What diplomacy?

Discussion about the Diplomacy System in SR2010

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, BattleGoat, Moderators

Message
Author
Stuka
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 28 2006

What diplomacy?

#1 Post by Stuka » Jun 28 2006

Played through the Africa scenario twice. First time I was the bad guy, attacked Namibia from the get go and pretty much rolled over everyone that got in the way, which was the rest of the continent. WM hated me but who cared 8) So far so good, no surprises there.

Second time I played it like the good guy. No troops on Namidias border, defcon 5, started to get small treaties with my neighbours etc. Namibia declared war on me :roll: ah well, never mind. Took a purely defensive stance in that while fighting ( and winning ) I repeatedly tried to get a ceasefire, even had my diplomacy minister attempting it. WM started by sending me military advisors and giving me military units at no cost. Namibia consistantly refused the ceasefire even though they were getting hammered, then one by one all the other regions started to declare war on me and shortly after the WM started to give me grief which resulted in expulsion.

In short, for a strategy game of such depth and scale the AI diplomacy model truly sucks. Not many problems with the rest of the game but this area really needs work.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19951
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#2 Post by Balthagor » Jun 28 2006

A more detailed commentary that "sucks" would probably be useful here including what you expect to see in very specific cases.

I would expect that if you check the relations of Namibia towards your region you will find that their civilian and diplomatic opinions are nearly zero and they have a 100% Causus Belli towards you. Even when being beaten at those values they simply hate you too much to even consider surrendering.

Simply saying that an AI that is being "hammered" should accept a ceasefire would create cases where the player can constantly take ceasefires to bring up more troops, attack again and continue hammering. The opposing region's situation needs to be a factor.

That said, there are changes to the diplomacy as part of the next update so you should give that a try when it is out (due shortly, check discussions in the General forum). The changes may be more in line with what you're looking for.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Stuka
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 28 2006

#3 Post by Stuka » Jun 28 2006

One of the most annoying things in the AI is that it fails to recognise the current situation with any kind of realism. In the previous example Namibia were the aggressors & I was constantly trying for peace. Regardless of this the moment I had pushed Namibian territory back to the extent that I now had a border with Angola the Angolans declared war on me as well, which was closely followed by every other region, even those hundreds of miles away. Realisticly world opinion would have been against the aggressor and in favour of the guy that really didn't want the war.

Some level of diplomatic contact with Angola to say 'look guys, sorry about this but Namibia started it and you have no need to worry as we have no intention of crossing your border' would be nice.

I understand the hate aspect but there is also the survival instinct and the AI takes no heed of this whatsoever. Namibia had one city left and hardly any territory, I said look, make peace and you can have all your land back. The reply was pretty much 'no dice, we have shovels to whack your nukes away with'. Totally unrealistic.

Sorry about the sucks comment, the rest of the game is excellent :P

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19951
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#4 Post by Balthagor » Jun 28 2006

Glad you're enjoying the game for the most part, and thanks or expanding on your comments, player feedback is a big part of making a good game.
Stuka wrote:One of the most annoying things in the AI is that it fails to recognise the current situation with any kind of realism...Realisticly world opinion would have been against the aggressor and in favour of the guy that really didn't want the war.
World opinion, possibly, but each of those regions gets its own opinions. We have discussed (and it remains on our wishlist) of having regions that hate another but don't border it to find other methods of trying to undermine the opposing region (give money/units to those attacking the hated region).

Something to keep in mind, if the other regions declared war on you, not Namibia, that likely means that when Namibia declared war on you they had high justification. The other regions aren't getting into it because "someone declared war" but because they dislike you also. Most of the time that ppl comment of all AIs declaring war on them (assuming normal difficulty level) they are also the build cap leader. If every African region is watching you build up a large army, why shouldn't they all get together to try and take you out?
Stuka wrote:Some level of diplomatic contact with Angola to say 'look guys, sorry about this but Namibia started it and you have no need to worry as we have no intention of crossing your border' would be nice.
The concern is players use this as an exploit to remain in isolated wars to take out opposing regions one by one. It is often the pressure of multiple opponents that is needed to push a player back.
Stuka wrote:I understand the hate aspect but there is also the survival instinct and the AI takes no heed of this whatsoever.
See, I'm not sure I agree on this. Look at conflicts such as Iraq. The leadership would in no way have been interested in making peace with the US even after getting massively beaten in every engagement. The cases of forces giving up would be simulated in our game by low military approval levels causing individual units to surrender, not the entire country. When relations are as bad as I'm describing I don't think the nation should accept a ceasefire unless you manage to get a static line and hold it for some time.

There is already an effect in the game that Belli decreases over time if the other region does not see specific hostile action (high build cap is considered hostile) but it does take a very long time. Getting a ceasefire requires relations that are hard to reach in our game and that is some of what we're working on. There are some elements of this in the next update where it is somewhat more possible to affect region to region relations but it is still quite tough.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

#5 Post by Lightbringer » Jun 28 2006

Actually I've had several instances of succesful requests for ceasefires through the email link telling me we are under attack. Central Texas signed a ceasefire, and in short order every other treaty including alliance, within days of blatantly attacking me. (this was mentioned briefly in the "good for the goose?" thread) Most recently SE U.S. agreed to ceasefire in the same manner. They attacked me (western U.S.) shortly after the northeast did. I hit pause and requested a ceasefire through the email screen, they accepted. Almost 80% belli dropped to 0%, giving me a nice leisurely respite to whup up on the NE while the SE's belli has to slowly climb back up due to my build cap. I think the factor in both these cases was that I had military initiative at 0% and none of my troops entered their territory. I did have plenty of Arty which had opened fire stationed on those borders, and my Inf was defending itself.
So even if they hate your guts and have every right to attack in the WM's eyes, if you don't want to fight that particular foe just yet, use the diplomacy option in the email you get warning that you are under attack. If conditions are right you might not have to. It is one of those quirky AI things... beat the crap out of them and they will never stop fighting, behave as if you are frightened to death of fighting them and they will leave you be. :D

