larienna larienna

Diplomacy enforced by the game

▼

Diplomacy enforced by the game

Diplomacy system

from Elemental Forums

This thread is some sort of side thread from the following thread:

https://forums.elementalgame.com/381602/page/1/#replies

In that thread, people listed various problems that most 4x strategy games have in diplomacy. Its suggestion is to give diplomacy a finite resource to limit abuses. But I am going to suggest another one.

In board game design, one of the "problem" we can have is the easy change of diplomatic relations. For example, let say that from the beginning of the game, player A and B hate each other and makes a lot of war. If later in the game, player C is in the lead of winning, player A and B can ally each other without any problem to gang on player C.

In real life, 2 nations that hate each other cannot simply love each other in a matter of days. I could be possible that player A and B make a truce and don't attack each other but there will still be hatred between both nations.

So my solutions is that the diplomacy is enforced by the rules of the game rather than by the will of the players.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To illustrate the concept, I'll use the stat model below which could be anything else. It's just for the illustration. Let say that each player has the following diplomatic stats expressed as percentage:

Relation level: For each ennemy player, you have a relation level. THe higher the better are your relations. The lower, the more you hate each other. This is classic relation management.

Trust: Each player has a trust level. This is how much could you be trusted. Trust is hard to build up and it is easy to lose. In R3K, you gain trust if for example, a player asked for a joined invasion and you indeed fulfiled your engagement without betraying him in the middle of the battle. Betrayal, Suprise war declaration, would lower your trust.

Fame: In MOM, you gain fame from your actions and I would even say that for each large city you have, you should get a minimum amount of fame.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1: You have good relation with player B but player B has a very low trust since he made a lot of betrayals. So it should be harder to make treaties with player B for example.

A system like this works fine with AI, but how to you do it with players?

Example 1 with players: Player A and B want to make a treaty but player B has a very low trust. Both player will send negotiators and they will negotiate somethings according to they diplomatic stats. For example, since player B's trust is low, the treaty might be negotiated so that player A get's an extra reward in the deal to compensate the fact that player B could break the deal. So even if both player want it, the rule of the game will force player B to pay extra. Still player B will be allowed to refuse the offer.

Example 2: 2 players with really bad relations want to team with each other to fight a common threat. The most they can do is make an non-aggression pact. They cannot make any treaties or alliances since they actually do not trust each other and think they are going to get back stabed at anytime.

With a system like this, it would limit abuses and it will be much easier to manage rather than using a finite diplomatic resource.

It would prevent for example:

That the player always have to pay more when dealing with AI since they never accept fair trade. Now If I make efforts to keep my diplomatic reputation high, he will have to pay more to deal with me.

It will make players and AI no different than each other. It won't be easier or harder to deal with one or the other since they both follow the same rules.

There will be less situation where you will trade a tech with an AI and the next thing you know all players has that tech.

So what do you think?

17,500 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

So in summary: if A + B > AB then alliances will be worth it.

 

It might actually be the case, since if you conquer an all's empire, in total you would get the same production. But if elemental follow the concept that magic power is not proportional qith empire size, that means that it would still be more useful to have 2 wizard rather than 1 wizard.

On in overall, you gain more to have a player has an ally.

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

Diplomacy must be enforced by a game, or it loses all meaning in game terms.  Even if it is only forcing one player to give the other player the money they agreed to buy a technology, it is important.  If you don't force one player to give up the money, and the other to give up the technology, technology trading is stopped from being a game element.  This applies to all diplomatic interactions -- treaties, trading, threats, etc.

I fear for the diplomatic system as it stands.  Unless it is just as worthwhile for me in game terms to research diplomacy as it is to research better spells, I won't do it.  So how do you make diplomacy as important as swords and spells?  By having consequences for diplomatic actions.

