Game Diplomacy vs Real Diplomacy

[Armageddon]

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]

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]

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