<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
Goodmorning all, if anybodies been waiting sorry for the delay, Canada day and all.
Following up on my promise, and discussions at:
https://forums.elementalgame.com/357786/page/1/#2287483
and
https://forums.elementalgame.com/357530
ON trustworthiness and friendship.
Both should exist, IMHO, and they should be independent. Trustworthiness measures how likely you are to suddenly change direction against those who where trusting you. If you declare war on somebody who hates and distrusts you, it's probably justified. The best description of the difference for me, is you spend 40 turns ignoring an enemy your right beside, no trade, no contact, no fighting. Your trustworthiness would rise slowly, but your friendship would remain static. Trustworthiness increases slowly, friendship changes punctually and over time with gifts/attacks and trade agreements and such.
On manipulability of talks: I agree that talks should take time: Simple Tit for Tat talks no: trading spells, this much iron for that many bears. Things that involve more then 1 element on each side though would take longer.
Having caravans however . . . seams ill suited for the magical environment. Thus I suggest that negotiations are hosted by a town. Larger proposed agreements would take longer, both sides off the bat would list what they want to receive and based on the number of items on the list (and friendship / trust / situation) a town would be chosen to host (with benefits and disadvantages to hosting in that town) and a time frame would be declared. In that time the proceedings would be susceptible to spy actions, espionage, spells, hostage taking, all sorts of nasty (pronounced 'fun') stuff.
Before anybody complains, of course If one or the other side is Press in a war, and loosing this could be taken into account shortening the process [but making it more lopsided. if the AI/User feels a fast resolution is necessary].
The negotiation would be handled as follows, Both sides Declare what they want, duration and location is decided.
Next turn, Both sides are given a chance to Veto any items of the other sides requests and assign a sort of ranking as to which of the other sides requests are most to least acceptable. {possibly more detailed ranking if needed}. Each turn the players can get a report on how the talks are going, and possibly if desirable adjust things. Each turn a 3rd independent AI would look at a number of factors [Each factions diplomacy score, the negotiators abilities, faction happinesses/trusts of each other, what is being offered/demanded (value of those things), diplomatic/army/industrial/magical strengths of each side. From these and more factors the Third independent AI would propose an appropriately weighted agreement each turn, which factions would be able to see (if need be propose amendments)]. Each turn after the minimal number of turns decided at the beginning the agreement can be ratified by both sides and comes into affect.
It is important that this trade AI understand the concepts of strength, weakness, values of commodities on THIS map [woods not always worth a lot, if there are plenty of forests, Iron can be worth more then it's weight in gold on a map with only 3 iron mines for 5 factions... A Spell that tames bears is worth less if somebody on the map already is trading bear units to other factions. . . and so on]
This AI would also be able to explain it's weighting, to some degree, without overly jeopardizing the privacy of either side.
For Diplomacy involving VERY complex things such as casting spells on the other teams towns/ troops, Coordinating mutual attacks, Leasing of lands and production from mines... Will probably need a different UI then the tit for tat, X this for Y that, over N turns, non aggression pacts, and all the normal things most games have. This Mutual plans UI would need to be able to selectively show both factions lands (not necessarily all), units (again not all, or even accurately; the 35 bear calvary JUST outside of your vision that you don't know about, you still might not, if the AI is lying to you). The UI would also need a internal Turn buttons, so you can make plans like 'by day 10 this', 'by day 14 that'. by clicking through the turns (+/-1, +/- 5). Clicking and dragging Units in the UI would probably Draw nice little arrows, circles for area of control. etc.
This LAST step, making VERY complex agreements is a LOT to ask for, I hope somebody can find a more easy integrated way to do it then I've come up with, but i can't see anybody making real complex deals involving troop movements over spans of 5 - 15 turns, and trading areas of reviled fogs of war, by choosing text options alone. It's just too daunting.
That's all from me,
What do we all think, is it do able, is it what we want, What should i change in this suggestion to make it more appealing to us the game buyers?
Take care all
