Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Moderator: Pocus
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:34 pm
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Just to go back to the issue of metal, money and manpower for a moment:
Yes, of course I agree that there are factions for which manpower and/or metal are perennially in short supply. The Greek factions are prime examples of this. The problem is, there are many more factions -- in my experience, at least -- for which metal and manpower are usually present in great abundance. So the solution to this is probably a two-part one. On the one hand, decisions need to be reformed so that most factions can't use them simply to print money. On the other hand, in terms of treaties and trade agreements, I think (I hope!) the game's AI takes account of how of a given commodity the faction already has in stock. So if a faction already has 2500 metal in its stockpile, you shouldn't be able to get much in return for offering them 300 more, right?
On another subject, I have a suggestion. When a country offers you a "transaction" the interface is a little clunky for two reasons. First, unlike with cooperation and alliance offers, you cannot simply reject the deal out of hand. Instead the interface requires that you examine what is on offer, even if you know you are not going to trade with that country under any circumstances. An exmaple would be offers coming from factions you know you are about to invade, and which are asking for specialized units, which they almost always do. So it should be possible to dismiss the offer without looking at the details.
Second, even after you've looked at the details and accepted or rejected the deal, the interface returns you to an "Accept"/"Reject" panel, instead of taking you back to the list of open diplomatic actions, which is where I think you should be taken. I can post screenshots, if this isn't clear.
Yes, of course I agree that there are factions for which manpower and/or metal are perennially in short supply. The Greek factions are prime examples of this. The problem is, there are many more factions -- in my experience, at least -- for which metal and manpower are usually present in great abundance. So the solution to this is probably a two-part one. On the one hand, decisions need to be reformed so that most factions can't use them simply to print money. On the other hand, in terms of treaties and trade agreements, I think (I hope!) the game's AI takes account of how of a given commodity the faction already has in stock. So if a faction already has 2500 metal in its stockpile, you shouldn't be able to get much in return for offering them 300 more, right?
On another subject, I have a suggestion. When a country offers you a "transaction" the interface is a little clunky for two reasons. First, unlike with cooperation and alliance offers, you cannot simply reject the deal out of hand. Instead the interface requires that you examine what is on offer, even if you know you are not going to trade with that country under any circumstances. An exmaple would be offers coming from factions you know you are about to invade, and which are asking for specialized units, which they almost always do. So it should be possible to dismiss the offer without looking at the details.
Second, even after you've looked at the details and accepted or rejected the deal, the interface returns you to an "Accept"/"Reject" panel, instead of taking you back to the list of open diplomatic actions, which is where I think you should be taken. I can post screenshots, if this isn't clear.
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Thanks for the remarks, I'll double check what you say. I'm intrigued by this gift issue, even if they do gifts, you can always reject, right?
AGEOD Team - Makers of Kingdoms, Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:40 pm
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Nope. There is no option to reject or ignore the regions being gifted. A region is under let's say Lusitani control this turn and the next turn it appears under my control with a notification that they it was "liberated" or whatever (same notification as when I gift a region to another faction via a transaction).
Now, the term "gift" is of my own invention. Maybe there is another mechanic going on. In the end, I just do not like that this is imposed on the player without any option to reject/ ignore.
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
- Location: Wokingham, UK
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Didn't Seleukos get 400 elephants from Chandragupta as part of a peace deal? I think that's what the tips of the game keep telling mejimwinsor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:51 pm I did a livestream of the diplomacy beta today, as Judea. You can see the video here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/525397514
Basically it echos what others here have said, it's tough to gain regions, even those you've occupied, as part of a peace deal. I was a bit surprised there was no war score discount for claiming regions you have under occupation. Under the old peace system, we would have gotten these basically for free. Makes me think these regions should be zero warscore ... but then a boost to your basic peace chance should you opt to give them back?
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about including metal and manpower in deals under the new system. Under the old system, unused metal and manpower was pretty useless and got stockpiled, until you got the chance to convert them to cash via Merchants and Patricians. Now, however, they will have great value diplomatically (at least to the AI). I feel that that the AI is going to get suckered in abusive deals with these as trading commodities. On top of that, it is sort of non-immersive; I can't think of any deals back then that were sealed with wagon loads of iron ingots, or transfers of citizens of military age.
Just to test this potential abusiveness out, offstream I was able to get Rome on turn 1 to offer Syracuse a trade, of metal plus manpower for client statehood. It worked, and Carthage now had to come through Rome to get Syracuse. A pretty powerful play for just some metal and manpower.
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Ok got it! Indeed you are right, this was a mechanism set in place while waiting for Diplomacy. No reason to keep it now, at least when involving a human player. Thanks for the remark.Demetrios_of_Messene wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:09 pmNope. There is no option to reject or ignore the regions being gifted. A region is under let's say Lusitani control this turn and the next turn it appears under my control with a notification that they it was "liberated" or whatever (same notification as when I gift a region to another faction via a transaction).
Now, the term "gift" is of my own invention. Maybe there is another mechanic going on. In the end, I just do not like that this is imposed on the player without any option to reject/ ignore.
