I would love a modifier based on the difference in your alignment for example good races get a bonus with other good races and a smaller bonus to neutrals and a slight negative to the evil races.

I was debating this with myself. Obviously having more variable (or things to do to help diplomatic relations) is needed.



One hand I never liked when you could 'cheese' your way through diplomacy. So having powerful negative modifiers that are sensitive to certain conditions is a good thing. However I do find that either some penalties come in too quickly or too hard (if not both), and some seem to be too sensitive as well. Also it is sometimes too late to perform any positve modifier actions because by the time you researched them your relations are way too low.



Example, if you start too close to another race, you are going to get some tensions fast and by the time you get Offer Peace and Open Borders your will have enough negatives built up that the AI won't accept and the negatives will just continue to grow unchecked. Another tech that when does work can give a decent boost is kind of deep in the tree and most of the time doesn't seem to be usable. Cooperative Agreement. I only had it work once, all the other times I would get "Invalid Diplomatic Status" (note: Not 'Insufficient Attitude'), I could be Warm, Very Close, Friendly, have 12 trade routes with them... and I still get "Invalid Diplomatic Status".



Basically, I find there is not enough early actions you can do to help offset starting too close or crawl out of an initial negative start. Also, the later actions seem too difficult to pull off and can be difficult to get before the negatives overshoot the 'early game positives'. Lastly, the early ones like Open Border and Peace only seem to work when you have a 'positive total' already, and it is all too easy to have a net negative modifier in an early encounter.



Another quick example, Weak Military, in the Early Game is way too sensitive. I once lost a fleet to Pirates and bam! I fell to -80 right way, I was lucky and a few ships came off the production line 2 turns later and the -80 was gone. It happened in another game, except there is lasted long enough that the AI broke all existing treaties and then declared war on me. Then my fleet rolled out of production and wiped him out in a few turns. Yeah... 'Weak Military'....



Overall the core mechanic of the modifiers is fine, it is just that it is tweaked a little too sensitively and reacts too quickly or harshly, Also we seem to lack diplomatic actions we can use to help us out when things are less than ideal. I also notice the lack of positive effects for gifting and I kind of miss how the AI would demand tribute that you tend to see in other 4X games.

Thumpy wrote:
and how exactly do i improve relations with them?

Minimize negative relations as much as possible. So far i have noticed 3 major relationship breakers.

My biggest problem is usually lack of military strength. soon as i build up enough I usually can talk them into some form of agreement.



Second would be concerning the border issue:

A theory I have with the borders that I haven't completely tested out is removing my military presence away from the borders and seeing what happens. I usually park my fleets right on the border and it tends to anger my neighbors.



third and least worrisome is the score. They should just rename it score jealousy... 8) no ideas other than maybe bribing them a few times or just improving everything else

Gilleous wrote:
Another quick example, Weak Military, in the Early Game is way too sensitive. I once lost a fleet to Pirates and bam! I fell to -80 right way, I was lucky and a few ships came off the production line 2 turns later and the -80 was gone. It happened in another game, except there is lasted long enough that the AI broke all existing treaties and then declared war on me. Then my fleet rolled out of production and wiped him out in a few turns. Yeah... 'Weak Military'....

This is a fairly common problem in 4x games; the way AI factions tend to look only at your existing military assets, and not your reserve production capacity if you throw it into war mode. Or if you're between campaigns and building your military back up. The AI in GalCiv2 was easy to fake out that way too, because it only looked at existing military assets, not your reserve capacity.



It's the classic failure of WW2 Japanese strategy; thinking it would be easy to control the Pacific with a few quick strikes on existing assets, without invoking the huge (and largely dormant) production capacity of U.S. industry. Yamamoto saw it coming, but the higher-ups wouldn't listen. In games like this, the AI needs a Yamamoto subroutine... something that reports on the player's actual reserve capacity for cranking out ships, not what's currently out there. Unless it actually can win with a lightning strike, but that might only be possible in the very early stage of a game.



On second thought, maybe not every AI faction needs to act prudently. There's always room for the impetuous "strike before we're ready" faction (like Niven's Kzinti, which is why the humans were always able to beat them). A few should be more cagy though, because otherwise this is a very good exploit for the human player to run.

