Diplomat (Improve Relations) vs. Statesman (Diplomatic Reputation) ?

[Answulf]

Hi there, I am looking for information about choosing between these two advisors and searches only find outdated information.

I think I understand the basics. I've read the wiki and if I understand it correctly (and it is up to date), a Diplomat increases the rate at which you improve relations and reduces the rate at which it decays, while a Statesman give you an across the board bonus to other nations approving your requests. Is that correct or am I missing something?

What I don't understand, however, is relating it to game strategy - under which circumstances would you prefer one over the other?

[DeadRabbit]

I don't really like to think too hardly on advisors, I more like to think about the cost and how many monarch points.

Between those two, I would probably chose the Diplomat, as I can increase relations faster and get more done in a shorter amount of time (for example, getting alliances, vassalizing neighbors, etc)

[tonypa]

I usually pick Diplomatic Reputation. This will allow to pick new allies or make countries accept to be your vassal or integrate current vassals faster.

[Edifire]

You are correct with the information about the advisors. As what the others have said, diplomatic reputation will help when securing alliances (especially after you capped out on improving relations and the other guy just needs a little more to accept you) and calling allies into war, as well as speeding up integration of vassals.

The diplomat will help improve relations faster. However, one other thing to note is that it also makes Aggressive Expansion tick down faster, even if it is only a little bit faster.

I'm not an expert at the game, but my rule of thumb is that if you need to integrate a vassal or make an alliance, the Statesman is probably better. If you have all the allies you need or can make allies with just improving relations, Diplomat is probably better to reduce AE over time and avoid coalitions. I normally wouldn't constantly swap out advisors if I'm hurting on cash though.

[Xray]

Statesman. Will help you actually accomplish something.

[Psychotic Fury]

I usually get improve relations one, unless im annexing someone. Or at start of game to find allies ill get the rep one.

[kaiyl_kariashi]

I usually go with Diplomat.

Faster relations and quicker negative decay is far more useful IMO than an extra +3 reasons to accept something (it's more valuable if you have a lot of subjects, since it reduces liberty desire and increased integration speed but not really that useful outside of it since Diplo-rep doesn't affect calculations for joining/not joining wars, which would make it more useful, where as having high opinion with them does).

The Statesmen does have his uses, but in general unless i REALLY need that niche, the Diplomat is simply more useful in a broad-sense to how I play.

[Xray]

Originally posted by kaiyl_kariashi:

I usually go with Diplomat.

Faster relations and quicker negative decay is far more useful IMO than an extra +3 reasons to accept something (it's more valuable if you have a lot of subjects, since it reduces liberty desire and increased integration speed but not really that useful outside of it since Diplo-rep doesn't affect calculations for joining/not joining wars, which would make it more useful, where as having high opinion with them does).

The Statesmen does have his uses, but in general unless i REALLY need that niche, the Diplomat is simply more useful in a broad-sense to how I play.

Diplo rep DOES affect the call to arms though. On top of that, it helps secure alliances, HRE voters, vassals, and every other diplomatic option. It even makes you more likely to inherit your lesser partner when in a personal union!

Diplo rep is, essentially, better in every case than faster relations, with the only exception being when I want to rip down AE. Althought, this being considered, the diplomat is still not great, as the +20% means only something like a .20 increase to relations every month. Big woop.

[kaiyl_kariashi]

no it doesn't.

Bare in mind, I'm talking about enemies joining wars against me.

I don't use allies in battle cause I don't trust the ai to be helpful at all and hate elements i can't control, and just use them as a shield to prevent wars against me from happening. And they don't even need to be strong allies.

It's far more important to not have negative relations due to AE and quicker opinion for getting rid of/preventing coalitions.

Which means I just conquer everything I want and not give a crap about what the ai wants.



Diplo-rep is more important for Tall or Subject focused games as those tend to focus less on opinion and more on getting people to agree to stuff, since you aren't racking up a lot of negative opinion, usually.

Which i don't care about. My diplo-rep is my army.

I want trade power? I'll take it. I want money? I'll take it. I want land. I'll take it. I want to control the status quo? I'll make them do what i want. I want to be Emperor, I'll vassalize them all, eat them and then make new electors.


At the end of the day though, it's basically the same thing as a Religious vs Humanist.

Which better fits your style of play. They do the same thing, just in different ways and appeal to different styles of play.

[Xray]

Originally posted by kaiyl_kariashi:

no it doesn't.

Bare in mind, I'm talking about enemies joining wars against me.

I don't use allies in battle cause I don't trust the ai to be helpful at all and hate elements i can't control, and just use them as a shield to prevent wars against me from happening. And they don't even need to be strong allies.

It's far more important to not have negative relations due to AE and quicker opinion for getting rid of/preventing coalitions.

Which means I just conquer everything I want and not give a crap about what the ai wants.



Diplo-rep is more important for Tall or Subject focused games as those tend to focus less on opinion and more on getting people to agree to stuff, since you aren't racking up a lot of negative opinion, usually.

Which i don't care about. My diplo-rep is my army.

I want trade power? I'll take it. I want money? I'll take it. I want land. I'll take it. I want to control the status quo? I'll make them do what i want. I want to be Emperor, I'll vassalize them all, eat them and then make new electors.


At the end of the day though, it's basically the same thing as a Religious vs Humanist.

Which better fits your style of play. They do the same thing, just in different ways and appeal to different styles of play.

The AI is there to be exploited by the player, why the hell would you ever not exploit them to make wars easier?

