Josephias
Emperor
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,290
While the livestream yesterday was intended to showcase canals (and failed to do so), the warring status with Jadwiga did gave us a good look to other of the new GS systems: grievances. I think many of us agree it is an important improvement over the current warmongering systems, and opens up several possibilities, both tactical (cold calculation of grievances score to take the most of it) or narrative (keeping the list of all past and present grievances between you and an adversary is a nice touch).
After the Corvinus livestream we more or less know of it Works: each "warmongering" action (declaring war, capturing/razing cities), plus other types of diplomatic actions, some of wich we know (breaking promises), but might be extended to others (allying with an enemy maybe?) has a "grievance" score, which decays over time (10 points per turn in ancient, much less in new eras), and adds to your side on a "scale counter" which on its +/- determines which side is the most aggraviated, and thus seen by the community as the "good" guy in the particular struggle between two factions, and on the amount determines the level of agression excess the "bad" guy is executing. Summing up and simplyfing.
You have done something bad to othe player: their level of grievances against you (A) increases. A is your "offense" score.
They have dones something to you: your level of grievance against them (D) increases. D is your "defense" score.
The total grievance in your relationship is G = A-D. If G is positive they are seen as the "agraviated" side by the community. If G is negative you are seen as the "agraviated" side by the community
The key point in the system is "the international community" (i.e. the other leaders), only care about the total score, G, and its balance. It is not of absolute relevance how big is A and how big is D, just relative. As near as G is to 0, as much it is recognized you relationship with the other leader is "just". It does not matter wether you both are constantly declaring war on eachother and burning your cities down, or are Best Friends Forever… as long as G is 0, the other leaders will not care much about your relationship.
The previous "warmongering" score (and we enter already in speculation terrain) can be probably seen as the sum of positive G you have with different leaders. So, in example if you are playing for example against other four leaders you could have
G1 = A1-D1 (A1=D1, so G1 is 0, does not count)
G2 = A2-D2 (with A2>D2, so G2>0)
G3 = A3-D3 (with A3<D3, so G3<0)
G4 = A4-D4 (with A4>D4, so G4>0)
G1 does not count, and G3 is a "buffer" you have to exert vengeance on leader3, but the points on G2+G4 will work as your warmongering/bullynes level (they are "evil" acts you commited without reason). If they reach the necessary tresholds you Will receive the traditional diplomatic warmongering penalties. The "beauty" of this systems is that in some sort of way differentiates between "justified" agression (when G is negative, you are allowed to attack, as long as you do not reach the point where you tilt the balance to the other side), and "unjustified" agression (anything you do when the G score is 0 or positive, which is what counts to declare you a warmonger).
When I was thinking about this, I realized this system (if it Works as pictured above) allows as well to go on the opposite, which might as well be great: as well as you getting a warmongering/bully score from the positive G, you could get as well a weakling/pushover score from the "negative" G. That is, for the relationships where you have not yet got payback from the grievances received. And this score could impact as well your diplomatic relationships, with the more combative or power-loving leaders (Monty, Harald, Cleo...) loosing respect on you if you don't do anything to defend yourself, while more peaceful leaders don't caring about it or even maybe in extreme cases (Ghandi), approving.
From the tactical point of view, this could provide additional tools in the diplomatic scene. And from the "narrative" point lt would allow for several types of leader archetipes and subarchetipes, in example:
The extremes:
These are the leaders whose G scores with other leaders are mostly in one side, in great values.
The Warlord (High number and high values of positive G, few or none negative G) - Considers the use of forcé as a legitimate way to achieve its objectives, and does not care to build relationships. If attacked, retaliates until he gets payback or even more.
Leads by fear and raw power, and is hated by pacifist leaders (even if he as good goals in the end)
This is, our ol' friends Monty and Alex, or new friend Chandra, or even Teddy.
