Need help understanding politics

[Captain Starbuck]

I've read the blog and cruised around the forum but I'm still not "getting" politics.

I understand events are random and that some treaties/alliances can counter the random events.

One thing that always gets me is that it seems a "good" political event can still be called a "conflict".

When we buy a treaty it takes some number of turns to develop them.
It seems like they stack?
How and when is a treaty "consumed"? Does this only happens when a random event occurs which can be countered?
Is this sort of like playing cards, where we get a good hand of treaties and then when something bad happens the proper response card is automatically played for us?

When I see a random event my instinct is to create an event to offset it. But I have no idea if I'll be able to offset it while it's still in effect. How long do they last and how long does it take to to create a treaty.

If I have an alliance and a random alliance is rolled, does that cancel mine?

How do I know who has the alliances? The status page is often quite wrong about whether an event is in progress and doesn't say who is involved.

So until now my "strategy" is to just keep throwing spare cash at treaties and alliances and hope that it's doing some good.

As you can see I'm completely missing a fundamental understanding of the concept here. So my go-to question... Where are the best docs for this?

Thanks!

[Cory Trese]

I can try to post some help, but the BEST way to "get" politics is to play the game. I don't think you'll ever really GET it without playing the game.

If you have a better word for "political machinations involving two parties" than "Conflict" we would be VERY happy to consider using it. The call has been open since the Alpha for a better word, but none have been put forward yet that really worked.

A lot of the questions you asked are about strategy -- and there are a lot of valid strategies by design. Those questions I think are best answered by the game itself, through the Tutorial and playing the game.

A Conflict can last a while, from between a few turns and a few years in game.

Your Treaties take as long as they need for the EP required.

The one part of the post that I need to focus on, and won't be able to look at the other questions until it is resolved is this:

The status page is often quite wrong about whether an event is in progress and doesn't say who is involved.

Unfortunately, I am totally confused by that. What do you mean it is "often wrong" about an event? I have never seen it be wrong about an event, or about who is involved.

Also, can you post details about where you downloaded the game, what platform you are using, what type of device and OS, etc. Also, the version of the game that you are using (v1.1.17, v1.2.5, something like that printed on the main menu.)

Thanks!

[elwoodps]

Jun 25, 2015 22:38:08 GMT -5 Captain Starbuck said:

.....   How do I know who has the alliances? .......

Captain Starbuck, I have the answer to this question if I understand it correctly:

Tap the POLITICS button on the EMPIRE SUMMARY screen, which will bring up the FACTION POLITICS screen.

On this screen you'll see all your current conflicts and agreements, with the participating factions for each named.



And I believe there can only be one agreement or conflict active between any given pair of factions, at one time.

Hope this helps.

[khamya9]

One question I have had, Cory you once or twice mentioned that treaties don't stack, so in Elwood's screenshot cadar world's aren't getting double alliance bo uses. But how many rychart worldas have the alliance bonus and how many the trade embargo?

Or am I misunderstanding how it works?

[tenbsmith]

Captain Starbuck, a player initiated diplomatic effort (e.g., Trade Summit) may or may not have an effect when completed. After you initiate a new diplomatic effort, you can track its progress on the Diplomatic Effort screen reached via the Treaties button on the Empire Summary screen. The Espionage Points produced by your empire each turn move the treaty towards completion.

Once completed, each diplomatic effort (or negotiation?) has a chance of having its effect. For example, the Trade Summit has a 75% chance of creating a Trade Route between factions. You are generally notified of success or failure once a diplomatic effort completes at the beginning of that turn on the Turn Events screen.  For example, if Trade Summit is successful it will either create a new Trade Route or extend an existing one. If the Trade Summit fails, you are notified, but nothing happens.

Conflicts/treaties start or stop either due to diplomatic efforts initiated by the player or because the factions/game-engine did it.

