Diplomacy suggestion

Discussion about the Diplomacy System in SR2010

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, BattleGoat, Moderators

Post Reply
RCBricker
Captain
Posts: 132
Joined: Mar 31 2005

Diplomacy suggestion

Post by RCBricker »

I am pretty sure that the AI should be offering trades and treaties regardless of how they feel about you.

Based on feeling os distrust, the AI should be eager to get into a Non-agression pact.

If the AI is short of Timber and you are underselling everyone they should jump at the chance to but and it shouldn't be that you offer $1 M in Timber and they will only accept if you sell it for $750K. If the $1 M is less than the WM and other regions then the AI should take the deal.

The AI might not be all that quick to get into Mutual Defense, formal Alliances, or even to grant transit or line of sight treaties, but Trade and NAs are a big deal.

Trade should have little to do with citizen feelings, or even diplomatic feelings. Trade is about money and the more they save the more they can sink into their military or economy.

What do you all think?
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Re: Diplomacy suggestion

Post by BigStone »

RCBricker wrote:


Trade should have little to do with citizen feelings, or even diplomatic feelings.
What do you all think?
Sorry to disagree... trade can be used as a waepon...

Cheers
bwheatley
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 206
Joined: May 23 2005
Contact:

Post by bwheatley »

I think the AI should be more proactive with offering treaties and trades to other AI and the player if it suites the region.
User avatar
deanco
Major
Posts: 180
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Paris, France

Re: Diplomacy suggestion

Post by deanco »

RCBricker wrote:I am pretty sure that the AI should be offering trades and treaties regardless of how they feel about you.

Based on feeling os distrust, the AI should be eager to get into a Non-agression pact.

If the AI is short of Timber and you are underselling everyone they should jump at the chance to but and it shouldn't be that you offer $1 M in Timber and they will only accept if you sell it for $750K. If the $1 M is less than the WM and other regions then the AI should take the deal.

The AI might not be all that quick to get into Mutual Defense, formal Alliances, or even to grant transit or line of sight treaties, but Trade and NAs are a big deal.
All this makes sense to me.
Trade should have little to do with citizen feelings, or even diplomatic feelings. Trade is about money and the more they save the more they can sink into their military or economy.
Hmm, the question is, how much are corporartions' attitudes influenced by the political landscape. We know the story of the heartless weapons manufacturer that sells to both sides in a conflict, disregarding the gov. position and the human suffering, just to make a buck. And we know of corporations that are so beholden to gov that when the gov says 'Jump!', the answer is 'How high?' :) So I'm not really sure about your last point.

But the rest, I totally agree.

DeanCo--
RCBricker
Captain
Posts: 132
Joined: Mar 31 2005

Post by RCBricker »

Maybe I am thinking about trade wrong, but the Government decides how and with whom based on tariffs, qoutas, and the such. Other than that it is driven by the economy. If Ford can get parts cheaper from China than from England, then they are only concerned about political opinions as they affect trade already in place.

In this game trade is carried out on a national scale rather than an individual scale, but in such a way that the theory still applies and is simulated by the trade engine through the WM. The imports and exports are taken care of based on supply and demand. The AI buys based on the best price available. Import and export is controlled in the same way. The player applies tariffs and qoutas, even price can be changed to influence the market. The only thing not simulated is my country going to another country and offering X for Y for a period of Z, or visa versa.

As far as Trade being used as a weapon... Nice reply but it didn't actually address my comments. Trade still has little to do with civilian or diplomatic concerns. It can be a tool of diplomacy, but when trade is left alone it flows according to supply and demand.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

I agree that it can be used as a weapon because every successful trade has diplomatic impact and might make it cheaper for you to buy the design for their latest Uber tank, build it, and attack them with it.

I'm still following the conversation, and finding it interesting, please continue :)
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Xetal
Lieutenant
Posts: 84
Joined: Jun 02 2005

Post by Xetal »

I think you have it backwords.

