Long term plan: sphering revamp

[rogerburks]

Since I discussed it a bit, I figured I would outline what I want to change in sphering. Currently sphering is primarily done by checking boxes in the diplomacy tab, and modifiers are a moderate concern compared to the number of checked boxes. I want to change this to make it feel more like 19th century spheres of influence.

The apparent elements of a sphere of influence seem to be this (subject to change as I study more): trade exclusivity, military influence, and diplomatic influence. Investment in a country and protection deals seem to be key in these, with diplomacy acting as a means of exerting the other two factors but sparing the risk, cost, and damage of actually exerting them physically.

The current system prioritizes diplomatic influence probably too heavily. Under this system, a 2-province weak "great power" could remove another country from a powerful GP's sphere of influence, simply by checking 3 boxes. This should never happen. Instead, the sphering should occur by stacking modifiers, through investment, protection, proximity (of other sphered nations, or of colonies), and a more moderated version of diplomatic effort.

In practice, to me this means adjusting modifiers, mainly: diplomatic factors reduced in power, and investment factors greatly increased. This is because diplomacy should be weak if a nation's power and influence are also weak. If a weak and isolated 2-province GP happens to sphere something, an interested powerful GP should be able to overpower this when it wants to.

Also to be added should be a small number of events to decrease sphering influence modifiers greatly when a GP does not hold up the obligations of sphering. If a GP does not protect a sphereling, it should be almost impossible to prevent another GP from sphering it given proper effort, for instance. These events should be relativley small in number to keep them from being spammy, but they should be far more important for the sphered nation than for the GP.

Additionally, the already existing events to deal with competition over sphering could be adjusted to more strongly represent actual historical agreements that defined what spheres of influence are.

[rogerburks]

Put into practice, if I make Reuss a great power by spamming prestige and conquering a nearby German minor, I should not be able to take Egypt out of the UK's sphere unless the UK refuses to do anything that a sphere owner should do. Since the UK can exert superior effort in almost all ways (monetary and military), it should be able to drive out Reuss influence in Egypt decisively. The current answer to a Reuss sphering Egypt is "yes we can," where it should be, "we probably cannot do this."

[rogerburks]

What are all the differences between influence and relation?

As part of an exercise in this, and as a means of thinking out loud, it occurred to me to challenge what is the difference between these two numbers, such that they are justifiable as different stats. Also a secondary question is when is a relation increase valid to also increase influence?

• Historically, some subject nations were forced or coerced to belong to a sphere, on some level. If a Great Power could enforce the sphere, it did so. If it could not enforce a sphere, the target nation could get away with refusing. This applies to the inclusion of uncivilized areas into spheres. An example of refusing is China's refusal to allow Italy to "sphere" Zhejiang. Implicit in the ability to refuse is the demonstration of sufficient force: Italy could not enforce its wishes, where those successful in sphering Chinese areas were able to enforce theirs. This sort of sphere was almost entirely for exclusivity of trade. In game terms, this sort of refusal should award a casus belli (and already does so). It is not fully a function of population, because China could not refuse British demands despite having a far greater population than Britain.

Relation, in comparison, is not entirely a coercion. Nations can decrease relation faster than another nation can increase them, without generating a casus belli. Therefore, subject nations have limited choice over influence (limited by relative military power), but have complete choice over relation.

• Spheres serve to exclude other Great Powers from exerting economic or military control over the same area/country. In economic terms, spheres can be like Great Power monopolies, where trade and development are dominated by one Great Power's companies. Again competition between Great Powers was usually regulated by diplomatic agreements. Arguably, the Brothers War is possibly an example within the 1836 to 1879 timeframe of a war over an emergent sphering concept, as the in-game results dictate. After 1885 a greater consciousness of spheres led arguably to other examples of sphering wars, although in-game these often result in annexation rather than sphering (such as, French and German rivalry for control over Morocco).

In contrast, different nations can have maximum relations with the same nation without generating serious conflict with one another. To summarize, a Great Power's influence over a country decreases that all others, but its relations do not.

• Spheres have different thresholds, although these do not always become enforced in-game. A nation is either inside a sphere or it is not: either a Great Power controls trade in a sphered nation or others are just as free to trade. Since we know what a uncivilized nation in a sphere of influence is like, how does a civilized, secondary power belong to a sphere?

Relation does not respect the rank of the two nations involved. Indeed the -200 to 200 number of "relation" does not entirely indicate what relation does, and the game opposes the implication of relation with other numbers expressed as concerns/considerations. The strongest expression of the relations number is the impossibility of some mechanics when negative relations exist.

• Are relation and influence conflated in the game? I argue that they are in some cases. For instance, relations speeding up the sphering process. Nations need not be nice to a Great Power to be quickly sphered. There needs only be a serious power gap between them, in the case of coercion. However, relation can lead to sphering: for instance the sphering of Portugal by the UK because of economic dependency by Portugal. Here a power gap existed but military coercion did not exist. Is it therefore possible to ask whether, as a rule, uncivilized nations are coerced into spheres, but civilized nations are not? In the case of civilized nations, does the conflict exist between Great Powers instead of between the Great Power and the sphered nation? An arguable exception existed (later) in the Eastern Bloc, but I argue that those military actions were wars to puppet instead of merely sphere: calling such a thing a sphere was an attempt to make it look less coercive than it was.

Here I suggest that there are separate processes that should cause the threshold to be crossed between good relation and being sphered. Relation can assist in this, but good relation alone does not sphere a nation. A non-coerced sphering also is most likely never a zone of complete trade exclusivity, but mechanics do not exist to enforce that. To cross the threshold from being "friendly" to sphered, there must be either agreement or coercion. A nation should not, for instance, be incidentally informed that a two-province power has sphered it without action, simply because of focused attention (three boxes) paid to it. Such a thing could be possible, but only if the sphered nation agrees to it or is coerced. Examples of uncivilized nations agreeing to belong to a sphere existed, mainly because of agreements of protection. Here I suggest that inclusion into a sphere could generate an event where a nation can try to refuse inclusion, and this occurs in game as well in some cases (Xhosa, Sikh) although they usually result in annexation soon afterward.

Can relation result in removal from sphere? I suggest that it can, but there should, always, be an event or casus belli generated. If a Great Power chooses not to gain or enforce its casus belli, then it is shown to be too weak to exert control over the sphereling. There could be a concern over whether this will become too spammy, but I think this could be done if sphering is adjusted to be a more deliberate and controlled process.

• As a quick footnote, spheres of influence are also adjusted according to agreements between nations. In game, this seems to occur mainly as a result of the Great Eastern Crisis events. I think these are perfectly valid as events, although the agreements to keep out of a sphere should have consequences if violated (casus belli against another Great Power, for instance). This sense of change between spheres of influence should only come into play when a losing party is present or when a treaty is signed in an attempt to avoid war (example: agreements between Germany and Britain in the late 19th century).