Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

[jdmillard]

The purpose of this thread is to compile all the diplomacy feedback in one place. The developers have specifically expressed interest in improving diplomacy and there's a lot of talk about it in the Forum. This first post will be continually updated such that it reflects all the feedback and ideas that are presented in the posts below. My goal is to make this first post concise, easy to read, and free of clutter.

I will gather some input from some recent threads, but since I don't have time to read through every post and fish out the snippets about diplomacy, I'm simply going to ask you all to re-post the relevant comments here. Write the good and the bad. Comment on others' ideas. If there is something you don't like, propose an alternative idea. When it comes to features that the developers are already planning, I'm considering writing those in a different color just so we're all on the same page... but I don't want it to get too complicated. We'll see how it goes. I'll be editing this first post like crazy.

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

Ideas to Improve:

1. Ability to ask allies for help / Allies asking you for help. Proxy Studios' void said "What will come [soon] are the options to ask a faction to declare war on / offer peace to a third faction. Being in an alliance will greatly boost the chances of them accepting...non-aggression pacts will no longer prevent war declarations for 5 turns but decrease your standing with all factions."
Supported +3.

2. Allies' wars should automatically pull you into the war too.
Supported +3.

3. The ability to trade technology. Proxy Studios has mentioned the possibility of this feature. My only concern is that allied human players can abuse this and become over-powerful very quickly (It happened every time in SMAC multiplayer). Hiho216 said "I actually prefer that there is no tech trading in this game, as the AI never really understands this tactic and generally falls behind because of it."
Unsupported -1

4. Trade entire cities? I haven't heard anyone else mention this besides me, but I remember that it added some strategy in SMAC that I really enjoyed. Some say this would be nice because the AI sometimes obnoxiously build a random new landlocked city in your territory with no way to "fix" it except to declare war and take it.
Supported +1.

5. Thoughts about non-aggression pact truce time before declaring war: I think that you should be able to declare war immediately after terminating this pact, but suffer diplomatic consequences with all other factions if you start the war during the "cool-down-truce time." The other factions would be less likely to form pacts and alliances (seeing you as untrustworthy). This could be explained in a confirmation dialogue box before declaring. It was suggested that if the premature war declaration was due to a request for help from an ally, there would not be a diplomatic penalty, rather a diplomatic boost from the faction receiving help. The logistics of this are up for debate. UPDATE: This will be changed soon.
Supported +2.

6. There is a way to make withdrawal demands when AI encroaches on your space, but it was discussed below that the ability to do so seldom occurs. It was suggested that the trigger be modified so that this diplomatic option is available when it's needed. NightReaper added "would like to put a +1 for the way Endless Space has a state of cold war where players can be engaged militarily when out of their own zone of control without necessarily causing an immediate and automatic state of war! This can add to the diplomacy game immensely and also serve to convey displeasure with expeditionary forces lurking deep in your territory by their untimely disappearance." I've never played Endless Space, but this seems like it would add some diplomatic strategy.
Supported +2.

7. It was proposed that sub-systems be introduced such as Espionage, Propaganda, Sabotage, ect. Whether these are part of diplomacy or effectuated via a new window is a design decision that would have to be made. I recall that Proxy Studios mentioned Espionage in their short list of possible new features, but that's all I know. It was added that this would need some way of making it so that it isn't easy to abuse.

8. It's clear that there's a cool-down for certain diplomatic actions such as praising publicly, offering to trade maps, and many others. It would be nice to somehow know the state of cool-down. The same applies for the truce time after a non-aggression pact is broken. Perhaps this info could be displayed in the respective tool-tips. I discovered that the non-aggression pact cool-down is already displayed in the tool-tips of the respective factions.
Supported +1.

9. It was requested that there be diplomacy options upon game creation. One example was the ability to control AI aggression (perhaps set individual factions' aggressiveness level in advanced settings). Other options would be the ability to adjust the diplomatic action cool-down times, adjust the diplomatic penalty of declaring war, and even extreme options such as "no war" and "constant war".
Supported +1.

10. Some have raised concerns about the AI seldom declaring war (once per game), even on high difficulty and weak military strength. We have no saved games to back this up, unless someone decides to submit one. Hiho 216 said "I've had war declared on me 3 times in my game, though each time the enemy wasn't really prepared for war, or one instance where we weren't close enough to get into combat. I'd like to see the enemy start moving their troops around before they start a war, so that they were less easy to nuke."
Supported +1.

11. Someone suggested the ability to buy/sell/trade units. This ability comes with the assumption that tech trading never becomes implemented. This could be a good way to get some extra cash when you need it, or to get counters to enemy units that you don't have the tech for yet. Another added that it would cool to buy a few high-tech units for some exorbitant price just because they might turn the tide and keeping your investment alive would be interesting too.
Supported +1.

