[Gameplay] The Possibilities for Diplomatic Capital

There have been arguments recently over the idea of a "diplomatic currency" being implemented in the game as a resource. The way it works now (beta 3C) it is simply used as a way of getting something for nothing from the AI players – so much so that it is "consumed" when traded to an AI player, so they don't gain their own capital out of the deal.

A lot of the arguments seem to be based around the debate of whether Elemental should be balanced more towards multiplayer or single-player play, but I think that's beside the point. If diplomatic capital could be "spent" for some gain by a player, then it would be useful both in single player AND multiplayer. Even if it is used (as it is supposed to be) mainly in exchanges between players, its value as an item of exchange would derive from the fact that it has value on its own.

Once players have something to gain from trading other things for DC, there is no need to "enforce" its value on either human or AI players. For AIs, this means that there it will not disappear when traded to them – an AI player that trades something in exchange for DC will gain DC that it can then hoard, trade to other human/AIs, or spend for its own benefit. It will work by the same rules as other resources like gold or metal.

For humans, this means that there is no need for the ability to "force" human players into accepting deals/treaties with DC, as too many people have proposed. I am strongly against this idea as it is very unfun for players who are forced into doing something they don't want. On the principle of reward > punishment, if players are rewarded for gaining diplomatic capital, then they will give trade items and treaties for it willingly, but they will have a choice in doing so – and meaningful decisions to make are the source of depth for strategy games.

Those of you who have been following the Civilization V previews know that CIV actually had a very similar issue with the value of its gold resource. Since gold didn't have many "lump sum" uses it could be spent for, there was little reason for players to save up or trade the resource rather than channeling it all into science. So the Civ devs solved this by allowing gold to "buy" land tiles for cities' areas of influence. Now there's a reason to hoard gold, and a reason to trade other things for it, which is equally relevant to humans and AIs. I think this demonstrates exactly the point I'm making for diplomatic currency in Elemental.

Even if the game is 1v1 and there is no question of players exchanging DC between them, then a player would still have something to gain from producing and using the resource. So, what kind of utility can diplomatic capital have that doesn't depend on another player?

- I like the idea that's already proposed, that DC can be used to recruit NPCs in place of gold. This is very fitting for a "diplomatic resource", but it isn't enough on its own as the map eventually runs out of champions.

- Diplomatic capital might be used to boost cities' population growth, as a kind of temporary prestige. This would be an equivalent to Civ-V using gold to buy land, but it would work with Elemental's premise that city influence is based on population, and would be limited by the maximum influence you could get from population, so one city couldn't control half the map by using DC.

Once you have more uses for diplomatic capital, it would also be worthwhile to have more ways to earn the resource.

- One idea I very much like is to give it as a quest reward, representing friendships gained, favors owed etc.

- Another way is to have a champion ability that "produces" DC. Currently we already have merchant champions that produce gold, inventors that produce research etc, so why not diplomat champions that produce diplomatic capital? This could also be a selectable ability for sovereigns.

- I don't know if it is still planned that the Empires factions will be able to produce their research and arcane research resources by training special "tutors" and "lore masters" units rather than by making buildings, as was mentioned in a dev journal. If this is the case it would be perfect for them to also train "envoys" that produce diplomatic capital in the same way.

Sorry for the wordy post. I want to encourage people to put forward suggestions for ways to earn diplomatic capital and ways to use it. With enough interest maybe the devs will be convinced to expand on the diplomatic currency idea, which is one of Elemental's more unique and intriguing concepts.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

One thing you should absolutely not be able to do is buy Diplomatic Capital from another faction for that would just undermine the entire point of having it in the game in the first place.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the ideas, I wonder if there are any bonuses to units within the influence of their own city. Diplomatic capital then could be used to spread the bubble of your lands quicker ... or if two opposing factions borders are touching, it could be used to push back their borders. giving bonuses to your units that are more "In supply lines" or something like that.. or maybe eventually overwhelming a city and causing it to convert to your side.

Every update gets me more and more excited about this game, all the new features and functions to play off of. Looks like this is going to turn out to be an awesome strategy game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I absolutely do not think the other player should get anything from the DC you use in a trade/treaty; that would completely defeat the purpose of it. The point of DC is to get something without giving the other player anything (at least how I see it). If it gives the other player some benefit you might as well remove it completely and just use gold.

If it doesn't work in multiplayer I wont be devastated, but it would be nice for the diplomacy tree to have power in singleplayer and multiplayer. Remember that Brad has said he wants every tree to be a viable path to victory, and that includes the Diplomacy tree.

I don't think it should be used for purposes far away from diplomacy, such as using it to enhance cities. Using it to hire adventures might be interesting, and I definitely think some adventures should be able to produce it. I see it as being the currency of the Diplomacy tree, and I think a player who specializes in diplomacy should have the ability to pull the strings that control the nations. Of course this power shouldn't be infinite, and thats what balance is for.

As for multiplayer I still stick to my original idea of using DC to force another player into a treaty/trade. It seems that a lot of players don't like this idea because they feel it will be annoying to go against, but being stomped by someone in the Warfare tree, having a city blown up by a volcano by someone in the Magic tree, or facing a dragon from someone in the Adventure tree, etc. would also be annoying. The point I am trying to make is that someone should be able to play the game entirely in the Diplomacy tree. If every player could only pick one tree to use, the player that picks the Diplomacy tree should be able to compete on even ground with players that pick any other tree, in singleplayer and multiplayer (ideally). The player in the Diplomacy tree should be able to avoid war entirely through diplomacy (this is how they defend themselves without soldiers, magic, or heroes) unless the other player can overpower their diplomacy.

My idea for multiplayer (and singleplayer against the player or maybe even against the AI) is:

1. When a player trades only DC for anything (including treaties) if he can even out the perceived values with only DC the agreement is forced unless...

2. The other player can veto this agreement by making their perceived value higher by putting up DC and/or gold.

3. The player with the higher perceived value in the end wins, and the trade/treaty either goes into effect or not depending on who wins.

4. Both players lose the DC that they put up and the player trying to force the agreement gets the gold that the other player puts up regardless of who wins.

By allow the other player to use gold and DC he gets a clear advantage and has the ability to veto the agreement even if he doesn't have any DC, but at the cost of helping the diplomatic player. The perceived value system would have to be dynamic and accurate for this to work effectively, but I think that is a requirement anyway.

P.S. I'm still trying to work out which way the perceived values go. If I got them reversed just use logic.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just to point out something about diplomacy and agreements..... BOTH people have to accept an agreement, this is the basic principle about all contracts. Which means that forcing acceptance is not intuitive and will be highly annoying.

Secondly: The current system of Diplomatic capitals is: DC is produced exactly the same as any other resource. That is, you can build a structure in a city, gives you DC per tuurn. You can find a resource on the map inside your ZOC, build on it, get DC per turn. With this system, it would be too easy and overpowered to be able to force people to accept treaties/trades where all they get is DC (which they don't get in return).

My thoughts: The way I thought diplomatic capital would have worked would be simply the difference between the perceived values is made up automatically by diplomatic capital. That way, when you make a gift, you get DC, and can then use it later to receive stuff for less (by usign DC). I didn't expect DC to be producable throug hbuildings and resources, rather it shows how many favours you've done for other empires. If the DC system was like this, then I could accept being forced into treaties.

Other Thought: Forcing people into treaties would backfire if treaties can be broken (i think they can). You'd spend all this DC to get a Non-Agression, then find it gets broken the next turn.

Successfully updated karma reason!