The requester might even have an option to threaten war if his request is not granted. Of course, this would result in relational penalties.

What does this mean? Needs clarification.

 

[gwennog]

What does this mean? Needs clarification.

I don't know how the relational calculations are done but I thought that the chances of success should take into account the balance of military/technological power and alliances.
As for threatening to declare war, this should be a choice in the requester column (which is currently empty) and which would increase the chances of success provided that the power ratio is favorable.
This request, which is in fact a threat, will increase the penalty of the requesting civ on the civ subject to the request.

 

[Recursive]

I don't know how the relational calculations are done but I thought that the chances of success should take into account the balance of military/technological power and alliances.
As for threatening to declare war, this should be a choice in the requester column (which is currently empty) and which would increase the chances of success provided that the power ratio is favorable.
This request, which is in fact a threat, will increase the penalty of the requesting civ on the civ subject to the request.

So are you asking for this to be added as a button under the Discuss menu?

 

[gwennog]

So are you asking for this to be added as a button under the Discuss menu?

I saw this more in the "Demand menu" but in fact the "Discuss menu" offers the same possibilities and has the advantage of already being planned for that.

 

[Recursive]

I saw this more in the "Demand menu" but in fact the "Discuss menu" offers the same possibilities and has the advantage of already being planned for that.

That's not quite how the Demand menu works. Demand allows you to demand any valid items, using the same calculation as in the trade screen to come up with the value, and the AI will accept if the amount demanded is at or below the maximum value it's willing to give up.

If you want to add it as a Discuss menu option, you'd need to come up with precise AI logic for how this would be handled.

 

[Rekk]

The Demand menu has the same mechanics as the trade menu, just with a "boost" to your effective trade value.

 

[pineappledan]

So what are embassies even for then? They’re a barely used piece of game as it is.

Seems like we should be looking for more things to interact with embassies, not fewer.

 

[gwennog]

So what are embassies even for then? They’re a barely used piece of game as it is.

Seems like we should be looking for more things to interact with embassies, not fewer.

I agree with you but my proposal does not concern that. These are precisely the cases where the diplomatic solution no longer has any power (i.e. embassies). It's a position of pure power, I threaten and you accept it or not. The current period is precisely representative of this type of position. It is not necessary to have an embassy to threaten, quite the contrary. But I am not against the idea of giving weight to embassies in other proposals.

 

[Rekk]

The current period is precisely representative of this type of position.

You don't think diplomats aren't working overtime to stop this from escalating?

 

[gwennog]

You don't think diplomats aren't working overtime to stop this from escalating?

For the extra hours, I can only approve, for the usefulness, that remains to be seen. But in any case, to return to the parallel with VP, they don't need embassies for that.

 

[Rekk]

they don't need embassies for that.

In real life, countries don't need embassies for anything.

 

[gwennog]

In real life, countries don't need embassies for anything.

I admit that I don't really agree, embassies are important for the posture of states. A desire displayed to the world to be open to dialogue, to signal to a country that ties are not broken, to offer asylum,...It truly is a weapon of soft power.
What's causing me a problem in the Demand system is that it is only governed by the Soft Power part. If you have good relations with a civ, you have an embassy, so you can unilaterally request that it cease its war against a CS/Civ.
And it's good.
But the Hard Power part is missing, the constraint, the balance of power is in your favor and the civilization in question can be dissuaded from continuing its war,..., or not.

I regularly witness attacks from other civilizations on CS, they are your neighbors and you must help them by selling arms or sending an interposition force.
On this aspect, the VP system is very well done.
If you don't have an embassy, you can never threaten even if the balance of power is totally in your favor.
Finally, you will declare war and wipe this civilization off the face of the earth in a few turns.
Here I find that it could be improved.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal vetoed.
Reason: Does not function under existing Demand menu logic.

The weight you give to the injunction will depend on the military ratio, the technological gap and the number of allies. The requester might even have an option to threaten war if his request is not granted. Of course, this would result in relational penalties.

Optional elements + not specific.