Diplomacy

By on January 13, 2009 3:32:36 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

foxfire1234

Join Date 05/2007
+1

Didn't really see a thread dealing with this directly so I thought I'd make one!  This is dealing mostly with the AI as players given some basic tools and the ability to chat with each other (private chat of course, can't let those bear riding bearbarians know about your new war elephants!) can do the diplomacy thing naturally.

I did find a good thread on options they'd like to see for dealing inside an alliance. http://forums.elementalgame.com/335521

 

Most games have a simplified diplomacy, options to make treaties, sometimes trade things ect.  I've always found these lacking as they don't really give much in the name of options.  And the AI has always been very illogical to me. 

What I'd like to see is a way that AI players can keep track of how trustworthy a player/AI is.  If a player NEVER backstabs a friend, or engages in shady tactics I want the AI to be more likely to trust that player.  They may still want to KILL them but they are an Honorable enemy or a great and trustworthy friend. 

Example:  I have a friend or even an ally, we're gearing up for a war on a 3rd party,  If I have a low trustworthyness score my ally may keep an eye out and worry when I have a HUGE army on thier border.  While if I was very trustworthy in my dealings and actions the AI wouldn't worry as much because obviously i'm gearing up for the war... and wouldn't suddely go from being an ally to "You traitor! I see you building up your army!" and declaring war on me!

Obviously to keep players from abusing this you'd have to make it so the player had to EARN the trust of the AI, lots of battles and helping them out.  Like if AI yellow is being attacked by AI red!  You could open a diplomacy window and ask yellow if you could come and smash some of AI red's troops on yellows territory, you promise to be good!  If you then betray yellow and start raiding his supply lines then all the AI's (or maybe just the ones around as one you havn't met yet probably won't "find out") will trust you less.  And if you help yellow by destroying some (or lots) of red troops then yellow will both like and trust you more.  The other AI's (even red) will probably also trust you more though of course Red is probably going to be kinda angry that his troops were destroyed/attacked by you.  But that's another issue

 

Also I'd like options in diplomacy, Besides the normal "I'll give you X if you give me Y and Z."  While that can deffinatly be useful, I'd like to see other things like if the AI doesn't like the trade instead of going "That sucks!" it will give a counter offer!  "Well you want to give me X and C for my Y and Z, but Z is really nice so you'd also have to give me 40k gold or 20 of your +1 swords of Awsomeness that my spy...er reports say you have!"

Of course they may not trade anything especialy if you want war tech/items and you are not trustworthy or are just not well liked by that AI.

To steal an idea of the ally thread I'd like some of those options available outside of an alliance.  Say if you have at least a nonagression pack or even peace treaty. 

Example:  Yellow has helped me out some, We're not ready to be allies but red is a big threat, so we can try to coordinate between each other.  AI telling me some of his plans, Like he's going to attack Red's troops around coords X/Y in about 15 turns, and if I could help out or be ready it would be really nice.  Or I could ask for help because Red snuck some troops past my blockade of the mountain pass and i'm having trouble keeping them out.  Or you need help defending the pass to keep him from getting into your near defenceless flank.

This kind of give/take is normaly the realm of players.  Seeing the AI being able to effectivly do things like this would be awsome.  I also have an idea how hard it would be to program but why not push the envolope?  Also all this give/take could make your two sides trust each other enough that an Alliance may be formed.  In RL alliances can be formed through working together for common goals.  Not "you look nice, you gave me stuff, wanna be an ally?"

Wow, didn't realize my thread was going to be so long.  But that's a few idea's I'd like to see in some form, It's the part that always frustrated me when playing against AI,  I have wierd playing times and sometimes can only play for 10 minute's here, 30 there so multiplayer with live people is rarely an option.

Please feel free to comment!  Also any other idea's people would like to see in diplomacy with the AI or behaviors you think AI's should learn?

Rawr!

 

Locked Post 27 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2009 4:20:41 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

In the Channeler vs. Channeler (FIGHT!) thread, there's some discussion of 'honor' as something like a channeler stat that could connect to both quests and the diplo system. I had trustworthiness in mind when I typed over there, but maybe there should be a sharp distinction between being trustworthy and having a reputation for victory. Either way, I definitely agree about wanting to see the AIs act differently towards a civ that's a known backstabber vs. a civ that has never broken a formal agreement, attacked a weaker power without provocation, etc..

