BGForums

I've been playing around with the diplomacy after downloading update 5. I've seen that size indeed matters now for diplomatic offers. On the normal level in the Americas versus the World grouping variant I was able to keep the Americas AI mollified with $20-$23 million daily offers. Now I saw where even giving a whopping $937 million daily offer did not keep the AI mollified as it's belli bar went up a point. In update 4 I was able to reduce the AI belligerence daily in the beginning with large daily bribes of $1-$1.5 billion plus one of the diplomatic offers like embassy until I had a formal alliance and mutual defense. No such luck now in update 5 as the AI belligerence went up even with $455 million daily bribes plus a diplomatiuc offer like embassy.

Where the heck are the tech and unit design trade offers? I saw them in my last update 4 game in the Americas versus the World World scenario grouping variant. After I got the formal alliance though they both disappeared. I tried restarting different scenarios in update 4 and could not ever get those tech trade offers to reappear. I even went so far as to delete all of my saved games and uninstalled and reinstalled the game and the three updates I have after getting update 5. I played for about a week getting all the diplomatic offers like embassy, open immigration and even the nonagression pact. Still no tech trades appeared.

So where the heck did the tech trade diplomatic offers go to? When I finally want to use them they're gone. I sure hope this gets resolved in the next update.

As for the AI's becoming more belligerent I think that just makes them worse, not better. I wonder if they become even more belligerent at the hardest level. I would make them almost impossible to piss off at the hardest level so that humans must force the attacks and bear the brunt of alliances kicking in rather than the other way around. While keeping the AI mollified in update 4 was too easy now with update 5 it's too difficult. Tone down the size of diplomatic offers so that we don't have to break the bank trying to keep the AI's playing nice if we want a long drawn out game at the world level.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

So you're upset that we removed an exploit? We always indicated that being able to constantly throw money at a region to keep them at bay was an exploit.


I can only assume you mean treaties such as "Share All R&D Treaty" that where part of the beta. These where removed before the game went gold. There are currently no treaties involving technologies. It was not possible to get those implemented in the current engine.


If you're playing on very hard it is intended to be difficult. And yes, at difficulty levels beyond normal the AIs have a "death to humans" slant. It has already been listed that for the next generation of the game we should separate out military difficulty from diplomatic difficulty but that remains a future idea.


I don't see any advantage to this idea, on maps such as WWIII it would make it possible for the player to "buy off" the other regions so they can attack the AIs one at a time and not suffer boycotts. I support our current method that at very hard (diplomatically speaking) it is nearly impossible to keep them from getting pissed off.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

I agree with the OP.

While the small packets cash appeasement exploit was unrealistic, the current situation is equally unrealistic. It isn't that it is now hard to mend relations with another nation, it's impossible. We ought to still have the option to pull a Libya, so to speak, and gain ground diplomatically, even if it is significantly harder to do than it was before. Giving/trading techs, lowering build cap, ANYTHING, there should be a way to do this.

Hmmm.. i don't think the diplo stinks...
I think we have to get use to the new rules....
And yet playing for apx 10 hours i say its to short to comment...

But i like its now harder to get allies.Before the update
it was quite easy to ally the hole map... and then what next..

Now you've to concentrate at one, maybe two candidate allies....

_________________
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR

I still don't see diplomacy as being a viable game strategy, only a complement to a military strategy. I understand the former would need a system far beyond what's present now, but, in my games I sometimes try to delay hostilities with specific regions, but that's the most useful the diplomacy system is. It all still revolves around setting yourself up for an unavoidable war.

A bit of both red and Bigstone here -

1. ) the diplo IS better, but see comments.

2. ) in SR2010 as it stands, diplo can never be much more than a delaying action, as there is no way to negotiate a surrender without going to war.

I suppose it is a matter of play-style, but I find that the diplo responses are far more reasonable than before. Perhaps it is because I also am quite selective in establishing alliances (although I do a lot of foreign aid and tech assistance, and lesser treaties as well). I find I am still able to influence diprelate and civrelate satifsfactorily, on a case basis. It ain't cheap but it never was.

It would be nice to have a more diplo-intensive game, but see comments in general discussion topic "no more updates."

As far as tech and design offers go: even as South Africa - definitely NOT the darling of the WM, I am garnering at least one good materiel offer a month, often more, and tech and design offers that are meaningful are also coming at a grudging but acceptable rate. Again, perhaps this is just a matter of style - but I wonder how much sensitivity the WM really has to your diplo behavior and posture - I suspect it is substantial.

_________________
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].