The Martyr (High number and high values of negative G, few or none positive G) - Wants to win (or knows he can win) peacefully. He can sustain damage and does not fight direct payback (maybe he prefers to concéntrate its efforts on other goals).
Leads by strenght and not being deviated from its objectives, and is despised by combative leaders (even if he can be actually strong or powerful)
Non-violent Gandi is the first to come to mind, altough cunning diplomatic/scientific/cultural leader (Cathie, Seondeok,...) can play this role as well, hiding their cards until needed.
The balanced (zeroes).
Two types of leader can be considered as having mostly "zero" G.
The Just is the leader who actively seeks its scores to be 0. This is, he will try not attacking those who have done nothing to him, but Will rentlessly seek revenge if aggraviated.
Lives by the "eye for an eye" code, and does not allow for hate/despise targeting
Babylon is not yet in, but some other leaders can fit this "severe" role also nicely (Phil comes to mind, in example, and also Tomyris).
The Brawler is just the oposite: really does not care about the score and it will fight when it seems fit to him, but will not really push by superiority by forcé neither it Will put the other cheek too much. If things do not deviate much, he'll naturally end attacking more the ones that attack him, and leting live the ones that let him live, so it may not have exact zero values as "the just", but wont build much either of positive or negative G.
Lives by the "live and let live" code, and normally will not reach high points of hate/despise.
Harald depiction in the diplo screen (that tough "good" guy, which may raid your coasts if you leave him the opportunity, but then may share some beers or mead even if you have beaten him up) could be this type.
The one touching both sides
The rat, the coward bully, … this last one can be called by many names. Normally none of them good (however some would call it "the intelligent" one). It is the leader that can acummulate both high positive grievance scores with some leaders, and at the same time high negative grievance scores with other leaders -and- (and differently from the brawler), will normally mantain them, because he avoids fighting the ones that he feels stronger (or has been beaten by), while picks in the ones that he knows don't (or can't) retaliate. Of course, he will get hate/despise from everyone, but its strategy may prove to be the most efficient one.
Can be seen as the portrayal they are trying to make of Cyrus (even if unpopular), and some say Pedro is this kind of guy.
What do you think?. Do you think the grievance calculation will be as proposed. Would you like the grievance system go both ways?
After the Corvinus livestream we more or less know of it Works: each "warmongering" action (declaring war, capturing/razing cities), plus other types of diplomatic actions, some of wich we know (breaking promises), but might be extended to others (allying with an enemy maybe?) has a "grievance" score, which decays over time (10 points per turn in ancient, much less in new eras), and adds to your side on a "scale counter" which on its +/- determines which side is the most aggraviated, and thus seen by the community as the "good" guy in the particular struggle between two factions, and on the amount determines the level of agression excess the "bad" guy is executing. Summing up and simplyfing.
You have done something bad to othe player: their level of grievances against you (A) increases. A is your "offense" score.
They have dones something to you: your level of grievance against them (D) increases. D is your "defense" score.
The total grievance in your relationship is G = A-D. If G is positive they are seen as the "agraviated" side by the community. If G is negative you are seen as the "agraviated" side by the community
The key point in the system is "the international community" (i.e. the other leaders), only care about the total score, G, and its balance. It is not of absolute relevance how big is A and how big is D, just relative. As near as G is to 0, as much it is recognized you relationship with the other leader is "just". It does not matter wether you both are constantly declaring war on eachother and burning your cities down, or are Best Friends Forever… as long as G is 0, the other leaders will not care much about your relationship.