Stuka
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 28 2006

#6 Post by Stuka » Jun 28 2006

Balthagor wrote:

Stuka wrote:I understand the hate aspect but there is also the survival instinct and the AI takes no heed of this whatsoever.
See, I'm not sure I agree on this. Look at conflicts such as Iraq. The leadership would in no way have been interested in making peace with the US even after getting massively beaten in every engagement. The cases of forces giving up would be simulated in our game by low military approval levels causing individual units to surrender, not the entire country. When relations are as bad as I'm describing I don't think the nation should accept a ceasefire unless you manage to get a static line and hold it for some time.
Iraq yes, I agree with you, either that or he just listened to his minister of information (there are no tanks ) :P

But there are numerous examples that show the opposite is true, Finland in WW2 which is why we have the word Finlandisation now in existence. Libya, drop a bomb on Gadafhi's house and all of a sudden he's a we love the west fanboi. Pakistan, after seeing the way Afghanistan was dealt with now can't do enough to make the U.S & Britain happy etc. Perhaps there should be some differentiating factor to seperate the regions from each other, leader and government personalities maybe.

Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

#7 Post by Il Duce » Jun 28 2006

just a comment - The basic African situation is pretty much hopeless for diplomacy as a campaign starter. Other regional entry points have more diplo potential. Try the Russian entry into the campaign. It has more intrigue.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].

Eric Larsen
Colonel
Posts: 350
Joined: Oct 25 2005
Location: Salinas, CA

Ceasefire & Peace Mutually Exclusive???

#8 Post by Eric Larsen » Jun 29 2006

One thing I've noticed that's a problem is that if you get a ceasefire the peace proposal becomes extinct. Why are we limited to a ceasefire or peace but not both? Certainly getting peace would make a ceasefire moot but a ceasefire tends to be the precursor to peace proposals. I would like to see the peace proposal still stay on the table when one gets a ceasefire.

Stuka, you need to make small daily cash bribes to the AI's to keep them off your back. Making treaties is nice but the AI's really only stay mollified with daily doses of cash. Remember that bribery will get you everywhere.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19951
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#9 Post by Balthagor » Jun 29 2006

the fact that Peace is not available when Ceasefire is in place is a known bug, but it keeps getting lower priority than other more visible bugs.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Eric Larsen
Colonel
Posts: 350
Joined: Oct 25 2005
Location: Salinas, CA

Missing Tech Trade Offers

#10 Post by Eric Larsen » Jun 30 2006

Balthagor wrote:the fact that Peace is not available when Ceasefire is in place is a known bug, but it keeps getting lower priority than other more visible bugs.
Chris,
I'm glad that is a known bug and will someday get fixed. Actually that's a rather serious bug that should have a much higher priority so there isn't endless war or ceasefires.

I've also encountered a new problem in that I can start new games but I never see the tech trade diplomatic offers anymore. The last game I started I clearly remember seeing two tech trade diplomatic offers but had not tried them. I did do almost all of the other ones, including formal alliance. Now no matter what scenario or side I try I don't ever see those tech trade offers. It's almost as if the first time I tried doing diplomatic offers that somehow it's stored in memory somewhere some flag that turned off those offers not only in my saved game but also in any game I now start. I sure hope this is a known bug and is on the fix list.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19951
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#11 Post by Balthagor » Jun 30 2006

I'd need for more precise details to hunt that one down...

What do you mean by "tech trade diplomatic offers"?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Victor1234
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Aug 05 2006

#12 Post by Victor1234 » Aug 05 2006

On a similar note, I've noticed while playing an Israeli campaign, the AI never accepts peace, no matter what I do, but they surrender when 9/10 of their territory is taken every time (no fight to the end). I tried to have some historical-type fun by invading Egypt, taking the Sinai and then trying to get the Egyptians to stop the war. I thought maybe they thought they still had a chance, so I bombed and destroyed around 85% of their military with my airforce....still no dice.....so then I went all the way to Cairo and occupied it, still nothing.....the AI would occassionally send an infantry with APC unit to try and retake Cairo whenever the World Market sold them units, but still no peace. I tried offering money, I tried offering all the land I took, I even tried offering all the land I'd taken from Egypt so far (including the Sinai where I had built some nice new bases) and still nothing.....but I don't want to finish them off, because that wouldn't be much of a challenge, I'd prefer to watch them rebuild, declare war and try to take the Sinai back, but I guess it isn't in the cards :-(

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#13 Post by bergsjaeger » Aug 05 2006

Afraid not. In that scenario its all about war. U might be lucky enough to trade techs once and awhile. But from the get go u need to prepare for war as Israel. Don't think in real life getting peace in that region be easy either.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

Victor1234
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Aug 05 2006

#14 Post by Victor1234 » Aug 05 2006

Ah, I did get a formal alliance with Iraq and Turkey (didn't want them to attack while I was busy with Egypt) after paying them enough. I don't know whether that particular scenario is meant to reflect the real-world, but I somehow doubt Iraq recognizing, much less making an alliance with Israel :o

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to take Egypt over completely....now what to do with all that new desert 8O

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#15 Post by bergsjaeger » Aug 05 2006

Build oil plants, farms, Water works, etc. Lots of land to build new industry and military bases. And that's really a surprise Iraq allied to Israel. Imagine what it be like in real life. :o
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

Post Reply

Return to “Diplomacy - State Department”