NASAROG
Prince
Nice ideas. The current mechanic sucks since it will either draw you into a war, or result in your denouncement.
A simple, possible fix to Pledge to Protect
- Thread starter Barathor
- Start date
superliminal
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2013
- Messages
- 126
I think Im probably paraphrasing someone elses idea, but heres what Id do. Id keep the influence resting point as it was, or even buff it to something like 15, and make the consequences of fulfilling the promise more dramatic:
-If the rival Civ demands tribute, you have to denounce them in order to maintain the promise. If you fail to do this, you lose influence with that city-state and lose PtP.
-If the rival Civ declares war, you have to declare war on them. If you choose to opt out, you lose a large amount of influence with that city-state, and some influence with all other city-states youre protecting, as youve shown yourself to reneg on promises.
This would have the simple consequence of making you choosy with your pledges, making sure that you only issue the pledge to city-states youre actively interested in protecting. This may be harsh, but I think it would be fair as a game mechanic (i.e. less of a ubiquitous exploit-like strategy), and would also increase the strategic/diplomatic importance of city-states located between major powers (thinking Balkans in WWI and Belgium in WWII, for instance.)
-If the rival Civ demands tribute, you have to denounce them in order to maintain the promise. If you fail to do this, you lose influence with that city-state and lose PtP.
-If the rival Civ declares war, you have to declare war on them. If you choose to opt out, you lose a large amount of influence with that city-state, and some influence with all other city-states youre protecting, as youve shown yourself to reneg on promises.
This would have the simple consequence of making you choosy with your pledges, making sure that you only issue the pledge to city-states youre actively interested in protecting. This may be harsh, but I think it would be fair as a game mechanic (i.e. less of a ubiquitous exploit-like strategy), and would also increase the strategic/diplomatic importance of city-states located between major powers (thinking Balkans in WWI and Belgium in WWII, for instance.)
Ninakoru
A deity on Emperor
I would make a PTP overhaul. some ideas in my mind:
- PTP loses effect as you PTP more states, maybe 10 points up to 2 CS, 7 up to 4 CS, 5 if more than 4 CS (scaling with map size somehow).
- PTP has no effect but it will give you 5 extra points with each quest or gift to such CS.
- PTP does not rise the treshold, instead lower the ally red line to 50 instead of 60.
- PTPed CS being much more sensitive with relations with other CSs and players: if CS is at war with another of have disagreements, if you denounce a player witch has ally with a CS, if you agravvate a player relationhip (i settle where i want, my missionaries do what they please, etc) witch is ally of such CS.
- CS ask you for troops or money investment and you don't help with nothing and the quest gets over.
- If another player clear a quest for a CS and they pledge to protect that CS, you lose PTP.
- Only one player can PTP a CS at a time, if two players PTP same CS, one PTP will be obsolete as soon as one of the players has higher points in such CS
There are lots of mechanics that can be worked out with some programming, however the lazy solution provided on the beta patch is nice and effective as it is.
- PTP loses effect as you PTP more states, maybe 10 points up to 2 CS, 7 up to 4 CS, 5 if more than 4 CS (scaling with map size somehow).
- PTP has no effect but it will give you 5 extra points with each quest or gift to such CS.
- PTP does not rise the treshold, instead lower the ally red line to 50 instead of 60.
- PTPed CS being much more sensitive with relations with other CSs and players: if CS is at war with another of have disagreements, if you denounce a player witch has ally with a CS, if you agravvate a player relationhip (i settle where i want, my missionaries do what they please, etc) witch is ally of such CS.
- CS ask you for troops or money investment and you don't help with nothing and the quest gets over.
- If another player clear a quest for a CS and they pledge to protect that CS, you lose PTP.
- Only one player can PTP a CS at a time, if two players PTP same CS, one PTP will be obsolete as soon as one of the players has higher points in such CS
There are lots of mechanics that can be worked out with some programming, however the lazy solution provided on the beta patch is nice and effective as it is.
CaptainPatch
Lifelong gamer
Stray thought:
If you've made PtPs with several CSs, then denounced a particularly aggressive bully, when he turns around to bully another CS that you have a PtP with, you CAN'T denounce the bully again until the first denouncement has expired. That automatically puts you in default with the second CS.
If you've made PtPs with several CSs, then denounced a particularly aggressive bully, when he turns around to bully another CS that you have a PtP with, you CAN'T denounce the bully again until the first denouncement has expired. That automatically puts you in default with the second CS.
superliminal
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2013
- Messages
- 126
That's a good point. I assume there'd be some way for the game to check whether a denouncement was already in effect and bypass that instance. But you're right that's a potential issue.
Does anyone know how much of the PtP functionality is actually open to modding? Perhaps we might be able to cook-up something. Probably not the more complicated stuff but something that would still be a nice enhancement and that would work both for the AI and the human player.
I think we would need to at least catch the point where the AI is deciding whether to bully or not and the same for the DOWs. The probability should depend on the diplomatic relationship between the AI and the protector(s) of the CS. Bullying a "friend of a friend" should happen less often while provoking incidents with CSs protected by disliked civs should be a standard action.