When I first encountered the 'Aliens hate you because you have a weaker military' thing, I assumed that this was simply something related to the fact that the Cravers, Hosshi and Empire are 'Evil'. But then I noticed that Horatio and the Sophons also hate you for having a weak navy.



Personally, I would expect a 'good' aligned Star Nation like the Sophons to be more friendly towards other Star Nations with a weak military. After all, a nation with a weak military is less likely to start wars and more likely to be in need of help (or at least to be willing to be friendly with its more powerful neighbours).



Likewise, there's a big discrepancy between being at war with a nation and being allied with them: When you're at war, they hate your guts (relationship permanently -200), but if you're allied... Well... I'd expect a nation to be happy that its Ally is strong and powerful, that there are plenty of mutual borders preventing attacks from that side and that you're kicking their enemy's ass.



But no. If you have higher score, your Ally dislikes that. If you share a border, they dislike that too (even when the entire map's been colonised and they're much more responsible for you having many shared borders than you are). If you're steadily wiping out your shared enemy (instead of letting your Ally take over all of the enemy's colonies on his own), they get 'worried about the rate at which you're expanding'.



Essentially, the current system is rigged to prevent peaceful relations with your neighbours.

And you're especially screwed playing Sophons, because your advantage in tech, but disadvantage in construction means that you're likely to have a smaller fleet and still more likely to have a high(er) score (because Techs are worth a lot of points and tend to result in higher early FIDS and Influence scores).



So yeah, I'd say there's room for improvement.

The system is going to be improved prior to release - the devs have already said that.



The major problem there is now, in my opinion, is the major negative you get from bordering someone, especially early on. It means there is _no_ possibility for peace with them.

I like playing in a medium galaxy with 7 others, so I guess that doesn't help.



The military weakness negative mod is also annoying... I understand the rationale behind it, though.

Aye, the reasons and the core mechanics behind the modifiers are fine and actually make a lot sense. Personally I like having those checks, I have seen my share of Diplomacy Cheese in my days (like giving huge gifts that for you was nothing because of your economy, while building up a map eating navy... you can imagine what happens next). So yes it is good to have the AI throw a wrench in your 'subtle' plans for a Supremacy or Expansion Victory, or taking advantage of weakness.



As stated by others the problem is with either the magnitude of the numbers, or how quickly or early they can hit that causes War becoming way too common especially with your 'first neighbor'. I brought up Military Weakness as an example of one that was too finiky. Concept behind it is great but its implementation is a little wacky at times. I seen it bounce from 0 to -45, back to -10, then plummet to -80 and rise back up to 0 in a span of a few turns. This is especially true in the early game, where the AI reacts very quickly to it as well (usually to its own detriment no less).

The latest change to diplomacy, the one that prohibits any trade negotiations until peace declaration, should be revised, maybe even in a hotfix.



As it stands now, as soon as your borders touch another empire, it gets degraded to "craver" mode and you can only helplessly await their inevitable declaration of war.

For some races this would be a nice flavour but does not fit for a general mechanic.



For a later change, i would like to see the trade values examined too.

Last game before the patch i gifted somewhat around 15000 dust (half of my treasury and way more they had at that time) to an -14 AI and their appreciation only rose by a miniscule amount.

But that's something to tackle in the beta, the issue mentioned before that is much more important now IMO.

Solymer89 wrote:
Just throwing my two cents in... I find it ridiculous that your relations can be negatively effected, essentially from first contact, due to your excess or lack of military. To me, this is strategic information that you and the AI should strive for, and not to be an initial determining factor in whether a race likes you or not. Upon first contact it doesn't make sense that the other player gets a generalized idea about how strong your military is. This also plays in to the fleet CP's and total ship amounts as to the rankings. That should be sensitive information unless you have the abilities to gather such information. Maybe this is nit picky but I think removing the military power from the diplomatic process early on would help in improving the ability to gain favor instead of lose respect.



