New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Here's my proposal for an idea that will add a little more value and playability to SEIV:

Ceasefire Treaty

This treaty option will have the functionality of a peace treaty, but it has a definite time period attached, such as:
3 turns
5 turns
7 turns
10 turns

The treaty can be offered to the AI or other players, usually with a gift of some sort in return for a temporary end to hostilties.

Breaking the treaty will have serious repercussions, severly lowering your political rating with the other empires. For multi-player games (with humans) a message could display in all known player log flies: " Empire X has broken a ceasefire treaty with Empire Z."

At the end of the treaty period, the treaty status is set to "none."

I don't know how difficult this would be to code, but I'd like to throw it out there.

But here's the trouble with this concept.... I'll poke the first hole in it myself:
1. What treaty status would be in effect during the ceasefire?
It seems peace could be really exploited, allowing free passage deeper into an enemy's system so you could bypass their minefields and park cruisers over their planets. Would non-aggression or non-interaction produce a desirable result? Any way to enable a setting to restrict a player from entering specified systems for the length of the treaty?

Any thoughts or ideas on this?

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

That's a very good idea. until the Ai is (much) more advanced, I only think it would be suitable for vsHuman games, but it would be cool.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

I like it.
Between humans it would have to be the Honor system. If your opponent is Role Playing a less than honrable race it could get sticky.
I think the terms might include:
Withdraw X ships from specified systems

I would hope the AI could be modded as to how they would react.
Probablilty to Abuse := XY
Abuse Cease Fire := Sending in More Ships
Abuse Cease Fire := Deploying Mines
Abuse Cease Fire := ....

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

You propose to things that would generally be excellent additions to SE IV apart from the new treaty "cease fire":
1.) That actions between two players have an effect on all the other players attitude/mood against these players. Other examples where this might be very interesting is the use of certain weapons (star and planet destroyer, plague bombs) as has been proposed before.
2.) That the AI would be willing to end war against a certain gift/tribute.

I believe the "cease fire" could be equivalent to the already existing "non intercourse" if the latter was really meaningful (I never understood what was the real difference between no treaty and no intercourse treaty). If you have this treaty no ships will attack even if accidently (warp point) in the same sector, but ships can't enter the sector where the other empire is already present.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Thanks fellas...

I agree, this may take more effort to get it to work with the AI. I admit, this really has a better shot of being used correctly with humans.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes I do recall reading about the original the frustration of the AI never accepting a peace treaty once war is engaged.

I was sort of hoping this may be a work-around to that problem.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is pretty darn close to what I am looking for. But is it enforceable with human players?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I rather that it would not have to be...

I wish there was a trigger that detected actions during the active treaty of cease-fire:
a. entering a sector where the other empire is already present (current "shared" systems would be a DMZ)
b. attacking the other empire's ships
If you did either of these, you would receive a pop-up warning. If you went through with it, you would break the treaty.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

"(I never understood what was the real difference between no treaty and no intercourse treaty)."

You can't 'break' a war to get no treaty, and sometimes non-agression is just too friendly but you don't want open war..

Phoenix-D

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes that I understand as the reason for the no intercourse treaty and that's why I said it might be equivalent to the proposed "cease fire". My question is why there is no difference between the no intercourse treaty and no treaty in the behaviour of your ships.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

There is a difference between no treaty and a NI treaty in regards to an empires mood towards you and population happiness.

[ October 15, 2002, 19:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Perhaps if the Cease Fire carried a mandatory ceasing of hostilities. Two ways to do this.

If made for 3 turns, you have a non-aggression for three turns and are unable to break it during that time. After three turns the status returns to none or war. But as someone pointed out, it could be used to get inside a person's empire.

Or you could make it so that the two empires couldn't even interact. Meaning they can't move into the same sector. Then all you have to do is park a ship over the WP and the enemy can't get into your empire.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Maybe the goal of the ceasefire treaty is to get the AI to stop targeting your planets and ships? Minefields and warp point sattelites would still target incoming ships. And you wouldn't be allowed to target planets or ships. But what happens if you cross paths?

If the duration is short, say 3 turns, you couldn't exploit the AI too much -- your ships couldn't get far. But you could build up some small ships and weapon platforms. Is that too exploitative? I dunno. One destroyer or light cruiser at each planet?

Against a human, if they suspect you're going to abuse it, they'd just refuse. Unless they were real trusting and wanted a cease fire. Or planned to abuse it worse than you...and leave you to wonder which one is going to happen.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If they were trusting, they'd sign a treaty with you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

More like both sides are physically and economically exhausted and both of them need a moment to rest and build up their forces and do it once more. Kinda like what happened between Holland and Spain.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

I want the ability to tell certain ships/fleets or sectors or whole areas of my galaxy to ignore treaties with regard to the enemy passing through.

