It might not be on topic for a discussion about diplomacy, but I was thinking it would be interesting if you could have an administration where new positions are unlocked as you advanced through the tech tree and/or meet other requirements. Like if you get a hero with minister of propaganda you can assign them to establish a ministry of propaganda that improves empire wide approval, also after say 20 turns (each election) the new department no longer needs the hero to continue its function. It could also add a few unique departments of government to each faction.

Slashman wrote:
This still requires a Galactic Council/UN mechanic. And for the same reasons you are trying to list as making my proposal invalid, that doesn't make sense. Why would the Harmony sit on a council with people who use Dust?

I am not saying your proposal is invalid, I am saying it is insufficient, imo, to make it feel like actual diplomacy. Espionage is not enough to make it feel like diplomacy, without political negotiation and institution building. As for why diplomatic victory should lead towards the banning of war, it's because I find it interesting and because the diplomatic victory screen in Endless Space 1 implied that. I find it to be a good climactic end for a diplomacy based play through. That does not mean that throughout the game, a diplomatic power can't have others end and start wars as it pleases (perhaps manipulate others into eliminating the only faction able to challenge their position in the council).



Harmony can succumb to institutional pressures. If Harmony sees that the galaxy is organizing itself into an institution capable of coordination, they are not going to be suicidal. It thus makes sense for Harmony to join the council and try to advance their anti-dust agenda through it, if it becomes too powerful to defy militarily. Whereas Cravers not waging wars is literally suicide for them, as they will consume each other.



I disagree that there is too much assymetry. I think it is what makes Endless games stand out from the crowd and why they are interesting, both gameplay wise and lore wise. I think these differences can be maintained while still having alternate victory conditions. And in any case, Cravers are confirmed, so we need to make proposals with that sort of assymetry in mind.

Since whoever is trying to win diplomatic victory needs the Harmony to join the "Galactic UN" in order to win, but the Harmony does not need to join the "Galactic UN" it then becomes part of the challenge of obtaining victory to convince the Harmony to join. Most likely to get them to join the diplomats would have to make significant concessions to make joining appealing to them.



Also keep in mind the Galactic UN (or whatever its called) is supposed to serve the needs of the galaxy not just promote peace. Each race involved will be vying for their values to be promoted above all others, not just for the advancement of pacifism. Some might even oppose galactic peace. After all galactic peace means that someone else won.

Crismore wrote:


Also keep in mind the Galactic UN (or whatever its called) is supposed to serve the needs of the galaxy not just promote peace. Each race involved will be vying for their values to be promoted above all others, not just for the advancement of pacifism. Some might even oppose galactic peace. After all galactic peace means that someone else won.

Of course, several laws and agreements can be reached through the institution, on economic, cultural, and military affairs (like banning certain weapons), which would be voted on depending on interest. The banning of war would be the culmination of all the institution building and negotiations that had happened throughout the game, made only available once the Galactic council has reached a certain level of legitimacy and strength, and once a particular faction is influential enough to propose that edict. It would be part of the challenge to establish a diplomatic hegemony of sorts, using espionage, public opinion, manipulation, concessions, bribery, military or economic threats...etc to get one's way.



I find such a mechanic to suit Endless Space and to be an interesting way to both play and win diplomatically.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I am not saying your proposal is invalid, I am saying it is insufficient, imo, to make it feel like actual diplomacy. Espionage is not enough to make it feel like diplomacy, without political negotiation and institution building. As for why diplomatic victory should lead towards the banning of war, it's because I find it interesting and because the diplomatic victory screen in Endless Space 1 implied that. I find it to be a good climactic end for a diplomacy based play through. That does not mean that throughout the game, a diplomatic power can't have others end and start wars as it pleases (perhaps manipulate others into eliminating the only faction able to challenge their position in the council).

OK I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Sorry if I did. But I just want to point out that making a more complex diplomacy system usually results in AI ineptitude. I would not want to keep piling more conditions and mechanics on top of a reasonably efficient framework if that can be achieved.

I disagree that there is too much asymmetry. I think it is what makes Endless games stand out from the crowd and why they are interesting, both gameplay wise and lore wise. I think these differences can be maintained while still having alternate victory conditions. And in any case, Cravers are confirmed, so we need to make proposals with that sort of assymetry in mind.

That standing out is a large part of the reason why we have such a poor AI in the current EL. I'm not saying don't make races different, but there is a reason why the games with the best AI do not generally have factions that are so different from each other that they are truly alien. And when one of those games introduces a faction like that, it is inevitably the poorest performing one out of all the rest. Take a look at the Dead faction in Legendary Heroes or the Undead faction in AoW 3. Amplitude can, of course, do whatever it wants. But I would strongly advise them to take a long, hard look at asymmetrical differences between factions and consider the AI early on in the process. I am personally very sick and tired of having to wait more than a year for any sort of competent AI in a 4x game I buy on launch day. It means I don't need to buy it on launch day.