In my last full game I played as sophons. I started next to cravers and by turn 75 we were at war. The next civ over was the Hissoh who eventually went to war with me due to all of craver space becoming mine. On the far side of the galaxy was the UE. Because of the two wars I was in with Cravers and Hissoh, upon first contact, I had a +20 or so relationship with them. This then turned in to cooperation across the board until I knocked the Hissoh out finally. My point is, this is the only time in the dozen or so games I've done so far that I've seen positive relations with another faction that wasn't derived from my Military power or my expansion or close boarders. It required I be two civs away from them plus two wars to get a +20 relationship bonus that I could then build on. I've not had this opportunity with any other race in any other games I've played so far. It is far to easy to fall behind the diplomacy curve right now as there are too many negative aspects to meeting a new civ, and not enough to garner favor.

+1



Couldn't agree more.

Yeah, diplomacy needs a bit of rebalancing.

I agree that the negative penalty for close borders is a total bummer and one should be able to improve relations through certain buildings, projects, bribery, etc....

I think many people in these forums (who have played and loved the game!) can agree that diplomacy is the weakest area of the game right now. If the developers really take the time to expand and polish diplomacy (into the vein of Galciv2 or something), it will be an instant classic 4x imho. We are still in Alpha 2, let's see where they go with this...

Solymer89 wrote:
Just throwing my two cents in... I find it ridiculous that your relations can be negatively effected, essentially from first contact, due to your excess or lack of military. To me, this is strategic information that you and the AI should strive for, and not to be an initial determining factor in whether a race likes you or not. Upon first contact it doesn't make sense that the other player gets a generalized idea about how strong your military is. This also plays in to the fleet CP's and total ship amounts as to the rankings. That should be sensitive information unless you have the abilities to gather such information. Maybe this is nit picky but I think removing the military power from the diplomatic process early on would help in improving the ability to gain favor instead of lose respect.



In my last full game I played as sophons. I started next to cravers and by turn 75 we were at war. The next civ over was the Hissoh who eventually went to war with me due to all of craver space becoming mine. On the far side of the galaxy was the UE. Because of the two wars I was in with Cravers and Hissoh, upon first contact, I had a +20 or so relationship with them. This then turned in to cooperation across the board until I knocked the Hissoh out finally. My point is, this is the only time in the dozen or so games I've done so far that I've seen positive relations with another faction that wasn't derived from my Military power or my expansion or close boarders. It required I be two civs away from them plus two wars to get a +20 relationship bonus that I could then build on. I've not had this opportunity with any other race in any other games I've played so far. It is far to easy to fall behind the diplomacy curve right now as there are too many negative aspects to meeting a new civ, and not enough to garner favor.

Could not agree more. I always play peacefully, that means I have only defense fleets, yet most AI players start to tell me, that I am pathetic. Hello, one of my fleets can defeat ten of yours, so who is pathetic?

What also bothers me, that AI starts to hate me the moment we have a common border. Last time, AI declared war on me because it wanted to colonize systems in my sphere of influence. Hello, how about to ask me before going to war? I would agree as I am a good neigbor. But no, it is better to declare war, colonize the system and let me take it in two turns...

Another thing is that it seems impossible to increase realtions. I can give AI 100k dust and it does NOTHING. I can defeat an enemy fleet trying to conquer their home system and the effect is zero.

And finally, let me END the war. So far I have not been able to end a single war. All I get is insufficient military power. You must be joking. I just conquered 4 or 5 enemy systems, I really do not want to conquer them all, I am a PEACEFUL player. Hell I even offered to PAY for the peace and give those systems back. But no, insufficient military power.

I understand this is alpha only, but I am affraid that the final AI will end up like the Civ 5 one, which means there will not be an AI at all.

I agree with the essence of the criticisms here: there needs to be a way to overcome the catch-22 of being unable to positively influence the other factions to open borders because you can't make gifts to them because the borders aren't open. As noted, military build-up seems to be about the only means of doing so right now.



However, that raises an important question: how (in the game universe) does the other faction know your current military strength, when you don't know his? I'm always leery of asymmetries of information and options between AI and human factions; it's a form of design cheating/laziness, IMHO. If you have no way of 'seeing' all through, say, Craver space and knowing their current ship count and strength, then the Cravers shouldn't be able to do the same to you.



