The very simple proposal
What I want to avoid is :
1. This :
Half the world hating you by mid game and no trade, random war declaration.
2. All the shenanigans that advantage a lot people who know the very arcane rules of "AI diplomacy & reputation" [like transitioning to "war" just before end day, and then doing a war action for real the following day] and frustrate so much the other players that they post "AI keeps attacking me" every week or so in here.
My proposal is super trivial :
1. When you declare war to a country with a different doctrine than yours, your reputation with ALL countries of your target doctrine takes a huge hit. Your reputation with countries of your own doctrine has no impact. Your reputation with countries of the two remaining doctrines goes down normally.
2. If you declare war to a country of your own doctrine,your reputation decreases normally with all other countries, whatever their doctrine.
3. When at the end of the day, you don't have any active war with countries of your own doctrine, then your reputation with countries of your own doctrine goes up somehow.
There can be some refinement (like having "opposed doctrine", [Axis vs Communism, Allies vs Pan-Asian] with more or less effects depending on who you declare to, but I don't want my proposal to be to that level of detail.
I think this idea is strong because :
1. It uses and reinforces existing systems (doctrines),
2. It is super easy to understand (your doctrine = friends),
3. It creates behavior we want to encourage in historical maps ("axis" or "allied" countries working together),
4. It means that there are countries you can identify clearly as being likely to wage war against you, and countries that you can easily keep friendly until the end, leaving the trading market "relevant". This is different from the current tendency of other countries to all have the same view of you.
Please log in to post a reply.
I think the added strength of this is, as you touched on a little bit, that you may not get the UK, USSR, Germany, and the USA in a coalition anymore. It happens way too often that unbeatable coalitions are formed and then the players proceed to go inactive. Maybe this won't have as much bearing on player actions as we would like, but it may help out a little.
Yeah, that's my bullet #3 about desireable outcome. It won't be enough, but it will help a bit.purplepizza117 wrote:
I think the added strength of this is, as you touched on a little bit, that you may not get the UK, USSR, Germany, and the USA in a coalition anymore. It happens way too often that unbeatable coalitions are formed and then the players proceed to go inactive. Maybe this won't have as much bearing on player actions as we would like, but it may help out a little.
That is a great proposal!
Doctrine doesn't mean allies, it's fighting style,tech etc. This closes the whole purpose of the suggestion.
I agree
OH MY GOD IT'S JEPICYALL POSTING ON A THREAD
Yea I know itβs crazy!
Except that it is not, for historical but also design reason the two are linked. With the key exception of China which was always hard to position, the historical "European Axis" players are Axis [Germany, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Finland], the historical allied power are allied [UK, USA, Canada, Egypt, India, Australia, NZ, SA, even France and Poland when it should not really make sense given their historical doctrines but there is nothing matching it anyway] and of course Soviet Union is communists.Comrade genz wrote:
Doctrine doesn't mean allies, it's fighting style,tech etc. This closes the whole purpose of the suggestion.
Minor countries that participated which really did not have a grand doctrine were allocated to the side they joined (eg : Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil, Norway are all "allies" - Persia that got attacked by SU + UK is Axis, so is Iraq).
So yes, of course for the South-American neutrals it is a bit more random, but overall it matches pretty well with reality.
I think this is a good idea for the historical maps because it encourages players to play HISTORICALLY, although I do not think it should be added to the non-historical maps.
@Chimere Do you know what doctrine means?
"a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs."Comrade genz wrote:
@Chimere Do you know what doctrine means?
So it doesn't mean governments even allied, should have same principleRBoi200 wrote:
"a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs."Comrade genz wrote:
@Chimere Do you know what doctrine means?
You can avoid this sort of situation by posting offers on the market, embargoing for at least a day before declaring war, and by giving right of way/share map to AI nations.Chimere wrote:
The very simple proposalWhat I want to avoid is :
1. This :
Half the world hating you by mid game and no trade, random war declaration.
2. All the shenanigans that advantage a lot people who know the very arcane rules of "AI diplomacy & reputation" [like transitioning to "war" just before end day, and then doing a war action for real the following day] and frustrate so much the other players that they post "AI keeps attacking me" every week or so in here.
My proposal is super trivial :
1. When you declare war to a country with a different doctrine than yours, your reputation with ALL countries of your target doctrine takes a huge hit. Your reputation with countries of your own doctrine has no impact. Your reputation with countries of the two remaining doctrines goes down normally.
2. If you declare war to a country of your own doctrine,your reputation decreases normally with all other countries, whatever their doctrine.
3. When at the end of the day, you don't have any active war with countries of your own doctrine, then your reputation with countries of your own doctrine goes up somehow.
There can be some refinement (like having "opposed doctrine", [Axis vs Communism, Allies vs Pan-Asian] with more or less effects depending on who you declare to, but I don't want my proposal to be to that level of detail.
I think this idea is strong because :
1. It uses and reinforces existing systems (doctrines),
2. It is super easy to understand (your doctrine = friends),
3. It creates behavior we want to encourage in historical maps ("axis" or "allied" countries working together),
4. It means that there are countries you can identify clearly as being likely to wage war against you, and countries that you can easily keep friendly until the end, leaving the trading market "relevant". This is different from the current tendency of other countries to all have the same view of you.
Thread well done.
I agree with most of the things you said.
I think that devs need to change something abouth AI.
Should they do this or something else, just do something. Its anoying when by midgame, when allready half of the map is AI due to inactivity, you start getting bombard with war declarations. Even if you give them all ROW on day 1 abd declare every war before attacking you will be punished by AI...
No, you can delay or alleviate such a situation to an extent by doing what you propose, but if you go for the win, especially as a small or very small nation, it will happen eventually.Aritemis wrote:
You can avoid this sort of situation by posting offers on the market, embargoing for at least a day before declaring war, and by giving right of way/share map to AI nations.
Still think this proposal is worth implementing...
Please log in to post a reply.