Also, if we introduce bigger penalties for "failing to protect" then we need access to the point where the AI is about to decide whether to protect a CS in the first place. It can't be automatic as the AI could cripple itself with stupid commitments.
AI vs. AI incidents should be accounted for, too. Whatever the actions, benefits, or penalties, they should naturally apply to these, too.
Perhaps we should restrict the bonuses and penalties to changes in influence points and modifier changes to diplomatic relations and see what could be done?
Barathor
Emperor
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,202
These are the ones I know of...
CvDiplomacyAI.cpp:
Contains the AI code to determine whether a civ can bully. Starts at line 12175.
In GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml:
OPINION_WEIGHT_SIDED_WITH_THEIR_MINOR and OPINION_WEIGHT_SIDED_WITH_THEIR_MINOR_NUM_TURNS_UNTIL_FORGIVEN set the civ opinion penalty amount and the duration.
GlobalAIDefines.xml:
FRIENDSHIP_THRESHOLD_CAN_PLEDGE_TO_PROTECT can set the influence level needed to be able to pledge; though, I don't see it very useful unless PtP is changed to something else other than a resting point boost.
CvDiplomacyAI.cpp:
Contains the AI code to determine whether a civ can bully. Starts at line 12175.
In GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml:
OPINION_WEIGHT_SIDED_WITH_THEIR_MINOR and OPINION_WEIGHT_SIDED_WITH_THEIR_MINOR_NUM_TURNS_UNTIL_FORGIVEN set the civ opinion penalty amount and the duration.
GlobalAIDefines.xml:
FRIENDSHIP_THRESHOLD_CAN_PLEDGE_TO_PROTECT can set the influence level needed to be able to pledge; though, I don't see it very useful unless PtP is changed to something else other than a resting point boost.
Barathor
Emperor
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,202
So, here's one of the problems:
The resting point can be minor to many civs. If you're focusing on a handful of city-states and consistently gaining influence, the resting point doesn't matter at all. It may only come into play a couple times when your influence drops really low, then it holds you up higher and gives a boost.
On the other hand, for Consulate/Papal Primacy civs, it can be extremely powerful.
Coming up with consequences to actions taken within a PtP is difficult because you're either going to make it not enough for the Consulate civs or it'll be too much for the other civs to even bother with PtP.
Also, the concept of PtP granting a resting point boost only encourages spamming it to many city-states, especially ones you don't have any influence with yet.
- - - - - - - -
So, what if we change the benefits of PtP and still try to keep it very simple?
How about, again, PtP doesn't grant any immediate benefit. Instead, you pledge to protect a city-state so you're given opportunities to gain lump sums of influence when you stand up for them and warn a bully. Influence is always useful to receive, even when you're way past the resting point.
This way, you can spam it all you want, but if you're not going to uphold the PtP, you're not really going to gain anything from it (since a PtP deters civs from bullying very little).
- - - - - - - -
So here's a new breakdown:
1) Pledge to Protect: no resting point boosts; nothing. You're simply given future opportunities to stand up to bully civs to gain extra influence.
2) Bully Demands Tribute:
3) Bully Declares War: (New window which will pop-up.)
The resting point can be minor to many civs. If you're focusing on a handful of city-states and consistently gaining influence, the resting point doesn't matter at all. It may only come into play a couple times when your influence drops really low, then it holds you up higher and gives a boost.
On the other hand, for Consulate/Papal Primacy civs, it can be extremely powerful.
Coming up with consequences to actions taken within a PtP is difficult because you're either going to make it not enough for the Consulate civs or it'll be too much for the other civs to even bother with PtP.
Also, the concept of PtP granting a resting point boost only encourages spamming it to many city-states, especially ones you don't have any influence with yet.
- - - - - - - -
So, what if we change the benefits of PtP and still try to keep it very simple?
How about, again, PtP doesn't grant any immediate benefit. Instead, you pledge to protect a city-state so you're given opportunities to gain lump sums of influence when you stand up for them and warn a bully. Influence is always useful to receive, even when you're way past the resting point.
This way, you can spam it all you want, but if you're not going to uphold the PtP, you're not really going to gain anything from it (since a PtP deters civs from bullying very little).
- - - - - - - -
So here's a new breakdown:
1) Pledge to Protect: no resting point boosts; nothing. You're simply given future opportunities to stand up to bully civs to gain extra influence.
2) Bully Demands Tribute:
a) Give a Warning to Bully: gain 20 influence points with the city-state and 10 opinion weight for 20 turns with the civ (was 5 for 10 turns; positive numbers are bad).
b) Forgive the Bully: PtP ends and receive -20 influence with the city-state (existing value).
3) Bully Declares War: (New window which will pop-up.)
a) Declare War on Bully: gain 60 influence with the city-state.
b) Forgive the Bully: PtP ends and receive -60 influence with the city-state. Can no longer PtP this city-state (if it survives!).
b) Forgive the Bully: PtP ends and receive -60 influence with the city-state. Can no longer PtP this city-state (if it survives!).
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
That might work... All benefits come from actions.
