Tweet
Diplomacy in Clash
A short overview - Let me know what you think, and what needs to be added.
The goal of the diplomatic system in Clash is to provide as many of the diplomatic options that real states use as possible without adversely affecting gameplay. There will be a large array of items, issues, and treaties that can be exchanged or agreed-upon between states. There should be provision for multi-state agreements, such as mutual-defense alliances. Another important issue is when one state fully or partly controls another or its actions in some sphere.
Treaties or agreements can be formed between any number of states. To keep things simple, treaties that involve more than two states must handle all members of the treaty on equal footing. So, for instance, five civs can participate equally in a mutual-defense pact against another civ, or another alliance. Three civs could participate in a most-favored-nation trade pact.
Treaties or agreements can include an unlimited number of clauses.
Treaty components (possible clauses) include:
1. Change of basic diplomatic status (peace, war, cold-war etc. A change in status that makes the diplomatic state between two parties more hostile can be undertaken by either party if they have the internal power within their civ to do so. A change in status that is less hostile requires agreement of all parties.) The diplomatic state can be collateralized
2. Cash (either in lump-sum or in an installment plan) or loans
3. Territory transfer (either now, or at some future date)
4. Technology (although, as discussed in the tech model, trade of a technology does not necessarily result in the acquiring civ immediately having that technology available.)
5. Ceding control of military units (usually temporary)
6. Trade status (from most-favored-nation up to embargo)
7. Internal matters, such as treatment of religious or ethnic minorities (this one will be tough)
Threats And Unilateral Actions
Threats in Clash need to be every bit as nuanced as treaties. The player should be able to make a threat using all the components above. In addition, civs with sufficient power in a controlled area can unilaterally create another civ. The created civ has whatever properties the creating civ desires. However, if the foundation of this state is unrealistic it will quickly change radically from the form in which it was created.
Further notes on above
1. Diplomatic Status
Here's a sample list of diplomatic states available between civs. These are not necessarily well thought out. The values associated with each name are modifiers on a -10 to +10 scale that I have used in the existing code on the diplomatic system. The numbers generally indicate the "strength" of the relationship between the powers. I'm pressed for time right now, so I will only give brief descriptions of these.
Diplomatic State Constants
Vendetta____= -10; State Seeks To Annihilate Opponent, And Its People
Total_War___= -9; Seeks To Destroy Opposing State, But Not People
War_________= -7;
Limited_War_= -5; War Whose Aims Are Respected In Some Way
Cease_Fire__= -3;
Cold_War____= -2;
Contact_____= -1;
Peace_______= 0;
Co_Agression =1; States Cooperate To Attack A Third, But With No Other Alliance
Cooperation_=2; A Deep, Peaceful Relationship, With A Long History
Def_Alliance =4; Defensive Alliance
Off_Alliance =8; Very Strong Offensive/Defensive Alliance
Same_Ruler_=10; Case Where One Civ Is Completely Ruled By Another
Any diplomatic state that is agreed-upon between two or more parties can be collateralized for any mutually-agreed-upon period of time. For instance, a peace treaty between states might be guaranteed by both to the tune of 1000C over a period of the next 20 turns. Any party that unilaterally breaks the peace gives up the collateral. Whether the collateral becomes the possession of the offended party, or simply disappears is also determined in negotiations. Collateralization is meant to symbolize things like hostage-holding, marriage alliances, and other ways to guarantee treaties where the game does not have sufficient depth to include the particular factor. I think collateral could become standard for treaties, since it ensures that each party will take the treaty seriously. This feature seems to work better in the ancient and medieval world, than in the modern. We'll have to address it as a play balance and realism issue at some point.
6. Trade Status
The player has control over taxes on trade, and can essentially move trade from a free-trade basis to a trade embargo by changing tariffs. In my opinion in would be way too messy to let the player handle tariff levels for every special commodity with every civ. So instead, I propose to let the player just raise or lower the overall tariff level with respect to each other civ. Trade status in the economic model would simply be handled by adding a number to the average tariffs between 0% and, say, 999% to get the tariffs for a given commodity with respect to a particular country. A quick example. I have instituted tariffs of 20% on steel, and 50% on textiles. So a most-favored nation (a + 0% modifier) would get these same numbers. A country I'm having a trade war with (+ 50% modifier) would suffer tariffs of 70% on steel, and 100% on textiles.
7. Internal Matters
Negotiations on internal matters will be unique to Clash within the genre. Because we are actually modeling internal dynamics of the government and culture these issues have real meaning in Clash. Threats like "if you do not free your slaves, we will raise tariffs on your goods by 30%" can be made.
A few quick notes on other issues
Governments will be constrained in their actions by the internal politics and power relationships within their civ
Reputation will matter
Civs will know how to play power politics due to our good AI
AI civs will know the relevant military realities, and will not provide tribute to states that could not hurt them in the slightest way
Diplomatic interactions will be colored by the culture, and previous history of the states
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 31, 1999).]