AGEOD Team - Makers of Kingdoms, Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
I'm ambiguous on metal and manpower. For now I have made it so that the AI will value it more or less depending of its own stock (unpublished, will be for the 2nd beta round). I know that's not very historical. Now manpower gift was de facto done when 'barbarians' got federated by some kingdoms or empires. As for metal, it can be weapons?jimwinsor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:51 pm I did a livestream of the diplomacy beta today, as Judea. You can see the video here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/525397514
Basically it echos what others here have said, it's tough to gain regions, even those you've occupied, as part of a peace deal. I was a bit surprised there was no war score discount for claiming regions you have under occupation. Under the old peace system, we would have gotten these basically for free. Makes me think these regions should be zero warscore ... but then a boost to your basic peace chance should you opt to give them back?
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about including metal and manpower in deals under the new system. Under the old system, unused metal and manpower was pretty useless and got stockpiled, until you got the chance to convert them to cash via Merchants and Patricians. Now, however, they will have great value diplomatically (at least to the AI). I feel that that the AI is going to get suckered in abusive deals with these as trading commodities. On top of that, it is sort of non-immersive; I can't think of any deals back then that were sealed with wagon loads of iron ingots, or transfers of citizens of military age.
Just to test this potential abusiveness out, offstream I was able to get Rome on turn 1 to offer Syracuse a trade, of metal plus manpower for client statehood. It worked, and Carthage now had to come through Rome to get Syracuse. A pretty powerful play for just some metal and manpower.
AGEOD Team - Makers of Kingdoms, Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
I just had it happen that _I_ (Rome) ceded Padus to Celticii when it appeared to me that THEY were ceding Padus to ME.
If I read that panel incorrectly then all I can say is: This UI needs some adjustments to make it absolutely clear what is being exchanged by whom to whom.
Having opened up "Counter" and looked more closely at things I think the confusion derives from the current use of two different terminologies "Cede Region" and "Relinquish Objective."
Celiticii were demanding that I relinquish the objective for the region I had conquered from them, not suggesting they cede the region which I had conquered from them. Okay fine, it is appropriate that these two types of terminology be used as they are distinct diplomatic positions.
HOWEVER, in NO CASE EVER, should something Rome "gives" appear in association with any other factions side of the panel. If they want me to "Relinquish Objective" then it must, must, MUST appear on "my" Rome side of the negotiation panel.
If I read that panel incorrectly then all I can say is: This UI needs some adjustments to make it absolutely clear what is being exchanged by whom to whom.
Having opened up "Counter" and looked more closely at things I think the confusion derives from the current use of two different terminologies "Cede Region" and "Relinquish Objective."
Celiticii were demanding that I relinquish the objective for the region I had conquered from them, not suggesting they cede the region which I had conquered from them. Okay fine, it is appropriate that these two types of terminology be used as they are distinct diplomatic positions.
HOWEVER, in NO CASE EVER, should something Rome "gives" appear in association with any other factions side of the panel. If they want me to "Relinquish Objective" then it must, must, MUST appear on "my" Rome side of the negotiation panel.
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
In a peace only one side can "give", so the 2 clauses must be both to your benefit, so I'm slightly confused here if you say you got metal but lost an objective. Do you still have the save before you accepted the proposal?
AGEOD Team - Makers of Kingdoms, Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Possibly. I will look. I am 99.999% certain of what happened though, and the screen cap is from going back to the save and reopening the diplomatic window.
I glanced at that window, and as you indicate, on the basis that no computer opponent would be so cheeky as to try to sneak a costly deal on me in a peace treaty, operated on the assumption that what that window meant was that the Celtiii were giving up THEIR claim on Padus.
But nope, most definitely when I agreed to the terms of that treaty right there and then ended the turn, on the next turn, I was at peace and Padus had been returned to Celticii control.
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Unfortunately, it appears I do not have any save file for that turn (40 or 41). Best I got is 36 or 45, but no guarantee the computer would make that offer on those turns, and I might have even been at peace with them by turn 45.
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:38 am
- Location: Italy
Re: Comments on peace treaties and other deals
Maybe it happened this way:Seamus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:58 pmPossibly. I will look. I am 99.999% certain of what happened though, and the screen cap is from going back to the save and reopening the diplomatic window.
I glanced at that window, and as you indicate, on the basis that no computer opponent would be so cheeky as to try to sneak a costly deal on me in a peace treaty, operated on the assumption that what that window meant was that the Celtiii were giving up THEIR claim on Padus.
But nope, most definitely when I agreed to the terms of that treaty right there and then ended the turn, on the next turn, I was at peace and Padus had been returned to Celticii control.
you were at war with the Celticii and during the fight you conquered Padus but then accepted a peace treaty in which the province wouldn't be ceded to you, instead receiving metal and the relinquishing of an objective from your enemy.
This is why you didn't get the province!
And the offer make also sense given that warscore was 0 ...
"Audentis fortuna iuvat"
- Virgilius
(Good luck favours the brave)
- Virgilius
(Good luck favours the brave)