MOO3

[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"

[Phoenix-D]

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."

?

Phoenix-D

[comisar]

Lacking in diplomacy is one thing. Not having any is another. SEIV might as well have no diplomacy. There is absolutly nothing that can be accomplished in SEIV by the use of diplomacy.

[PvK]

Well, a lot of the "promises" in diplomacy with SE4 AI's don't seem to really work. Until they do (or, assuming they won't) it would make sense to set all of the AI's to just ignore Messages it can't respond to, and/or to send appropriate refusals. This can be modded, though it'd be a bunch of work - maybe Suicide Junkie would be willing to adjust his AI modder to do this.

However there is quite a bit that can be accomplished with diplomacy with the AI. As I mentioned in another thread, I've even tried to play games where practically the only thing I allow myself to do is diplomacy (this makes a very fast game, and is not meaningless).

Diplomacy determines two very important things:

* Trade, which can multiply resource production, resources, intel, and knowledge.

* Hostility - who fights with whom.

It also determines other things, such as sharing of resupply depots.

Gifts and trade can be used to make up for resource imbalances and therefore keep production and maintenance flowing. It can also lead to vital tech gains (the most powerful of which might be trade for colonization technology, which of course can be a huge advantage). Gifts and trades can also be used to beef up an allied AI with your own designs, techs, resources, and production. It can also allow you to "fight" nations without declaring war on them, by gifting warships to aliens who are at war with them, while you maintain friendly relations.

PvK

[jimbob]

I agree with PvK, there are a lot of useful possibilities presented in the diplomacy screen - for me the most useful is the "trading" of resources and technologies.

However, I do have to agree that it's annoying to strong arm a long-time ally into helping you fight an enemy, only to find out that the ally is doing nothing to help! A few simple hardcode changes would likely solve the problem (ie. if AI agrees to break treaty, then break treaty for 10 turns; if AI agrees to declare war, then declare war and reject peace-treaties for 10 turns).

Perhaps the AI could be moded to even negotiate the length of the term of the agreement.

It could become more complex of course. And this is what we all are hoping for. The AI could be programmed to respond with many different responses - and as long as it does them, then the coding efforts would be worthwhile:

"Hmmmm... a long term war with the B'Jong would be costly. We would be willing to declare war for 10 months instead of the 30 months that you propose"

Or

"Declare war on the B'Jong?! They've been our allies since the birth of the Grak Nork. But for 100 000 kT of minerals and your Sheild Generation 3 technology we would be willing to break our trade agreements with them"

Or

"Declare war on the B'Jong?! Perhaps if we were to punitively sanction them by giving you some of our war ships instead?"

just my $Cdn 0.02


edit - of course the human player would have to be held to his/her agreements with other players, otherwise we're right back to square one with the AI abuse

I suppose if we were to get really fancy we could make various diplomatic options unavailable at the diplomacy screen for the duration of the players "agreements". That is, if you make an agreement with Alien1 to go to war with Alien2 for 30 months, then you would have a greyed out button when it came to entering into diplomatic relations with Alien2 until the 30 months was up.

Or, you could start up normal relations with Alien2 again, but you'd be warned that if Alien1 finds out, your relations with Alien1 will go right down the tubes (say -20 points for backstabbing).

That's 2 more of those Canadian coppers for ya

[ 09 May 2002: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[oleg]

I think it might be usefull to create a new thread about SE IV diplomacy and revert this thread to its original purpose: to articulate why somebody would like to buy SE IV when Moo3 is on horizon.

Personally, I think SEIV is far superior to Moo3.
The reason is simple: Moo3 is a rigid, uncustomizable hybrid of RTS/TBS (this is my impression upon visiting Moo3 web site). SE IV is not simply a game, it is a lego set to make your own Universe the way you like and then add every single piece of Sci-Fi you like.