[fortydayweekend]

1. Ability to ask allies for help / Allies asking you for help.

2. Should allies' wars automatically pull you into the war too?

Both should definitely be there, it adds a lot of strategy to the game.

5. Thoughts about non-aggression pact truce time before declaring war? I think that you should be able to declare war immediately after terminating this pact, but suffer diplomatic consequences with all other factions if you start the war during the "cool-down-truce time." The other factions would be less likely to form pacts and alliances (seeing you as untrustworthy). This could be explained in a confirmation dialogue box before declaring.

Also agree, I think Europa Universalis had a rating for each player that went up every time you declared war, and that affected relations with every other country. I like the idea of a sneak attack being worse. Wiping out a faction completely could also mean a further penalty, encouraging leaving them "in exile" with one small city.

Also any faction that is attacked could be able to immediately request help from all other factions. If you come to their aid you'd obviously get a better rating with them but also not get a penalty from everyone else.

Just as a general idea I think it'd be cool to have some diplomacy setting options on game startup - to allow different types of game to keep more people happy

[SephiRok]

Thank you jdmillard. Stickied.

[jdmillard]

I made some edits.

1. Ability to ask allies for help / Allies asking you for help.

2. Should allies' wars automatically pull you into the war too?

Both should definitely be there, it adds a lot of strategy to the game.

I added your support above.

5. Thoughts about non-aggression pact truce time before declaring war? I think that you should be able to declare war immediately after terminating this pact, but suffer diplomatic consequences with all other factions if you start the war during the "cool-down-truce time." The other factions would be less likely to form pacts and alliances (seeing you as untrustworthy). This could be explained in a confirmation dialogue box before declaring.

Also agree, I think Europa Universalis had a rating for each player that went up every time you declared war, and that affected relations with every other country. I like the idea of a sneak attack being worse. Wiping out a faction completely could also mean a further penalty, encouraging leaving them "in exile" with one small city.

Also any faction that is attacked could be able to immediately request help from all other factions. If you come to their aid you'd obviously get a better rating with them but also not get a penalty from everyone else.

Just as a general idea I think it'd be cool to have some diplomacy setting options on game startup - to allow different types of game to keep more people happy

I added your input about not getting a penalty if a friend requests help. I want add your "diplomacy setting options on game startup" idea, but I wasn't sure how to word it. What do you mean? Are you referring to diplomacy difficulty options? or options for enabling certain diplomacy features? Just add a bit of detail and I'll gladly add it.

Thank you jdmillard. Stickied.

Sweet.

[NightReaper]

I really dislike the inability to make demands or threats when AI blatantly encroaches on your space. Most 4x's seem to let the AI voice displeasure but precious few allow the same for the human player(s) unless in multi-player mode. The AI is or seems capable of judging your strength so it would seem quite easy that they could evaluate your voiced displeasure in the same manner and act appropriately depending on their strength in comparison to their appraisal; they could tell you to ''pound sand" or remove themselves from the area in question. I also would like to be able to manually set what I think the appropriate bribe, er...I mean gift should be rather than let the computer decide an arbitrary and often over sized amount for me. What's with this??

[umbralAeronaut]

I really dislike the inability to make demands or threats when AI blatantly encroaches on your space.

There does exist a dialogue option that pops up when another Faction's units are near your cities, but I'm not sure what the exact trigger is (ie. I can't remember if they were on a hex adjacent to my faction's borders, or inside the borders, or what precisely). I used it once in a game and demanded that they remove their troops... pretty sure the AI agreed to relocate their forces at the time. It was a pleasant surprise and I only thought to go searching for it within the dialogue options after I'd had that same dialogue option used on me by a different AI faction earlier in the same game.

Maybe the trigger that allows that dialogue option just needs to be tweaked so it can be used in more situations...

I think the Diplomacy screen is actually pretty nice for where it is at right now (especially once I took the time to discover the tool-tips that exist for the dialogue options), it's just it needs more sub-Systems around it that can feed into it. Establishing some systems for Espionage, Propaganda, Sabotage and the like as various 'Means Short Of War' to influence other factions would be a massive improvement. Right now the Planetary Council research is a flat 'diplomacy bonus' which feels like a placeholder for an actual Sub-System that would feed into Diplomacy and creating global rules for the factions to abide by.

[jdmillard]

I really dislike the inability to make demands or threats when AI blatantly encroaches on your space.

There does exist a dialogue option that pops up when another Faction's units are near your cities, but I'm not sure what the exact trigger is ... Maybe the trigger that allows that dialogue option just needs to be tweaked so it can be used in more situations.

This has been added.

I think the Diplomacy screen ... just it needs more sub-Systems around it that can feed into it. Establishing some systems for Espionage, Propaganda, Sabotage and the like as various 'Means Short Of War' to influence other factions would be a massive improvement.