Seems like we all agree that using term 'conflict' to cover both treaties and conflicts is suboptimal; because the term treaty has a positive tone whereas conflict is negative. Things are further confused because the term treaties is associated with both a current political state (e.g., a Trade Route) and a player initiated diplomacy (e.g., Trade Summit). Cory Trese and others, would things be clearer if the existing politics shown on the Faction Politics screen were referred to as “treaties/conflicts” AND the term "diplomacy" was used to describe player initiated diplomatic efforts shown on the Diplomatic Efforts and New Diplomacy screens.

This would lead to the following changes on the Empire Summary screen.
--The treaties button would be renamed to diplomacy
--The New treaty button would be renamed new diplomacy (or, if that's too long, new diplo.)
--The bottom (3rd) line under Politics and Defense would be revised to read, "We have [X] diplomatic efforts ongoing and [Y] treaties/conflicts"

I could suggest similar edit to Library and Manual, but I'll wait and see if people like this.

[tenbsmith]

Apparently I killed this thread with an overly long post. I'd like feedback, but let's get back on track.

Captain Starbuck, have all your questions been answered?

We also need an answer for khamya9. "Cory you once or twice mentioned that treaties don't stack, so in Elwood's screenshot cadar world's aren't getting double alliance bo uses. But how many rychart worldas have the alliance bonus and how many the trade embargo?"

If this goes well, I might start a "beginners guide to politics" thread.

[anrdaemon]

I'm not sure my observation was a bug or intended mechanics, but I've had two Trade Routes established with no other political actions going, and the empire summary said that political arena is affected by "2 conflicts".
Anyone else noticed this?

[tenbsmith]

anrdaemon, that is not a bug. The term conflict is used to refer to both conflicts and treaties. Presumably because of the limited space on smart phones. No one has been able to find one word that covers both treaties and conflicts, so I proposed mashing the two together: "treaties/conflicts"

[anrdaemon]

Yeah, I was thinking along the same road. When I noted it first time, I, too, was struggling to find a single word replacement for the term.

[Brutus Aurelius]

Cory Trese

How about Political Engagements, or Political Stances?

[Cory Trese]

Jun 26, 2015 11:18:08 GMT -5 khamya9 said:

One question I have had, Cory you once or twice mentioned that treaties don't stack, so in Elwood's screenshot cadar world's aren't getting double alliance bo uses. But how many rychart worldas have the alliance bonus and how many the trade embargo?

Or am I misunderstanding how it works?

Depends on who's world is closer. If tied, use the first one in the list.

[anrdaemon]

Jun 28, 2015 17:58:44 GMT -5 Brutus Aurelius said:

Cory Trese

How about Political Engagements, or Political Stances?

"Political landscape is affected by %d Engagements" sounds appropriate.

//Just don't ask me to translate it.

[Cory Trese]

Having some trouble finding any English basis for that use. If it is valid, it is exceedingly rare.

Especially tricky since "Political Engagement" is such a loaded and specific term relative to civic participation.

[tenbsmith]

Cory Trese, the inconsistent use of language describing politics across screens is confusing, especially for the new player. For example, on the Empire Summary screen...
--the Treaties button takes you to the Diplomatic Efforts screen.
--the New Treaty button takes you to the New Diplomacy screen.
--The bottom line under Politics and Defense uses "treaties" to refer to things on the Diplomatic Efforts screen, and the word "conflicts" to refer to things on the Faction Politics screen.

The terms "diplomacy" and "diplomatic effort" seem the best English-language words for the group of technologies that affect politics (e.g., Trade Summit). And, the word "politics" seems the best term for referring to existing politics between pairs of factions (e.g., Trade Route)

I suggest updating language on the Empire Summary screen to be consistent with other screens like this:
--Rename the treaties button label to diplomacy (This button takes you to the Diplomatic Effort screen).
--Rename the new treaty button label to new diplomacy or, if that's too long, new diplo. (This button takes you to the New Diplomacy screen)
--Revise the bottom line under Politics and Defense to, "We have [X] diplomatic efforts and [Y] faction politics" (This makes the language in the sentence consistent with language on the screens from which the counts come; the Diplomatic Efforts and Faction Politics screens.)

[Cory Trese]

Great feedback. Something we've been working on trying to fix for a while!