Diplomacy related. Do players want something like the Washington Naval Treaty?

[Raptor34]

There are many suggestions on how to put a soft cap on the player's power, like upkeep and so on. But I've seen people discussing about how the factions do not react to the player at all. Also during the current diplomacy beta.

And well, when you think of diplomacy and fleet restrictions, you think of the interwar Washington Naval Treaty, where the major powers jointly agreed to limit the number of warships they have.

So just like the powers negotiated to try to get more for themselves and limit others, that's what you should be able to do via diplomacy here.
Other things you can do via diplomacy:
Negotiating a temporary increase of military power (few hours?) to deal with a current situation.
Negotiating a delay of whatever consequences.

Of course you can also chose to opt out entirely, but note that this is different from the opt in option in the poll. That option means you opt in voluntarily, but suffer no consequences for opting out. Here otoh it means you can opt out, but you'll suffer some sort of consequence as you'll be viewed as a rogue state with destabilizing military power. Like how rogue states are viewed IRL.

As a bonus. You can also be chosen as some sort of defender of the galaxy role. This would allow you to have increased military forces, but they are only allowed to be permanently stationed within 1-2 sectors of hostile sectors, i.e. Xenon/Khaak. Though honestly I'm not sure how this would be tracked, putting a timer on any ship that leaves the allowed area? Sounds like a computation PITA, but I guess the devs would know if it's feasible or not. Especially since also rather than tracking the total number of ships built, you now also need to count what's in allowed areas, and what's not. But that's the general idea.
If it works otoh, you can do a lot of fun diplomacy related things like demilitarized zones and stuff. Which would then make technically civilian but still heavily armed ships like some of the S couriers, the Prometheus or Astrid much more valuable as you are counted as civilian, but pack nearly as much firepower as military.

[UserGuy123]

It sounds cool but only if theres military consequences. Otherwise I think it would not mix well with the rest of the game.

[vvvvvvvv]

interwar Washington Naval Treaty, where the major powers jointly agreed to limit the number of warships they have.

Wouldn't want that. Because this smells like Galactic Council trope which I hate and exact this part was covered in Mass Effect. Galaxy without powers agreeing is much more interesting.

[PersonyPerson]

This is kind of informally a thing already with the existing job limits.

I also don't see lore-wise for any of the factions besides ARG/ANT/BOR to agree to such a treaty. Even those factions likely won't want such a treaty because they're having to deal with a multitude of enemies, including the Xenon, meaning they will need all the fleets they could get. They are actively at war, why would they then agree to a treaty that would weaken the war effort? And good luck ever trying to enforce such a treaty on TER, HOP/PAR and ZYA. They'd be more likely to toss the player out the airlock rather than agree to weakening themselves.

The Washington Naval Treaty IRL was a combination of American power-tripping after WWI and the other signatories desire to not be forced into a naval arms race, which was expensive and could lead to another war in the future. Since ships in X4 can be printed in minutes rather than years, factions already at war, and no massive conflict so devasting that all the factions would be motivated to create such a treaty since they're all still adjusting to the new reality of the current gate alignments after the jump-gate shutdown, it would also be meaningless.

Sorry, but the Treaty was dumb and didn't work IRL, why would it work in X4? No from me.

[Raptor34]

This is kind of informally a thing already with the existing job limits.

I also don't see lore-wise for any of the factions besides ARG/ANT/BOR to agree to such a treaty. Even those factions likely won't want such a treaty because they're having to deal with a multitude of enemies, including the Xenon, meaning they will need all the fleets they could get. They are actively at war, why would they then agree to a treaty that would weaken the war effort? And good luck ever trying to enforce such a treaty on TER, HOP/PAR and ZYA. They'd be more likely to toss the player out the airlock rather than agree to weakening themselves.

The Washington Naval Treaty IRL was a combination of American power-tripping after WWI and the other signatories desire to not be forced into a naval arms race, which was expensive and could lead to another war in the future. Since ships in X4 can be printed in minutes rather than years, factions already at war, and no massive conflict so devasting that all the factions would be motivated to create such a treaty since they're all still adjusting to the new reality of the current gate alignments after the jump-gate shutdown, it would also be meaningless.

Sorry, but the Treaty was dumb and didn't work IRL, why would it work in X4? No from me.

But by that logic you should as well throw out the whole diplomacy system. Because why would they make peace with each other or go to war with each other because some rando says so.