A short overview - Let me know what you think, and what needs to be added.
The goal of the diplomatic system in Clash is to provide as many of the diplomatic options that real states use as possible without adversely affecting gameplay. There will be a large array of items, issues, and treaties that can be exchanged or agreed-upon between states. There should be provision for multi-state agreements, such as mutual-defense alliances. Another important issue is when one state fully or partly controls another or its actions in some sphere.
Treaties or agreements can be formed between any number of states. To keep things simple, treaties that involve more than two states must handle all members of the treaty on equal footing. So, for instance, five civs can participate equally in a mutual-defense pact against another civ, or another alliance. Three civs could participate in a most-favored-nation trade pact.
Treaties or agreements can include an unlimited number of clauses.
Treaty components (possible clauses) include:
1. Change of basic diplomatic status (peace, war, cold-war etc. A change in status that makes the diplomatic state between two parties more hostile can be undertaken by either party if they have the internal power within their civ to do so. A change in status that is less hostile requires agreement of all parties.) The diplomatic state can be collateralized
2. Cash (either in lump-sum or in an installment plan) or loans
3. Territory transfer (either now, or at some future date)
4. Technology (although, as discussed in the tech model, trade of a technology does not necessarily result in the acquiring civ immediately having that technology available.)
5. Ceding control of military units (usually temporary)
6. Trade status (from most-favored-nation up to embargo)
7. Internal matters, such as treatment of religious or ethnic minorities (this one will be tough)
Threats And Unilateral Actions
Threats in Clash need to be every bit as nuanced as treaties. The player should be able to make a threat using all the components above. In addition, civs with sufficient power in a controlled area can unilaterally create another civ. The created civ has whatever properties the creating civ desires. However, if the foundation of this state is unrealistic it will quickly change radically from the form in which it was created.
Further notes on above
1. Diplomatic Status
Here's a sample list of diplomatic states available between civs. These are not necessarily well thought out. The values associated with each name are modifiers on a -10 to +10 scale that I have used in the existing code on the diplomatic system. The numbers generally indicate the "strength" of the relationship between the powers. I'm pressed for time right now, so I will only give brief descriptions of these.
Diplomatic State Constants
Vendetta____= -10; State Seeks To Annihilate Opponent, And Its People
Total_War___= -9; Seeks To Destroy Opposing State, But Not People
War_________= -7;
Limited_War_= -5; War Whose Aims Are Respected In Some Way
Cease_Fire__= -3;
Cold_War____= -2;
Contact_____= -1;
Peace_______= 0;
Co_Agression =1; States Cooperate To Attack A Third, But With No Other Alliance
Cooperation_=2; A Deep, Peaceful Relationship, With A Long History
Def_Alliance =4; Defensive Alliance
Off_Alliance =8; Very Strong Offensive/Defensive Alliance
Same_Ruler_=10; Case Where One Civ Is Completely Ruled By Another
Any diplomatic state that is agreed-upon between two or more parties can be collateralized for any mutually-agreed-upon period of time. For instance, a peace treaty between states might be guaranteed by both to the tune of 1000C over a period of the next 20 turns. Any party that unilaterally breaks the peace gives up the collateral. Whether the collateral becomes the possession of the offended party, or simply disappears is also determined in negotiations. Collateralization is meant to symbolize things like hostage-holding, marriage alliances, and other ways to guarantee treaties where the game does not have sufficient depth to include the particular factor. I think collateral could become standard for treaties, since it ensures that each party will take the treaty seriously. This feature seems to work better in the ancient and medieval world, than in the modern. We'll have to address it as a play balance and realism issue at some point.
6. Trade Status
The player has control over taxes on trade, and can essentially move trade from a free-trade basis to a trade embargo by changing tariffs. In my opinion in would be way too messy to let the player handle tariff levels for every special commodity with every civ. So instead, I propose to let the player just raise or lower the overall tariff level with respect to each other civ. Trade status in the economic model would simply be handled by adding a number to the average tariffs between 0% and, say, 999% to get the tariffs for a given commodity with respect to a particular country. A quick example. I have instituted tariffs of 20% on steel, and 50% on textiles. So a most-favored nation (a + 0% modifier) would get these same numbers. A country I'm having a trade war with (+ 50% modifier) would suffer tariffs of 70% on steel, and 100% on textiles.
7. Internal Matters
Negotiations on internal matters will be unique to Clash within the genre. Because we are actually modeling internal dynamics of the government and culture these issues have real meaning in Clash. Threats like "if you do not free your slaves, we will raise tariffs on your goods by 30%" can be made.
A few quick notes on other issues
Governments will be constrained in their actions by the internal politics and power relationships within their civ
Reputation will matter
Civs will know how to play power politics due to our good AI
AI civs will know the relevant military realities, and will not provide tribute to states that could not hurt them in the slightest way
Diplomatic interactions will be colored by the culture, and previous history of the states
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 31, 1999).]
Comment