I also like the idea of a more complex, interactive negotiation system for trades. I suspect that coding there might be much harder than doing something to let the AIs remember whether other players break promises regularly, occasionally, or never. But I'd like to have that latter assumption corrected by any dev-type, Stardock or otherwise.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2009 4:50:24 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

A reputation for Victory would also be really nice.  That could easily be something seperate the AI keeps an eye on.  Do you REALLY want to team up with someone who looses all the time?

 

So Ai could have stats for how much they like/dislike you based on past actions and competition for resources, Honor for how trustworthy you are and Valor, your ability to win the conflicts you get into vs your losses.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2009 5:30:53 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting ,
This kind of give/take is normaly the realm of players.  Seeing the AI being able to effectivly do things like this would be awsome.

It wouldn't be awesome, what is wrong with you? It would be awesome. In fact I think that such a capable diplomacy system could single-handedly make the game.

I want to see every one of the features you mentioned in your post, plus more. Another feature I'd like to have is the ability to trade intelligence. For example, Player A and Player B are at war with each other, and Player C is neutral; but Player C's empire is situated such that he actually has a very good view of what's happening in Player B's territory. Players A and C make a deal so that Player C provides Player A with all the information it has about Player B in return for something else. The result is kind of like a limited one-sided sharing of LoS; Player A sees everything owned by Player B that Player C can see, including cities, armies, shards, you name it.

Another thing I'd like to see is the ability to trade magic. I don't mean trading essence or mana or anything, but being able to cast spells as part of a diplomatic deal. So I'll be able to offer to cast Fertile Fields for another player in exchange for a constant supply of bears.

And yet another thing I want to see is the ability to lease things. For example if I have an ally who is under constant magical assault from an enemy and can't hold up much longer, I want to be able to lease my ally one or more of my magic crystals. If we're good enough friends I might even want to lease it for free, functioning as a temporary gift; but once the lease expires the crystal reverts to my control.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2009 6:02:04 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

 two thumbs up for this discussion

Sadly I don't have much to add at this moment.   (I added to the honor system in the other thread, so I stand by that post)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2009 7:44:21 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Cool ideas.

Having the AI keep track of your trustworthiness would help create a "living, breathing" fantasy world, which seems to be a common theme in the idea threads. In a different thread, someone mentioned how the AI could keep track of various wars, even mention them by name (The Great War of the Year 6780). Little flourishes like that would go a loooong way to making your game feel like a unique, self-contained world.

Quoting pigeonpigeon,
of the features you mentioned in your post, plus more. Another feature I'd like to have is the ability to trade intelligence.

Agreed. In real life, the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand share signals intelligence through ECHELON. I'd like to see similar pacts and agreements in Elemental. While you might not send forces to help Kingdom X during wartime, you could continue sharing intelligence.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 2:34:53 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Well, personally I think that the AI should be a bit more intelligent on his actions. For example, if he declares war on you it thinks he can win and will make sure to do so. If it sees a risk of starting to lose, it might offer you a noneaggresion pact and will be more willing the more he losses. In many games such as civ4, the enemies only agree to peace treaties when they are on the brink of extinction.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 4:31:47 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

In many games such as civ4, the enemies only agree to peace treaties when they are on the brink of extinction.

I think Civ 4 was a very bad example.   Because in that particular game, they do sometimes start to talk peace the moment they start loosing a war.   Especially certain personalities that try to stay 'peaceful'.  Do you not play on hard? (noble I guess its called)   On that setting or higher the AI will attack you only when it thinks it can win (a few particularly war-like personalities are exceptions) and will start talking peace once they realize they are surely on the loosing side of a battle without any armies to go strike your turf when you arn't looking (they do that alot, or have their ally do it).  If you play on the lower settings then only war-like personalities will ever really declare war on you unless you kick somebody in the balls (and gaundi still won't declare war and will immidiatly talk peace even if those balls are his own)

 

When they are near extinction is when they start talking vassage and other stranger thing.  Its all based on civic choices and other things just how much you have to push them before they start talking, and the personality they have is a major factor as well.  sometimes if they really hate me a lot because of bad civic choices, they don't do it until I actually get them below me on the army strength chart.  The problem is that usually you have like 1 or 2 huge armies all together, where they have like 5 guys in every town.  With decent micromanagement of troops (ensuring you always have a decent chance of victory) you can quickly start to over power them even though their army is in theory bigger.

