Demiansky

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="12" id="2359883"]You keep talking about "chance of success." IMO, probabilistic diplomacy is a horrible way to go. A proposal should either be acceptable or not; in other words if I load the game and make the exact same proposal, I should get the exact same response, every time. Maybe a tiny random fluctuation in what it would take to convince the other party, but I don't really even see the point in that... The AI should look at your proposal, analyze th

Legitimate criticisms, but I think that most of your concerns are addressed in previous posts (I don't expect newcomers to the discussion to read the entire thread). This diplomacy system is no different than any other. There are already systems that are constructed to accomodate this feature. In Galactic Civilizations, Civ, and plenty of others you can use actual money, planets, or technology to influence diplomacy. How is this any different or complex? A

[quote who="Martok" reply="7" id="2359431"] Quoting Demiansky, reply 5 In a game with primarily AI, though, you could even add a penalty that involves hurting your diplomatic relationship with opponents other than the one that you've turned away. Should you refuse a deal with a lot of political capital stacked behind even sovereigns whom you do not deal with regularly would eye you with caution before getting too close (afte

[quote who="CoffeeMonkey" reply="4" id="2358502"]It's a great idea! I've been playing the Total War series a lot, and I've really really missed a diplomacy option like this. I know that TW has never been famous for it's diplomacy (hey... it's TOTAL WAR, right?) but it has really annoyed me, that there simply hasn't been this option. What I would like to see was: a ) The diplomacy screen option to barter for peace on behalf of another player:

[quote who="Megajames75" reply="2" id="2359149"]You could do it is a sort of lose relationship for doing one sided deals biased to you, gain relationship for fair deals, and even more for deal where they benifit. Then you don't need an new 'currency' to keep track of, but get the same features. So maybe when you make the deal it will have a little warning saying this deal is agressive and will harm your relationship, or visa versa. I think this would be the best of both worlds. [/qu

Yes, here we go again, another Demian idea. I love in Galactic Civ how you can bring various items to the table in diplomatic negotiations. Planets for money, money for peace, planets and money to declare war on an opponent, etc. But one thing that I've always thought was missing was "diplmatic capital." You know what I mean--- when you do someone a favor and they "owe you one." Diplomatic capital can be a currency that represents the abstract to

[quote who="Ynglaur" reply="1" id="2358327"]I think the GalCiv2 AI did this sometimes. It's a great idea, though you have to be careful about not turning it into a cheese-fest of "everyone gang up on the winner". In the real world, at least, superpowers have as many sycophants as open enemies, and perhaps more. Of course, subversive sycophants can make troublesome friends. [/quote] Right. But what Galactic Civs 2 didn't give you was such an

Hey guys, sorry ahead of time for spewing out so many ideas lately, however... I've got another. In most strategy games, you can create alliances in which other entities are obligated to come to your aid (or theirs) when war is declared on the coalition of allies. I was wondering if it would be possible, though, to introduce a diplomacy mechanic by which a third party (or multiple parties) will threaten to declare war on a kingdom if it does not cease war with another king

[quote who="Martok" reply="11" id="2358152"]Chalk up another supporter of your idea, Demiansky! If done right, it would greatly enhance the player's experience. I think the "Battle of the Bulge" analogy is an apt one: Faction A, realizing it's losing the war and that the momentum is on the verge of irrevocably shifting in Faction B's favor -- be it a human player or another AI-controlled nation -- launches a bold but risky attack in a desperate make-or-break bid to win

[quote who="endofdayz" reply="66" id="2357345"] I wasn't arguing against that, I was arguing against a single slider with a whole bunch of different unrelated mechanics on it. Then we weren't argueing lol. I would want a range of atleast a few sliders, though for simplicity they would likely make it 2 at most, who knows eh? When an AI is clearly losing, they might have a priority shift, and assume a new decision making algorithm that dictates their behav

[quote who="moondoggiee" reply="2" id="2357373"]Most diplomacy AI i've seen tend to exhibit suicidal tendencies. Most AI don't sue for peace to cut their losses when they are clearly losing the war. Especially when they are fighting several fronts. They usually only sue for peace when they have been massacred, which by that time i wouldn't bother with peace as i am rushing to grab their territory before the other AI's grabs it. AI's just don't have any sense of self preservation un

I was responding in another thread about AI comebacks when I came up with this idea, which is present in the other thread as well as this one: When an AI is clearly losing, they might have a priority shift, and assume a new decision making algorithm that dictates their behavior. For instance, if they are slowly losing cities to you late game and it appears that they cannot gain allies to tur

