BGForums

Tony,

We need to wait until Chris gets back to us. We could talk ourselves blue in the face, but unless the powers-that-be are interested in these ideas we are spinning out wheels.

Regards,
Feltan

Yes, I felt it necessary to respond since it was I who started this thread.

I must say that I am finding it difficult to explain myself in regards to what I would like to see in 2020. They are speaking programming language and I am simply speaking . . . well, you have read my poor writings.

Thanks,

Tony

One of the major things in 2010 is the lack of diplomatic initiative from the AI.
As far as IR i never got an offer from the AI to , for example , establish a embassy or any other treaty

I hope this will chance in 2020 so the game becomes more `alive`

Legend and I have tossed around a number of ideas on how we can both make opposing regions initiate more diplomacy as well as getting your minister to help you set up good diplomatic offers you might not have thought of. Implementing such things will be at a later stage however so there is not much to tell yet beyond the fact that we're planning for it...

Balthagor wrote:Legend and I have tossed around a number of ideas on how we can both make opposing regions initiate more diplomacy as well as getting your minister to help you set up good diplomatic offers you might not have thought of. Implementing such things will be at a later stage however so there is not much to tell yet beyond the fact that we're planning for it...

Legend,

This is great news for everyone and I strongly believe that this will push 2020 to greater heights. Thank you and your team for listening and being committed to making an awesome game!

It is great news, indeed. The one thing that we've talked about is frequency... and player expectation. We don't want offers to be repetitive... and we don't want too few or too many offers being sent to the players. It would be nice to have certain regions want to trade with us. In many ways no matter what we do, we won't please everyone all of the time. Yes, in SR2010, there were very few times in which the AI offered trades... (it did actually happen) so you could say, "just make them send a few more offers than they did before". But the other factors mentioned above, such as frequency, do come into consideration.

So, perhaps an example of playing a region with one ally, 2 regions with decent relations... and 2 with bad relations... how many offers over a given period of time do you want to offer? At the same time, how many offers do you send to other regions? Do you expect others to send you offers, while not sending offers on your own?

Diplomacy should be tiered so that the AI has a greater bound between itself and other countries (including the player). What I mean is that offers made between countries without an Embassy, those with Embassies, those with lower level alliances, and those with a full Alliance should be comparable.

In trying to visualize your example and the above comment, I can see the following (and I hope this makes some kind of sense):

A & B are allied: Diplomatic offers/request of resources, technology, and military equipment on a regular basis (monthly at least) in which two -three major attempts are made.

A & C have decent relations: Diplomatic offers/requests of resources, technology, and military equipment somewhere around 1-2 per quarter.

A & D have bad relations: Diplomatic offers/requests would be more off balanced and less frequent (trying to get the most for less a lot quicker). The fact that A & B are allied will cause friction with these actions.

B & C have bad relations: Offers/requests the same as A & D. The fact that A & B are allied will strain these actions.

B & D have decent relations: Same as A & C.

D & C have good relations: A & B's alliance will cause these two to look at each other to equal the playing field; while B & C's relationship will also play a factor.

** Is it possible that a third country, such as D in this example, could influence the diplomacy between two other countries? For instance, D would not appreciate C giving countries A and/or B military technology or sell them petroleum, coal, or military equipment.


** Another thought that I have is if the diplomatic relations is high enough, would it be possible for the player to fund and provide the resources and engineers to build facilities? In most games you hear of countries being completely out of one resource or another and more so not having enough electricity to survive. As a diplomatic tool I would like the option to build a nuclear power plant or whatever in another country to improve relations. This happens around the world all the time!

** Military presence used as a diplomatic tool. (Diplomacy not war, right?) Anyway, Country B believes that Country C is preparing for war and diplomacy has failed. As the player (or possible an AI country) I would like to negotiate with the warring country to see if I could calm the war drums. If this fails then military presence buildup should have a reaction (either to attack or stand down) based upon the new development.

In closing (as I have to work at some point), I would like for my State Department Minister to look at the AI countries and send me a message to confirm/deny diplomatic deals that he believes should be submitted. For instance, my Minister see's continual electric shortages in Country B and through his knowledge of our relationship (historical and present) he might suggest we build a power plant for them; or suggest that we set up a weekly or monthly trade for XX,XXXX amount of resources A, B, and C. The same would apply for the AI as well.

Tony

i like this idea and think it will add a layer of thinking to this game. more diplomatic relations mean more abilities and more FUN to the game or at least some satisfaction

It's been a week on the diplomacy issue...?