[flywlyx]

From my perspective, it's difficult to justify a treaty like this within the X4 universe due to the presence of XEN and KHA. Given the unpredictable nature of these factions, no one would willingly agree to limit their own capabilities.

While a formal treaty may be unrealistic, a diplomatic penalty system could make sense. For instance, neighboring factions might be uneasy about a massive military force stationed nearby, leading to increased scrutiny of the player’s agents and raising influence costs by a certain percentage.

This could also impact relationship progression—BOR, being a peace-oriented faction, might impose a 50% penalty on relationship changes (gains reduced by 50%, losses increased by 50%), while SPL, aligned with militaristic values, might offer a 50% bonus instead.

I'm also puzzled by how military units can move freely through NPC sectors without any consequences. My suggestion is to implement a toll system for military ships: when they enter NPC-controlled sectors, a toll fee would be charged via onboard software, with the cost based on the strategic importance of the sector. If the ship doesn't have the required software installed or the player can't afford the toll, a relationship penalty would begin to accumulate over time.

An alliance agreement would exempt military units from toll charges, and Egosoft could decide whether players are allowed to become a unified ally of all factions, essentially acting as guardians of the galaxy.

[Thomas2052]

Things I did not expect today - for someone to invoke the Washington Naval Conference and X4 in the same breath!

I voted opt in - with a hit of a caveat - I always thought it was ridiculous that the factions allowed you complete and unlimited access to all their military hardware at rep points - even if it was just trading ecells!

Therefore, perhaps reputation levels carry with it - and are conditional on - you staying at or below a certain power level. Eg. 20 faction rep and they will sell you Destroyer tech, so long as your faction does not exceed 10 Destroyers or something.

Any more than that, and they send a warning to reduce your hardware - if that's not met within a time limit, rep drops and they stop selling you the capital hardware. Perhaps if you grow too strong, there's an intervention fleet targeting your hardware to bring it into line - I've noticed the Terran intervention fleets seem to coded with specific targets, almost like a crusade. Other limits or deals could include military access to faction space, or joint task forces targeting the player, or even for the player to join.

It would mean pirating or self manufacture might have to be relied upon by players once they hit a certain cap, with the risk of the factions launching targeted strikes against the player's assets.

Diplomacy might be ideal to negotiate larger fleet tolerance by the ai factions. Looking at your ideas, I think we're on a similar page!

Regards

[spankahontis]

There are many suggestions on how to put a soft cap on the player's power, like upkeep and so on. But I've seen people discussing about how the factions do not react to the player at all. Also during the current diplomacy beta.

And well, when you think of diplomacy and fleet restrictions, you think of the interwar Washington Naval Treaty, where the major powers jointly agreed to limit the number of warships they have.

So just like the powers negotiated to try to get more for themselves and limit others, that's what you should be able to do via diplomacy here.
Other things you can do via diplomacy:
Negotiating a temporary increase of military power (few hours?) to deal with a current situation.
Negotiating a delay of whatever consequences.

Of course you can also chose to opt out entirely, but note that this is different from the opt in option in the poll. That option means you opt in voluntarily, but suffer no consequences for opting out. Here otoh it means you can opt out, but you'll suffer some sort of consequence as you'll be viewed as a rogue state with destabilizing military power. Like how rogue states are viewed IRL.

As a bonus. You can also be chosen as some sort of defender of the galaxy role. This would allow you to have increased military forces, but they are only allowed to be permanently stationed within 1-2 sectors of hostile sectors, i.e. Xenon/Khaak. Though honestly I'm not sure how this would be tracked, putting a timer on any ship that leaves the allowed area? Sounds like a computation PITA, but I guess the devs would know if it's feasible or not. Especially since also rather than tracking the total number of ships built, you now also need to count what's in allowed areas, and what's not. But that's the general idea.
If it works otoh, you can do a lot of fun diplomacy related things like demilitarized zones and stuff. Which would then make technically civilian but still heavily armed ships like some of the S couriers, the Prometheus or Astrid much more valuable as you are counted as civilian, but pack nearly as much firepower as military.

Like a Stellaris style galactic council that can vote on certain policies?

[flywlyx]

It would mean pirating or self manufacture might have to be relied upon by players once they hit a certain cap, with the risk of the factions launching targeted strikes against the player's assets.

