Pledge of Protection: is 'all or nothing' an optimal approach?

[Edaka]

Polls are becoming increasingly popular as of late, so I figured I'd make one, too. It's not required to participate in the poll itself, it's just there to possibly save time for some of you and help visualise the predominant view of the community.

My problem with how Pledge of Protection works is this:
1) either you aren't able to PotP any CS (military below top 60%),
2) or you are able to PotP all of them at once.

I'm alright with the first part, as having the requirement of wielding a strong military is both realistic and interesting. However, the second part means that if you hit that 60%, it doesn't matter how far CS are from you and if you can reach them. In my experience, it's always better to PotP any CS you can than not to, as the bonuses you gain easily outweigh the malus of possible confrontations with major civs-bullies. Also as a matter of personal opinion, I think it's just not realistic to be the claimed protector of a CS on the other side of the map, at least not earlier than the Industrial/Modern era when global politics should take place.

I've suggested before the implementation of a mechanic similar to CS tribute demanding, where you'd need to have a strong military near a CS to declare PotP, but that isn't practical as the AI would have to be taught that. I'm going to make a bold suggestion once again, and I ask Gazebo to tell me outright if that would be too complicated to implement (so that I can stop dreaming and embrace my fate). What if you could only PotP those CS that your trade routes can reach? Similarly to the VP's religious pressure, that would turn it into a (IMO) much more interesting feature that would be simulated without the unrealistic radio-wave mechanics and evolve over time.

If this is unrealistic, perhaps there could be some other form of limiting the reach of the player's diplomatic influence over CS. But first, I'd like to know if the community thinks this would be any good for the gameplay at all.

 

[ashendashin]

It makes sense, but the current PoP has no real reason for this to be implemented. You decrease the chance of losing that CS and that's about it. By the time I can ally CSs on the other side of the map, I can reach them with my military. Gifting is also an option to protect them while you're held up. Regardless, it's true that the farther they are, the less likely I can reach them in time, so I won't vote no. But if such a thing were to be implemented, I think a benefit to PoP for major civs would be necessary.

 

[saamohod]

Off topic.
Why do you abbreviate Pledge of Protection as PotP?

 

[Gazebo]

I've suggested before the implementation of a mechanic similar to CS tribute demanding, where you'd need to have a strong military near a CS to declare PotP, but that isn't practical as the AI would have to be taught that. I'm going to make a bold suggestion once again, and I ask Gazebo to tell me outright if that would be too complicated to implement (so that I can stop dreaming and embrace my fate). What if you could only PotP those CS that your trade routes can reach? Similarly to the VP's religious pressure, that would turn it into a (IMO) much more interesting feature that would be simulated without the unrealistic radio-wave mechanics and evolve over time.

If this is unrealistic, perhaps there could be some other form of limiting the reach of the player's diplomatic influence over CS. But first, I'd like to know if the community thinks this would be any good for the gameplay at all.

It is feasible, yes. It is something I've been thinking about. My current design thoughts are this:

PtP valid if:

1.) Connected via trade
2.) Within 5 tiles of your territory
3.) Within 5 tiles of an allied CS
4.) Allied with CS

 

[Dawnpromise]

It is feasible, yes. It is something I've been thinking about. My current design thoughts are this:

PtP valid if:

1.) Connected via trade
2.) Within 5 tiles of your territory
3.) Within 5 tiles of an allied CS
4.) Allied with CS

I like this idea. I always strikes me as odd how some civs declare to protect every city-state in the game, even from a continent away.

 

[Edaka]

It makes sense, but the current PoP has no real reason for this to be implemented. You decrease the chance of losing that CS and that's about it. By the time I can ally CSs on the other side of the map, I can reach them with my military. Gifting is also an option to protect them while you're held up. Regardless, it's true that the farther they are, the less likely I can reach them in time, so I won't vote no. But if such a thing were to be implemented, I think a benefit to PoP for major civs would be necessary.