This has been added.

Unrelated: I also added a point about diplomatic action cool-downs.

[fortydayweekend]

I want add your "diplomacy setting options on game startup" idea, but I wasn't sure how to word it. What do you mean? Are you referring to diplomacy difficulty options? or options for enabling certain diplomacy features? Just add a bit of detail and I'll gladly add it.

One simple example would be to be able to set an overall level of AI aggression. A low setting would let players turtle safely; a high setting would be fun if you want a lot of fighting. The idea being to let people play the game they want, rather than being forced to build armies they don't want to use (or being forced to initiate all the attacking themselves). The extreme options could even be included - "no war" and "constant war".

Other options would probably be possible for most features - e.g. whether you can trade cities or tech, or the cool-down period for breaking non-aggression pacts, or the size of the penalty for declaring war etc etc.

In another thread I made a couple of other suggestions:

- AI decision-making based more on economic need rather than "mood" (i.e. AI will invade factions it has good relations with if they have the resources/room it needs, rather than attack a faraway faction out of spite)

- AI decision-making could be partially scripted - e.g. relations between 2 factions will steadily improve/deteriorate due to a series of uncontrollable "events" at random intervals. The idea being to force the player to come up with a reactive strategy instead of just being able to work out how to manipulate the AI. But not totally random either, and only a few pairs of factions would be affected.

[NightReaper]

Related to the diplomacy issue of not being able to challenge an AI player consistently for their audacious behavior at times, is the mechanic of late game building of cities in places where there is absolutely no hope of their becoming viable. I think I read a suggestion some time back in the forum that building a city closer than two tiles from an opponents zone of control should be considered (I think the Civ games require something like this). With no way currently available to consistently voice an ultimatum other than cancelling treaties and pacts which are rather always ignored, particularly past mid-game, this really negates the efforts to strategically place your cities so as to insure integrity and continuity of growth. Of course, war is the obvious solution, but I would like to think that building a city simply because you can is not a very elegant way to build an empire much less win friends and influence people (I know its only a game, but). Also would like to put a +1 for the way Endless Space has a state of cold war where players can be engaged militarily when out of their own zone of control without necessarily causing an immediate and automatic state of war! This can add to the diplomacy game immensely and also serve to convey displeasure with expeditionary forces lurking deep in your territory by their untimely disappearance Just saying...

[Hiho216]

I support 1 & 2, as I thought this was the whole point of making an alliance. What does allying do, if not that? I actually prefer that there is no tech trading in this game, as the AI never really understands this tactic and generally falls behind because of it. 4 I'll support, as the AI will grab up land in the middle of your territory and there ought to be an easier way of getting that back without going to war. 5 &6 I support. I think 7 could be really cool, so long as there are counters to it and it isn't abusable. 8 & 9, sure why not? 10: I've had war declared on me 3 times in my game, though each time the enemy wasn't really prepared for war, or one instance where we weren't close enough to get into combat. I'd like to see the enemy start moving their troops around before they start a war, so that they were less easy to nuke. I was surprised that war is more threatening at the outset than it was in SMAC, but after everyone used up their nukes, it was just short of a steamroll.

I'd also like to suggest the ability to buy/sell/trade units. If tech trading isn't going to be implemented (which it shouldn't), then this could be a good way to get some extra cash when you need it, or to get counters to enemy units that you don't have the tech for yet.

[fortydayweekend]

I'd also like to suggest the ability to buy/sell/trade units. If tech trading isn't going to be implemented (which it shouldn't), then this could be a good way to get some extra cash when you need it, or to get counters to enemy units that you don't have the tech for yet.

That'd be cool, being able to buy a few high-tech units for some exorbitant price just because they might turn the tide. Keeping your investment alive would be interesting too.

Also would like to put a +1 for the way Endless Space has a state of cold war where players can be engaged militarily when out of their own zone of control without necessarily causing an immediate and automatic state of war! This can add to the diplomacy game immensely and also serve to convey displeasure with expeditionary forces lurking deep in your territory by their untimely disappearance

The AI does like to wander around in no-man's land. Could be fun if it was basically a free-for-all. Or did you mean if they wander into your territory you can attack them?

In terms of the city-building, I know what you mean, but technically any city in Pandora is "viable", even one with all arctic surrounds can still be a science city

[Kyuutai]

Played for the first time yesterday... Well, let's say when I was signing an alliance, I was expecting the other faction to be pulled into war automatically when I was declared war on. I looked for an option to call an ally into war but there was none either. So my vote goes to 1 and 2 as highest priorities in diplomacy. Computers being more aggressive would also be more welcome (10).

[jdmillard]

Great comments. I updated the first post again to reflect all your input (the +'s and the new ideas).
So far #1 and #2 are the most desired additions.