Main example: When someone is colonizing in your space and you tell them to stop yet they won't and you don't really want to go to war or lose that 20% money bonus you can't forcibly remove them now, however i want to be able to selectivly target my allies ships or tell a certain ship or fleet to engage all races taht pass thorugh point X or some of them or only ships of these sizes or this class.

You wouldn't be able to do this to a partner or a military alliance.

You could also have your ships "demand a search" which has the other sides ship then check its own rules and decide whether to attempt evasion (if caught will be seized), submit to search, or attack. If submitting to search the ship will stop that turn and the other player will be able to see their cargo and their inards ignoring any scanner jammers, they might even be able to see their orders?

That could be a cool intel project, but i digress.

Basically i want to be able to punish an ally who isn't following my demands but not go to war. Only problem i see is everyone being allies with everyone and constantly fighting anyway.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

For SE5, I'd like to see a "build your own treaty" system.

First up, instead of the current treaties and treaty grid, you'd have diplomatic status. Options would be war, neutral, allied, partners. Allied and partner can only be acheived by mutual consent. War and neutral can be declared.

The above would not represent treaties though. If I am partner with someone, I'm not necessarliy engaged in any trade or military co-operation with him. All the Partner diplomatic status does is to make trade and co-operation possible. Once a certain diplomatic status is acheived, you can negotiate a treaty within that level.

Treaty negotiation could be integrated into the "propose trade" feature. Treaty conditions would be things you could "buy" and "sell" along with other trade items like techs and ships.
Treaty conditions to be bought/ sold would include things like:

-Shared use of resupply depots (either across entire empire or specific locations)
-Shared use of Spaceports. (either across entire empire or specific locations)
-Allied ships repaired. (either across entire empire or specific locations)
-Trade allowed (like the current Trade Alliance)
-Research sharing (Like T&R)
-Intel sharing
-Shared view of ships in specified locations. (Like current partnership)
-Standing Orders (ie automatically pay 10000 minerals per turn, every turn)
-One off payments (like in current trades/ gifts)
-Automatic gifting of any new tech / comm channels. (Like current subjugation)
-Can view 3rd party treaties.
-Can / Cannot colonise in specified location.
-Can/ Cannot move freely through specified location.
-Maintain specified diplomatic status with 3rd party.
-More!

The items you can buy and sell would depend on your diplomatic status. For example, if I'm at war with someone, very few items on the above list would be available to buy/ sell. At partner level the entire list would be available.

For example, I want to set up a treaty with my neighbour. First we agree on a diplomatic status of "allied". Only then I can assemble a package (like the current "propose trade") to suggest mutual trade, with me giving him use of my resupply depots and him giving me 50,000 minerals per turn.

He counters with: mutual trade and research, he can use my resupply depots and he will pay me 30,000 minerals per turn. I accept.

As soon as I do that, I have to name the treaty and each item appears under that treaty name in a special "treaty window". From there I can suspend individual treaty items or cancel / re-negotiate the entire treaty.

For example, my ally does something to annoy me so I suspend his resupply priveleges. My resupply depots are immediately unavailable to him, but trade is still enabled and I'm still receiving his regular payment until he suspends it next turn. He also suspends the trade and research items. Although they are still enabled on my side, these would require approval on both sides, so trade and research sharing grinds to a halt and our 20% trade satrts dropping down to 0%.

It's a bit complex and slower than the current system but you can see how powerful this system could be, especially in multiplayer games. By seperating the diplomatic status and indiviual treaty items you have much more control over your relations with another empire: YOu can be partners with someone, but still kick his arse for colonising within your borders. You can cut off trade to your ally without your fleets going all shoot-on-sight on him.

Of course the AI would hate it...

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

How would you enforce keeping people out places or not colonizing?

How about a non-combat clause where either you set it to no combat ever, only with specific orders, only in these systems, only in systems that have been claimed by my empire (though with a special addition you can gain passage).

This is a great idea!!!!! coudl even be implemented ina gold patch with option to use old sys (esp for AI)

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

First up, instead of the current treaties and treaty grid, you'd have diplomatic status. Options would be war, neutral, allied, partners. Allied and partner can only be acheived by mutual consent. War and neutral can be declared.

-Methinks that you are confusing War and Neutrality with some kind of Defcon system. War needs to be declared to the warring party, and Neutrality is only declared to YOURSELVES, not others.