In much the same way, you get notices from the AI factions about how they feel towards you -- which can very much influence what you choose to do -- but you have no way of conveying the same information about how you feel back to those AI factions and thus influence what they choose to do. I'd like to be able to express anger or friendship towards another faction in an effort to manipulate them.



Of course, the real danger here is that the developers will make some great changes to the diplomacy system and we'll all lose our jobs, significant others, etc., as ES becomes even more addictive. ..fritz..

I am just finishing my second game. And I must say diplomacy this is something what needs some love.

All what was said up it is true. During this two games I only manage to make agreements once. In my first game. It was nice. I was bigger and stronger, we got common enemy, so my fellow AI was quite polite. And this last till the game end despite shared border.

On my second game I was quite surprised when AI refuse any form of contact from beginning. It was/is really annoying.



Maybe devs should look at Civilizations for some inspiration? On my first game I really wanted "offer" option form Civ (I have X resources, and what You can give me in exchange). On my second option missing even possibility to talk/bribe/”please don’t shoot, we came in peace!”.

luki wrote:
I am just finishing my second game. And I must say diplomacy this is something what needs some love.

All what was said up it is true. During this two games I only manage to make agreements once. In my first game. It was nice. I was bigger and stronger, we got common enemy, so my fellow AI was quite polite. And this last till the game end despite shared border.

On my second game I was quite surprised when AI refuse any form of contact from beginning. It was/is really annoying.



Maybe devs should look at Civilizations for some inspiration? On my first game I really wanted "offer" option form Civ (I have X resources, and what You can give me in exchange). On my second option missing even possibility to talk/bribe/”please don’t shoot, we came in peace!”.

Well Civilization yes, but 1-4 only. The joke they call AI in Civ 5 is something that should never be released.

K1ller wrote:
Well Civilization yes, but 1-4 only. The joke they call AI in Civ 5 is something that should never be released.

Well I did not play on Civ 5 yet. Too may games, too little time. I thought about Civ 4 where diplomacy was quite fun and rather reliable. Often there was pacts which last whole game, AI was quite mad sometimes, but real diplomacy is crazy too.

Do we know what trading functionality is not in yet?



For example, I'd like to trade map knowledge and systems and things like that.

Zenicetus wrote:
That can be avoided by only selling off your lower-tier techs. If it's a good design, the enemy won't sell you their most strategically important techs either. I think tech trading can add an interesting dimension to the game. Unfortunately the current overabundance of dust makes it a moot point. There is no need to sell tech when you're swimming in gold (er, I mean dust).



Tech trading also needs to be carefully balanced when it's done between other factions. I remember a persistent problem in GalCiv2 was the way other factions seemed like they were trading techs much more freely among themselves, than they would with the player. Many people just turned off tech trading as a result. Which brings up another point: it would be a good idea to have tech trading an option in the galaxy setup, rather than a fixed part of the diplomacy design. Some people may want to play a Sophons game where they can maximize their research advantage, and avoid having other factions trading tech among themselves to reduce that advantage.







I keep saying this in other threads, but I think a big problem right now is that we don't have any default ability to trade or negotiate treaties on First Contact, when you run up against another faction very early in the game.



You have to specifically research those skills, and many people will go for other parts of the tech tree in the first few turns of the colony rush. On smaller maps, it's too easy to get into a cold or hot war through territorial conflict, before you've had a chance to set up trade relations or treaties.



I think diplomacy would work better if the left-side tech tree items for trade and diplomacy were designed to enhance a baseline diplomacy ability, rather than to allow diplomacy at all.



Of course there should still be certain factions that would be less interested in diplomacy than pure conquest on First Contact. Like a Kzin-type race, where they assume any other race they find is food or slaves. Shoot first, ask questions later. But they shouldn't all be like that.

Haven't had a game yet where I didn't trade tech. More often then resources. Sometime I buy tech with resources tho. I never trade dust, me to them, I mean. I need every bit of it to pay for ship refits.

jordanjay29 wrote:
What bugs me is when the AI colonizes close to MY borders and then gives me a penalty for it.

Oh good old Civ 5 references