Diplomacy, limited wars, etc...

Tenryu · #1 February 9th, 2001, 04:10 AM

Bill,

Add another to the wish list. I'd love to see ground combat a wee bit more 'tactical' too.

Seawolf · #2 February 9th, 2001, 04:44 AM

Guys,

Tactial combat would make the game alot longer to play and is beyond the scope of the game currently.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

Armageddon · #3 February 9th, 2001, 05:00 AM

Seawolf-

That may be true, but whats wrong with wishing? Considering that this game is SUPPOSED to be long and detailed, what would be the problem with adding additional depth?

Your right that it would be hard to implement, but there are lots of modders out there...who knows? Someone might get ambitious!

As a member of the Army, I can only identify with all of the space-navy stuff to a small extent...I for one would like to see these big 4X games give the groundsloggers like myself their due.

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

Morgan Freeman
Seven

Tenryu · #4 February 9th, 2001, 05:30 AM

Seawolf, LOL!!!! We are NEVER satisfied! That is why an aweful lot of us are Modding, don't ya know.

grumble grumble 'beyond the scope' bah humbug!

raynor · #5 February 9th, 2001, 07:57 AM

I'm with Seawolf. I think the focus should be on other areas and leave troop combat alone--other than fixing the bugs in it.

Nitram Draw · #6 February 10th, 2001, 02:46 AM

I agree with Barnacle Bill. I would like to see some "ground rules" , for lack of a better term, for conquest and diplomacy.
If you conquor a planet it should take some time to come over to your side. Maybe leaving troops/ships would speed the process.
I also would like top see some rules concerning surrender.
You can stay at war forever without penalty. This does not make sense.
In this game you can surrender and then one turn later attack the same player. There is no benefit to accepting a surrender if you are winning the war.
There should be some way of placing terms are binding on a surrender.
There also should be guidelines for subjection and protectorate.
I think some of this is to be addressed in the next patch. I hope so.

rdouglass · #7 February 9th, 2001, 03:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
I agree with Barnacle Bill. I would like to see some "ground rules" , for lack of a better term, for conquest and diplomacy.
If you conquor a planet it should take some time to come over to your side.....

I agree completely with upgrading / revamping the diplomacy models, but as to the conquering and planets "coming over" I have different experiences. They don't go so easily for me...

I'm currently playing a large game, low tech, max AI, low bonus, high dif and have forced the first AI I encountered to surrender by turn 70. Once they surrendered, all conquered planets instantly rioted. I abandoned at least 1 planet per rioting system and put my own colony and pop on said planet (Jubiliant) and Emergency built Urban Pac Center III's and Med Lab III's (increases happines for Organic Tech) and have a fleet of at least 5 Attack ships in each and every system that is rioting. I do not have any troops (I don't use 'em often) but do have many troops "inherited" during acquisition of said empire on numerous conquered planets.

It is now approx. turn 105 (35 turns later) and there is still more than 80% of planets rioting. All of my original population is Jub or Happy but the surrendering pop is all Rioting or Angry. The thing that get's me is the surrendering empire was a bunch of wussy "peaceful politicians". Shouldn't they roll over and play dead???