The above would not represent treaties though. If I am partner with someone, I'm not necessarliy engaged in any trade or military co-operation with him. All the Partner diplomatic status does is to make trade and co-operation possible. Once a certain diplomatic status is acheived, you can negotiate a treaty within that level.

-Why? Why do you need to be friends to have a treaty with others? Warring parties that hate each other's guts can still engage in a cease fire, a cold war can still generate trade between the nations and you can ally with lesser of the two evils.

Treaty negotiation could be integrated into the "propose trade" feature. Treaty conditions would be things you could "buy" and "sell" along with other trade items like techs and ships.
Treaty conditions to be bought/ sold would include things like:

-Shared use of resupply depots (either across entire empire or specific locations)
-Shared use of Spaceports. (either across entire empire or specific locations)
-Allied ships repaired. (either across entire empire or specific locations)
-Trade allowed (like the current Trade Alliance)
-Research sharing (Like T&R)
-Intel sharing
-Shared view of ships in specified locations. (Like current partnership)

-Standing Orders (ie automatically pay 10000 minerals per turn, every turn)

I'm not sure I understand.

-One off payments (like in current trades/ gifts)
-Automatic gifting of any new tech / comm channels. (Like current subjugation)
-Can view 3rd party treaties.
-Can / Cannot colonise in specified location.
-Can/ Cannot move freely through specified location.
-Maintain specified diplomatic status with 3rd party.
-More!

The items you can buy and sell would depend on your diplomatic status. For example, if I'm at war with someone, very few items on the above list would be available to buy/ sell. At partner level the entire list would be available.

-Well, that's not fair.

"Party A, we kinda need that shipment of food badly. Why can't you give it to us?"

"Party B, sorry, we'd like to, but we can't. We just can't. Maybe it has to do something with you being neutral."

For example, I want to set up a treaty with my neighbour. First we agree on a diplomatic status of "allied". Only then I can assemble a package (like the current "propose trade") to suggest mutual trade, with me giving him use of my resupply depots and him giving me 50,000 minerals per turn.

He counters with: mutual trade and research, he can use my resupply depots and he will pay me 30,000 minerals per turn. I accept.

As soon as I do that, I have to name the treaty and each item appears under that treaty name in a special "treaty window". From there I can suspend individual treaty items or cancel / re-negotiate the entire treaty.

-Shouldn't it be automatically named? (ie: You picked resupply depot loan to the Cue Cappans: CueCappan-Terran Depot Loan)

-Also, there should be a time limit to renegotiations. You wouldn't like it if I first agreed on one thing, then say something that I forgot to put in something, lets scrap the whole thing and renegotiate. Speaking of which, there should be an Addendum feature.

For example, my ally does something to annoy me so I suspend his resupply priveleges. My resupply depots are immediately unavailable to him, but trade is still enabled and I'm still receiving his regular payment until he suspends it next turn. He also suspends the trade and research items. Although they are still enabled on my side, these would require approval on both sides, so trade and research sharing grinds to a halt and our 20% trade satrts dropping down to 0%.

-Manual Withdrawl? I think it should be Automatic. Also, the trade should drop automatically and the Research sharing should drop in 5-10-15% depending on the severity of the diplomatic incident.

It's a bit complex and slower than the current system but you can see how powerful this system could be, especially in multiplayer games. By seperating the diplomatic status and indiviual treaty items you have much more control over your relations with another empire: YOu can be partners with someone, but still kick his arse for colonising within your borders. You can cut off trade to your ally without your fleets going all shoot-on-sight on him.

Of course the AI would hate it...

-Maybe generate macros for the AI?

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what I'm saying - you don't need anyone else's permission. You just say "I'm neutral/ at war with you" and the other party just has to deal with it. On the other hand, you can't say "You're my ally" if that empire doesn't share your opinion.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't need to be friends to have a treaty, but if you're not friendly then certain treaty items are unavailable. That's all I'm saying. You might trade/gift resources with your enemy, but you wouldn't share all your intelligence gathering...

