I have heard no details regarding this important feature.Are we looking at the standard 4X style miltary alliance,non aggression pacts,trade treatys or are there some innovations in this area.

I'd love to hear more about diplomacy as well. I was quite pleased to hear about the "Fear" mechanics that will help the AI forge alliances against powerful empires. It also sounds like your actions will be remembered and considered by opposing factions, reducing your ability to exploit them. In my opinion, exploiting the AI's poor diplomatic skills is the biggest flaw in strategy game diplomacy mechanics. Far too often the player is able to make demands that are unreasonable or convince the AI to make choices that are NOT in their best interest. I hope Endless Space sees those issues on the horizon and has a plan to avoid them.

And in a game "diplomacy" makes no sense. The goal of the game is to destroy anyone (or it's a race for points/tech/whatever), so alliances, treaties serves no purpose, because in the end you will always try to kill those that have treaties with you.

In real life diplomacy is usefull because there's no goal like "kill everyone".

Diplomacy could be interesting if it could force players to do things. Usually your opponents can say "no" to your proposals. Diplomacy in a game should be something that won't let choice to the opponent (there would be ways to help prevent such bad thing). Maybe something like a test roll : you have 100 diplomatic points, you target an enemy with 50 diplomatic points, you choose to get a non-attack agreement, you have 66% to get it, and it takes 20 turns to know if it succeeded. (and the roll would be made at the 20th turns, so if the enemy know what you're trying to do, he could try to get a better diplomatic score, or kill the agent that try to get the agreement before the test roll is made. All the numbers are just examples)

And in a game "diplomacy" makes no sense. The goal of the game is to destroy anyone (or it's a race for points/tech/whatever), so alliances, treaties serves no purpose, because in the end you will always try to kill those that have treaties with you.

I beg to differ. Sure diplomacy may be a means to an ends, but I think of it more as tool. The main thing to consider for all parties is, "Is it worth it". If there is benefit for all parties its got to be a good thing for all. It doesn't matter that circumstances might change if you are receiving a good benefit at the time. You could say diplomacy is the tool to get something you want without killing people, in real life and in games.

Maybe something like a test roll : you have 100 diplomatic points, you target an enemy with 50 diplomatic points, you choose to get a non-attack agreement, you have 66% to get it, and it takes 20 turns to know if it succeeded. (and the roll would be made at the 20th turns, so if the enemy know what you're trying to do, he could try to get a better diplomatic score, or kill the agent that try to get the agreement before the test roll is made. All the numbers are just examples)

I don't think it will work that way. If a faction distrusts you then they will have a negative attitude towards you and no chance of a peace treaty. You could though have something like forcing them to give you something if you agree to stop war against them.

SABA wrote:
I beg to differ. Sure diplomacy may be a means to an ends, but I think of it more as tool. The main thing to consider for all parties is, "Is it worth it". If there is benefit for all parties its got to be a good thing for all. It doesn't matter that circumstances might change if you are receiving a good benefit at the time. You could say diplomacy is the tool to get something you want without killing people, in real life and in games.[...]

Just think of a relatively weak tech-side at the beginning of the game. Without diplomacy, they'd be quickly annihilated and that is it. With diplomacy, they can keep the good graces of their neighbours with technological presents, until they've grown enough in tech-advance and power to defend themselves and conquer the galaxy, or just go straight to the tech victory.

There are practical applications for diplomacy.

I think we ought to also keep in mind that each faction will probably have different victory conditions.

Frankly, I see ANY kind of diplomacy with the cravers as kinda impossible, for example.

I consider diplomacy to be along the lines of the early game positioning. two weaker civilizations who don't trust each other should still see the logic of joining forces to combat a larger aggressor sharing technology, map data and tactics as necessary to simply survive. Realistically civilizations plan for survival now not the end game.



Another diplomacy consideration I hope ES takes is to be able to annex weaker civs TW style. This is entirely realistic in my mind for some weaker races to prefer the 'protection' of another race over annihilation.



Being a tyrannical ruler who kills the population after surrender would likely lessen the likelihood of a 'surrender'. Equally the intimidation factor or smooth talking of your emissary/flying army would affect the results as well. Race/political factors as well would need to be considered resulting in a somewhat interesting diplomacy package.

Sharidann wrote:
I think we ought to also keep in mind that each faction will probably have different victory conditions.

That would be interesting.

Sharidann wrote:
Frankly, I see ANY kind of diplomacy with the cravers as kinda impossible, for example.

Won't that put them at a serious disadvantage though? Fighting with everybody can be cool but most of the times it will be... overwhelming to say the least

Raptor wrote:
Won't that put them at a serious disadvantage though? Fighting with everybody can be cool but most of the times it will be... overwhelming to say the least

There is probably other jerks in the universe they can be friends with. They just might be the biggest jerks :P

MT4K wrote:
There is probably other jerks in the universe they can be friends with. They just might be the biggest jerks :P

lol I like that

come join the Axis of Jerkiness!

from what stand on the web page they are working on diplomacy. but what is the most important things withe diplonacy? My impresion is that the ai is always thinking of it selfs and never gives anything.

znork wrote:
from what stand on the web page they are working on diplomacy. but what is the most important things withe diplonacy? My impresion is that the ai is always thinking of it selfs and never gives anything.

Well, good diplomats only think of their country, too. It is just that oiling the proceedings of give and take can be helpful for your own country. I find it very hard to find a handle for teaching something like that principle to an AI. Perhaps by letting the AI randomly start in giving or not giving mood and continue doing so if they get sth. in return?

Well if you are big naiboor before you ask for a none attack packt some nice dust would sweeten the deal right?



I have no clue how to program that. But it would be easyer to be nice to them later.