While I don't agree with the idea of giving AI freebies out of the blue to keep the game challenging, I have a similar but different idea: When an AI is clearly losing, they might have a priority shift, and assume a new decision making algorithm that dictates their behavior. For instance, if they are slowly losing cities to you late game and it appears that they cannot gain allies to turn the tide, they have a good chance to switch to a desperate-times-call-for-de

Well, we just got done establishing that a channeler will have a bloodline--- so why not make this part of the death/rebirth dynamics? Fairly early in the game, why not let a channeler research an ability by which most of his essence is recalled to his tower at death and then, through lengthy ritual, have it imbued into one of his descendents? Perhaps 1 out of every 5 of your bloodline beneath you is born with the innate ability to recieve essence in this

[quote who="cleflar" reply="5" id="2356493"]Perhaps citizens can advance via education (building schools, churches, workshops....) and experience aka. Civ Colonization. If you defeat an enemy army and take prisioners, perhaps they could be returned to your cities as slaves if you want to turn them into citizens. Prisoners might also be drafted into your army with a very low morale. [/quote] I definately like all of those ideas.

[quote who="BrotherAlpha" reply="1" id="2355567"]I like the idea, but perhaps it shouldn't be a simple progression. We would need to figure out what citizens add to the empire and design different types based on that. Some ideas could include... Craftsmen increase production and taxes, neutral on research, and weak on political influence and cultural influence. Enlightened Folk increase research and cultural influence, neutral on taxes and politics, but

I was writing in another thread about immigration vs. fertility rate when I considered the question of whether cities could have different grades of citizens in which higher grades offer greater benefits than lower grades. For instance, there might be 4 grades of citizens: new migrants/slaves, freemen, skilled artisans, and Enlightened Folk. New immigrants from the wastelands and slaves would only offer a tax income and give a negative modifier to their own base

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="2" id="2354740"]I assumed people would come there, it wouldn't be like a wide scale immigration. The immigration would only only be a factor when a city springs to life magically amoungs the dead wastelands of post-cataclysm world. Its simply a veil to explain why essense can be expanded to create a city, yet the channeler cannot just make people exist. [/quote] Ah, I guess that makes sense. Since you start only as your sovereign

Well, I noticed there were some population growth discussions from about 7 months ago, so I thought we might revisit the question of how population should grow in cities. At the beginning, apparently most of them will relinquish their rugged life in the country side for a cushier life in a sovereign's empire, but I'm wondering how long into the game immigration remains the primary means of gaining citizens. This would primarily depend on how long a game turn is and ho

[quote who="Scorpiana" reply="32" id="2353605"] Now, I don't want to get into a some kind of my-taste-in-dragons-is-better-than-your-taste-in-dragons mud fight, but all other things being equal, it's impossible to get the impression that dragons are "Critter like" if they are almost completely designed like a real life animal. Well, in most Fantasy stories that include dragons, they start out as little more than animals with an extreme long lifespan. And the older the dr

[quote who="Jonny5446" reply="30" id="2352763"] Quoting GW Swicord, reply 28 ~clip @Jonny: good to see you around some again. I'm one of those net-ancients who seriously believes that this 'thread necromancy' stuff is totally in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it's just my past life as a scholar, but I think of a forum like this as a steadily growing archive-discussion. Good discussions can take months or years, so as long as a poster isn't trying t

Well, so far we know we have world editors, monster editors, race editors, and spell editors, so I'm wondering if there will be quest editors in the same way that the other monster/spell editors work? For instance, can a player write up quest lines, submit them to the Stardock moderators the same way that edited monsters and spells will be, and then have them appear in other player's games if they are balanced and appropriate?

[quote quoting="post"]Ok. Really. You're one guy who gathers some people from the desert. One guy and a bunch of non-descript refugees from who knows where is not a faction. They probably all came from different backgrounds anyway. There's no way it's logical for you to choose a faction at the start of the game. A race yes, but a faction no. You're just one man (or being whatever) a faction is a collection of people with a shared culture, knowledge and/or beliefs. So I have an alternate plan

Hm, since there is going to be an emphasis on quests, what about world altering mayhem spells that are cast by non-opponents? Let me illustrate a scenario: A channeler's hero finds an ancient tomb in a dungeon and is driven mad by it. He disappears into the wilderness and 5 years later, is found in the company of nether-demons in an ancient citidel. He begins casting a spell that, once identified, is said to bring ruin to worlds.&n

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="20" id="2246010"] Quoting Demiansky, reply 19 ... Well, certain dragons can be "immensely" powerful without being so few that it's impossible for them to maintain an effective breeding population (are we to assume that they are going extinct at the time the game is played?) ... I hate it when beasts or monsters are simplified to such a degree that they only exist to be slain or gawked at (for instance, the monsters tha