I'm starting to get a little worried about the economics and

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 19 2002

These are NOT strong points of my knowledge/interest so its hard for me to look for things that might not make sense/could be done better/that i should be asking about/etc..

Just the vast contrast in the amount of posts, great info,varrying veiw points,etc..
between what we see in the military forum and the other 2 is enough to see that we are not really contributing to the economics and diplomacy parts of the game.

So please,all you economics and diplomacy enlightened people out there speak up.
This company really seems open to discusion and revision on its plans because of feedback from its perspective customers.It would be a shame to waste this chance.

BG team, you post alot of "we would like your opinion on how this works" in military matters.Maybe a few questions you have on the other subjects would get us jump started.
You GOT to have SOME questions on them right?

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Oct 19 2002

I wonder if it because there are only so many things you can do with diplomacy in a game like this. For example, you've got the ususal "Let's have a cease fire", "Let's Have a trade treaty", "Let's have an alliance" and "I'm threatening you" message options that are in ALL games like this, whether based in space (Master of Orion) or based on terra firma (Civ, EU).

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot more to diplomacy besides these. If there is, I'd sure like to see and discuss it, as I have my degree in international relations.

I mean sure, you could get into detailed treaties like "If you agree to not build nukes, we'll give you 5000 tons of food" or "We defeated you, but we'll let you keep your government as long as we can patrol a no fly zone over these parts of your country." But seriously, would anyone take the time to do that? Would the AI be able to identify good and bad treaty proposals? Would the AI be able to create complex proposals like this?

I think the reason that no other games (that I can think of) have done complex diplomatic actions (well... Superpower gave the options, but the game was so horribly flawed and just plain non-functional that it was pointless unless you wanted Belgium ruling the known world) is because it's too complex and nobody would really do much other than the basic treaties.

However, I think there are some options that can make the player have more of an effect in regards to international affairs. Some of these have been put in place by BG, if I recall, and some of these I may just be pulling out of my ear. Some of these may just be ways of conducting real-life diplomacy that can theoretically be done in the game engine, but you may not realize it.

1. Tarriff rates (oil has a 5% tarriff, food has a 25% tarriff, etc.)

2. Regime support (essentially giving an allied nation the military and other assistance to make sure it stays in power and remains friendly to you).

3. Threatening posture (espionage/sabotage and massing of armies on a border area. Only problem is that the AI must notice, react to, and evaluate the threat).

4. Show of force (naval ships passing very close to an enemy shore, like the US did with Libya during the '80s to show their power).

5. Humanitarian aid (giving food/goods for the population of another country for free).
AI must realize that it needs help (in a natural disaster or war), decide to accept the help, and have better relations with the donating country as a result. In SuperPower, for example, you'd get a news flash about a hurricane in Bangladesh that killed 5000 people, but Bangladesh would not accept any aid from anyone. I think with SR2010, the loss of a lot of life like that will affect internal politics of a country and if the government cannot react, then they will suffer. Aid should help them react.

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Oct 21 2002

My concern regarding diplomacy is that the other sides behave rationally.

Taking Civ2 as an example, you might meet Russia and they would establish a ceasefire. A few turns later they would attack. They then want another ceasefire. This would go on a few times until you wiped them out. It was pretty obvious that trying to get a permanent ceasefire was impossible.

Alpha Centauri improved things greatly and other sides realised when they were too weak or beaten, and there was the chance that they could be integrated into your empire.

I accept there are only a few diplomatic options available, but a country must not behave nice then nasty then nice again almost at random...

...not that I expect that from this game...

Post by **BattleGoat** » Oct 21 2002

I definitely want to encourage this thread although I won't interject much at this point. We've got some pretty solid ideas on the diplomatic aspects of the game but there is always room for improvement and I want to encourage any discussions that generate more ideas in this area.

Obviously the Diplomatic issues are more flexible and fun in a multiplayer game than Single Player dealing with the AI can allow, but we will do our best to make sure that the AI does understand and make logical decisions about diplomacy.

Post by **Balthagor** » Oct 21 2002

As much as I look for a good AI in a single player game, I hope that our AI will also be a little fickle at times. In many games the AI seems to refuse to ally with you if it perceives you are stronger than it is. However, a human player would ally but remember that alliances are just pieces of paper. I hope that our diplomacy can turn into a bit of a poker game where you always need to wonder what the other person is holding. Bluffing and posturing are common tools in diplomatic relations.