For an example of this, take the Roving Clans. Why can they NEVER declare war? Why not implement some severe penalties for declaring war instead? (triple the influence cost, increased upkeep) This would be a strong disincentive to having a warlike play style for the human player and still allow the AI to declare war long enough to take out a very weak enemy. It did not have to be a hard coded never.

Slashman wrote:


That standing out is a large part of the reason why we have such a poor AI in the current EL. I'm not saying don't make races different, but there is a reason why the games with the best AI do not generally have factions that are so different from each other that they are truly alien. And when one of those games introduces a faction like that, it is inevitably the poorest performing one out of all the rest. Take a look at the Dead faction in Legendary Heroes or the Undead faction in AoW 3. Amplitude can, of course, do whatever it wants. But I would strongly advise them to take a long, hard look at asymmetrical differences between factions and consider the AI early on in the process. I am personally very sick and tired of having to wait more than a year for any sort of competent AI in a 4x game I buy on launch day. It means I don't need to buy it on launch day.

Oh I agree, if complex diplomacy is to be implemented, than the AI needs to be worked on very early on in development, with a lot of resources devoted to it, in addition to quick patching after release. From what I understand, Amplitude has hired several AI specialists entirely devoted to that, so perhaps we won't have a poor AI at launch. I share your annoyance at the trend.



I do understand your concern that more complex mechanics result in AI ineptitude, but I'm inclined to hope that if resources and time are properly devoted to it in addition to creating AI personalities (which other quite older games have done), that it would work. But of course, my perspective is that of a layman who does not know the details of AI programming.

There is something unique about this games asymmetry, I feel that if done correctly the UN could offer more benefit to this game than it does to other games that have implemented a similar system. Many other games take the functionality of a unified council as a given, but I think it would be interesting seeing different outcomes for the UN in different games. It would make each game feel like an alternate history of the same galaxy. In one game it may fail to get off the ground, in another it might unify the galaxy and bring about galactic peace, in yet another it might succumb to corruption and greed.



That being said you have a point, if the Amoeba don't work towards eliminating war, and the United Empire doesn't try to corrupt the galaxy, and the Sophons don't show any interest in establishing a galactic technocracy, then the UN mechanic is pretty much just wasted effort.

I'd just like to add to this conversation that, it would seem to me, that the proper implementation of this council idea where players have to win the hearts of the peoples, including their own, COULD be a viable way of solving the end game issue that has long plagued 4x titles.

Let's say the game is rigged in such a way that the end game is practically guaranteed to be filled with galactic conflict as players try to prevent one another from winning.

With this in place, if we now add in the "influence" mechanic, we now have something that gets in the way of doing that. We could have situations where one's army is constantly fighting on low morale because they want no part in this war... this in turn could lead, perhaps, to certain units going rogue. Perhaps colonies would become upset with the war and start being much less productive, maybe they rebel and join another empire.

To put things in practical terms, a king (the player) must have the hearts and support of his people, otherwise he is just somebody standing on a hill yelling at those around him. If everything is rigged to end in war, but declaring war has suddenly become a bit more complicated in terms of pros and cons, well that COULD solve the endgame issue in my opinion.

In a way, this line of progression serves as a realistic culture victory as it is intimately involved with traditional diplomatic victories. If the people of a nation like you a lot, that limits what the leaders can do diplomatically. You can have all the culture in the world, but if other people groups dont like you at all, it means little in terms of your global/galactic standing.



This line of reasoning actually made its way over to the EL forums as a sort of suggestion for a future dlc. Perhaps the mechanic as a whole could be tested out in EL to see if its truly viable?

I like KnightofPhoenix idea of winning diplo victory through galactic peace.



BTW, how diplo victory work in other 4X games ? GalCiv, Civ5, SMAC, MoO2, DW, etc ? Perhaps there is some idea that's escaping us and could serve as inspiration for ES2.

I am one of those people that sit's in the "diplomacy doesn't HAVE to be the pursuit of galactic peace" camp. I would like to see diplomacy grow to encompass not just civilization to civilization treaties, but diplomatic actions/opportunites with specific colonies, hero's and governers. Introduce a loyalty slider for hero's and governers and suddenly the diplomatic game can turn into you negotiating directly with the enemies heros and trying to convince them and their fleet/colony to flip sides. Whilst colony flipping seems very much like a culture victory in the Civ series, it will be different if you don't make it rely on the influence you project from your own systems, but rather your diplomatic actions with their governer/hero.



