1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Bad Relatiionship make me crazy

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by 8ha8ha, Jun 23, 2019.

  1. DanLT3

    DanLT3 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    I don't agree that espionage should have anything to do with relationship with other civs.
    Only when spies get caught.
    I believe this request is made out of playing to much lower difficulties and having no use for espionage points since you are the tech leader.
     
  2. Imp. Knoedel

    Imp. Knoedel Knoedel Imperator Satani Filius Augustus Nooborum

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,483
    Location:
    Land der Mörder, Land der Hetzer
    The request was made because it doesn't make any sense that the opinion some irrelevant third world backwater has of you is equally as important to your stability as the opinion of a superpower.
     
  3. Leoreth

    Leoreth 古典部の会員 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    32,696
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kamiyama
    Yes, as I mentioned earlier I am open to weight opinions differently depending on how important the other civ in question is to you. It should not matter as much if you annoy a civ on the other end of the world unless it is powerful enough to be a problem for you. Using espionage is an interesting idea but I need to think more about what the implications of that would be exactly.
     
  4. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,113
    I implemented the state religion rules in hopes that it would mitigate that very problem.

    Should I remove the positive relations state religion modifiers and only include the negative relations ones?

    EDIT: I noticed my state religion rules may be a bit hard to follow, here's a basic rundown of how it currently stands:

    If you have the same state religion and have positive relations: +1
    If you have the same state religion and have negative relations: -1
    If you have a different state religion and have positive relations: -1
    If you have a different state religion and have negative relations: +1
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019 at 12:28 AM
  5. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,113
    So I've played up to 1862 with my formulas and the Vikings/Swedish have not once collapsed, albeit they've been on the verge of doing so for a while. I'm getting the impression that state religion is not overly influential to Foreign Relations Stability, and can easily be offset by gifts and making contact with other nations of your state religion. Instability feels a lot more fair. You basically have to be a sizeable jerk to reach double digits of instability.
     
  6. Enyavar

    Enyavar Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    I think a combination of several approaches could be used:
    • Stable neighbors / stable vassals (leave as is)
    • Good/bad relationship stability.
      • Takes into account all leader attitudes that a civ is not at war with. Bad attitudes from religious reasons are the only ones that should be neglected in my opinion.
      • Having a +5 (+10) attitude with another civ means that you get +1 (+2) stability (Good relationship)
      • Having a -5 (-10) attitude with another civ means that you get -1 (-2) stability (Bad relationship)
      • Sum the resulting stabilities per civ up, then apply a cap of +5/-5.
    • Foreign trade stability:
      • For each civ with which you have open borders, and share at least one trade route with, have a +1 stability. (Foreign trade)
      • For each civ with which you have closed borders, no war and share a direct border (either land or sea), have a -1 stability. (Lack of foreign trade)
      • The "foreign trade" stability should have a cap of +5 and -5.
      • "Lack of trade" is a positive modifier under Isolationism, obviously.
    • Foreign influence stability:
      • Your own [culture production total] is the measure of "cultural influence". Having more than twice the culture production of the other civ means that you can possibly influence them and gain a +1 stability boost.
      • However, to actually influence that civilization, you also need an [espionage surplus] towards them, i.e. more towards them than they have espionage on you. Otherwise, that influence possibility is not used but wasted.
      • For each actually influenced civ that shares open borders with you, gain 1 stability (Cultural outreach)
      • For each civ that is your neighbor but you have closed borders and it influences you, gain -1 stability (Foreign dominance)
      • For each civ that is at war with you and it influences you, gain -1 stability (Foreign dominance)
      • The Cultural outreach should have a cap of +5, the "Foreign dominance" a cap of -5.
      • Under Multilateralism, a different influence system might be in place, to foster bilateral stability?
    • Also: If you don't have any possible trade connections with another civ, there is no influence on stability, neither positive nor negative. This would for example mean that a Korea which has crossed Sibiria to reach Europe super early, has no effects on stability either in Asia nor Europe. Same for the Europeans knowing Ethiopia somehow, but prevented from trading with them through Arabia or Independent cities.
    However, the leader attitude in total also needs an overhaul. Some of the stuff I suggested could also play into leader attitude. What bothers me, for example, are the "close borders" negatives. One of the longest borders IRL is between Canada and the US, and that's no reason to be arch-enemies for either of them. So I think that the "close borders" effect should be there, yes. But capped at -1 or -2 unless the other nation is currently occupying historical or even core plots - and in that case a different negative modifier should rise up: "You are occupying land that we consider as ours".
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2019 at 5:18 AM

Share This Page