 

~Signature ROAR

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 6:02:02 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Please allow complex and timebased agreements. And please ensure, that the AI test the agreement.

I remember agreements about war, where nothing happend. I'd like to ensure, that if I pay AI1 for declaring war on AI2, that AI1 will really send troops to AI2 to destroy the enemy.

Its often like: "If you declare war, then you get money." Then he declares war and does nothing. No troops are sended to the enemy, because he don't produce any troops. So why I have paid for declaring war? Or even worse, after declaring war, the AI is in peace again, only a few turns after the declaration of war...

I would like to know, what I pay for: "If you declare war in 15 turns and you get the treasure chest, and as soon as you kill 10 unit of the overlord, you get the key."

Of course, this shoud work, the other way round. Sometimes I declare war, just because someone is begging for. If I declare war, I made a friend. But then I don't send troops. The AI should send a control freak, who checks, whether I send troops or not. And if I don't, he should remember me as a damn liar.

If someone begs for a declaration of war, then I also should be able to say: "Yes, I will declare war, as soon as I have my troops in range, so I can deal maximum damage. That will be in 15 turns..."

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 9:06:53 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

All really good ideas guys!

Another I'd like to add, which I saw someone mention in another thread (so the credit goes to you whoever you are!), is the need for symmetry between the AI's diplomatic options and the players. A specific example of this is the ability to threaten people who are doing something you don't like. In a lot of games, say if you've got a non-aggression pact with someone and you need one of your units to take a shortcut over their land, the AI will immediately start crying and threatening you to make you leave... yet a few turns later you're left with no similar facility when they do the same thing, that's just hugely annoying!

This prompts me to mention two aspects I'd like to see with regard to any threatening mechanic, firstly I'd like there to be some back and forth as there woudl be with a real person/power. If I'm taking a shortcut across this guys land and he tells me to get off I should be able to answer back and explain to him that it's only a shortcut and I'll be gone within 10 turns and that I promise not to do anything mean while I'm there. Whether or not he; A] believes me out right, B] monitors the situation extremely closely making sure I stick exactly to my word, C] as B but he sends a unit to escort me across his land, or D] doesn't buy it and reiterates his order to leave his land, would I guess come down to the AI player's personality and any honour/trustworthyness system that's in place. I think this would really make the whole interaction a lot more satisfying and I'd especially be interested to hear the AI's explanations for why they're garrisoning a stack outside my capital!!! Oh, also I just thought, it would obviously also be a great idea if you could ask someone (especially when you have a non-aggression pact, treaty of friendship etc.. but even if you're just neutral) whether you can move across their lands prior to encroaching on their territory.. that way you have less chance of causing a diplomatic incident

My prior request for some substantive back and forth around threats and requests leads to the second thing I'd like to see which is some level of contextual subtlty such that not every military incident leads directly to war and defensive aggression doesn't necessarily cast you in a negative diplomatic light (in terms of any honour/trustworthyness index). What I mean by this is that if someone I have a non-aggression pact with is trespassing on my land, and I tell them to leave or I will remove them (I don't buy their explanation for why they're there, those charlatans!!!) then, assuming they don't leave in the reasonable time limit I set out for them, attacking the encroaching unit should not immediatley mean a declaration of war and should not count as me having sneak attacked someone I had a pact with (which obviously would destroy my reputation for being honourable). Where the relationship between the two parties involved then goes I guess would depend on their personalities, intentions and levels of power etc. It's conceivable the tresspassing channeller might declare war on me as they're so affronted that I won't let them walk all over my lands unhindered, but that decision would be theirs and not an act of aggression by me. It also might be nice that if I myself chose to declare war I would suffer a reduced hit to my reputation as the game would recognise that this incident (which was the fault of the other channeller) provoked my actions and thus it wasn't just mindless aggression on my part.

Actually thinking about the above leads on to another idea, that maybe there should be a diplomatic state which is an option such as a "Stay Off My Land!!!" Treaty where you would agree not to venture into another channeller's territory but you would both recognise that any of your troops that DO will be immediately be attacked with the defender taking no hit in terms of reputation as they're sticking to their word (whereas I guess the tresspasser would lose some reputation as they're not).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 10:33:45 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Wow! A lot of good ideas everyone!  Sounds like i'm not the only one who's always felt cheated or let down by the diplomacy options available.

@ Greatvolk:  You deffinatly bring in several good points.