I will try and stimulate some discussion in the diplomacy section where I can.

... And as for Belgium always winning, I see no problem with that

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Oct 21 2002

I agree with 3iff's (how the hell do you pronounce that, anyways? Ziff? Threeifs?

) comments - AI countries in nearly all games are rarely, if ever, consistent in their diplomatic behavior. It's as if they have a new 'regime change' every turn, abandoning treaties that benefit them greatly (namely the treaties that keep me from taking them over) and refusing cease fire requests even after they've suffered massive losses.

Another thing is that the AI seems to remember your bad actions much more often than you're good ones. If you break a treaty, the AI will remember that for 2000 years (in Civ, at least.) However, if you abide by your treaty and come to your ally's aid, the AI does not take notice of that at all.

There was one game that seemed to do politics right, and that was Imperialism by SSI. There, your actions, good or bad, persisted in the world. If you were benevolent to the smaller nations (minor nations) they would support you, eventually ally with you, possibly allow colonization and eventually become a part of your empire. Each of your actions was reflected on a big map - green countries were friendly, red countries hostile and various shades thereof representing various attitudes. You knew exactly where you stood in the world and could reasonably estimate what actions were good and what were bad and their consequences.

Few other games have copied what I consider to be this successful diplomatic system.

SuperPower, which I bring up yet again because it DID have potential (which was flushed down the drain), brought some other interesting possibilities to it's diplomacy system. Namely, it allowed you to increase and descrease political pressure on other countries.

I'm not exactly sure what increasing pressure did, but I can imagine what it was supposed to do. It was a guage of a country's approval or disproval of your actions and, if done well, it would affect foreign aid, cultural exchanges, and affect the foreign people's (not government's) view of your country. If country A is building nuclear weapons, increase the pressure on them and let them watch as the foreign aid stops and the UN lobbying to condemn an action begins.

SR2010 would do well to examine and possibly incorporate the essense of the diplomatic functions of the above games, which broke from the CIV/MOO formula (where neighbors would send cryptic messages like 'What do you want now?' when they loved you and "We thank you for your support, but be prepared to be assimilated! Maybe not now but soon!").

We need an honest, no BS, foreign policy system that won't delight us with well modeled representations of envoys or enemy leaders - we need a system that delights us with options. Glorious options. That work.

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Oct 22 2002

It's pronounced Biff...but I write my B's without the downstroke, and 3 is the best equivalent.

I agree with the comment about a regime change every turn. This is a bad thing and means you cannot interact with other nations. This leads to the situation where those other nations are neutral or hostile and must be considered as enemies.

Having real treaties with other nations does increase the permutations of actions and would only change if one side did something 'nasty' or if there were a change of regime. This would not happen on a regular basis though, only once-in-a-while.

I like the idea of having 'fickle' nations though, just to increase the uncertainty a little.

There again, there's nothing wrong with having a loyal and trustworthy ally too...

Oh yes. Options, Glorious options. I like the sound of that!

[ This Message was edited by: 3iff on 2002-10-22 03:10 ]

Post by **Balthagor** » Oct 23 2002

I think we will be able to treat diplomacy in a little more realistic way due to the fact that we are supporting a large number of treaties. Most games tend to combine treaties. If you are â€œat warâ€ with someone, then you blockade them, fire at them, donâ€™t trade with themâ€¦

Because we have different treaties, we allow players to be at war, but maintain a ceasefire, blockade them, but still support an economic treaty. This means we will be able to decide which treaties the AI is fickle about, and which ones it treats as the word of Godâ€¦

In theory anywayâ€¦

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Oct 23 2002

Speaking of diplomacy and treaties...

Sometimes the AI might behave more realistic than a human player.I have a nice example which I experienced in Alpha Centauri.
If you do some really horibble atrocities (like killing civilians)the computer will "like you" less.Sooner or later he might cancel treaties to you or might even attack you.
But the human player has no reason to do so should another human or AI player "misbehave".
He has the choice to do what he wants and might simply watch his allies slaughtering civillians.
The same applies to broken treaties.

This happens because there are no "real" consequences involved.

I believe that without consequences that a player (or AI) will "feel" the diplomacy part might turn out to be nothing but hot air.
And I think that some nifty consequences would make the game look more "real"

How should a real consquence look like?

