Talk:Diplomacy

A - This article is considered an A-class article on the wiki quality scale

Style

The word "always" should probably be removed from the phrase "The diplomat can always..." in nearly every entry under this topic. There are plenty of circumstances that could exist which would prevent the diplomatic actions in question from being taken.

Anyone opposed to adding more guide-like info to this page, or maybe highlighting the relevant guides? Yesterday, I wanted to form an alliance with a country. They had a favorable opinion of me, but *I had a negative opinion of them*. You can't form an alliance until it's positive both ways.

So I want to add a *How to raise your own opinion of another country* section, with stuff like - form a royal marriage and ask for military access to their country. That raises YOUR country's opinion of them (I believe).

That'd be most fitting to put on the relations page, I think. ~ Meneth (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2013 (CEST)

Also in the section on Guarantees... How long does a guarantee run? It should be stated in the Guarantees section here.

Further info

This forum thread may have useful info that should be ported to this page. ~ Meneth (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2014 (CEST)

Post-guarantee truce length

I previously wrote here that the truce you get after revoking a guarantee lasts 15 years on the basis of guaranteeing (IIRC) a released Crimea as Ottomans. Later I revoked a guarantee on Hejaz and the truce was only 5 years. So it seems to vary. I can't figure out from the game files how long the truce is - does anyone have any insight? Thrawcheld (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2015 (CET)

DOW

Possibility of fleshing this idea out

I'm thinking that we can get enough content for this page to be able to stay independent. Perhaps a picture describing how it is done, as well as all the results for going to war, how to call in allies at the time and so on.

It's probably going to be smallish, but I think it could be useful enough to warrant it's own page, especially for beginners.Andrew4250 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2013 (CEST)

I think a redirect to the appropriate Diplomacy section would be better. If it does grow to a considerable size in the future it could easily be spun off.

Alternatively it'd be possible to merge the CB page into this page, in which case the page would be entirely justifiable. That may be a better option than merging this into diplomacy. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2013 (CEST)

I tend towards an independent page, it's a huge diplomatic concept and a staple of the game. Its simplicity doesn't detract from its importance.Mailman9 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2013 (CEST)

Sorry for messing up the edit history :X

I was trying out my hand at wiki editing on this page, so the edit history is kinda ugly now. Sorry. --Virus Qc (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2013 (CEST)

Relations

Is there a specific page/header for the additional Diplomatic Relations given by some ideas/events, anywhere? I have the feeling it should be here, but it isn't. GothicEmperor (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (CET)

Yeah, there's a bit about that on Diplomacy. I've redirected this page to the appropriate section now. ~ Meneth (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2013 (CET)

Selling province

Copy into Vassal page?

This information would be useful in the vassal page section on feeding a vassal, but there are other situations to sell provinces that don't involve vassals. How is this information best organized? --Pookles (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2013 (CET)

The info relevant to vassal feeding should go there. The rest should go on the diplomacy page. ~ Meneth (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2013 (CET)

Done. Was not sure if there was some special merge function. I'm going to redirect this page now. --Pookles (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2013 (CET)

Well done. No fancy merging tools, no. ~ Meneth (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2013 (CET)

Rewrite

Below is a a description of rewrites, where the page has been tagged delete the comments not needed and add in any special instructions.

This page has been tagged as a {{Rewrite}}, the below issues have been found when the page is compared to the style guidelines

1. Excessive use of bold/capitals: Use italics instead for emphasis, if emphasis is not needed then remove is
2. Absence of links: Links missing or replaced by bold or italics which do not function
3. Poor sectioning: Article should be broken up into easy to understand sections
4. References to the player outside strategy sections: Please refer to agents rather than the player
5. Excessive use of bold, remove it

Dauth (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2016 (CET)

Questions for each point of the rewrite:

1. Bold: is this regarding the bolded and colored text used to describe relations?
2. Linking: are icons fine, or is anything more needed for general terms? Is there a convention for linking?
3. Sections: the general sectioning seems logical enough. Are you suggesting a split into multiple pages?
4. References: third-person objective, descriptive rather than personal voice?
5. See first point.

I just need some clarification as to each portion. I can do text rewrites decently, and add linking, but I'm lacking as to the overall page formatting and link/icon conventions.

Charlesex (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Reasonable questions and this is a big page. I'll go through in order.

1. The coloured text is not a problem, however there are still sections where text has ''' for not reason. I also spotted somewhere where italics and random ' are mixed in.
2. Icons are fine, but we'd also like links to other pages using normal blue links too.
3. If you can suggest a good split then we'll think about it. Currently the page used a level 1 header (a single = sign) this is against the style guide and needs fixing.
4. The player may play the diplomatic game, but the nation is the one undertaking the diplomacy and should be called as such.
5. It was just very bad so I hit it with an extra tab.

Hope this helps. Dauth (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2016 (CEST)

Is there any way to restore the top-level horizontal line breaks for the Alliance, Influence, Relations actions, etc. without having to resort to using a level 1 header?

Due to the fact that those are major sections, I feel it detracts from the page to have them as a level 3 header.

However, there making those sections level 2 headers disrupts the outline structure... which is my dilemma.

--Charlesex (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2016 (CEST)

We'll live with the gap. There are ways to force lines using html code or dashes but in most cases I will instantly remove them. If you want to try some edits in a personal sandbox then go ahead and we'll see what it looks like. Dauth (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2016 (CEST)

Current Issues/To-do: April 2016

• Finish rewrite
• Update linked main articles for completion
• Add list of improve relations modifiers

--Charlesex (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2016 (CEST)

Guarantee

If attacking a nation third nation (B), which is allied with a second nation (A), whose independence is guaranteed by a fourth nation (C): By co-belligerenting the second nation (A) in a war declaration, the second nation (A) will call their gurantor (C) into the war. --87.144.189.231 13:24, 11 June 2016 (CEST)

charter company

Charter company should be easier to find. Maybe link from the trade company page and/or some redirect and/or a disambiguation page. If you search for "charter trade company" it is way down in the result list and even if you search for "Charter company" it is only the third result.

Furthermore the information is incomplete. I did some testing to answer this reddit comment and found the following:

The base price for chartering is 1000-0.5*colonialRange. Offering more money gives them more reasons for accepting. How much money one reason costs is based in some way on their size or economy, but it is independent of the base price.

They need +1 reasons for accepting. The reasons that I know about are:

• +2 per dip rep
• +1 for each point of trust over 50 and -1 for each point below 5
• allied +5
• up to +2 from opinion
• up to +10 from money offered
• -x for other provinces nearby(the more and closer provinces you have, the more negative reasons)
• -x for "Province share of development". This can be 0 for provinces that have relatively low development compared to their total development
• -1/3*provinceDevelopment+1 this is rounded down. e.g. -3.33 becomes -4
• -100 if they are an empire
• -100 if you are their rival
• -3 base reluctance

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotaclas (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2020‎ (UTC)

Added a redirect. Please sign your comments. ~ SolSys (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the redirect and sorry for not signing my comment. I forgot to do that. I will try to remember it in the future. should I add the formula for the base price and the reasons to the article or should somebody try to confirm them? --Grotaclas (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fine. ~ SolSys (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)