Assist in battle or declaring war on a 3rd party.  The Trustworthness should be majorly affected.  Heck, might even open up a diplomacy option of "Where are the troops you promised?!"  So if AI blue promised troops then never sent any then you know not to trust them, But the other AI's would too.  Now if say AI red later asked you for troops to help (mabye be able to specify strength of course allowing you to counter offer "I only got 1/2 of that available!"  and you DID send them to the desired area to help attack, Red AI should of course like you but Trust you more as well.  Other AI's will also know your more trustworthy, even AI yellow that your helping to attack will trust you more, they may HATE you more too because it's thier towns being ravaged but if you promise a cease fire they will be more willing to belive you will stick to it.

@ pigeonpigeon:  Yes, being able to share intellegence is nice, But I really like how you limited it in your idea to be able to specify intellegence of a certain player.  Most games that let you do this also show all of YOUR units/planets/cities ect.  I may want to let player AI Red know about my AI Yellow spottings but I don't want them to know where all of MY troops are... Gathering near AI Red's border just out of sight for when thier war get's much stronger and Red is distracted...

One of the main things I'd love to get out of diplomacy and trustworthy/honor/like-hate system is you could be Verytrustworthy  beloved yet hated enemy to an AI, they'd trust your promises as you've proven again and again you can be trusted and will reflect in how they play based on that.  If I declare a nonagression pack and promise to keep it for at least 100 turns, They will not fortify up a huge army to "protect themselves" when at war with another..

Now if they themselves are going to prove they are NOT trustworthy and attack me with those built up troops that's another story!

Of course you could also add the dynamic that you build up the trust of an AI to very high levels all because later you want to stab them in the back at the best (for you) possible moment....  Your trustworthness would take a huge dive if you then started to obliterate your own ally, But history is full of examples of this very thing happening.

 

Keep the idea's flowing! 

Rawr!

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 11:24:18 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Trustworthness is not that easy I think. I should not only be a global value from 0 to 100. SMAC had such value. As soon as you attacked someone, the value was reduced. Therefor, the way to declare war to an AI was to provoke him so long, until the AI attacked. And then the players value was fine.

Another thing with trustworthiness is, that some AI could trust me more than others. If I have a nice AI beside of me, and I love him, then he can always trust me. But if I fool somtimes with the others, why should my nice AI bother? Then I would like to have a option like "Hey, nice AI, I'm going to declare war on you. But don't bother... forget it. Believe me, I will never send troops to you. The only reason I do this, is to get money from the evil overlord. Do you want half of the money? Yes? Here it is. Maybe we can have traderoutes while we are at war?"... okay, the traderoutes are a bit too much, a war should mean some defined things. But I would like to explain someone, that/why he can trust me, because the people I betray are not that nice, they are all ugly rats and kommunists. So, only rats and kommunists should not trust me...

For me it would be enough, if i could create complex agreements and if I could ensure, that my business partner only get paid, if he really fulfill his parts. (i.e. declaration of war in x turns AND destroy city Bullabulla; i.e. Peace and no troops in range of 5 tiles to my borders - paid 5 gold each turn, when really no troops are in this range[which I can see]...)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 4:48:03 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I'd just like to throw in my support for a trustworthiness/honor system separate from how much AIs like you and each other. And I think trustworthiness shouldn't be a global value. If I am playing with two AIs, and I honor every word with one of them and renege on every agreement with the other, the first should trust me and the latter should distrust me. That said, the trust of the former should be somewhat tempered because of my dishonorable behavior with the latter. This could be achieved by recording for each player a trustworthiness value based solely on their actions with other individual players (one value for each other player), as well as a global value that averages all of those out. Then, to determine how much Player A trusts Player B, Player B's individual trustworthiness factor based solely on B's actions towards Player A and Player B's global trustworthiness value will both be taken into account (either via average or some other method). Maybe it's easier for the global factor to reduce another player's trust than to raise it.

For a trustworthiness system to work well, though, it would have to be very insightful. To avoid the problem that GreatVolk brought up about provoking another player to do the dishonorable deed, it would have to take into account provocations. If you keep doing things to piss off another player despite their warnings and protestations, then if they decide to take forceful action against you they shouldn't receive a hit to their trustworthiness. In fact, declaring war in general shouldn't always be considered dishonorable; it should only be dishonorable if there is a non-aggression pact or other treaty in place. In some cases it should even be honorable; if one of my allies or good friends is attacked by someone that I don't have great relations with, my declaration of war against that player should be considered honorable.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 7:06:57 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Don't forget that it needs to be very evident in how the AI acts to you.    MoM was plagued by the AI's sounding mean and upset with you, even when you did friendly things like try to offer a spell exchange and you were so far more advanced then they that had nothing to give you.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 7:17:10 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting landisaurus,
Don't forget that it needs to be very evident in how the AI acts to you.    MoM was plagued by the AI's sounding mean and upset with you, even when you did friendly things like try to offer a spell exchange and you were so far more advanced then they that had nothing to give you.