Solium Infernum has been referenced before but it is worth studying because it handles diplomacy so well.  It handles AI vs. Human diplomacy as well as Human vs. Human diplomacy.  It enforces all diplomatic game options.  There is a consequence to every action.  And most important of all -- it still allows the receiver of a diplomatic overture the choice of accepting or rejecting an offer, with consequences associated with rejection and acceptance.

In real life there are always consequences to diplomatic actions, and because of this even mighty empires sometimes do the will of small ones.  Why does a large nation like the US give foreign aid to a small nation like Haiti?  A cynical in-game reason to do so is that it raises their prestige with other nations.  Something like this could easily be worked in to a diplomatic system for Elemental.

So, for example trading.  Let's say I offer a weaker empire a trade -- I will give you 300 gold if you give me steel swords, which are worth 500 gold as determined by the game.  The other empire should only have an option to refuse or accept, with the consequences as follows:  If they accept, they share their technology (negative) but gain gold (positive) and reputation with my empire (positive).  If they reject, they keep their technology (positive) do not gain gold (negative) and their reputation with my empire goes down (negative). To keep diplomacy fair they must respond immediately.  There should be a negative consequence for me if they reject my offer so that there are additional positive reasons (for them) to reject it.  Once this sort of thing is balanced out then the offer becomes interesting, and it is fun (and difficult) to decide whether or not to accept the offer, and it is fun (and tense) to wait for acceptance or rejection, knowing that there will be a consequence either way.

If the game enforces diplomacy and they cannot be attacked if the reputation between our empires is not low enough, it may be in their interest to agree to the offer even if they do not want to share steel swords, because then I cannot attack their country without first lowering our diplomatic relations.

 

In summary:

1)  Diplomacy must be enforced by the game

2)  All diplomatic overtures should have positive and negative consequences for both parties

The best benefit of all for implementing such a system is that it makes researching diplomacy worthwhile.  If I have a higher diplomacy level than you and I can essentially force you to go to war, or make peace, or give me armies or resources, then it becomes important and you won't just research swords and spells and forget about researching diplomacy.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Coming back to the original post, I’d say that the closest diplomacy system (and probably the best for me. I don’t play many games) is the one in Europa Universalis 1 and 2.

It has all 3 components:

-          Relation level: relations levels with every other state are determined neither randomly nor they change based on rather badly understood events, they are based on who you are, what you do and your stance. Relations go up if you share the same religion, have a royal marriage, are in the same alliance, have no casus belli one against the other, and you can also spend money to improve them (result depends on your diplo skill). Relations go down if you persecute the other’s religion or own a province he claims, and one can also worsens voluntarily relations.

-          Trust: the Bad Boy rating! It goes up when you attack nations without casus belli or when you share the same religion, when you betray your alliance in time of need, when you annex provinces you never claimed (whatever the justness or not of the war you were in). Consequences: if it goes up too much, nations feel enticed to attack you and they can gang up on you pretty fast. Not good in a game where duration of war is linked to rebellion problems.

-          Fame: not so sure but there are scales of 1 to 5 for land and naval forces and it’s obvious one gets less attacked when he’s powerful AND when he’s in an alliance. Being alone is waiting to be attacked sooner or later unless you keep quiet and is on top of the food chain.

It works pretty well and it prevents these situations like in Alpha Centauri or GalCiv where you’re allied with player X and he turns to look the other way when you’re attacked.

Here, there are consequences for everything and everything is possible. Someone in this thread said he doesn’t want to be forced to do things a certain way, wants to be able to backstab. Well, in EU, you CAN backstab an ally but be prepared to pay a heavy price in stability. It depends on you; you can be prepared for this or you just want to take the risk during a sudden opportunity. It’s possible but it’s costly. Same with AIs refusing to help you when you’re attacked: it happens but they pay the price, and some cunning player can use it against them.

 

That would be a fine base for E.WOM.  Relations will depend first on race/alignement(Kingdom or Empire)/life or death magic then on your actions and influence and diplomacy would be enforced.

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

War makes people unhappy? Surely only for Kingdoms.