Was going to buy the game and then!

[Ballbarian]

The way CTP handled most diplomacy was with treaties. "No Trespassing" being one of my favorites. Would stop the enemy from exploring in your territory. Breaking treaties affected your standing with other ai nations in the world as well, but that wouldn't always stop the ai from doing like a human and breaking the treaty if he saw you as weak. I guess a dominions twist on that would be to sign a no trespassing treaty then scout cautiously, because then if your scout is revealed/caught you've just broken your treaty and will find future diplomacy more difficult potentially making your nation the target of all the others.

That's just one example.

[Cainehill]

Not to mention that the ... insanity of the current AI mechanism essentially completely ruins the SP game for many of us. The way AI nations declare war on the human player, for no reason, while they're on the opposite side of the map with no contact, is ludicrous, especially when it happens even when the human player has the smallest, most backwards of nations (it'd be a little different if the human was in the lead and could possibly be perceived as a threat by the AI nation).

Add to this the way the AI gets to cheat by lobbing remote spells when they should have _no_ idea where the human player is, and you have a situation where it's way too frustrating to consider even a test game involving Caelum, Abyssia, Man, or other nations with easy access to seeking arrow, fires from afar, etc because even on a 300+ province map, you're getting mages killed remotely by turn 10 or 15.

[magnate]

I think strategy game AIs have to cheat to be at all competitive. I'm not saying I like it, but it's part of the price of a decent SP strategy game. Even GalCiv's much vaunted humanlike AI (where designer Brad Wardell said "you're effectively playing against me") has to start with a fully-explored starmap to be competitive. I think Cainehill's point is a good one though - the AI abuses of artillery spells could be toned down a bit on larger maps.

The point about ridiculous declarations of war is a better one though. The AI ought to grade the threat of the human player pretty much the same as those of the other AIs, with a little added on for ingenuity. But a human player who is ranked 16th in terms of army strength, income, research and provinces should not be the one whom the AI chooses to attack (unless I directly threaten its capital or something). Similarly, it is not sensible for a relatively weak AI nation to declare war on a strong human player.

The diplomacy interface should also allow you to find out who is at war with whom. This is something you can sometimes infer from the score graphs, but it would be good to be able to find out by scouting (so you can then influence it!).

CC

[Gargoyle]

There is no purpose to worrying about Declarations of War! Who cares. The objective is to eliminate ALL other pretenders anyway. You are effectively at war with all of them on turn one. Do you declare war on them? No. You just go about taking there land!

As for artillery spells, do you know for sure the AI isn't sending hiding units out to your domain to fire them? And if it can be explained in this manor it could be looked at a an exceptable AI cheat.

[Saarud]

Don't trash SP completely. I know that most active people on this board prolly play more MP than SP. But I bet the majority of those buying the game probably play more SP than MP. I am one of those. Even if you would be able to be in 3 stances with other nation (Allied, Neutral or War) I think that would be a major addition.

[Gargoyle]

In responce to the initial subject- "Was going to buy the game and then!"

Every game I buy has major AI problems. Hearts of Iron 2, Rome: Total War, World at War, Battles in Normandy, etc.

I would say the Dominions 2 probably has the most competitive and realistic AI of any game I've played. Is it perfect, no, but neihter are humans.

[Nerfix]

I think that the lack of diplomacy will scare a lot of players away but such features are propably tertiary concerns to the devs. Such a small team propably has to set some strick paths when adding new features...

I think the AI is a bit lacking - programming it to use the same exploits/"exploits" as humans use would make it a lot better.

[Gargoyle]

Nerfix said:

I think the AI is a bit lacking - programming it to use the same exploits/"exploits" as humans use would make it a lot better.

Well in SP I don't use exploits. I just follow sound strategy. But sound strategy may be what the AI will never be able to do.

[PvK]

I have had just as much fun playing the AI as playing humans (i.e., tons of fun both ways). A really good diplomatic AI the could be interesting, though I've almost never seen a good diplomatic AI (get Chris Crawford...). Better support for scripting scenarios with alliances with AI players could be neat, though.

PvK

[PvK]

Irrelevant declarations of war by remote nations do happen frequently, but if that "ruins the SP game" for someone, I see little hope such players will ever be satisfied. As was said, the scenario is everyone's hostile anyway.

I have seen some remote spells hitting in surprising places, but it never seemed impossible they were scouted, nor to be a major problem - the AI uses them less frequently and less effectively than humans can and often do. Moreover, it's not cheating to fire remote spells randomly at the world. It's not perfect, but where's the problem?

PvK