Diplo rep is better because it opens avenues other than military expansion, so you don't end up at 50+ AE in the first place.

The diference is damage control vs. damage prevention.

[kaiyl_kariashi]

Because the ai can't be exploited.

It's too stupid to be exploited except via conquesting on them.

I cannot tolerate unpredictible elements in my strategies, since they're all built around removing all RNG (or as much as humanly possible that the game allows). And thusly I never can count on ai because they never do what you need them to when you actually need them do it.

And it's not like i actually need them anyway. I can kill a 90 stack with a 20 stack. And the ai isn't going to help with that cause they see it as a suicidal battle and refuse to help, because they can't properly use the reenforcement and strategic withdrawal mechanics like a player can, so they're useless for my primary strategy, that makes heavy use of small army tactics to stack wipe large armies.

And they tend to go and get themselves killed and feed the enemy warscore which makes the war take even longer. I'm relucant to even use vassals even when set to siege and avoid combat just because more often than not, they'll ♥♥♥♥ it up somehow.

That's why i stopped using statesmen. they're worthless. I get better results with Diplomats because they favor a more hands on, controlled style of play.

THe ONLY time i will touch a statesmen is if i need to integrate a lot of vassals. That is the only time I find them worth while as they slightly speed it up and can potentially off-set the +3 penalty for recent integration (though I try to have all vassal integrate at once to simply ignore that penalty).


And no....diplo rep does not open up a single door for expansion. large amounts of it can (but in going for that, you also sacrifice your ability to conquest more efficienctly so you HAVE to double down on a diplo-focused playstyle), but 1 diplo-rep cannot, and makes very little difference in the greater scheme of things as +3 reasons will almost never change what you can or can't do.

But 20% better relations is always in effect and always useful.

Unless that +3 reasons is letting you do something you can't without it, it's a waste of an advisor slot if you could've taken a diplomat instead.

1 diplo rep will not allow you to vassalize someone you couldn't already vassalize without it. Even 1 development of difference is far more than +3 reasons can give.

[luckymarine]

If I can hire an improve relations advisor I will, and he will occupy that seat till he dies, then I'll get another one, even grabbing one off the nobles if I have to.

Accelerated aggressive expansion decay is invaluble, improving relations to such an extent that a country can have a -150 opinion of your agressive expansion and still not want to join a coalition is invaluble.

The only value I see to the diplomat is possibly integrating a country a little quicker.

[Xray]

Originally posted by kaiyl_kariashi:

Because the ai can't be exploited.

It's too stupid to be exploited except via conquesting on them.

I cannot tolerate unpredictible elements in my strategies, since they're all built around removing all RNG (or as much as humanly possible that the game allows). And thusly I never can count on ai because they never do what you need them to when you actually need them do it.

And it's not like i actually need them anyway. I can kill a 90 stack with a 20 stack. And the ai isn't going to help with that cause they see it as a suicidal battle and refuse to help, because they can't properly use the reenforcement and strategic withdrawal mechanics like a player can, so they're useless for my primary strategy, that makes heavy use of small army tactics to stack wipe large armies.

And they tend to go and get themselves killed and feed the enemy warscore which makes the war take even longer. I'm relucant to even use vassals even when set to siege and avoid combat just because more often than not, they'll ♥♥♥♥ it up somehow.

That's why i stopped using statesmen. they're worthless. I get better results with Diplomats because they favor a more hands on, controlled style of play.

THe ONLY time i will touch a statesmen is if i need to integrate a lot of vassals. That is the only time I find them worth while as they slightly speed it up and can potentially off-set the +3 penalty for recent integration (though I try to have all vassal integrate at once to simply ignore that penalty).


And no....diplo rep does not open up a single door for expansion. large amounts of it can (but in going for that, you also sacrifice your ability to conquest more efficienctly so you HAVE to double down on a diplo-focused playstyle), but 1 diplo-rep cannot, and makes very little difference in the greater scheme of things as +3 reasons will almost never change what you can or can't do.

But 20% better relations is always in effect and always useful.

Unless that +3 reasons is letting you do something you can't without it, it's a waste of an advisor slot if you could've taken a diplomat instead.

1 diplo rep will not allow you to vassalize someone you couldn't already vassalize without it. Even 1 development of difference is far more than +3 reasons can give.

You sound insanely inflexible.

[kaiyl_kariashi]

oh I'm quite flexible....but I also prefer to always win.

I will never commit to an action that isn't garunteed victory.

Diplomats are a known factor. They will always do exactly what they do and it never changes.

Statemans value changes due to factors outside of your control, so unless my current strategy has a garunteed benefit from using him, I prefer a Diplomat.

In a lot of cases I'd even take a Trade Advisor over a statesman, unless I'm going hard on minimalism as a challenge and purposefully avoiding economy advisors.

[Psychotic Fury]

Diplomats are just straight up better unless your annexing or just started a game. Statesman just gives +3 to going to war/alliances etc iirc so its effectivly useless unless your just starting a new game. Diplomats increase the rate at which Ae goes down, and any other relations go up faster. Which means you can go to war more often improve relations with everyone faster so they wont join coalitions against you etc. (+relations over time effects everything from improving relations to ae. It makes everything go up/down faster basically).

Where as statesman just lets you diplo annex faster. Or gives you very minor boost when seeking allies/Calls to arms, and liberty desire. So like i said unless you just started a game with a small nation thats 1 or 2 away from getting an alliance, statesmen give no benefit over diplomats.