Maybe they thought you were making a vile social faux pas by pointing out how backward they were

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 14, 2009 9:31:07 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting landisaurus,
Don't forget that it needs to be very evident in how the AI acts to you.    MoM was plagued by the AI's sounding mean and upset with you, even when you did friendly things like try to offer a spell exchange and you were so far more advanced then they that had nothing to give you.
Are you saying our own Sauce d'Dirt isn't GOOD ENOUGH?!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 15, 2009 3:45:35 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

What about espionage and diplomacy?

I never played a 4Xgame, where I was able to see the diplomacy done by others. The information about the others' agreements are very important. Most often, the informations about diplomacy are only "Player A and Player 2 are at war"; "Player A and Player B has open borders"; "Player A and Player B life in pace but don' like each other". These are global information which are commonly known.

I like to have more of the diplomatic information, depending on the spy-level I have on the enemy. Informations like:

"AI1 meet A2 two, today"

"AI1 meet A2, today, and made a successful agreement"

"AI1 meet A2, today. AI1 paid for attacking someone"

"AI1 meet A2, today. AI1 paid for attacking you"

"AI1 meet A2, today. AI1 paid for attacking you in 15 rounds"

"AI1 meet A2, today. AI1 paid 1234 manacrystals for attacking you in 15 rounds"

"AI1 gave A2 the spell 'Bullabulla' [for exchange of 1234 gold]"

and then I'd like to have a spy-diplomacy-information-overview, where I can see, which agreements were broken an which not. I'd also like to have the possibility to create 'public' diplomatic actions:

"Move these troops away, bastard" [x] can be seen by everyone.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 15, 2009 10:48:41 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting GreatVolk,
... I like to have more of the diplomatic information, depending on the spy-level I have on the enemy. ...

I very, very much agree.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 15, 2009 5:29:27 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I also agree that declaring war shouldn't lower how Trustworthy you are.  They may hate you for it though!  However if you sneak attack them by attaking within X turns of declaring war or just attacking without declaring then that should lower your reputation on being trustworthy.  Though declaring war on an ally would be different.  You should have broken the alliance and then declared war after a set amount of turns. 

I agree it shouldn't use global values, each AI should have a seperate value for you. Some actiosn will make them all move the trust or honor meter up and down about the same.  But anyone who hasn't met you won't have a score for you yet.  And some actions might only reduce that one player's.  Like the AI found your spy in their territory!  The other AI's may not care but the one you spied on should. Or mabye one AI/player is spreading rumors about you!  Most AI's dont' buy it but AI Red does... Why else would you be interested in all that gold if you were not stockpiling up for a large war...  I guess we're having bleed over of spy/sabatage missions but then again it is an aspect of Diplomacy of the not so nice part.

Also I'd like to see differnt AI Personalities react to the same thing differently.  A peace lover would never fully trust anyone who goes around declaring war on everyone  while a warlord would think a peace lover had no honor/glory and would treat them as a weakling just waiting to be snatched up when he got around to it.  Flavor text could easily get thier thoughts on your country across.

And the flip side players could learn Yellow AI is a jerk but he's really trustworthy.  Red AI though.. you better not flinch or show your weaknesses or even if your allied he'll try to take a chunk out of your kingdom!

Of course all this would be horribly complicated to code, But it sure would be nice!

 

Rawr! 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 15, 2009 5:49:31 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I think someone mentioned this earlier but I couldn't find it in a brief skim of this thread (Edit: it was Jonny who brought it up first, the credit goes to him). In certain circumstances it should be possible to attack another player without a declaration of war. If another player's troops enter your territory without an open borders agreement, they should be fair game. Doing so would obviously hurt relations between the two players, though.

