What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!

[apoger]

>I think if we just had an option to give provinces to other players, the game would be much more dynamic.

I'd agree with that.

I'd also like to see some sort of non-aggression stance that would allow armies to travel across non-friendly provinces. Armies can already double occupy a province due to stealth, so the functionality is already in the game.

These two things togther could easily form the foundation of a simple diplomatic system that wouldn't be too complicated to implement and would greatly enhance the players options.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Taqwus:
- Sharing of map. Partial or whole, hm? The ability to lie here could be amusing, too.

- Sharing of scouting reports, e.g. current estimates of enemy army sizes. "Our scouts report that... Caelum scouts report that..." et al in the province information. Perhaps should have a "we're lying; exaggerate/minimize by this much" slider.

- Gem trading/item trading. An item/gem exchange might be pushing it, 'tho. ("Fire gems up 0.05 to 1.85 Astral, Caulrons of Broth down to 30 Astral, et al"). Heh.

Both of these are good. I especially like the global stock exchange... "Blood slaves! Get your young & saucy blood slaves! Free manacles with every order!"

Hahaha... seriously, I like automated trading systems. The one in Earth 2025 (partner game to Utopia) had such a system, where you could put tanks, planes, technology levels, or whatever on the international market - at any price you chose. Any buyer could place an order for tanks (specifying a certain maximum that he would pay) and then he would automatically buy the lowest-priced tanks currently on the market. Supply and demand worked really well there...

-Cherry

[Nerfix]

Lying?
YES!
I want a diplo system where YOU can actualy lie!

The global market idea is also good...

I know this is from old post from usenet, but perhaps having two friendly armies together in same province would cause unrest in the province and detoriate Dominion localy. I can see not-so-few bored soldiers getting themselves drunk and doing things... And you aren't so "tough" god if you let the enemies of the faith to stay in your land, even if the "enemies" would be allies.

Perhaps all non-hostile diplomatic actions could give you a sligth Dominion penalty. Afterall, you are dealing with enemies of the faith.

[ October 15, 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by apoger:
>I think if we just had an option to give provinces to other players, the game would be much more dynamic.

I'd agree with that.

I knew you would ;-)

I'd also like to see some sort of non-aggression stance that would allow armies to travel across non-friendly provinces.

Hem, unless these 2 armies are both sneaking, the said province can't be non-friendly - one of them has to control it.

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Taqwus:
Quite a few uses of diplomacy come to mind.

- Allowing free passage through an area. Perhaps only along a path, 'tho, or in specified provinces?

- Requests for assistance. GalCiv's one of the only PC games that I know of in which an AI ally will ask for help when it's in trouble (in contrast to demanding tribute).

- Demands for tribute. Has to be handled carefully; nations which give tribute should not provoke war, and should be entitled to live without further provocation in turn.

- Sharing of map. Partial or whole, hm? The ability to lie here could be amusing, too.

- Sharing of scouting reports, e.g. current estimates of enemy army sizes. "Our scouts report that... Caelum scouts report that..." et al in the province information. Perhaps should have a "we're lying; exaggerate/minimize by this much" slider.

- Gem trading/item trading. An item/gem exchange might be pushing it, 'tho. ("Fire gems up 0.05 to 1.85 Astral, Caulrons of Broth down to 30 Astral, et al"). Heh.

An ongoing gem-trading treaty could help, e.g. every turn A sends a certain set of gems to B in exchange for a similar allotment.

- Perhaps agreements on future targets? e.g. if two nations could both soon conquer a number of independent provinces between them, deciding who takes who to eliminate the chance of accidentally starting a war. This could be supplemented or enforced by a non-aggression pact which would cause mutual withdrawal rather than a battle if they do both attack the same.

Could also be stated as "sphere of influence".

A lot of this might be fairly hard to do, without resorting to the usual "AIs gang up on Humans/main threat" deal. Some of the mechanics would still be helpful for MP, e.g. not having to manually type out army estimates on a shared foe.

I'm really in favour of diplomacy, but I think most of these things would add too much . I think it might make the game into a diplomacy game, from being a tactical strategy game.

I do think that being able to allow passage through an area would be ok - but I'd be ok without it too.

The problem behind any game in which you have full-blown diplomacy between human players and the AI is that the AI is always formulaic in it's approach. It's just a matter of figuring out what will satisfy it in order to get it off your back. It goes back to the old standard for any true AI - have a computer dialogue with a human, and another human dialogue with a human, and you have a true AI when the human can't tell which is which. We're just not there. Therefore any full-blown diplomatic system will be shallow and facile.

I voted for diplo being added in the other thread, but what I had in mind was much more simple - having a way of figuring out how much an AI nation likes/loathes you and being able to alter this by giving money/gems etc. I believe that if you want more diplo than this there's a very simple solution: play multiplayer!

p.s. no offense intended to you Taqwus. I am replying to your post just because I think what you wrote is what people have in mind/are agreeing with.

[Mortifer]

Well if something like 'giving provinces to other players' will be added, there must be further options like scale for the relationship with the AI [-100 is the worst 100 is the best], option for alliance etc.

Giving provinces is only good for MP..

If you ask me, that best would be an option like: Turn ON/OFF diplomacy.
Than everyone would be happy.

[ October 15, 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Well if something like 'giving provinces to other players' will be added, there must be further options like scale for the relationship with the AI [-100 is the worst 100 is the best], option for alliance etc.

Giving provinces is only good for MP..

True, but then again I don't feel concerned about SP that much, as long as MP has all the features I want. I'd like a fully functional battle simulator better than a full-fledged AI.

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
I'd like a fully functional battle simulator better than a full-fledged AI.

I couldn't agree more

[johan osterman]

Instead of a fully functional battle simulator you will recieve no battle simulator at all, less is more. So no simulator at all is a whole lot of simulator.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Instead of a fully functional battle simulator you will recieve no battle simulator at all, less is more. So no simulator at all is a whole lot of simulator.

I couldn't agree more