Look at the world today:

It is -not- the situation that we only trade with our friends and we refuse to trade with those who are not our friends (or charge them more).

It is completely 180 of that.

We generally become friends with those that we do a lot of business with (at least on a governmental level... not nessisarily on a civilian level).

Do you think the USA -likes- how the Saudi government treats it's citizens? No. We get along with them because they are a trade partner with us for a certain resource that we want/need.

Now, there are things such as religion, centuries-old hatred, ethnic hatred, etc... that mucks up the waters, but as a general rule we start to become friends with whomever we trade with.

Because of this I think the way the AI trades should certainly be dependant on the relationship they have with another AI or Player, but I think that we should keep in mind that the very best way to become friends with someone is to be a trade partner with them.
RCBricker
Captain
Posts: 132
Joined: Mar 31 2005

Post by RCBricker »

I don't have it backwards, most people think the US government imports cars from Japan... It doesn't the customer creates the market and the government assigns tariffs and quotas if they wish to limit how many Japanese cars are allowed into the country. The US government owns no factories, we are a free market system. The Government buys very few items from countries. When the government negotiates trade deals it is set tariff and quotas.

As for trade partners that we become friends with, once again the Government doesn't sell computers to Saudi Arabia. It lowers the export fees for those items to the Saudis. When we negotiate for oil we are determining what products they need and how many fees or restrictions can be removed from them and how many the saudis will remove from their oil.

Very few governments sit around and go '...holy **** we need 1 million tons of timber'. It doesn't happen. The markets determine what is needed and the government can help control where the items are imported from or exported to with their trade restrictions.

The Game, however, has the government have complete control over the economy. In this situation, the AI and player replace the market as the determining factor of what, for how much. They should then seek the cheapest costs or the greatest profit. The AI doesn't do this. If I lower my prices below anyone else in a scenario my products should sell faster than someone not willing to under cut me (unless I am being boycotted).
User avatar
deanco
Major
Posts: 180
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Paris, France

Post by deanco »

RCBricker wrote:IThe Game, however, has the government have complete control over the economy. In this situation, the AI and player replace the market as the determining factor of what, for how much.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I really want to know. Are you sure it works this way? I was under the impression that the market was doing it's own thing according to supply and demand (with the WM thrown in as a kind of balancing X factor), and that the increase in your Treasury came strictly from import and export duties. I believe you're saying that I'm getting the profit from these sales directly into my Treasury.

DeanCo--
ozmono2005
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 539
Joined: Jun 01 2005
Location: Sydney

Re: Diplomacy suggestion

Post by ozmono2005 »

RCBricker wrote:
"Based on feelings os distrust, the AI should be eager to get into a Non-agression pact."
"The AI might not be all that quick to get into Mutual Defense, formal Alliances, or even to grant transit or line of sight treaties, but Trade and NAs are a big deal."

What do you all think?
Primarly I think it is always best if AI acts in its own interest and isn't designed to create an atmosphere as a priority. That said I would really like a distrustful AI to react with a player based upon players attitudes. Eg. If AI is distrustful and player builds up lots of units, bases etc on their border or turns down oppertunities to improve relations the AI would prepare for war and the opposite situation applied.

However I realise that this is not likely esp if AI is to improve and the AI is currently programed for short term games 5-10years max, not leaving that long for much dramitic diplomatic manevoers. Still I think the AI in different regions should behave differently, maybe as part of the scenerio/campaign story line and/or maybe due to some intial randomly distributed character traits.
Primary importance is AIs ability to challange the player and if that means sacrificing diplomatic depth, for now, then so it should be!

If you are or am increasingly capable of beating the AI after starting at varying degrees of disadvantages or advantages then what difference does it make to SP gameplay, if the AI is easier to manipulate to suit your own needs?