Isn’t this essentially just another version of an endgame crisis? Honestly, unless the attack begins very early—when the player only has 2 or 3 destroyers—it’s hardly a challenge given the current strength of NPC factions. And from a logical standpoint, it doesn’t really add up either. Why would owning 10 destroyers suddenly make the player a universal threat everyone wants to eliminate?

Like a Stellaris style galactic council that can vote on certain policies?

I’ve got it set up in my backyard — reps from every faction just hanging out in one meeting room.

[spankahontis]

It would mean pirating or self manufacture might have to be relied upon by players once they hit a certain cap, with the risk of the factions launching targeted strikes against the player's assets.

When you see real world politics involving China for example, they are trying to match America in military size, constantly increasing their military spending that it is making it's neighbours nervous and they're all making alliances and military deals with each other to tackle growing Chinese influence.
Same with Europe right now with Russia; UK, France, Germany etc. are all upping their military budget as they fear Russia is planning to strike NATO.

Mass producing an army for your faction naturally provokes tension across the known world.
But Russia is a tyranny where as the USA is a Democracy/plutocracy.. The method of government plays a part in whether they fear you or just tolerate you.

I think it would be better if the 2 largest factions in the game developed a neutral behaviour to each other, not friends or allies.. Simply tolerate each other enough to trade with each other.. But also makes it easier for the right spy to trigger a diplomatic incident that starts a war.

[flywlyx]

When you see real world politics involving China for example, they are trying to match America in military size, constantly increasing their military spending that it is making it's neighbours nervous and they're all making alliances and military deals with each other to tackle growing Chinese influence.
Same with Europe right now with Russia; UK, France, Germany etc. are all upping their military budget as they fear Russia is planning to strike NATO.

Mass producing an army for your faction naturally provokes tension across the known world.
But Russia is a tyranny where as the USA is a Democracy/plutocracy.. The method of government plays a part in whether they fear you or just tolerate you.

I think it would be better if the 2 largest factions in the game developed a neutral behaviour to each other, not friends or allies.. Simply tolerate each other enough to trade with each other.. But also makes it easier for the right spy to trigger a diplomatic incident that starts a war.

Tension doesn’t always lead to war—especially when neither side can afford the consequences. The Cold War is a prime example of that. Russia invaded Ukraine not because Ukraine was strong, but because it was weak. No matter how many carriers China builds, Russia won’t go to war with them—because Russia can't afford it.

If the player has a history of piracy, constantly hijacking ships, then yes, the factions should fear him and may unite against him at an early stage. But if the player is a peaceful trader, being suddenly targeted as a threat based on pure paranoia doesn’t make any sense.

[Thomas2052]

Isn’t this essentially just another version of an endgame crisis?.. Why would owning 10 destroyers suddenly make the player a universal threat everyone wants to eliminate?

10 is just an arbitrary number. Make it as high or low as you feel balanced. Full disclosure, I've never played the crises.

At the heart of this, I ultimately think it is about the factions and universe in general reacting to the player's actions - which is hard to do from a gameplay and ai point of view, because players are unpredictable and weird.

Regards

[spankahontis]

Tension doesn’t always lead to war—especially when neither side can afford the consequences. The Cold War is a prime example of that.

That's what I'm saying that it would be neutral relations as they are both simply flexing, 2 rivals who have a deep seated mistrust of each other as both sides have strong military's, but they also realise that it's going to lead to disaster and uncontrolled debt if a skirmish escalated to Total War.
Putin never wanted the war with Ukraine to end in Total War, it was a blitzkrieg style attack, he wanted it over in a few days or a few weeks at most.

In terms of say, the Terran Protectorate and Argon Federation in a cold war, neither side likes each other, but they know that a war between them would be chaos.. It took a Pearl harbour event like the Torus Eternal getting bombed to oblivion to trigger a full-scale war.
In terms of mechanic, your diplomats would have do something extraordinary to trigger an incident that would make both sides think war is the only option.
Be cool if in diplomacy, you could successfully build tension between 2 factions that you receive a series of missions that build the foundations to a full-sale war from happening. Shouldn't be easy to do, wars aren't started on the drop of a hat, it takes deep seated resentment, the right political environment and that spark lit at the right moment to set off that powder keg.

If the player has a history of piracy, constantly hijacking ships, then yes, the factions should fear him and may unite against him at an early stage. But if the player is a peaceful trader, being suddenly targeted as a threat based on pure paranoia doesn’t make any sense.