The previous "warmongering" score (and we enter already in speculation terrain) can be probably seen as the sum of positive G you have with different leaders. So, in example if you are playing for example against other four leaders you could have
G1 = A1-D1 (A1=D1, so G1 is 0, does not count)
G2 = A2-D2 (with A2>D2, so G2>0)
G3 = A3-D3 (with A3<D3, so G3<0)
G4 = A4-D4 (with A4>D4, so G4>0)
G1 does not count, and G3 is a "buffer" you have to exert vengeance on leader3, but the points on G2+G4 will work as your warmongering/bullynes level (they are "evil" acts you commited without reason). If they reach the necessary tresholds you Will receive the traditional diplomatic warmongering penalties. The "beauty" of this systems is that in some sort of way differentiates between "justified" agression (when G is negative, you are allowed to attack, as long as you do not reach the point where you tilt the balance to the other side), and "unjustified" agression (anything you do when the G score is 0 or positive, which is what counts to declare you a warmonger).
When I was thinking about this, I realized this system (if it Works as pictured above) allows as well to go on the opposite, which might as well be great: as well as you getting a warmongering/bully score from the positive G, you could get as well a weakling/pushover score from the "negative" G. That is, for the relationships where you have not yet got payback from the grievances received. And this score could impact as well your diplomatic relationships, with the more combative or power-loving leaders (Monty, Harald, Cleo...) loosing respect on you if you don't do anything to defend yourself, while more peaceful leaders don't caring about it or even maybe in extreme cases (Ghandi), approving.
From the tactical point of view, this could provide additional tools in the diplomatic scene. And from the "narrative" point lt would allow for several types of leader archetipes and subarchetipes, in example:
The extremes:
These are the leaders whose G scores with other leaders are mostly in one side, in great values.
The Warlord (High number and high values of positive G, few or none negative G) - Considers the use of forcé as a legitimate way to achieve its objectives, and does not care to build relationships. If attacked, retaliates until he gets payback or even more.
Leads by fear and raw power, and is hated by pacifist leaders (even if he as good goals in the end)
This is, our ol' friends Monty and Alex, or new friend Chandra, or even Teddy.
The Martyr (High number and high values of negative G, few or none positive G) - Wants to win (or knows he can win) peacefully. He can sustain damage and does not fight direct payback (maybe he prefers to concéntrate its efforts on other goals).
Leads by strenght and not being deviated from its objectives, and is despised by combative leaders (even if he can be actually strong or powerful)
Non-violent Gandi is the first to come to mind, altough cunning diplomatic/scientific/cultural leader (Cathie, Seondeok,...) can play this role as well, hiding their cards until needed.
The balanced (zeroes).
Two types of leader can be considered as having mostly "zero" G.
The Just is the leader who actively seeks its scores to be 0. This is, he will try not attacking those who have done nothing to him, but Will rentlessly seek revenge if aggraviated.
Lives by the "eye for an eye" code, and does not allow for hate/despise targeting
Babylon is not yet in, but some other leaders can fit this "severe" role also nicely (Phil comes to mind, in example, and also Tomyris).
The Brawler is just the oposite: really does not care about the score and it will fight when it seems fit to him, but will not really push by superiority by forcé neither it Will put the other cheek too much. If things do not deviate much, he'll naturally end attacking more the ones that attack him, and leting live the ones that let him live, so it may not have exact zero values as "the just", but wont build much either of positive or negative G.
Lives by the "live and let live" code, and normally will not reach high points of hate/despise.
Harald depiction in the diplo screen (that tough "good" guy, which may raid your coasts if you leave him the opportunity, but then may share some beers or mead even if you have beaten him up) could be this type.
The one touching both sides
The rat, the coward bully, … this last one can be called by many names. Normally none of them good (however some would call it "the intelligent" one). It is the leader that can acummulate both high positive grievance scores with some leaders, and at the same time high negative grievance scores with other leaders -and- (and differently from the brawler), will normally mantain them, because he avoids fighting the ones that he feels stronger (or has been beaten by), while picks in the ones that he knows don't (or can't) retaliate. Of course, he will get hate/despise from everyone, but its strategy may prove to be the most efficient one.
Can be seen as the portrayal they are trying to make of Cyrus (even if unpopular), and some say Pedro is this kind of guy.
What do you think?. Do you think the grievance calculation will be as proposed. Would you like the grievance system go both ways?
