Game Diplomacy vs Real Diplomacy

Armageddon · #1 February 1st, 2001, 08:55 AM

I'm sure you are all sick of me crying about the poor diplomatic model, but I had a thought today that I wanted to share.

After some thought, I realized one of the most serious problems with most computer diplomacy. Wars go on forever. In reality, most wars Last for very short times. Even Ancient Era wars had distinct ends before hostiles sparked up again. A war is fought, someone loses and territory or other assets are exhanged.

In most computer games (Civ, SE4, etc) wars tend to go on until one side or the other ceases to exist. This is fine sometimes, but it gets rather old. I would prefer to see more limited wars, with one empire capturing a city or planet or system and then forcing the enemy to surrender the current conflict, and make concessions. As it is, wars start and then tend to go on forever, thus eliminating any chance for diplomacy and trade to resume.

In SE4, if an enemy (or you) realizes you are going to lose, you should be able to simply sue for peace. Then, the 'victor' could propose a treaty and terms. If you sign it, the war would end and trade could resume, with a normalization of relations. If you refused, the war would continue, and if you were in really bad shape, you would be destroyed.

It is rare that games impose any sort of penalty for these wars that never end. Call to Power has the various alert levels, which are a great idea and should be emulated by other developers. It allows you to maintain a large army at reduced cost and effectiveness. SE4 allows mothballing, which helps, but it still often leans towards eternal wars due to the stupidity of the AI.

Basically, I want to see more detailed diplomacy. Having complicated treaties would be a great deal of fun and would be more realistic. The 'death or glory' attitude of the AI is just silly. If a species is facing utter extinction or conquest, it would sue for peace unless, like a few races, it belives in death before defeat. Most races, which are less warlike, would be likely to attempt to bargain.

Mod Makers- If anyone can add in better diplomacy, I would be eternally grateful. Simply manipulation of the data files seems to do nothing for me. I have altered the MEE status and even tried to 'cheat' by giving huge anger reductions for even simple actions like general Messages, but to no avail. The AI still behaves like a complete loon in diplomatic talks.

------------------
--Armageddon
"Ernest Hemmingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.' I agree with the later."

Morgan Freeman
Seven

SunDevil · #2 February 1st, 2001, 04:56 PM

Have you tried my mod yet? I've updated all the default races to act like their race description. Give them a try, and let me know what you think of them.

Armageddon · #3 February 2nd, 2001, 02:08 AM

Hm, no. I'll take a look. Where can I get it? Thanks!

------------------
--Armageddon
"Ernest Hemmingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.' I agree with the later."

Morgan Freeman
Seven

[This message has been edited by Armageddon (edited 02 February 2001).]

jonas · #4 February 2nd, 2001, 04:22 AM

I agree with Armageddon, particularly about the wars. Many computer games assume that war is always going to be Total War as was practiced in World War Two -- that wasn't going to end until one side or the other was utterly defeated. Same with the American Civil War. But that's not your typical war, particularly amongst Great Powers operating amidst colonies, which is what all Galactic Conquest games are closer to than anything else. Limited wars, usually over one key system, would be more realistic, and only once in a while should conflict become a fight to the death.

Armageddon · #5 February 2nd, 2001, 04:25 AM

Exactly. This is Imperialism on a galactic scale after all. I think it would be far more tense, dramatic, and exciting if huge, galaxy wide wars were rare, and only followed from a line of negotiations, trades, threats, and skirmishes. That way, the buildup to these wars would be far more exciting and would be a much more important event.

------------------
--Armageddon
"Ernest Hemmingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.' I agree with the later."

Morgan Freeman
Seven

Barnacle Bill · #6 February 2nd, 2001, 07:08 PM

In the latest Starfire rules, they have rules for the "AI" that create several levels of war. This basically determines how many systems the "AI" tries to grab before looking for a peace treaty. Other rules cover how much they will lose before looking for a peace treaty, and takes into account other wars, etc...

BTW, the American Civil War was not one "that wasn't going to end until one side or the other was utterly defeated". The North was fighting to utterly defeat the South, but the South was just fighting to get the North to go away. The North could have had peace at any time, just for the asking, by granting Southern indepenence. Had the South utterly destroyed the Union army, they had no intension or desire to annex the North to the CSA, just to gain independence from the USA.