I think for those doing a piracy playthrough, angering enough factions should class you as a terrorist organisation amongst smaller factions as they're the ones to lose the most.; take shelter amongst factions you haven't angered but be sure you aren't attacking Factions nextdoor to your space as they will treat you like Osama Bin Laden.
Maybe a smaller faction fighting a bigger faction will trigger a war allot easier as the larger faction sees them as an easy target and they can spread their influence by conquering their territory.
Also depending on what type of faction they are, plays into how other respond? Split are more aggressive dictatorial so they can cause trouble to their neighbours more often.
Argon are more rules-based, democratic and will be more peaceful.
Factions should all have their own personalities.

[PersonyPerson]

This is kind of informally a thing already with the existing job limits.

I also don't see lore-wise for any of the factions besides ARG/ANT/BOR to agree to such a treaty. Even those factions likely won't want such a treaty because they're having to deal with a multitude of enemies, including the Xenon, meaning they will need all the fleets they could get. They are actively at war, why would they then agree to a treaty that would weaken the war effort? And good luck ever trying to enforce such a treaty on TER, HOP/PAR and ZYA. They'd be more likely to toss the player out the airlock rather than agree to weakening themselves.

The Washington Naval Treaty IRL was a combination of American power-tripping after WWI and the other signatories desire to not be forced into a naval arms race, which was expensive and could lead to another war in the future. Since ships in X4 can be printed in minutes rather than years, factions already at war, and no massive conflict so devasting that all the factions would be motivated to create such a treaty since they're all still adjusting to the new reality of the current gate alignments after the jump-gate shutdown, it would also be meaningless.

Sorry, but the Treaty was dumb and didn't work IRL, why would it work in X4? No from me.

But by that logic you should as well throw out the whole diplomacy system. Because why would they make peace with each other or go to war with each other because some rando says so.

That has no connection to what I said. Disapproving of naval limit treaties in X4 is not equivalent to "So therefore all diplomatic actions are meaningless"... The existing diplomacy mechanics are well integrated with the rest of X4. Blueprints exist, so they added an option to steal them. Inventory Items are needed, so the added the option to acquire them via diplomacy. Improving relations exists, so they added a means to end wars involving the player via Armistice etc. A naval limit treaty would not integrate well at all because the entire premise of it in the X4 universe makes no sense. That's something for modders to create if they really, really want it for whatever reason, if they can even make such a thing work...

Also it's not "some rando" who motivates them to go to peace/war. It's the event described in the Diplomatic Event and the factions involved make up their own minds upon what to do about it. The player can only nudge factions into a certain direction to a certain extent and that nudging is done from behind the scenes via your agent, not through direct communication.

[flywlyx]

Putin never wanted the war with Ukraine to end in Total War, it was a blitzkrieg style attack, he wanted it over in a few days or a few weeks at most.

A war is still a war—Russia initiated it because it could afford to wage a full-scale conflict against Ukraine. If he can't afford it, he won't have started it

In terms of say, the Terran Protectorate and Argon Federation in a cold war, neither side likes each other, but they know that a war between them would be chaos.. It took a Pearl harbour event like the Torus Eternal getting bombed to oblivion to trigger a full-scale war.
In terms of mechanic, your diplomats would have do something extraordinary to trigger an incident that would make both sides think war is the only option.
Be cool if in diplomacy, you could successfully build tension between 2 factions that you receive a series of missions that build the foundations to a full-sale war from happening. Shouldn't be easy to do, wars aren't started on the drop of a hat, it takes deep seated resentment, the right political environment and that spark lit at the right moment to set off that powder keg.

I think for those doing a piracy playthrough, angering enough factions should class you as a terrorist organisation amongst smaller factions as they're the ones to lose the most.; take shelter amongst factions you haven't angered but be sure you aren't attacking Factions nextdoor to your space as they will treat you like Osama Bin Laden.
Maybe a smaller faction fighting a bigger faction will trigger a war allot easier as the larger faction sees them as an easy target and they can spread their influence by conquering their territory.
Also depending on what type of faction they are, plays into how other respond? Split are more aggressive dictatorial so they can cause trouble to their neighbours more often.
Argon are more rules-based, democratic and will be more peaceful.
Factions should all have their own personalities.

The new diplomatic system allows for manipulation between factions, but it still lacks player activity tracking. This means NPC factions treat pirate lords and law-abiding business people the same.