The diplomatic game now becomes keep your colonies and hero's happy (or fearful - make the slider range from fearful of repercussions through to completely loyal so that game-play wise you don't HAVE to be nice to your people, as long as they fear you more than they love the enemy) or they may flip, possibly at a very bad time. For example, say your colonies are strong, your fleets are winning, you are paying good wages to your hero's (upkeep) - everything is great. Your neighbour is trying to diplomatically contact and flip your colonies but because they love you so much (or fear - you get the point) they report it. Now you can open civilization to civilization diplomacy and say "stop contacting my people" etc etc.



On the flip side, your colonies are doing poorly, morale is down, your fleets have suffered some significant losses and your hero's are disillusioned. Your neighbour contacts Hero01, leader of Fleet01, and offers them a significant bribe (upkeep on that hero is X times normal for X turns and they can't be dismissed for the duration kind of thing) and because of low morale your hero, and the fleet, switch sides. Your neighbour also starts to contact your border colonies and offers to build and invest in the colony in return for loyalty (must raise morale to X level within X turns, or control of the planet flips back to the original owner and the population no longer trusts the diplomatic player).



This presents some interesting new dynamics, gives options for new hero skills and new espionage type actions (ie, you can focus espionage internally as well as externally to root out potential traitors). You may have a fantastic hero, excellent colony management skills - but with a low loyalty value. You had best make sure that if you do use him, you use him on a planet well back from the borders and you keep an eye on what he is doing.



Whilst I don't have any solid ideas on how you could turn the above into a diplomatic victory, perhaps someone else could run with it and think of some things?

Darkscis wrote:
I am one of those people that sit's in the "diplomacy doesn't HAVE to be the pursuit of galactic peace" camp. I would like to see diplomacy grow to encompass not just civilization to civilization treaties, but diplomatic actions/opportunites with specific colonies, hero's and governers. Introduce a loyalty slider for hero's and governers and suddenly the diplomatic game can turn into you negotiating directly with the enemies heros and trying to convince them and their fleet/colony to flip sides. Whilst colony flipping seems very much like a culture victory in the Civ series, it will be different if you don't make it rely on the influence you project from your own systems, but rather your diplomatic actions with their governer/hero.

I'd be interested in having heroes and planetary governors play a larger role in the diplomatic manipulation of a civilization as well. This is interesting.



Some of your other ideas are present in Total War: Shogun 2. Specifically using agents to bribe enemy armies over to your side and monks to sway the hearts of people in enemy provinces.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
The problems with making diplomacy and diplomatic victory rely on winning the hearts and souls of people are the following: firstly it is too much like a cultural / influence victory and it doesn't have enough of a diplomatic flair to it, secondly it doesn't work entirely in a setting marked by vast differences between species. How does one go about becoming popular among Cravers? They have no individuality and are a hive mind, save for those infected by dust, and they are too hungry to care. What about factions like the Sowers or Harmony that are obsessed with one goal? I would find it bizarre for one to become popular with Harmony while still using dust.



I believe diplomatic victory should definitely have a cultural facet, but I think it needs to be institutional as well. In Nobunaga's Ambition: Sphere of Influence, one could win a diplomatic victory by becoming Shogun and then passing a law banning warfare. Now while this is too easy, I think ES2 can be inspired by the concept.



What if diplomatic victory leads one to the route of first establishing a Galactic Council, and slowly but surely increasing the legitimacy of the institution in the public mind through passing laws, regulating violence (banning certain weapons / tactics), providing aid (players can decide how much dust they want to devote. Those who don't devote anything at all would lose legitimacy in the eyes of their people), and brokering ceasefires and peace. And as the Galactic Council becomes more and more legitimate, so too would the influence cost of defying it increase. Only someone who has massive influence and massive popularity can defy the council without much repercussions, other than a diplomatic fallout with the others.

All this would ultimately culminate into the banning of warfare, and thus a diplomatic victory.

This still requires a Galactic Council/UN mechanic. And for the same reasons you are trying to list as making my proposal invalid, that doesn't make sense. Why would the Harmony sit on a council with people who use Dust? This is why it makes more sense to have to individually win the favor of each faction's citizens. Your cultural victory comparison has no validity because unless I am mistaken, there is no cultural victory condition announced for ES2. Also I have no idea why a diplomatic victory means the banning of war. All it should mean is that the faction with greatest diplomatic influence can coerce other empires to stop or start a conflict on their behalf. That's the Drakken's unique power in EL in fact.