Without the diplomatic status feature, there would be no more treaty grid and no mechanism for declaring war.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, you know you can have a standing order with your bank to pay the rent every month without you having to make a manual payment every four weeks... kinda like that.
Part of a treaty might be the regular payment of resources (or other commodities) to another empire. Rather than use up your one communication per turn and waste energy manually gifting X resources every turn, why not have a feature which makes the payment automatically?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Certain treaty items would be available for exchange at the war and neutral levels, just not all of them.
"Party A: We kinda need detailed information of the whereabouts of all your ships. Why can't you give it to us?"
"Party B: Sorry, but we have no diplomatic status with you. We're not gonna give that kind of information to a complete stranger. Agree to partner status and then maybe we'll talk about it."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe, but you might want to use more elaborate roleplaying treaty names. Also, I'm not talking about naming each treaty item as you've indicated above, I'm talking about naming the entire treaty, which is made up of many treaty items. The individual treaty items would be labelled with automatically- generated identifiers.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, maybe, but I think players should have the free will to misbehave, so that diplomacy can get "interesting" from time to time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You're right, I wouldn't like it, but then I'd just cancel the treaty and be more careful about trading with you in future. I'd proabably also add you to my "assimilation" list=-)

I like the addendum idea.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Those are details to be worked out. There may be times when you agree with your ally to suspend certain items, but don't want to re-negotiate a whole new treaty.

For example, I'm paying 20,000 organics per turn in exchange for 20,000 rads per turn. The same treaty also gives us trade and research, full resupply & space port sharing, intel sharing and a bunch more stuff. Suddenly my main farming planet gets plagued and I can't pay my organics. I inform my ally, suspend that one item and he can suspend his rad payment (or not, if he's feeling generous) until I'm able to pay again. With automatic treaty suspension, we'd both lose all the benfits of the treaty for the sake of one minor item.

Perhaps each player should have in their empire settings an option marked "suspend treaty automatically if ally suspends items."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is an SE5 idea anyway so maybe the AI wil be up to it by then..?

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be cool. I think a redesign of the treaty system would definitely benefit from a simultaneous redesign of the "can't attack alles, automatically attack everyone else" rule.

[ October 17, 2002, 09:26: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Semi related:
An Intell project where one of your ships guns "Accidentaly" fires at an other players ship that is in the same sector.
Diplomat: "Sorry about that, You know how those things happen So, what about your activeties in the Weltrand system?
A ship ramming would even be better.

[ October 17, 2002, 12:12: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Damn Gryphin, you are sneaky...

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Sneaky? Moi?
Why thank you dogscoff
"The Tactics of Mistake"
:: The Gryphin Grins ::

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

I think this is definitly a possibility in the near future, just another option, seems pretty straightforward for non-AI. Just UI and some hardcode for the different exchanges. But im not a programmer/game designer. BTW THIS IS A GREAT IDEA!

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Lots of great ideas here. I hope these ideas are considered for SE5.

Another position that seems obvious to me is thus:

No Treaty: Ships/units may engage in space combat, but planets are not attacked.

War: Required for attacking planets.

This should be relatively easy to implement. I expect that some folks may argue otherwise, but in my opinion, exterminating planets is an act of WAR, plain and simple. If you wish to frag or invade a planet and capture/wipe out all life, you should have the cahonas to declare war in order to do it.

This change would create a logical level of combat (No-Treaty) for "actions short of war."

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Stonemill,

It's not a bad idea, but it strikes me an an uneccesary complication for very little in return. The same can be accomplished now by simply not moving your ships into a sector with a planet of a race you don't have a treaty with. With your two level treaty you would in effect be blockading the planet, which is pretty much an act of war in itself.

I would like to see some refinements to the ship strategies though. For one it would be nice to be able to set the ship strategy for individual ships, rather than only for all ships. And "Dont' get hurt" is a little weak. A better stategy option would be "defensive posture" or something like that. Where your ship would not attack another ship or planet unless it made hostile moves towards it. Rather than run for the corner it would move forward or backwards in a logical tactical manner, but only in a limited amount of space on the caombat map. It's not really a treaty, but this would help prevent the planet glassing you talked about.

Geoschmo

[ October 21, 2002, 15:46: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Hi Geo-

I really disagree. The change does have many plability payoffs. It forces empires who are engaging in warlike activities to suffer from the long term population disgruntlement (which is currently only attached to the state of war) IIRC.

This will absolutely allow for effective use of blockades and make it a favorable tactic.

Blockading is an action short of war. It is not war. There are many many historical examples to demonstrate that blockading is a tactic used outside of the scope of war: Cuban Missile Crisis, Desert Storm/Iraq actions, and all sort of 1700-1900 naval operations.

Admittedly, it often leads to war... but it is a tactic most often used outside of war... used to coerce, weaken, or strongarm an enemy without wiping them out.

In SEIV, I never intentionally blockade. By the time I can clear 100+ mines, I'm either taking the planet or wiping them out.

Re: New Treaty: Cease-fire
 

Sorry to change topic

I would like treaties to be private or public.

Ie on the treaty grid players see empire a and b have a non-agression public treaty and in private they have a military alliance...

Back to topic