And I agree with others who suggested, that trade is and should be in this game a diplomatic tool to be used for negative or positive effects with other countries due to it's harmful and benifical potential

Best case scenerio in timber trade (Again don't know if this AI has any possiability of doing it) but best AI action in trade example you used, would be if AIs situation is best served by the decision it took

If getting it benifits them more, despite how much it hates you and however benificial it could be to you, then it should buy!

If your position has lots of potential to win the game and it hates you it shouldn't, as it should be playing to win!, esp if it hates you!! (this is even best outcome for atmosphere effects as why would a country that hates, you help you in anyway domminate a region/world by unification or military means.)
Ideally it would all depend on what is best for the AIs position and in the case of buying goods cheaper, it ideally would depend how much does AI and you stand to gain, how costly is the offer to refuse to AI and to you and if how much AI hates you!
ideal eg. AI is friendly with everyone else, but is worst possiable relations with you (because you have been aggressively expanding), you are almost in a position to become impossiable to beat. Then the trade would have to substansially improve the AIs position in regards to yours!
RCBricker
Captain
Posts: 132
Joined: Mar 31 2005

Post by RCBricker »

deanco wrote:
RCBricker wrote:IThe Game, however, has the government have complete control over the economy. In this situation, the AI and player replace the market as the determining factor of what, for how much.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I really want to know. Are you sure it works this way? I was under the impression that the market was doing it's own thing according to supply and demand (with the WM thrown in as a kind of balancing X factor), and that the increase in your Treasury came strictly from import and export duties. I believe you're saying that I'm getting the profit from these sales directly into my Treasury.

DeanCo--
you are not incorrect, however, the game does not allow undercutting in prices in trade deals. In the game, like Kingdoms of old (when the kingdom had a lot more say as to what happened in the economy than we do now), you have the ability as a government to directly trade for items that are in short supply. However, the AI (which in SP is all other nations) are stubborningly consistent in their refusal to trade with you unless you make such a one sided trade that it would be stupid to make. Trying to get coal (in one of my games) I offered $275 million for $125 million dollars worth of coal. This is a huge deal for the AI and everyone of the countries said 'NO'. Ok maybe they don't need cash. I used the filters to see they could produce on their own for raw materials and offered the two that had no petrolium almost twice the value of oil as I was asking in coal and they still said 'NO'. Finally, after 10 or so trys and smaller deals with tech designs I was able to get one to say something other than 'NO'. The counter offer they offered was to ADD $3 or so billion dollars lump sum to my already generous offer. This was coming from a country that needed oil!

Hell Hitler dealt with Stalin and they hated each other! Throughout history all the way up to now countries usually allow markets to but from whom they wish. There are exceptions (as when boycotts or sanctions are in place). Also Trade agreements are usually the first steps to mending or improving relationships with a country. The early 20th Century is a good example of Trade being used as a diplomatic tool. Tariffs and Qoutas were used by nearly every country in an attempt to protect their home industries. It was quickly learned that embracing global economies was the actual best path to take, rather than trying to limit it. Before this realization countries would meet to work out trade agreements which usually consisted of lowering tariffs and increasing qoutas (and setting minimum qouta levels as well). The Germans and the Russians worked out just such an agreement. The Russians were not all that good at creating heavy machinery and the Germans need raw materials. This is an example that easy to make because both countries had controlled economies. Kind of like what we have in the game.

As long as we can decide what to build on our own instead of having the industry appear, and as longs as we can actively seek amounts of goods, then the AI needs to take into account their economic needs when at peace rather than its diplomatic manuvering. No country would eliminate its ONLY source of oil just to make a statement. Not unless it had a hell of a store of oil or most if not all of its economy did not rely on the the material. Sanctions only work if all parties stick to the sanctions and the sanctioned country actually really needs the item(s).

You all want to use trade a weapon in diplomacy. Fine do so. but if there is a country that is too strong to attack and is the only source (other than the limited amount on the world market - which doesn't sell as much as you need of X material) of a material that you need badly, then you would be a fool not to deal with them. The AI is no different.
Post Reply

Return to “Diplomacy - State Department”