Game Diplomacy vs Real Diplomacy

[Armageddon]

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]

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.

[raynor]

I think the idea of a limited war over just a single system is a good idea in theory. But I wonder if the current AI could ever pull it off?

For example, let's say that there is one system which the AI really, really wants. Once it has captured the system, and you haven't otherwise angered them, then the AI might be willing to agree to a peace treaty.

But would the AI be smart enough to limit its attacks to just that one system. Also, would it "finish" taking the system away from you in a reasonable amount of time?

[Q]

One way to let make the AI peace would be, that if the score of the enemy has dropped to a certain percentage, the AI offers a trade: Some planets of the enemy against the peace treaty. Or a treaty of protectorate or subjugation. If the treaty is accepted the Anger level would then also have to be reduced, otherwise the AI would again declare war the very next turn.

[Armageddon]

I like that Last idea. It basically is what I am looking for. Up until the 20th century, wars were fought almost exclusively with the goal of obtaining new territories. After a war, a few provinces would be exchanged and things would settle down, with trade and diplomacy resuming. Some territories changed hands in this manner so often (Alsace-Lorraine is a perfect example) that even to this day they lack a real national identity, having been swapped about so often.

Modern conflicts tend to focus more on purely economical concessions because most nations have found that conquest is too costly, and not nearly as profitible as trade. If a power can force an enemy into a subservient position, keeping it as a market for goods, then it has created a far more profitible position than if it had simply rolled in and taken over.

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

Morgan Freeman
Seven

[Talenn]

The real reason you see this is that the game does not model a 'civilian economy'. Traditionally, the this economy is hurt by going to war, but the military econ (and growth in general) is helped by it. After a time, the civilian econ must be allowed to be restored or else people become unhappy and support for the war is lost.

The only way it could really be implemented would be some sort of bonus for being at peace or some sort of penalty for being at war. Note that this would cause even more 'peace-mongering' than the game has now and I'm not really keen on that.

Unless conquest was more beneficial and more accessible, going to war with some associated penalty would not be the best of plans IMO. Again, this is just something that the engine is not really set up to do.

The MOO2 type engine allowed for the production of 'trade goods' which increased your cash flow. While at war, you needed to be producing ships etc so 'trade goods' went out the window. This led to at least a somewhat viable reason to try and end wars...to increase your cashflow.

Given the resource system in SE4, it would be problematic to introduce mechanics that would truly allow for limited wars. I'm not saying that it would not be possible or desirable, but its prolly a good part of the reason why you see the current system of 'wars to the death'.

Talenn

[Marty Ward]

Maybe a different status could be introduced, not war but confilct. Sort of a limited war. The AI would fight this type of war over a system that was not stategically important to it. If it lost or won there would be a high chance of peace being offered or accepted.