I think such mechanic would combine both popularity and influence among the public, with the political negotiations that need to exist for it to feel like diplomacy. And in such an arrangement, I can see factions like the Sowers and Harmony cooperating, not out of public pressure, but out of institutional pressure.

Even without a council you can still have this occurring. That should be where espionage and other methods of influence become necessary.

Of course the anomaly will always be the Cravers, but that's fine. Perhaps one of the acts a Galactic Council can pass is the creation of a coalition against the Cravers, as a "rogue state." It would also add a cool gameplay feature of the Cravers, in that they could never be part of the Galactic Council, which on one hand frees them from all obligations and allows them to do as they please without cost, but it would increase the risk of coalitions forming against them as it should be.

I think the Cravers is another example of a flawed design culminating in a too asymmetrical race. When you make factions that cannot engage in an activity no matter what, you create problems for the overall game design. A race that cannot be at peace tends to work more as a larger, independent threat to all other factions that must be united against rather than as a fellow galactic race, vying for their spot in the galaxy.

There is a difference between diplomacy in general and a diplomatic victory. A diplomatic victory needs to have the player reach a certain threshold / achieve something for it to be a victory condition, and I think galactic peace would be an interesting and challenging objective. But of course, diplomatic mechanisms should be varied enough to support different play styles, including expansionism and war mongering.



I like the idea of heroes being used as diplomatic agents, systems like that exist in Nobunaga's Ambition (or most Koei games). I'm not sure however how much importance the devs will give to heroes, but I support the idea.

vini_lessa wrote:
I like KnightofPhoenix idea of winning diplo victory through galactic peace.



BTW, how diplo victory work in other 4X games ? GalCiv, Civ5, SMAC, MoO2, DW, etc ? Perhaps there is some idea that's escaping us and could serve as inspiration for ES2.

In Galactic Civ, a diplomatic victory is reached if you are allied with every empire on the map (that does not preclude you from killing those that aren't your allies).

In SMAC, diplomatic victory is achieved by getting enough votes (based on population) to become the leader of the Planetary Council. If the vote goes through but some factions oppose the decision, they need to be beaten militarily.



While SMAC has a better diplomatic victory than GalCiv, both of them tend to be military at the end of the day. I would prefer a diplomatic victory conditions where it is possible and feasible (but not necessary) to complete it entirely peacefully.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
There is a difference between diplomacy in general and a diplomatic victory.

I completely agree with this, it's why I said that I couldn't really come up with a concrete way of turning my idea into a diplomatic victory condition. Perhaps it needs a bit of everything from multiple ideas to determine how it can be leveraged into a fun diplomatic victory.

There's a difference, in SMAC anyone could tell Planetary Council too "№;% off and refuse their decisions. You would end in war with every council member but you COULD resist.

Crismore wrote:
It might not be on topic for a discussion about diplomacy, but I was thinking it would be interesting if you could have an administration where new positions are unlocked as you advanced through the tech tree and/or meet other requirements. Like if you get a hero with minister of propaganda you can assign them to establish a ministry of propaganda that improves empire wide approval, also after say 20 turns (each election) the new department no longer needs the hero to continue its function. It could also add a few unique departments of government to each faction.

Government Department/Ministries sound like an awesome idea, though I feel like they'd make huge empires even more OP and smaller one even more weak compared to big ones, and it might make heroes more OP.

Main goal, IMO, is to make Diplomacy screen worth it. In my playthroughs I tend to ignore diplomacy screen alltogether, mainly because it was not worth it ot spend my time to get some meager profits from diplomacy, so better not bother it at all aside from peace treaties.

^ This. I made a custom sowers with the no peace trait and never looked at diplomacy again, in any of my games - there was just no need.

Let me say that while I like the concept of involving the opinion of both populations in diplomatic deals, the implementation can have serious consequences for gameplay.

Anybody who has played EUIV will know the feeling when you can't strike a deal with another nation because your opinion of them is a few points short, but they show no interest in improving relations with you, even though they stand to gain a lot.

And when I played Stardrive 2, I often had the AI suggest unacceptable trades, often literally suggesting treaties beyond either our people's tolerance, and every rejected deal decreased their opinion, quickly leading to a spiral in which "declare war" was the only option left.



However, I believe Endless Space 2 has a great basis for implementing the opinion of your people without causing such frustration. If ES2 uses the same Influence currency for diplomacy as EL (and we have seen the Influence symbol in some screenshots), then the cost of diplomatic treaties could change depending on ruling party: The scientists are in charge, war declarations are more expensive, cooperation agreements cheaper. Pacifists? War declaration is ridiculously expensive in influence.

For anything other than war declarations, the enemy senate composition could play into it as well. (Not for war declarations, as there's no reason for it to be harder to declare war on a pacifist nation.)