Diplomacy woes...again...1.19 - Page 2

AAshbery76 · #11 December 28th, 2000, 02:25 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Nyx:
Some of these issues oversimplify the situation. Let's say that you demand your ally make peace with a third race and they agree to do so. What if the third race is unwilling to end the war? Should your ally be forced to surrender if that is the only peace the third party is willing to accept?

Or what about this scenario: Most of us move first in single player games. What if you demand the Krill make peace with the Abbidon, and in their turn they do so. Then the Abbidon go and declare war again on the Krill. When it comes around to your turn you'd think the Krill agreed to your terms and then never acted on them.

Enforced diplomacy can have all kinds of negative side effects too. Like when one player chooses a permanent effect in return for a temporary one. For example, give me some technology and I'll give you a peace treaty. Then right after I receive your technology I declare war on you again. Is this any better a situation? Do you honestly think the AI can handle this level of diplomacy?

Well they shouldnt of put the depth of diplomacy in the game in the first place should they. The only problem im getting in diplomacy is when im allied to race a, race a
got a trade treaty with race b, who i am at war with ,i ask race a to stop trade treaty with race b they agree, nothing happens.

Puke · #12 December 28th, 2000, 02:29 AM

quote:
Originally posted by A ASHBERY:
The only problem im getting in diplomacy is when im allied to race a, race a
got a trade treaty with race b, who i am at war with ,i ask race a to stop trade treaty with race b they agree, nothing happens.

Ya know, I hear people complain that there are no penalties for ignoring AI treaty requests, then people say that the AI agrees to their requests and does not follow through. Looks to me like the AI uses the same loopholes, so everythings balanced and nothing needs fixing. whats the problem?

AAshbery76 · #13 December 28th, 2000, 02:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
Ya know, I hear people complain that there are no penalties for ignoring AI treaty requests, then people say that the AI agrees to their requests and does not follow through. Looks to me like the AI uses the same loopholes, so everythings balanced and nothing needs fixing. whats the problem?

Im happy for you, you never need to load a patch again because the games perfect in your eyes and doesnt need improving. well done.

Talenn · #14 December 28th, 2000, 07:28 AM

Puke:

Well, I'm assuming you were kidding, but in case you arent...

Its a necessary part of the game IMO. Sure, people should be able to reneg on their agreements if they want, but it SHOULD have a diplomatic effect on other treaty attempts etc. If there is no penalty, then diplomacy is worthless. Why bother having agreements with no enforcement and with the aI having no 'memory' of previous (or current!) treaties? Why have a 'Military Alliance' when there is no military support? It seems to me that all the treaties are simply to generate points and to prevent accidentally fragging each other's ships. They run no deeper than that from what I can tell. That leave the whole interaction with other races feeling a little bit flat.

And, its silly to believe that because the AI 'benefits' from the same loophole as the player that its balanced. Suppose a loophole appeared where you could effective get unlimited resource points from some simple action. Even if the AI can do it to its NOT fun to play and defeats other aspects of the game. Same thing here. No rational diplomacy model=game with nothing but combat. IMO 4X games are supposed to give you the immersive feeling of Empires allying and warring on others etc. If you cant do that, much of the 'flavor' of the game goes out the door IMO.

Seawolf:

Yep, I'm pretty sure that it IS being worked on.

I just want to point out my observations and opinions on the matter. I'd like to see it be covered in the next update if possible and I'm trying to discover if others are seeing the same types of behavior. If they are, and if others consider it an important part of the game as well, then that give MM a bit more guidance as to where to focus their efforts.

Talenn

[This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 28 December 2000).]

Voidhawk · #15 December 28th, 2000, 07:47 AM

My vote is cast: Improved diplomacy for the next patch!

I'm reading through the experiences everyone has had in dealing with the AI, nodding my head the whole way. Been there, done that, got the coffee mug.

Aside from the few minor bugs that I'm sure still need to be rooted out, I would be totally happy if the next patch was dedicated 100% to nothing but diplomacy fixes and more diverse AI personalities. Just the few tweaks MM did on the AI for 1.19 ramped up the fun factor considerably *hint hint*...

Seawolf · #16 December 28th, 2000, 05:50 PM

Void,

There are more pressing issues with SE IV.

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

AAshbery76 · #17 December 28th, 2000, 06:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
Void,

There are more pressing issues with SE IV.

Whats are the more pressing issues then.In my veiw diplomacy is vital to gameplay and roleplaying.

Nyx · #18 December 28th, 2000, 07:12 PM

I think the biggest thing that should be changed in diplomacy is a problem with the whole strategy game genre: Neither the AI nor the human players understand the concept of a limited war.

In TBS games, everything is treated like the frikkin' hundred years war. A constant state of war with no specific goals, just fight, fight, fight. There are no games short of battle recreations where a war has a limited goal and ends when those goals have been met.

Why is it that when I go to war with the Krill, we're not fighting for control over one system, but it's a genocidal conflict? Is it really too much to ask to have just one game that understands the idea of a limited conflict and have the war end when that conflict is resolved?

An interesting problem with the AI and military alliances is that with the new anger files they get angry if you have ships in thier sectors even if you're a miitary ally, so if you try to come to their aid against an enemy they get pissed and break the alliance.

Puke · #19 December 28th, 2000, 07:40 PM

umm, yeah.. i was very kidding below.

but as for a limited war, I think the whole "border" and "contested system" Idea is a great one, and a good step in that direction. I think that it may even be possible to implement the concept of limited warfare in seiv if there were a mechanism to exchange controll of a system (its a trade or gift option.. maybe trade a system for a non-aggression treaty?) and end a conflict. The AI might not go to war unless there are contested systems (or human aggressor), and might limit attacks to the contested system.

maybe WAR could be changed to 'border war' and 'total war' treaty status, and border war could be defined as war over any systems listed as contested. if the human player crosses the lines into a non contested system in a border war, maybe the AI would send a message or the game would pop-up a 'are you sure you want to enter that system' message, and the AI would be like: "you prick, now im going to call a total war on you, and your reputation with the other AIs is going to decrease. i hate you, and your little doggie too!"

or something like that. but even in a limited fashion, I think it is do-able if MM has the time or desire.

Repo Man · #20 December 28th, 2000, 08:12 PM

Now this is a topic close to my greedy repo heart

,limited wars. My favorite, and perhaps the best grand strategy game ever designed is Empire in Arms. For those of you who never played, it is a cardboard and paper game of the Napoleonic wars, 1805 to 1815. The reason I bring this game up here is its treaty system which would work perfectly in SEIV.

In EiA, you cannot attack without a declaration of war. That rule could be adopted in some form.

Peace can be arrived at either on consent, or by suing for peace. One side in a war has the option to sue for peace once per turn. The other side then responds with either an unconditional surrender or a conditional surrender. A conditional surrender must be accepted, while an unconditional surrender may be rejected. A conditional surrender, if I remember correctly, allowed the winning side to pick two peace terms, while an unconditional surrender allowed the winning side to pick three peace terms from an expanded list of terms (such as lost territory, occupation of the nation, higher reparations than from the conditional treaty chart).

As far as I know, EiA is out of print due to the demise of Avalon Hill, but will probably be reinstated as the New AH grows. However, if anyone is interested in reading an unofficial rule rewrite, it is available at www.empiresinharm.com.

Such a system could be the inspiration for a fairly simple treaty system, as most of the pieces are already in place. Ceding systems, planets, tribute, protectorate and subjection status, gifts and so forth are all elements which could be part of a treaty system.