MOO3

[Talenn]

I've enjoyed SE4 since it came out (and SE3 before that). I will buy MOO3 when (if?) it comes out. I expect to enjoy that as well.

One thing I truly hope that MOO3 does better than SE4 is, indeed, the Diplomacy. In SE4 it is worse than useless. I'm not even convinced that it is implemented. It doesnt appear to do a blessed thing.

I was showing a new player the game and he was thrilled by all of the options in Diplomacy. He was at war with one race and he went through all of his allies and asked them to break their agreements with that race etc. They all agreed and some agreed to attack that race as well (some to the effect of "Together we will destroy the Piundon".) But looking at the relations the next turn and they all still have Partnerships with the enemy... And it happened repeatedly. He became very disenchanted with the game at that point.

IMO, there is no reason to even included diplomacy features in the game if they arent going to do anything. All it does is frustrate players. About the only things that appear to work are the treaties. And even they are just an exchange of points. There are no 'alliances' in the game that I can see. I've never seen a race raise a hand to help in a war (that wasnt inadvertant) and I've never seen them sever relations even when they are requested to and agreed to.

The truly annoying thing about this to me is that it really wouldnt be that hard to fix. Just have those agreements to break relations be MANDATORY and have a period of time (10 turns maybe?) where they cant establish relations again above maybe Non-Aggression. If they agree to 'declare war', the declaration should be there for a minimum amount of turns as well.

At any rate, that completes my rant on diplomacy in SE4. I think it only really bugs me now because it cost me a potential player in my area. I had more or less just ignored it since a week into playing as I had dismissed it as a waste of time. But after watching him try it and become frustrated, I was reminded just how inane it really was.

Talenn

[jimbob]

quote:

---

The truly annoying thing about this to me is that it really wouldnt be that hard to fix. Just have those agreements to break relations be MANDATORY and have a period of time (10 turns maybe?) where they cant establish relations again above maybe Non-Aggression. If they agree to 'declare war', the declaration should be there for a minimum amount of turns as well.

---

Well, that looks like it's easy enough to fix (though it might be a hardcode thing, so none of us will be fixing it). It would add a great deal to the game too - if the mandatory length of war footing is long enough, you'd definitely get the desired results. The only problem is that you may need to modify how AI respond to requests by allies for help in war; quick affirmative responses could make for a foolish AI.

Should we petition that something like this be added/changed?

[Phoenix-D]

I would say no. No need to cripple human vs. human politics to deal with the AS.

Phoenix-D

[oleg]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I would say no. No need to cripple human vs. human politics to deal with the AS.

Phoenix-D

---

Human vs. human will survive, don't worry. To have chalenging and belivable AI is paramaunt to any strategic computer game success. It does not mater how voiceforus are proponents of "humans only" games. Compare the number of total SE IV sales with number of PBW members or number of this forum regulars. If it will make human vs. AI more interesting, by any means, go for it !

[ 08 May 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]

[Phoenix-D]

"Human vs. human will survive, don't worry."

I had a recent game that was a bit complicated in turns of politics. There was a treaty change or relations change almost every other turn! This proposed change would not allow that.

If done, it should apply ONLY to games with the AI, and be disableable. Enforcing a "no backstabbing" rule IMO is a very stupid thing anyway.

Phoenix-D

[Talenn]

Phoenix-D:

Its not a question of enforcing a 'no backstabbing' deal. Its a question of whether or not the AI is even WORKING with regards to it's diplomacy.

Tell me, what is the point of having all of these options available and have none of them actually do anything? All it does it give the impression that either that game is bugged, or that taking the time to use the diplomacy feature is a waste of time. To your average single player SE4 player, its a detriment to the game, not a benefit.

I would have no qualm at all with the AI if it simply refused your offers and demands, but when it agrees to a request, it should happen. Its the same as if it agreed to a Trade Agreements, but you never collect any money from it...whats the point of having the feature if it doesnt work?

With regards to HUMAN players, I agree that anything should go. They are free to do as they please with one (IMO, important) exception: If there is a diplomatic 'hit' for refusing an AI demand, the human player should suffer it if they dont follow through on an agreement with the AI. Nothing is sillier than having an AI player demanding that you break a treaty with another and having the player AGREE to the deal, get diplomatic points with that race for agreeing, and then not doing it (and suffering no reprecussions). This is just plain exploitation of the diplomacy system and should be removed IMO.

Let me try and quantify it:

Lets say that relations between Human Empire 'X' and AI Empire 'Y' are at 100 points (number picked out of the air for point of example). Ok, now lets say that when the number gets to say, 50, the AI will break Trade off with the player, and at 30, it will declare war. Now lets assume that when the AI makes a 'demand' that agreeing to it gives you, say, 10 points and refusing takes away 20.

Using that basis, the AI demands that you break treaty with another race. You agree, get the 10 points (upping you to 110). You welsh on the agreement and dont do it. Two turns later, the AI sees the treaty and again demands its removal. Again, you agree, get your 10 points (to 120) and ignore your agreement. Continue ad nauseum.

So now, instead of having steadily worsening relations with the AI for rebuffing their demands (and approaching the 'War threshold'), they are happily 'Brotherly' with you and agreeing to all kinds of Trade and Research etc. And it never changes because the AI doesnt 'know' it is being double screwed.

What happens here is TOTAL suspension of disbelief that the AI is another Race out there. At least MOO and MOO2 gave the ILLUSION that your diplomatic efforts and faux pas actually MEANT something.

Finally, if you want an AI (and a system) that is capable of 'backstabbing' on an agreement, the game should be changed so that it isnt quite so easy to monitor the agreements. Its just far to easy to see compliance via the 'Treaty Grid' screen. If they are supposed to be 'covertly lying to me', at least game mechanics should require me to find that information out on my own rather than blatantly flaunting that the diplomatic efforts accomplish nothing.

Sorry for the dissertation, but this is just, IMO, one of the absolute weakest points of the SE4 single-player experience.

Talenn

[TerranC]

Yes, the diplomacy is lacking in this: but really, diplomacy lacks in all games.

An Example:

In Age of Empires: there is NO diplomacy. I've tried to talk to the AI's believe me. All they say are useless chatters, even ones allied to me.

Sid Meyer's Civilization: I have not played this game *yet* but from what I've heard, it's not like talking, rather like sign language.

Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri: This is like talking to a person actually, when you begin. After a little while, after you become the superpower, everybody begins to declare war on you for not giving you technology, having a specific Social choice, not giving you money, or just for the heck of it (!).

Space Empires: It gets boring with the diplomacy, but they respond, and it must be the only game I have seen with the choice of "General Message"