[azpops]

Played for the first time yesterday... Well, let's say when I was signing an alliance, I was expecting the other faction to be pulled into war automatically when I was declared war on. I looked for an option to call an ally into war but there was none either. So my vote goes to 1 and 2 as highest priorities in diplomacy. Computers being more aggressive would also be more welcome (10).

Had the same problem today. Had an alliance with a much stronger AI faction. Another faction declared war on me and I was unable to ask the faction I had an alliance with to join in my war or to automatically join the war when I was attacked. What is the point in having an alliance if there is no benefit from it????

[void]

What will come the latest this weekend are the options to ask a faction to declare war on / offer peace to a third faction. Being in an alliance will greatly boost the chances of them accepting.

Also, you'll share vision with alliance partners and terminating non-aggression pacts will no longer prevent war declarations for 5 turns but decrease your standing with all factions.

[NightReaper]

+1 on coming changes…will add greatly to immersion and mix! Now about those nukes and sub-orbital bombardment techs...

[player1]

I think orbital bombardment is mostly fine.

After all, it performs attack of same strength as artillery unit from colonization era (1str splash attack).

[jdmillard]

I already mentioned this in the Beta. I really miss Alpha Centauri's diplomatic feature that allows an AI faction to surrender indefinitely if you whittle them down to 1 or 2 cities. It was called a "sworn pact to serve" or something like that. I remember that the AI had to offer it and that sometimes they would rather fight to the death than swallow their pride. If they did decide surrender, they were fierce "pact brothers" and would always support you with units, money, and planetary council votes (their vote was especially valuable for the yea-nay votes because the power of their vote was independent of their faction strength). So I would typically accept this "sworn-pact-to-serve surrender" and build them back up for fun. I would give them back some of their cities, give them money, all my tech, and I would send some of my formers to make their land better (because they weren't very good at that). This feature just added some fun strategy and I loved it.

Does anyone else remember feature? Did anyone else ever use it or did you all just kill off your enemies? If there are others out there who appreciate this type of surrender, I'll add it as a suggestion above.

[ac_snowman]

I already mentioned this in the Beta. I really miss Alpha Centauri's diplomatic feature that allows an AI faction to surrender indefinitely if you whittle them down to 1 or 2 cities. It was called a "sworn pact to serve" or something like that. I remember that the AI had to offer it and that sometimes they would rather fight to the death than swallow their pride. If they did decide surrender, they were fierce "pact brothers" and would always support you with units, money, and planetary council votes (their vote was especially valuable for the yea-nay votes because the power of their vote was independent of their faction strength). So I would typically accept this "sworn-pact-to-serve surrender" and build them back up for fun. I would give them back some of their cities, give them money, all my tech, and I would send some of my formers to make their land better (because they weren't very good at that). This feature just added some fun strategy and I loved it.

Does anyone else remember feature? Did anyone else ever use it or did you all just kill off your enemies? If there are others out there who appreciate this type of surrender, I'll add it as a suggestion above.

Oh yeah. I really liked that feature...it was one of those things that gave SMAC its incredible depth. A viable option to having to wipe them out. Never really seen it implemented in any other game, at least not so well. I occasionally chose to build them up to a useful ally level as well. Sometimes not....depended on how greatly they had irritated up to that point.

[jdmillard]

I already mentioned this in the Beta. I really miss Alpha Centauri's diplomatic feature that allows an AI faction to surrender indefinitely if you whittle them down to 1 or 2 cities. It was called a "sworn pact to serve" or something like that. I remember that the AI had to offer it and that sometimes they would rather fight to the death than swallow their pride. If they did decide surrender, they were fierce "pact brothers" and would always support you with units, money, and planetary council votes (their vote was especially valuable for the yea-nay votes because the power of their vote was independent of their faction strength). So I would typically accept this "sworn-pact-to-serve surrender" and build them back up for fun. I would give them back some of their cities, give them money, all my tech, and I would send some of my formers to make their land better (because they weren't very good at that). This feature just added some fun strategy and I loved it.

Does anyone else remember feature? Did anyone else ever use it or did you all just kill off your enemies? If there are others out there who appreciate this type of surrender, I'll add it as a suggestion above.

Oh yeah. I really liked that feature...it was one of those things that gave SMAC its incredible depth. A viable option to having to wipe them out. Never really seen it implemented in any other game, at least not so well. I occasionally chose to build them up to a useful ally level as well. Sometimes not....depended on how greatly they had irritated up to that point.

Plus I think the game gets too easy if you just take all the cities because afterward you have twice the production, income, and research. And after you to this 2 or 3 times, the immense number of cities turns into a giant chore of micromanaging. If the AI is basically on your team, you can let them run a small area which solves these problems and adds fun diplomatic strategy.