Aeon221

Join Date 03/2008

+13

Relationships should affect the value of trade (and other ideas)

(tl;dr: +/- relationships should increase/decrease income from international trade)

Another major aspect of diplomacy that tends to tick players off is the implacability of AI enemies, especially in Civ4 and the TW series, and their over-willingness to backstab long term friends. I'd like to suggest that a relationship modifier be included for war-decs that has almost nil impact while low, but virtually prevents war between close friends excepting in the case of heinous slights -- the acknowledged assassination of friendly family or open provocations for war being the only real cases. Meanwhile, the AI should be willing to end conflicts -- even with hated foes -- and actively attempt to improve relations in cases where it would be better served by peace. The most obvious example is in Civ4, in the case of nations that have been greatly reduced by conquest, yet adamantly refuse to make peace because of all the negative modifiers for city conquests.

(tl;dr: make AI backstabs very rare, and AI enemies less implacable)

I would also like to suggest a peace treaty system along the lines of the one used by Paradox in their Europa Universalis games, where conquered territories are de facto, rather than de jure, the possession of the conquerer until confirmed by treaty.

(tl;dr: use peace negotiation and hard limits on territory transfers as a rubber band mechanism)

A I'd like to suggest that a negative modifier be placed on relations if the player deploys significant numbers of soldiers to the border of an AI nation (aka: -5 "You provoke us with your military build up!"), with the AI responding by itself deploying large numbers and generally preparing for war. It's more of an AI based nitpick, but it's obnoxious that the AI rarely responds to something that a player would freak out over.

(tl;dr: have the AI respond to FRIENDLY troop presence on their borders)

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nice ideas, and I concur with most of them...

But I don't really understand what you mean by this. As I haven't played EU, and English isn't my first language, I don't really understand the difference between 'de facto' and 'de jure'...

Also, I'd like to add something...

When declaring war, the AI shouldn't only consider current relation and army of the victim, but also the economic possibilty. In GalCiv II I never built a warship until I needed one, when an AI declared war on me I just started to built up my warfleet and most of the time was able to hold off an enemy without losing a single planet and could go on the offensive afterwards without any problems. I might look weak if I don't have an army, but if I'm able to build an army in a few turns that can defaet the AI, the AI shouldn't attack me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In EU, you hold territories you conquer "in fact", rather than "by law." To possess the territories "by law," which allows you to recruit troops and develop the territory, you must negotiate a peace that awards them (or it) to you. EU had hard limits on the number of territories that could be awarded in a treaty, and also required a warscore (basically, the sum total of the value of your victories, defeats, territories captured, territories lost and war exhaustion) at least as high as the value of any territory or group of territories you wished to acquire.

As is obvious, a treaty system along those lines prevents enemy nations from being wiped off the map in a single campaign, giving them a chance to retaliate. For Elemental, I'd guess cities would function just fine as provinces.

Your economic point is a bit difficult to carry. The major advantage of an economic focus (boomer) is that you can invest funds you'd normally allocate to defense in building a stronger economy. Giving the AI even a slight bias against invading based on economic strength would remove the risk of being a boomer, while adding risk to the more prudent strategy of building up a moderate defensive force before developing your economy. Raising the risk for the prudent strategy, and lowering for the risky (but higher payoff) boomer strategy just isn't good balance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thanks for the clarification... Part of it does make sense in that it isn't really mine unless my opponnent agrees to his loss, on the other hand, if I conquered a territory / city, why should I be limited in what I can do with it?

Giving the AI even a slight bias against invading based on economic strength would remove the risk of being a boomer, while adding risk to the more prudent strategy of building up a moderate defensive force before developing your economy.

Well, if the AI doesn't consider economic strength, it will go into a battle it can never win and that doesn't make sense either I think.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Negotiated peace treaties like that are more of a game balance mechanism than anything. They prevent you from just bulldozing all your enemies in a single blitz -- an all too common strategy in Civ4. As fail as pulling for real world examples is for video game arguments, I'll go for it this time -- it's unlikely that a conqueror could replace all the low level individuals necessary for the day to day running of a territory or city in a warzone, and even less likely that individuals in that territory would be willing to join the armed forces of their recent conqueror.

I still disagree with you on the economic point. While I am willing to concede that some economically focused nations might be able to respond to an invasion in a timely manner, I am still of the opinion that the majority would be easy pickings for an aggressive invader. At the least it should be a net neutral factor, and if it were taken to extremes it could even be used to encourage the AI to attack -- after all, a nation focused on developing economic power will only grow stronger with time, and should therefore be destroyed at the earliest opportunity.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

The current journal mentions checks to see if the relationship is at either a minimum or maximum value for a treaty to be enacted. I noticed that it lacked a check to increase (or decrease) the value of trade based on relationships between states. Positive relationships should impart a positive modifier to trade, and negative relationships should impart a negative modifier. War would, of course, cut off most trade. Real world analogues abound, so I won't bother listing them.

(tl;dr: +/- relationships should increase/decrease income from international trade)

Another major aspect of diplomacy that tends to tick players off is the implacability of AI enemies, especially in Civ4 and the TW series, and their over-willingness to backstab long term friends. I'd like to suggest that a relationship modifier be included for war-decs that has almost nil impact while low, but virtually prevents war between close friends excepting in the case of heinous slights -- the acknowledged assassination of friendly family or open provocations for war being the only real cases. Meanwhile, the AI should be willing to end conflicts -- even with hated foes -- and actively attempt to improve relations in cases where it would be better served by peace. The most obvious example is in Civ4, in the case of nations that have been greatly reduced by conquest, yet adamantly refuse to make peace because of all the negative modifiers for city conquests.

(tl;dr: make AI backstabs very rare, and AI enemies less implacable)

I would also like to suggest a peace treaty system along the lines of the one used by Paradox in their Europa Universalis games, where conquered territories are de facto, rather than de jure, the possession of the conquerer until confirmed by treaty.

(tl;dr: use peace negotiation and hard limits on territory transfers as a rubber band mechanism)

A I'd like to suggest that a negative modifier be placed on relations if the player deploys significant numbers of soldiers to the border of an AI nation (aka: -5 "You provoke us with your military build up!"), with the AI responding by itself deploying large numbers and generally preparing for war. It's more of an AI based nitpick, but it's obnoxious that the AI rarely responds to something that a player would freak out over.

(tl;dr: have the AI respond to FRIENDLY troop presence on their borders)

I agree with all points. I especially like the Europa Universalis core province idea, with "recognized, legitimate rule" of a province being an asset.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There's no reason to have provinces over cities in Elemental, and the system works just fine either way.

I do agree that legitimacy of rule is a key concept that I hope elemental will explore. I'd also really enjoy having an undercurrent of democratic insurgency. It'd be nice to see the common people fighting for self-determination in the face of their tyrranical magical overlord.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Aeon221,

reply 6

There's no reason to have provinces over cities in Elemental, and the system works just fine either way.

I do agree that legitimacy of rule is a key concept that I hope elemental will explore. I'd also really enjoy having an undercurrent of democratic insurgency. It'd be nice to see the common people fighting for self-determination in the face of their tyrranical magical overlord.

I don't think anyone is arguing for provinces over cities, and it generally only works in games where province locations are set and no cities can be built.

Successfully updated karma reason!