外交支配

Diplomatic Dominion

条约到底是如何运作的？

Treaties? How do they work?

AXIOMS

2023 年 7 月 25 日

简介

Introduction

我以前曾简单提到过《Axioms Of Dominion》中外交的许多独特之处，但我还没有写过一篇全面介绍外交事务的文章。《Axioms Of Dominion》中的外交是一个动态系统，它使用的大多数工具与内部政治相同。单个角色之间、非正式角色团体之间以及由角色组成的正式组织之间都可以达成协议。

I’ve briefly mentioned many of the unique features of [D]iplomacy in Axioms before but I haven’t done a conprehensive post about foreign affairs overall. Diplomacy in Axioms is a dynamic system that uses most of the same tools as internal politics. Agreements between individual Characters, between informal groups of Characters, and between formal Organizations made of of Characters.

条约本质上是多个政治实体之间的承诺，只是更花哨、更正式，就像誓言、保证或承诺是角色之间的承诺一样。条约约束双方或多方做出一系列承诺，但具体各方的承诺可能各不相同。

Treaties are essentially a fancy formal version of commitment between multiple political entities much as Oaths or Pledges or Promises are personal commitments between individual Characters. Treaties bind two or more sides to a set of commitments, though the commitments from the specific sides can vary.

战争与和平

War And Peace

条约可以有各种各样的术语，用于各种各样的目的。众所周知的例子包括和平条约、互不侵犯条约、防御条约、朝贡/赔款等，即使对历史一无所知的人也耳熟能详。

Treaties can have a wide variety of terms used for a wide variety of purposes. Well known examples even to casual followers of our own history include peace treaties, non-aggression pacts, defensive pacts, tribute/reparations, and so forth.

《Axioms Of Dominion》有一个非二元的外交系统。战争期间执行的条约与和平时期达成的条约在功能上并无区别，只是条约中可能会要求停止正在进行的军事行动。结束战争的条约只是为一方增加了一种额外的谈判筹码，或许还能澄清潜在威胁与实际威胁。

Axioms has a non-binary diplomatic system. There’s functionally no difference between a treaty enforced during war and one agreed upon during peace, aside from presumably that one tends to include a requirement to cease ongoing military action. A war ending treaty merely adds a sort of extra bargaining chip to one side, and perhaps clarifies potential vs actual threat.

此外，领土对法律上的所有权和事实上的所有权的反应在功能上没有区别。冲突期间民众的抵抗与正式敌对行动结束后的抵抗是一样的。被占领领土与被吞并领土对人口和资源的控制也没有太大区别。当地的税收、生产和贸易会归属于任何可以控制它们的人。当然，一个领土上的抵抗力量如果期望得到外部/盟国的援助，其反应就会与孤立无援的抵抗力量不同。

Additionally there’s no functional difference between how territory reacts to de jure vs de facto ownership. Resistance during a conflict by the population vs resistance following the ending of official hostilities works the same way. And control over population and resources in an occupied vs an annexed territory is not much different. Local taxes and production and trade go to whoever can take them. Of course a resistance in one territory which expects outside/allied assistance will react differently to one that is shown to be alone and unsupported.

信息与间谍

Information And Espionage

《Axioms Of Dominion》是一款信息不完全的游戏，玩家需要在竞争中获得更多的信息和联系。这对[D]iplomacy 的体验有很大影响。你通常会对一个势力同时拥有间谍网络和合法联系，这有助于你衡量敌方民众、军队和政治领导层的感受。你将收集有关冲突支持率、敌方精英支持率以及敌方内部斗争的情报。

Axioms is a game of imperfect information and the competition to be better informed and connected. This has a lot of impact on the experience of [D]iplomacy. You’ll often have both spies and legitimate connections that help you to gauge the feeling of the enemy populace, army, and political leadership. You’ll be gathering intel on the support for the conflict, the support for the enemy elite generally, and often internal struggles of your enemy.

不会有战争进展或战争热情之类的抽象概念客观地呈现给你。在某种程度上，你需要自己弄清楚这些事情。你自己的情报网络以及盟友（如果有的话）的情报网络可以让你了解战争的进展。请注意，你可以直接询问你所控制地区的民众，也可以派遣卧底搜集小道消息。

You won’t have convenient abstractions like war progress or war enthusiasm or what have you presented to you objectively. To some degree you’ll need to figure these things out yourself. Your Intelligence Network, and those of any allies if they have them, will give you a view of the way the war is going. Note that you’ll be able to directly question the populace in areas you control as well as send undercover agents to gather gossip.

