tl;dr They loved me, then they hated me and now I have to kill them. That is lame when a diplomatic victory was the obvious path to victory in this game.



I played a game today where I was Ameoba.

My neighbours were Horatio, the next over were Pilgrims and at the bottom of the map were the Cravers.

I beelined for open borders and got peace and trade going with H and P after some hefty tech bribes.



As the game progresses the Cravers get their behinds handed to them by the combined Horatio/Pilgrim alliance.

I expand, completely peacefully and quickly get Cooperation and Alliance with both of my neighbours.



As the game progresses and I increase in size (I am a little bigger than both of my allies and my military is medium strength) relations deteriorate and keep plummeting even with hefty bribes until I end up at war with both of them.

I could probably have won if I had gone for war tech, but I was researching and supplying them with tech to fight the cravers.

There was absolutely no way to prevent this.



What I think are some of the problems with diplomacy:



The expansion negative modifier is huge (over 120) and seemingly permanent, even though they expand at about the same rate as myself. THIS IS THE BIG ONE WHICH RUINS EVERYTHING

This needs to go down, and should be weighted relative to the size of your allies. My economy was very good, but if this is a factor it needs to be shown.



The bonus for a common enemy is tiny (+5)

Should be a lot higher and possibly be affected by my actions in the war.



The military negative modifer after a certain stage (which I can't find any way to measure) is a flat -50, and does not take into account the fact that I have made no aggressive move. I could have expanded my military easily, but that would have completely defeated the purpose of the diplomatic victory where I was feeding my allies in the war. I DID have a fairly strong military and a fantastic economy.





Not having the option to make a permanent alliance removes, as far as I can tell, the possibility of winning diplomatically.

Create some kind of permanent diplomatic modifiers, so you can have almost unbreakable relations with someone unless you stab them in the back.



The Military Issue[



Also... Please check the ship/fleet power ratings, possibly with a focus on cost effectiveness. Once I get to a certain point my ships become unbeatable. I can understand that an early game fleet should not beat a late game fleet, but scaling from 400 to 6000 power, without focusing on military tech, in 200 turns is a bit silly and the frequency of tech changes makes constant retrofitting a pain.

Consistency, please.



Thank you for reading.



Posted in wrong forum. Please move



Has anyone seen anything similar or is this a non-issue?

I do agree that in order to make diplomacy interesting, there should be a way to be 'best friends forever' with another race. Especially if you have been nothing but an exceptional ally to them.



There should be a proportionally larger penalty for breaking an alliance if you have exceptionally good/long-term relations with someone. This will prevent both the player as well as the AI from randomly breaking a long-term alliance without severe consequences. Clearly the rest of the galaxy shouldn't trust, or want to deal with, someone who just broke a 100 year alliance without a good reason.



The problem with diplomacy in games like this is that wars are almost semi-permanent, where actually wars should be conflicts caused by , which complete upon . E.g. the war to conquer system X, the war to liberate system Y (potentially freeing a defeated race), etc. Creating a very indepth diplomacy system would greatly enhance the immersion and is hopefully high on the to-do list. If not now, then possibly in a DLC.

Well it's still in development. The devs have mentioned that diplomacy is still in the infant steps. Just look at the incredible step upward from alpha to beta. We'll get there eventually.



And for the record - yes, I agree that the expansion malus is a bit steep. Especially when you're about the same size as the opponents (remember they count your size as your combined population count, not planets/systems)

This isn't a walk, Mansen

But I agree that the changes from alpha are pretty big.



@EvilTactician: A system of war objectives like that would be very good. Having a war Demilitarized zones would also be a simple and effective way of preventing rising suspicions. Perhaps entire systems could be declared as peaceful areas of space where no military vessels are allowed to spend more than one turn, or something like that.

We also need war exhaustion to prevent a steamroller effect where you can basically keep war going permanently.



It doesn't really have to be very complex or in-depth, there just needs to be factors balancing out the homicidal aggression taking place at the moment, and doing this in an interesting way will increase the potential of the game a lot. Imagine having and interesting, and peaceful, multiplayer game... That would be something.

Tormodino wrote:
Has anyone seen anything similar or is this a non-issue?

I had exactly the same experience, also as amoeba, eventually everyone wants to kill you because they border you.

I just posted with some diplomacy modifier suggestions, ill stick them in the comment





I'm a firm believer in the ethos that the body and soul of any great strategy title will always be built on a solid AI foundation. GalCiv's complete edition enjoys its 93 on Metacritic thanks in large part to an incredibly immersive and complete AI package which serves to envelop you into the IR interplay between empires. Now AI is obviously difficult, and to elevate a system from functional to flawless is in GalCiv's case the work of several expansions and countless patches but some basic design choices can go a massive may to crafting a believable experience. I don't want to sound condescending, obviously Amplitude are the real experts here and my design pedigree is limited to some TW AI mods I worked on with a friend but I honestly feel I have some suggestions which would have an immediate and beneficial on the ES metagame.



All these ideas are just numerical alterations to the modifier system currently in place and would be easily implemented. Don't worry, this isn't a "MY SUgGEstiern : MAK AI beTTAR" post.



Okay first basic principle crucial to a successful 4x ai system is a recognition of power balance and bandwaggoning. The central principle to diplomatic interplay in any sphere is ensuring the scales of influence remained tipped in your favour. This is usually achieved by attempts to balance the arena between opponents. In practice what does this mean? Here are the modifiers I'd propose.



Area 1: Make Alliance Viable





Alliance: +200 (starts at 50 grows)

Obvious change, alliances should be solid commitments with real implications on the galactic geopolitics.



