The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:
I agree that transparency is probably why Paradox AI gets so much praise. And why people hate the war AI in CK2 and EUIV, when your allies feed army and warscore to the enemy, or siege with 30k troops for 15% attrition.



I realized there may be another application for the badge system, too: Diplomatic promises.

Many 4X games feature the ability (at least for the AI) to tell another empire to not settle near them, to stop spying, or a number of other actions. The Badge System could serve to give incentive to actually take those promises seriously, gaining positive badges for keeping your word and negative ones for breaking it.

I may be missing something here, but the diplomacy described doesn't seem particularly potent.

If diplomacy is supposed to be a viable offensive alternative to war, it needs to be less punishing and more effective.

As of now it seems that exerting pressure is detrimental in that it negatively affects how others percieve you and whether they would want to deal with you in the future.

It also seems only useful against weaker players who you don't have to fear retaliating.

To me the major downfall is that against powerful militarists it is useless. Why bother exerting pressure when they can (and likely will) just refuse and go to war with you anyways. Meaning you suffer the negative reputation and the annex your empire.

I think in order to improve diplomacy it should be more similar to what we see in the real world.

Is an opponent becoming a large military threat? Impose sanctions on them to try to cripple them economically.

People using very powerful weapons? Impose a ban on them as being contrary to human (alien?) rights

A peacful race being invaded? Have a negative to the attacker's happiness.

These are just some suggestions, but diplomacy and pressure need to be able to be used against strong militaries on a relatively equal level, otherwise militaries will always win.

Do need a reason for war ? Or can you declare at will for no reason ? I like the idea that you have to justify if somehow and that justification can in someways control your expansion :  if the war is over Planet X you can't do more that take Planet X wo major penalties.  In other games there is agressive expansion with can be used as justification for war against you to reclaim / return captured territory .  I could also see absorbing a lot of alien cultures being a issue with unrest and rebellion ( maybe some terrorism )

pguyton wrote:

Do need a reason for war ? Or can you declare at will for no reason ? I like the idea that you have to justify if somehow and that justification can in someways control your expansion :  if the war is over Planet X you can't do more that take Planet X wo major penalties.  In other games there is agressive expansion with can be used as justification for war against you to reclaim / return captured territory .  I could also see absorbing a lot of alien cultures being a issue with unrest and rebellion ( maybe some terrorism )

I do like the War Goals implemented in the Paradox games, and it would be an interesting addition to the game, especially if they have other outcomes besides just a change of ownership of planets, like humiliation.  This might have a pretty drastic effect on the system already in place though, so if they do implement something similar, I hope it works well within the system they already have.

- If another empire has population of your faction, or vice versa, will it has any diplomatic consequences, like looking to capture this planet? I was speaking not only pop after conquest, but pop maybe from an outpost you founded and someone get this system into his/hers colony before you.

- If first one is yes, can you "justify" a war without/with few diplomatic penalties, to defend your pop from the other faction?

- And last, will minor faction have a role in this? Something like one minor is within your empire and another, and lowers your approval until is reunited in same empire, or pushes your senate to militarists.

Thanks.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
There are more pertinent ways to punish excessive expansionism. Make it costly. Make military upkeep become exponentially higher the more units you have and the further away you are from the centre. Make empire approval be almost impossible to manage with rampant expansionism, to the point of constant threat of rebellion (which doesn't exist in Endless games, to their detriment). Make the AI form coalitions against overly aggressive empires, and have them put diplomatic, economic, and military pressure to keep them at bay. That is what limited conquest historically and would be a believable and immersive check to have in the game.



That is how I would like to see excessive militarism be punished. But the losing side being able to force a truce without doing much for it other than having influence and things to offer? I find that cheap, not to mention lacking in believability. Not only is it cheap, but it doesn't really punish expansionism. It merely delays it a bit. I predict that it won't be enough to make other victory conditions that much more viable.



If force truce comes as the result of *active* negotiation with the galactic scene to put diplomatic pressure, I would be the first to support it. Diplomacy needs to be an active and dynamic feature, one that you put effort and thought into, and not just a button you can press.

Frogsquadron wrote:


Premade teams

So this was essentially 'free praise' You guys are so predictable!

We did get some suggestions for additional options on sharing resources and wonder effects. We're looking into this. ^^ Other suggestions are of course appreciated.