Ie
Warn bully =+20 inf ( diplo penalty w bully)
Denounce bully = + 60 inf
War on DOW bully = + 60 inf +5 resting point (can happen multiple times)
Extra inf for unit gifts and enemy units killed
Ie
Warn bully =+20 inf ( diplo penalty w bully)
Denounce bully = + 60 inf
War on DOW bully = + 60 inf +5 resting point (can happen multiple times)
Extra inf for unit gifts and enemy units killed
CaptainPatch
Lifelong gamer
One of the things about the bullying process that I've always disliked is that, given you have a PtP in place, when another civ bullies the protectee, IT ALREADY HAPPERNED. You get informed, "We're sorry, but some of our troops accidently extorted your protectee." Your only two reactions are "You'll pay for this!" (threat) or "We forgive you."
Where's the action for intervening _before_ the extortion is paid? Like the CS Consul confronts the other civ's representatives and tells them, "You better think twice about doing this. Are you prepared to go to war with us over this?" And from the CS's point of view, just how does "You'll pay for this!" do them any good? The CS is still out the money it was forced to give to the bully.
It seems to me that a PtP giver should have the option to reimburse the CS and maintain that relationship's status quo -- without having to resort to a "You'll pay for this!" threat to the other civ. Especially useful if you currently have a Statement of Friendship with the bully, and you don't want to drop from Friendly to Neutral or Guarded with that civ.
Where's the action for intervening _before_ the extortion is paid? Like the CS Consul confronts the other civ's representatives and tells them, "You better think twice about doing this. Are you prepared to go to war with us over this?" And from the CS's point of view, just how does "You'll pay for this!" do them any good? The CS is still out the money it was forced to give to the bully.
It seems to me that a PtP giver should have the option to reimburse the CS and maintain that relationship's status quo -- without having to resort to a "You'll pay for this!" threat to the other civ. Especially useful if you currently have a Statement of Friendship with the bully, and you don't want to drop from Friendly to Neutral or Guarded with that civ.
Now, that actually might work and be doable! If the PtP only gives its benefits (and penalties) at the later decision points then we won't necessarily have to modify the current PtP spamming by the AI which would keep it simpler.
However, perhaps there should be some more alternative choices in the actual action decision point of the PtP that would be somewhat more neutral? That would mainly be for the AI so that it won't get dragged into some stupid situation where it's either warring against everyone or busted its influence with every CS on the map...
c) Express concern over the situation: Lose -3 influence points with the CS and get 1 opinion weight for 20 turns with the bully civ.
Yeah, this is the "cheap cop-out"
of the diplomatic arena. By taking a small hit with *both* the CS and the bully civ you can "save face" and escape the situation. This should be the "standard" response of the AI with the largest probability in an otherwise neutral situation. The other two being chosen mostly in more extreme diplomatic situations i.e. probability should be adjusted if it dislikes the bully or is friends with it. I'm mainly concerned about AI vs. AI situations. I'm not sure exactly how often the AI bullies CSs but if all the AIs spam PtPs and are very liberal in their bullying then the AI vs AI conflict in PtP would happen quite often and if each case results in major penalties it can escalate *too* fast. We, of course, want something to happen to spice things up but it shouldn't be war on the 12th turn, either...
The actual point penalty could be tweaked according to how often this actually happens between the AIs.
How about also having here the lesser options? For the same reasons mainly as with the bullying. Of course, since now it's actually a DOW this should happen less often and the effects can be bigger. Could be:
c) Denounce the Bully: gain +10 influence with the CS, standard diplomatic bonuses/penalties from denouncing
d) Express your concern about the situation: lose -10 influence with the CS, get a penalty of 5 opinion weight for 20 turns with the attacker
Again, could be tweaked depending on how it actually plays out. The denouncing might also not be a very good option if it results in a denounce feast which might happen if every AI gives the PtP and then denounces the attacker. The probabilities of when the AI should do what should be considered.
CaptainPatch
Lifelong gamer
I've been playing around with PtPs as they are now. I've located @30-35 CSs out of 41, and made a PtP with ALL of them. Including the ones that are as far removed from me as you can get and still be on the same map. So now (after several turns) I start with an Influence base of 10. Add to that 20 points for the Consulates = 30 = @30-35 Friends. I may not be pulling resources from all of them -- but just by being helpful, 25-33% ARE Allies --but I am getting a substantial amount of Faith (@20-25/turn), Culture (@50-75/turn), and Happiness (@50-100/turn, depending on resources being added in). Plus Research beakers from the Allies because I've got Scholasticism. This influx has helped me dominate the game before any of the 10 civs in the game have entered the Medieval Era -- and I'm doing it with just TWO cities.
The way this working, I'm inclining to say that you can't enforce/make a PtP unless you station a unit inside the CS's territory. (Maybe just within three tiles of their borders, which would allow one unit to fulfill the Pledge for several CSs in close proximity.) After all, if you can't protect them, how can you expect _anyone_ to take the pledge seriously?
The way this working, I'm inclining to say that you can't enforce/make a PtP unless you station a unit inside the CS's territory. (Maybe just within three tiles of their borders, which would allow one unit to fulfill the Pledge for several CSs in close proximity.) After all, if you can't protect them, how can you expect _anyone_ to take the pledge seriously?