I'm talking not talking about actually protecting CS, just the Pledge of Protection as a game mechanic. See Dawnpromise's reply - he reiterated the whole of my post in one sentence.

Off topic.
Why do you abbreviate Pledge of Protection as PotP?

Oops, I must have mixed 'pledge of protection' and pledge to protect' together. It's remarkable how I actually didn't think it through while writing the OP. Welp.

It is feasible, yes. It is something I've been thinking about. My current design thoughts are this:

PtP valid if:

1.) Connected via trade
2.) Within 5 tiles of your territory
3.) Within 5 tiles of an allied CS
4.) Allied with CS

I like it, though I think the last point is a little less convincing than the others. But I like it! To clarify: that doesn't mean getting rid of the 'above 60% in military' thing, does it?

 

[Gazebo]

I'm talking not talking about actually protecting CS, just the Pledge of Protection as a game mechanic. See Dawnpromise's reply - he reiterated the whole of my post in one sentence.


Oops, I must have mixed 'pledge of protection' and pledge to protect' together. It's remarkable how I actually didn't think it through while writing the OP. Welp.


I like it, though I think the last point is a little less convincing than the others. But I like it! To clarify: that doesn't mean getting rid of the 'above 60% in military' thing, does it?

correct, 60% would remain.

 

[Edaka]

correct, 60% would remain.

Then I'd personally be most happy with what you proposed.

P.S. I made another mistake in the previous post. I meant that the third point was less convincing than the others (being within 5 tiles of an allied CS), not the last.

 

[Stalker0]

Is that list a series of "or's" or "and's"?

If it's any of those conditions it works for me. If it's all of them it's way too restrictive.

 

[Enginseer]

tfw you are 1900s America and you are conducting big stick/dollar/moral diplomacy on latin city-states.

On a serious note, Pledge of Protection requirement should only have 3 OR conditions:

1) 60% Military
2) Have Completed A Trade Route within 50 turns with them.
3) Stationed an Embassy/Be Allied for 10 Turns.

 

[Gazebo]

Is that list a series of "or's" or "and's"?

If it's any of those conditions it works for me. If it's all of them it's way too restrictive.

Series of ORs.

G

 

[lunker]

I find the described situation strange as well, but I wasn't sure if it worth the effort to implement any changes.

 

[CrazyG]

It bothers me that I have taken tribute 3 times from CS under someone's protection, and he or she still gets to have that pledge in place. Also in a current game, Austria just loss her capital to me, but I can't get tribute from CS under her protection (due to her pledge). That doesn't make much sense to me

 

[Gazebo]

It bothers me that I have taken tribute 3 times from CS under someone's protection, and he or she still gets to have that pledge in place. Also in a current game, Austria just loss her capital to me, but I can't get tribute from CS under her protection (due to her pledge). That doesn't make much sense to me

Well her pledge will auto expire if she drops below a certain threshold for long enough.

I've considered breaking PtP via bullying but that seems tedious.

G

 

[Strigvir]

I've considered breaking PtP via bullying but that seems tedious.

G

Why do you abbreviate Pledge of Protection as PtP?

 

[Gazebo]

Why do you abbreviate Pledge of Protection as PtP?

Pledge to Protect. Dunno.

G

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I like Gazebo's idea of further limiting who can pledge to protect.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I wouldn´t limit the OP thoughts to the "Pledge to protect" part.
Not beeing able to PtP to CS if they are out of trade range sounds very good. Its a value that rise over the game, simulating the interconnection of the world by researching technologies.
Or lower the necessary value down from 60 to 50% and increase it by distance from the capital.
Could there be also a greater decrease in opinion of CS, if your out of trade range (or some other calculation) like around 50-100%? One of the freedom traits give you better opinion from city states for every used GP, leading very often to the fact that I´am allied to EVERY CS, even without using statecraft or diplomacy units. (I think that trait is a bit too strong, a greater decrease by distance would solve that problem).