Military Weakness: -40 [-60for'evil'factions] (variable modifier which starts at 0 and peaks at -40)

People don't crush every power weaker than them, that's just stupid. Indeed the aquisition of comparitively feeble allies has clear economic and geopolitical advantages in both real life and strategy gaming. Borders can be padded, causes furthered and finances bolstered. An unlimited penalty applied for either fear or arrogance is totally contrary to these aims and warps the discourse weirdly.



Military Strength: +40 [-40forfactionsofopposingmoralstandpoints] (variable monitor peaks at +/-40, disappears if war begins between two factions)

A military strong ideologically consistent neighbour is clearly a desirable ally and as such the relationship bonus should reflect this. Fear is of course likely if the neighbour is totally opposed to your politics hense the variable



Distance: +200 (dependant on location, drops by 10 for every star links you are from the person, so if you are 20 link away you get the full modifier)

This is a cool one. It reflects and recreates the 'somebody elses problem' concept that permeates modern IR. If an invasion or genocide is happening, you will care less if its a billion lightyears away. This exists to allow neutrality between diametrically opposed but totally removed factions despite the huge negative modifiers accrued by instigating an aggressive occupational conflict.





Area 2: Balance of Power Politics





Warmonger: -50 [-10foreviltoevilfactions] (hits immediately)

A nice little tweak which applies upon declaring an offensive conflict. All factions would have this hit applied to their relationship with you, imagine this serving a little like infamy from paradox games.



A Common Enemy: +50 (Stacks immediately, doesn't change)

Pretty self explanitory, but shared opponents are historically hugely influential in shaping alliance and cooperation. +5 is a gross misrepresentation of the psychological reality. This also would lead to more bandwagoning where clearly dangerous empires with massively expansionist policies suffer at the hands of a united coalition which has evolved to face them from this modifier.



Genocide: -100 (Immediate hit which decreases over time)

This is a cool one (though I say it myself). When you or an AI player wipes out an opposing faction this modifier hits. This is in recognition of the inevitable shock that would follow the eradication of a government that has stood for centuries. What does it do? It means that diplomatic insanity paired with manic expansion results in concrete repercussions from more restrained AI peers. This also is more likely to result in organic and effective defensive coalitions and alliances, the creation of which will alter the metagame for the immersive better. Lastly, it makes the pursuit of red peace more likely. With awareness of this modifier, players and AI opponents will certainly consider allowing the continuation of a weakened opponent (perhaps as a trading partner) instead of just wiping them off the face of the universe.



Trading Partner: +50 (Starts at +5 and grows consistently over time)

An obvious suggestion, if trade is massively beneficial economically it will (and has) always been a crucial modifier in influencing IR politics and decisions.



Attacked Trading Partner: -30 (flat hit)

Another cool one. The idea behind this modifier is to increase the likelihood of allies and trading partners conspiring together to bring down an aggressor which threatens their economic interests. It also increases the likelyhood of realistic galactic conflicts between coalitions as opposed to congo lines of conflict with A fighting B fighting C fighting D etcetera.



Rapid Expansion: -50 (Starts at -10 and grows depending on scale of expansion)

A basic modifier used to punish colony rushing a little, not exactly revolutionary.



Occupationist: -100 [-10eviltoevil] (-10 for initial occupation stacking 10 times up to a limit of -100 then decreases over time no matter how many more you claim. Resets if you declare war on fresh opponent)

This modifier would apply to all factions in contact with you when you (or they) invaded an enemy system and claim it for your empire. Actually annexing an opponent is always a big step in politics. Clearly its less of one in 4x strategy :P but still the modifier serves to increase the likelyhood of AI interfering to prevent the steamrolling of a neighbour for example.





There are others I'd considered but I don't want this to be to long (thanks for reading!). I'd love to hear an amplitude opinion on these, (you heard me, im cashing in my emperor edition for a reply :P ) but this was mostly for the community. Feedback, ideas and criticism welcome!

Tormodino wrote:
This isn't a walk, Mansen

But I agree that the changes from alpha are pretty big.



@EvilTactician: A system of war objectives like that would be very good. Having a war Demilitarized zones would also be a simple and effective way of preventing rising suspicions. Perhaps entire systems could be declared as peaceful areas of space where no military vessels are allowed to spend more than one turn, or something like that.

We also need war exhaustion to prevent a steamroller effect where you can basically keep war going permanently.



It doesn't really have to be very complex or in-depth, there just needs to be factors balancing out the homicidal aggression taking place at the moment, and doing this in an interesting way will increase the potential of the game a lot. Imagine having and interesting, and peaceful, multiplayer game... That would be something.

If anyone has ever played the Paradox Interactive strategy titles (Europa Universalis 3, Crusader Kings 2, etc) - the diplomacy there is pretty awesome and could be used as an inspiration on how to approach this. (A carbon copy wont work due to the vastly different nature and scope of the game, but inspiration can be drawn from certain elements.)

Sounds pretty good to me. Would like to give it a try at the very least

We have a ton of great discussion going on about just these very issues scattered throughout the forum, wish they had subforums or something to help sift through it all, search is not necessarily your friend when looking for similar topics.



The benchmark 4X references are so handy to help us but can be a pain for Devs I suspect. lol



Atm the Beta Diplomacy is not robust enough, I look forward to it building into something comparable to the examples mentioned in this thread. No doubt it will.



There definitely needs more interaction between the Factions on the Diplomacy panel too, including Alert notices when you go up or down in opinion with clear, distinct and valid reasons for the change rather than what little info shows up atm to tell you that Faction A changes to SUSPICIOUS because....?!?!?? what?? My smells??? what? That text you blurted off is not helping me, what did I do???