I have already heard that forming treaties will cost an ammount of cash so you will only "buy" them if you really want them.
I think thats a good start but I hope it wont end there.
As much as I have heard about the domestic approval (is there also a military one?) I see it as a good an effective means to punish the player for doing "bad stuff".
And a player who chooses to ally or trade with a player who does "bad stuff" should also get punished,this way a player will think about his alliances carefully.
Maybe the people of the player(or AI) might even cry out for some embargos of even war against a nation.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Oct 23 2002

Good post Juergen! And I'm happy to report that all your ideas are part of the design. Actually there are even more dire consequences for "Bad" behaviour

Here's a hint about gameplay... You might not want to piss the World Market off!

[ This Message was edited by: BattleGoat on 2002-10-23 13:05 ]

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Oct 24 2002

With treaties costing 'money' there are obviously benefits to having treaties. Better trading, allies, more security in general.

Equally, breaking treaties or otherwise annoying other nations would reduce trading opportunities, shut out the possibility of allies and make you less secure.

I agree that human players can step-out of a rational diplomatic strategy, even possibly for no reason at all, but they tend to be treated differently than a computer player who does the same sort of thing.

As long as a computer player (or two) do that and don't want a ceasefire a turn or two later then things should be fine.

Also, having a multitude of diplomatic options should allow fine-tuning of diplomatic strategy. Because many games require only a single winner, all other nations need to be regarded as the enemy. Allowing for allied nations to joint-win would allow and encourage real long term strategies without the need to declare war later in the game.

Also having an untouchable world market might discourage really nasty behaviour. I take it the world market is beyond the reach of the player?

[ This Message was edited by: 3iff on 2002-10-24 05:02 ]

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Oct 24 2002

And the next question would be what happens in the world scenario.

Might some countries make demands to the most powerfull country to help them with their problems?
Can the player get the role of the world market?

Back to AI..
I dont know if the problem is that human players are treated differently.
It may be a part of the problem.

I think it goes like this:
To make a computer player attack or make an alliance with another player it is "told" to like or dislike the other player.
The point is that there is kind of value that tells the AI player how to react to a certain player (be that human or AI).
And according to events (war,breaking treaties) this value might be altered.

This simply doesnt work out for humans because you cant "tell" them to like or dislike another player.
As I pointed out in my last post a human player would need to be "encouraged" (read sticks or carrots) to make an alliance or to make war.

Back to the treaties:

What kind of treaties are there?
How will they work?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Oct 24 2002

What I hated about CIV was that in the later stages of a game the AI would attack you, you'ld take one of its cities, then it would offer Peace which your cabinet would force you to accept. No such worries in SR2010... You don't have to accept anyone's peace overtures if you don't want to!

Up until the scenario for the world, the World Market is essentially untouchable. (You might be able to take a little bit of WM territory, but it wouldn't be worth the pain!) At the world scenario level, there is no separate World Market left...

Note : You can't take the role of the World Market, but you do have an appropriate level of representation on it. Think of it sort of as a UN with bigger teeth. In early scenarios you are just a small voice in the big world. As your region grows, you represent a bigger portion of the world and thus have bigger representation in the World Market. And in the scenario battle for the World, the World Market is made up entirely of the remaining regions.

As to what treaties are available... that's an item we are not releasing yet. Needless to say they are literally dozens of pre-set treaties to choose from, Economic, Political, and Military and I'm sure in Multi-Player games you'll even be able to create your own!

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Oct 24 2002

Create you own treaties in MP?

Dam,I was just about to suggest that

Sounds very interesting to say the least.
Finally a strategy game with HUGE diplomacy part

[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-10-24 11:10 ]

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Oct 25 2002

Juergen,

I agree about other human players and yes, their flexibility is part of the problem, not that I would be playing other human players.

Human players have the ability to turn 180 degrees instantly, and turn a real trustworthy alliance into a vicious backstab. people who have even played Diplomacy would know that.

With care, and a LOT of hard work, computer players may be able to do this too. However, many programs try to have the computer player do this sort of thing every turn or two. That simply makes the computer players annoying and they become guaranteed targets for destruction.

Bargaining and bribing could work well as long as they do not switch strategies every few turns.

Hopefully though, there will be lots of treaty types that allow delicate degrees of alliances or war.