I'd expect it'll be a few more weeks till this goes anywhere, I'm placing upgrades on the map, Dax is building the new UI, David is buried in government forms (someone has to run the company...) and directing Dax and I as we hit questions on standards and George is working on the graphics engine...

Since this posting went up I have tried many things to get the AI to negotiate with me and they simply are not interested. Regardless of what actions I take the AI simply will negotiate in what should be considered "going overboard" with offers.

In my latest WWIII scenario where I tried out the USA I did the following:
I reduced my BC to below that of Canada and Mexico
I reduced my military fingerprint by putting most of it into reserves
I only had minimum (national guard Infantry I think) along the borders
I had zero missile production
I had zero military research
I destroyed my nuclear arsenal
I attempted a billion diplomatic trades
I had zero alliances or favorable diplomacy with any other country
A few other events that I forget.

RESULTS:
-Neither would make me an offer
-Neither would take an offer from me without asking for an enormous amount of money.
-Both CB continued to increase
-Eventually both allied with each other and most all European and African countries

THEN: Canada, then Mexico, DoW against me. Neither had the ability to gain anything substantial militarily and I quickly repulsed their attacks and began moving north and south.

I said all of that to get to this point:
-Canada and Mexico, regardless of their allies around the world, had no chance yet they still declared war.
-I offered everything but the sink and they refused.
-I tried to give my first born and they turned their heads again. . .

In closing here is what is missing:

- The AI has NEVER instigated a diplomatic deal with me, the Player.
- The AI simply does not "see" my actions as being non-aggressive.
- The AI made alliances with countries that could not, and would never, have the ability or means to assist them in a fight against me.
- The AI did not "see" their initial attacks being crushed and the quick turn around of my forces into the offensive as a negative. They continued to fight with one's and two's. No concerted effort by its forces. What I mean is that the AI needs to understand the basics of a DEFENSIVE line behind its offensive line to thwart my offensive operations.
- The AI DID have an ally North and South of me, however neither took my offensive success as the end to their operations. They should have considered a cease fire or peace treaty.
- The AI NEVER used its navy to project power forward. While both had sufficient navies to bring about positive offensive actions they simply never used them.
- The AI uses its airforce ONLY when my forces get within their DEFENSIVE range. Both had plenty of offensive aircraft to support their operations but neither used the resources.
- The AI had plenty of Airborne/Air Assault purpose troops, however the AI NEVER uses them for their intended purpose. Sufficient transport aircraft were available
- The AI use of missiles seems stunted, in other words, the AI will send only a few missiles at a cluster of targets and watch as they all get shot down. Any player will send a barrage of missiles to overwhelm the AI anti-air defenses so that kills can be made.

There are more but I must get back to work.

Tony

This is an excellent and almost completely accurate account of how things are, AND great sugestions in how to make them better.

tonystowe wrote:In my latest WWIII scenario where I tried out the USA...

Tony, I like your analysis, and agree with your list of things the AI needs to learn to do properly. You really should use a different example to point out the failings of the AI diplomatic capabilities though. It is well documented and openly admitted by the Goats that they programmed the WWIII scenario so that the U.S. has absolutely no chance for diplomacy whatsoever. You wouldn't point out the failings of a Trident submarine that would not fly, please don't use a hardwired diplomatic villain as an example of how hard it is to accomplish diplomatic victory.

Try the same things with France or Ukraine, or some other less hated but strong region, and see if you experience 0% success. My guess is that the WWIII scenario is pretty much a lost cause for diplomacy in any circumstance, but unless my memory is failing, the U.S. is coded to have to fight alone.

Regards,
Light

The nation instilled prejudice is a good point.I would also say that the setting for the AI plays a large factor.
For instance, i find that on the AI setting of "unpredictable",i am much more able to get diplomatic deals than on the AI setting of "hostile".

BUT i find that on either, i can get diplo for just about any region .It just takes alot more work for some regions under some settings.

Lightbringer wrote:...You really should use a different example to point out the failings of the AI diplomatic capabilities though. It is well documented and openly admitted by the Goats that they programmed the WWIII scenario so that the U.S. has absolutely no chance for diplomacy...

I had mentioned previously that the European Wars scenario should be used as a diplomacy test scenario since starting from most regions you have some other nations that like you and some that do not. And as Tkobo mentioned, any diplomacy testing on "very hard" is pointless since there is a built in "hate all humans" factor on anything above normal difficulty level. There are still some very good comments in tonystowe's post, they are just a little tainted by the above factors.