Quoting Jonny5446,
All really good ideas guys!Another I'd like to add, which I saw someone mention in another thread (so the credit goes to you whoever you are!), is the need for symmetry between the AI's diplomatic options and the players. A specific example of this is the ability to threaten people who are doing something you don't like. In a lot of games, say if you've got a non-aggression pact with someone and you need one of your units to take a shortcut over their land, the AI will immediately start crying and threatening you to make you leave... yet a few turns later you're left with no similar facility when they do the same thing, that's just hugely annoying!

Yes! If the AI is capable of complaining to us about something, we need to be able to complain to the AI about those same things. I don't even see why that would be particularly difficult to implement - if the AI can complain about it, it's obvious that it is capable of recognizing that kind of situation.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 15, 2009 7:24:30 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

 pigeonpigeon

I think someone mentioned this earlier but I couldn't find it in a brief skim of this thread. In certain circumstances it should be possible to attack another player without a declaration of war.

Wooo that was me tooooo I'm helping! Wooooo

I'm quoting myself.. how weird!

My prior request for some substantive back and forth around threats and requests leads to the second thing I'd like to see which is some level of contextual subtlty such that not every military incident leads directly to war and defensive aggression doesn't necessarily cast you in a negative diplomatic light (in terms of any honour/trustworthyness index). What I mean by this is that if someone I have a non-aggression pact with is trespassing on my land, and I tell them to leave or I will remove them (I don't buy their explanation for why they're there, those charlatans!!!) then, assuming they don't leave in the reasonable time limit I set out for them, attacking the encroaching unit should not immediatley mean a declaration of war and should not count as me having sneak attacked someone I had a pact with (which obviously would destroy my reputation for being honourable).

On rereading it the above scans pretty badly.. but that's what I was aiming at anyway Basically if someone's taking advantage of you and trespassing on your lands then you shouldn't take a hit to your reputation for nipping the situation in the bud and removing them. It just seems wrong that in some games you either have to allow the other guy to wander all around your empire scouting out everything, or even worse get in position to sneak attack you, before you can do anything otherwise you're the bad guy!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 16, 2009 4:54:35 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

i love a LOT of these ideas posted, especially the diplomacy counter. The only thing wrong with the "trust" system implied here is that it would need to be extremely complex to seem real.  A lot of traditional rts games have implied similar systems, and you tend to find yourself at war with "AI RED" because you are trading with his enemy "AI YELLOW" too much, and your borders just happen to be way too close to "AI RED" thus he experiences a nervous breakdown in which "AI YELLOW" invades "AI RED" and leaved "AI RED" badly disfigured. "AI RED" becomes desperate and invades "PLAYER UNO" because of said conditions. If you take those factors into consideration they all pile up and then u get an AI who 1. doesnt trust you for nuts 2. is on horrible terms with you and 3. is about to invade ur arse just because you aren't adding to his resolve and said actions are considered "UNTRUSTWORTHY"..........OR it could totally work out awesomely and i could be entirely wrong, but i've seen similar things happen in games such as SPORE and CIV.... GALCIV

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 16, 2009 5:19:37 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting ACureForSpore,
i love a LOT of these ideas posted, especially the diplomacy counter. The only thing wrong with the "trust" system implied here is that it would need to be extremely complex to seem real.  A lot of traditional rts games have implied similar systems, and you tend to find yourself at war with "AI RED" because you are trading with his enemy "AI YELLOW" too much, and your borders just happen to be way too close to "AI RED" thus he experiences a nervous breakdown in which "AI YELLOW" invades "AI RED" and leaved "AI RED" badly disfigured. "AI RED" becomes desperate and invades "PLAYER UNO" because of said conditions. If you take those factors into consideration they all pile up and then u get an AI who 1. doesnt trust you for nuts 2. is on horrible terms with you and 3. is about to invade ur arse just because you aren't adding to his resolve and said actions are considered "UNTRUSTWORTHY"..........OR it could totally work out awesomely and i could be entirely wrong, but i've seen similar things happen in games such as SPORE and CIV.... GALCIV

I've never played a game with an AI that differentiates between how much it trusts you vs. how much it likes (or doesn't like) you. For example, in your 3 examples Spore, CIV and Galciv, there is no such distinction.

But you're right that a trust system would need to be very complex to be believable... So here's to hoping they make a good, complex trust system in Elemental

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 16, 2009 5:43:20 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

For example, in your 3 examples Spore, CIV and Galciv, there is no such distinction.