谈判

Negotiation

与更抽象的游戏相比，《Axioms Of Dominion》中的外交互动有点不同。你将选择一个团队进行谈判，其中可能包括也可能不包括你自己的角色。如果不包括你，那么你将向你的首席特使提供谈判指导，他们将代表你与敌方进行谈判。

Diplomatic interaction works a bit differently in Axioms compared to more abstract games. You’ll select a team to negotiate, which may or may not include your own character. If it does not include you then you’ll provide guidance for negotiation to your chief envoy and they will travel to the enemy and operate on your behalf.

一开始，事情可能会向许多方向发展。一方或另一方可能向对方派出大使，或者双方可能同意前往中立地点谈判，等等。

There are a variety of ways things could go down at the start. One side or the other may send out an embassy to the other, both sides could agree to travel to a neutral location, and so on.

谈判将是一系列来来回回的行动，根据主要参与人员的知识和技能产生影响，然后达成初步协议。然后，双方的领导层（可以是一个角色，也可以是几个角色）需要批准条约才能正式生效。

The negotiations will be a series of back and forth actions, with impacts based on the knowledge and skills of the key agents involved, before a tentative agreement is made. Then the leadership of each side, which could be a single character or several, will need to ratify the treaty for it to take official effect.

如果玩家选择亲自谈判，就会亲身经历这一过程。基本上，每一方都会先提出一个条件，然后你们会就各个条件进行来回辩论，直到达成协议。需要注意的是，即使作为人类玩家，你也会受到角色 "意识 "的限制，如果你过分违背它，你就会像在其他情况下一样产生 "失调"。

If you as the player personally choose to negotiate you’ll experience the process yourself. Essentially each side will present a first offer and then you’ll debate back and forth on individual terms till an agreement is reached. Note that even as a human player you’ll be limited by the “Consciousness” of your Character, and if you go too hard against it you’ll accrue Dissonance just like in any other situation.

《Axioms Of Dominion》中条约的另一个关键限制因素是你在冲突开始时做出的 "承诺"。因此，如果你试图索取的比你当初承诺的更多，那么对方会更难以同意。此外，如果你不遵守承诺，其他非直接相关方也会对你产生不信任/恐惧，并攻击你。

Another key limiting factor on treaties in Axioms is the “Commitments” you made at the start of a conflict. So if you try to take more than you said you would there will be a high reluctance by the other side to agree than there is for things you already made clear you wanted. Additionally other parties not directly involved will gain distrust/fear/aggression towards you if you don’t stick to your word.

《Axioms Of Dominion》对战争中的要求没有人为的硬性限制。你所受到的限制包括他人的负面印象、公正（如果角色有此特质）与任性之间的失调等等，以及你自己控制索求的事物之能力。事实上，如果你愿意，你可以选择在战争中保留任何你能控制的东西，但如果你做得太过分，当然会严重影响对方同意签订条约的意愿。

Axioms has no artificial, rigid restrictions on what you can demand in a war. You are limited by the negative impression on others, Dissonance if you are highly Just vs Capricious, and so forth, and your own ability to control your acquisitions. Indeed you can choose to keep anything you have control over in a war if you wish, but it will of course strongly impact the willingness of the other side to agree to a treaty if you go overboard.

此外，《Axioms Of Dominion》允许超国家法律/规范/习惯。如果一群国家/社会/民族/政体通过承诺系统就正式或非正式规则达成一致，那么与政体不那么集中、联系不那么紧密的地区相比，你的过分行为或原始侵略行为往往会受到更多惩罚。

Additionally Axioms allows for supernational laws/norms/customs. If a group of states/societies/nations/polities agrees on formal or informal rules through the Commitment system you’ll often be much more penalized for overreaching or raw aggression than you would in an area of the world with less centralized and globalized polities.

这套系统取代了老式战略游戏中僵化和硬编码的 "文化/习俗"，在老式战略游戏中，这种惩罚是固定的。作为对比，我想到了某些地图绘制者对统一前德国的某些描述，那里的侵略比撒哈拉以南的非洲更危险。在历史上，你可以将威斯特伐利亚时期前后的欧洲作为一个例子。在某些情况下，《Axioms Of Dominion》中的地区可以自然/有机地发展出这样的国际秩序规则。

This set of systems replaces the inflexible and hardcoded “culture/customs” of older strategy games where such penalties are fixed. Certain represenations of pre-Unification Germany in certain map painters come to mind as a contrast, where aggression is more dangerous than say, sub-Saharan Africa. Historically you might consider pre and post Westphalian Europe as an example. Regions in Axioms can naturally/organically develop such rules of international order under certain circumstances.

无论如何，老式和更简单的游戏中简单的点击按钮、选择条款、检查 "接受度"、结束战争的条约系统与《Axioms Of Dominion》的方式形成了鲜明对比。

In any case the simplistic click button, select terms, check “acceptance”, end war treaty systems of older and more simplistic games stand in stark contrast to the way Axioms functions.