Frogsquadron wrote:


Premade Teams

We also plan to have a number of additional options to support the feature such as:

Possibility of sharing the tech tree

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
Ok.



Firstly, I do applaud Amplitude's desire to innovate when it comes to diplomacy, as it had been quite stagnant in 4x games.



However, I have major concerns with the proposed system, that I will explain point by point.



A. What does "winning a war" mean? How will that be defined, with regards to war exhaustion? Is the number of battles won a real indicator? What if your empire has 2 fleets while the enemy has 20. Sure, your empire might have won 5 battles, but there are still 15 fleets active and you only have 2. Will winning small battles against scouts or weak fleets going to matter, when the enemy's main and upgraded fleets are in a position to strike your undefended capital? How will the AI gauge all that?

The conquest of 3 undeveloped systems cannot be considered as equal to the conquest of the break basket or main production centre. Will the AI understand that?



The exhaustion bar will not be reflective of reality unless it takes into account a multitude of factors, such as relative strength and military power, the weight of each fleet to the empire in question, the production and economic strength of both, and the advancement of strategic goals. I highly doubt the AI will be able to make all those value judgements, which is normal, but it seems like you are giving the AI way too much responsibility that it can't uphold.



B. Diplomatic pressure essentially means you end up bullying others, based solely on influence production. I don't mind in theory, except the empire that abuses the system should get a badge that acknowledges it, and that makes the AI less likely to actively engage in a friendly way with you. Furthermore, it seems like the empire that is a victim of diplomatic pressure will have a choice of either picking between 3 options of concessions or declare war. Why can't it also try to negotiate its way out of it? To offer less or something else?



C. Related. Having it so that the pressuring empire has no input whatsoever on what they will get not only makes no sense, but will also lead to many frustrating scenarios. Let's take an EL example. Imagine being the Broken Lords, using diplomatic pressure on an empire, only for them to give you spices. How frustrating is that?

How is the AI supposed to understand what you would value more? How is it supposed to know that you value strategic resource A more than B, because the modules that you want are made up of A or because your faction quest needs A and not B?



Heck, what if the AI decides to give up systems, but you don't want to increase expansion disapproval. Will you be forced to accept worthless systems that will be harmful to you? It doesn't seem like the pressuring empire has any input in the whole thing except pressing the button. Doesn't that lead to the empire that is a victim of pressure having much more of a say than they should? That could be really abused by humans especially, where they will always pick the worthless concession if it's an option. And as far as the AI is concerned, it will never know what reward you actually prefer, because for some reason you can't make explicit and specific demands.



D. Being forced into a truce if you are winning. That is also frustratingly limiting. I can only accept that, if there is an overwhelming discrepancy in influence in favour of the losing side. Better yet, if it manages to make an appeal to other empires in the galaxy, and all of them support the cessation of hostilities, then I can see the winning side being forced into a truce.



What I propose is to have a negotiating screen, when an empire, winning or losing, is trying to force a truce. In that screen, we have a diplomatic bar that is determined by military size, economic power, influence, alliances...etc. The losing empire can only force a truce if it manages to push the bar greatly in its favour. In that screen, both empires will have the choice to speak with others empire to secure their support. The losing side will ask other empires to support the cessation of hostilities, while the winning empire appeals for them to laisser faire. If the losing side can secure the support of many or key empires, the bar will shift in their favour. If it reaches a certain point, it can force truce.



In such a way, you make diplomacy a lot more dynamic, all inclusive, and "galactic", as opposed to purely bilateral. And it makes losing empires forcing truces a more difficult endeavour that they have to work hard to get. It also makes it unwise to ignore diplomatic relations with everyone on the map. If everyone hates you or is indifferent towards you, chances are you can't gain their support when you need it.



To summarize, the mechanics in and of themselves are not bad. They can work, if refined. The main problem is that it relies way too much on the AI making value judgements that it can't possible do well or intelligently, while removing a lot of agency from the player (even those that in theory have the upper hand).

KnightofPhoenix wrote:


D. Being forced into a truce if you are winning. That is also frustratingly limiting. I can only accept that, if there is an overwhelming discrepancy in influence in favour of the losing side. Better yet, if it manages to make an appeal to other empires in the galaxy, and all of them support the cessation of hostilities, then I can see the winning side being forced into a truce.