[spankahontis]

A war is still a war—Russia initiated it because it could afford to wage a full-scale conflict against Ukraine. If he can't afford it, he won't have started it

That's what I'm saying, he thought he could fight with few resources, he miscalculated his resources and war chest size and now the problem has snowballed into economic ruin.
If only there was a way to do that in X4 that effects a Factions economy?

The new diplomatic system allows for manipulation between factions, but it still lacks player activity tracking. This means NPC factions treat pirate lords and law-abiding business people the same.

That's a shame, be good if each Faction had a leader, that leader having a personality that is either peaceful, warmongery, xenophobic or trade focused that the diplomacy system can exploit.
All actions they take effecting their trustworthiness, like a trustworthy leader is less likely to engage in espionage against you.
A feature like that would really shake up the universe when one leader is caught trying to assassinate another leader, causing a huge drop in reputation and tensions that could lead to war.

[flywlyx]

That's what I'm saying, he thought he could fight with few resources, he miscalculated his resources and war chest size and now the problem has snowballed into economic ruin.
If only there was a way to do that in X4 that effects a Factions economy?

Given that he successfully drew China into the conflict, I seriously doubt when the much-talked-about recession will actually hit. While Putin may not have achieved his ideal outcome, the current state of affairs is likely within his expectations.

This kind of scenario would require a fully dynamic relationship system between factions and the player—something that doesn't appear to be included in the new Diplomatic update.

That's a shame, be good if each Faction had a leader, that leader having a personality that is either peaceful, warmongery, xenophobic or trade focused that the diplomacy system can exploit.
All actions they take effecting their trustworthiness, like a trustworthy leader is less likely to engage in espionage against you.
A feature like that would really shake up the universe when one leader is caught trying to assassinate another leader, causing a huge drop in reputation and tensions that could lead to war.

That feels a bit too much like Crusader Kings—likely something that will never make its way into X4.

[vvvvvvvv]

That's a shame, be good if each Faction had a leader, that leader having a personality that is either peaceful, warmongery, xenophobic or trade focused that the diplomacy system can exploit.
All actions they take effecting their trustworthiness, like a trustworthy leader is less likely to engage in espionage against you.
A feature like that would really shake up the universe when one leader is caught trying to assassinate another leader, causing a huge drop in reputation and tensions that could lead to war.

I'd rather not have any of this, a lot of this has been done before and many things are oversimplification. I'd also prefer if people didn't bring real world events.

In the real world, leader does not always matter, war is not always rational, it is sometimes impossible to reach an agreement through talking even when mutual understanding in present. That's because different factions can operate on very different values, and those can be incompatible. It also wouldn't matter if player was a pirate, as this scan be fixed with a media campaign. And on top of that several in-game factions would be perfectly capable of genocide in the name of greater good. It is just Egosoft is not going to implement something this bleak.

[jlehtone]

That's a shame, be good if each Faction had a leader, that leader having a personality that is either peaceful, warmongery, xenophobic or trade focused ...

AFAIK, each faction does have "personality". That does not require a leader individual. What a leader would add would be possibility to change the leader. How is that different from the "diplomatic events"?

I've seen people discussing about how the factions do not react to the player at all.

True. You can wipe many sectors, but couple Tour Busses later you are again "best friend". No memory, no grudge from atrocities.

suffer some sort of consequence as you'll be viewed as a rogue state with destabilizing military power.

An "issue" is that player is not a state, not a faction proper. Neither is player a member of any faction.
I have not seen the beta, but I doubt that that would change.

[Axeface]

Yes I want something like this.

A system like the one in the total war games. Could be linked to a difficulty settings. Rebirth had a difficulty setting but it only effected combat. A system like this would be much more fitting for the X games.
There would be a threshold of player power (a sum of all assets, with military assets like ships and station turrets contributing more than civilian assets), once this threshold is reached (which the chosen difficulty setting would adjust) then the factions would start to consider the player a threat and a modifier would be applied to rep. As the player gets more assets over this threshold this modifier would increase. The modifier is an adjustment to the players true rep, not a rep drain. If the player choses to react to the reduction they just need to make their empire more efficient (sell military ships for example).

The new diplomacy system could be linked to this, allowing us to do things to counter the negative modifier like trade agreements. As an example the player paying the argon federation 1 billion credits every 3 game days in order to reduce the modifier by 5.

All optional, all linked to difficulty options, with further options for customisation, such as 'no player shipyards'

I really want something like this, its one of the few things the game is lacking now imo, and I was hoping the diplomacy update might do something like it, so I am rather disappointed with 8.0