条款

Terms

《Axioms Of Dominion》是一款存储了大量 "元数据 "的游戏，这些 "元数据 "与游戏中的角色、人口或其他方面有关。角色有非常具体的个人愿望、更普遍的家庭/宗族愿望、文化愿望等等。因此，可作为协议条款的术语种类繁多。这与其他游戏形成了鲜明对比，其他游戏中的外交代理要么只有国家，或者角色非常简单，几乎完全由几个通用的个性特质来定义。

Axioms is a game which stores a significant amount of “meta data” regarding agents in the game whether that refers to Characters, Populations, or otherwise. Characters have very specific personal desires, more general family/house desires, cultural desires, and so forth. So the variety of terms available for negotiations is immense. This contrasts with other games which have only states as agents, or very simple characters defined almost entirely by a few generic personality traits.

你可以就资源、贸易路线、船只或军事装备、食物、稀有奢侈品、土地、黄金等提出各种物质要求。你还可以要求获得信息、知识、法律变更、各种形式的政治从属关系、联姻、和平、互不侵犯、防御支持、进攻支持、训练、魔法信息或真正的法师、科技、人口控制权变更，甚至是解散超国家之类的要求。

You can make all sorts of material requests regarding resources, trade routes, ships or military gear, food, rare luxuries, land, gold, and such. You can also request information, knowledge, legal changes, various forms of political subordination, marriages, peace, non-aggression, defensive support, offensive support, training, magical information or actual mages, technology, changes in Population control, and even something like the dissolution of a super-state.

可以选择人质、誓言、承诺、寄养和其他个人/政治选项。 你可以要求对方遵守有关军事行为、禁止奴隶制、领土主张、宗教变革和其他类似事情的超国家规则。 魔法可以全部或部分被禁止。 特定的稀有生物可以受到保护。 可以提出联合建设项目、贸易限制、图书馆使用权、索要书籍/秘典的副本等等。

Hostages, Oaths, Pledges, Fostering, and other personal/political options are available. You can demand a Commitment to supernational rules regarding military conduct, banning slavery, territorial claims, religious changes, and other things like that. Magic can be banned wholly or in part. Specific rare creatures can be placed under protection. Joint construction projects can be proposed. Trade restrictionsor access to libraries can be negotiated. Copies of books/tomes, etc.

结论

Conclusion

Axioms 拥有一个比任何现有游戏都要复杂和灵活，强大得多的政体间协议谈判系统。这不仅提供了许多有趣的选项，还能更恰当地模拟历史事件。让人惊讶的是，它还进一步限制了玩家滥用NPC代理的能力。没有任何一个条约条款是所有代理人都会拒绝，而玩家可以随时索求的。你不能单纯通过计算 "条约条款成本 "来实现价值最大化。

Axioms has a much more complex and flexible/powerful system for the negotiation of agreements between polities than any existing game. This allows both lots of fun options as well as the ability to simulate historical events more properly. It also creates, which may surprise some, more limits on the ability of players to abuse the NPC agents. There’s not a specific treaty term that all agents undervalue the same way that a player can always demand. You can’t just count up “treaty term costs” to maximize value.

外交使节的好坏可以改变局势。玩家往往需要在注意力和其他成本上做出重大权衡，才能亲自进行谈判，这就推动了授权，当然也防止了玩家愚弄NPC代理人，因为玩家不能总是亲临现场，必须派出NPC下属。

Better or worse diplomatic envoys can change the situation. A player would often have to make a significant trade off in Attention and other costs to negotiate personally, which pushes delegation and of course prevents the player from abusing the NPC agents since they won’t be there but have to send an NPC subordinate.

另外，我承认这个系统会引起分歧，我自己也喜欢在策略游戏中使用更严格/更客观、更简约的系统。我已经努力在代码中为某个扩展包打下基础，以提供一个 "游戏设置/规则 "系统，该系统将禁用某些机制或用一些更传统的机制取代之。如果有相当多的人玩了演示版，并对同一个机制/系统提出抱怨，那就有理由在第一或第二个扩展包中，通过游戏规则来添加一个可以启用或禁用的并行系统。

Separately, I recognize that this system will be divisive, and I myself have enjoyed more rigid/objective and less complex systems in strategy games. I have generally made an effort to lay a foundation in the code for one of the expansions to provide a “game setting/rule” system that would disable or replace some game systems with more traditional forms. If a significant number of people try the demo and have complaints about the same specific mechanic/system that could provide a justification for going through the effort to add a parallel system that could be enabled or disabled in a game rule in the first or second expansion.