What?   I agree with Spoor and Galciv, but CIV (at least CIV IV, Civ 1 was obviously too primitive and I skipped 2 and 3 so I can't comment) the personalities are very different.  Generally there are 3 different sets of what every personality says in responce to anything, based on likes/doesn't like/neutral, and then the different personalities make very obvious different choices based on what *type* of personality they are.   If you don't believe me play a few games with khan, gandhi, that spain woman person (forget her name), and churchhill.   They are so different, I love it.  Khan is pretty much aggressive and demanding most of the time.   The spain woman acts nice sometimes, but she will be quick to stab you in the back randomly.   Churchhill is pretty neutral I find, doing whatever you'd think a normal person would do (attack when angry, not when not angry) and Gandhi you can run up, kick in the balls, take a few cities, and he'll instantly forgive you, declare peace, and be back to 'friendly' or at least 'cautious' in no time.  Even on harder settings.

Churchhill and the spainish woman are very clear through dialogue on just how much they like you.   (though the spanish woman has turned around and stabbed me so many times I never trust that B**CH)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 17, 2009 7:46:03 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting landisaurus,

What?   I agree with Spoor and Galciv, but CIV (at least CIV IV, Civ 1 was obviously too primitive and I skipped 2 and 3 so I can't comment) the personalities are very different.  Generally there are 3 different sets of what every personality says in responce to anything, based on likes/doesn't like/neutral, and then the different personalities make very obvious different choices based on what *type* of personality they are.

Yeah but that's hardcoded. The personality determines how easy it is to befriend the AI players, and how much those players trust you is exactly determined by the combination of personality and how much they like you. For example, it is impossible for Gandhi to like you but still distrust you; likewise it's impossible for Khan to dislike you, but still trust you.

(Also, exactly what you described RE Civ IV is also the case in GalCiv2, although it is a little less apparent)

What we're talking about is a trust system that functions independently of how much a player is liked or disliked. AI personality could still affect it, for example some AIs might be in general more or less trusting; but you would still be able to make even the most distrustful AI fully trust you, even if they don't really like you.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 19, 2010 1:24:13 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I really like a lot of this stuff!

My biggest problem with 4X games is the diplomacy is always a let down. Civ 4 was a great improvement over something like GalCiv (imo), but I'd really love to see options that make it viable for a human player and maybe an AI or two teaming up to form alliances in game, and actually succeed together as opposed to having to take each other out to win at some point. Haven't played Civ 4 in a while, so don't remember how well that was done, but I seem to remember that much like all the 4Xers I've played, the AI seems too crazy.

Just like in World War II for instance, the Allies won together. After the US defeated Japan, and the USSR defeated Germany, they didn't immediately turn their armies on each other, but had a period of a tense peace of sorts. Neither did we bomb the Brits or the French just because they were sufficiently weakened and thus "an easy kill." All I'm saying is I want more cooperation with the AI, without having to set it up as permanent teams before the game starts. Let it fomr organically, and maybe end up in large "good vs. evil" style wars involvong multiple nations. (I'm hoping the whole marriage element brings a lot of this into it as well.)

Another thing I just can't imagine. The UK declaring war on the US in real life anytime in the current world political scene. We're buddies, and we may argue from time to time, but it never goes too far. In the game world though, that sort of thing seems to happen all the time.

I also like the ideas that not every slight should lead to war. I've been playing a game called King of Dragon Pass lately (after reading about it on someone's post here actually!) and one of my favorite things is that if my tribe raids another tribe, and plunders some of their goods, it doesn't lead to war right away. A lot of variables come into it. How good was our relationship before the raid? Did we go out of our way to kill people, or was it primarily a raid for goods? Did we capture members of the other tribe and enslave them? Did we release the POWs? Kill them? Trade them back for cows?

Everyone raids each other in the game, but HOW you raid makes the difference between an honorable action and a contemptible one.

Also, I think trade relations should play a big part in diplomatic situations. If you have a bunch of profitable trade routs with an AI, that would suggest your two peoples also have developed a relationship with each other to some degree. All the merchants, caravaners, traders what-have-you that rely on the trade for their livelihood, would be pretty upset if you suddenly declared war on each other, and would let you know through various means.

And just in general, trade should lead to improved relations. Even a paranoid Stalin would have to recognize the importance of a trade partner bringing in the big bucks time and time again, thus funding his war against another AI.

A rich diplomatic system would really go so far in making this game shine above and beyond the rest of the games out there. And it's easily one of the most important features for me in this style of game.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000797   Page Render Time: