The AI really acts very strange...this should be fixed. The must do something like the AI of Civ 4. A AI that actually keep track of your dealings and if you have been nice, the AI should deal with you according to this. I really hope that the AI does not become "schizo" like the one in Civ 5 who only wants to see you dead...only wants war....

Believe it or not my first win was a Diplovic lol

It was aweful, I did it in "newbie" difficulty just for the achievement and never looked back

That was one of the suggestions I proposed, and technically it does this, but the alliance isn't given credit the person who reaches the diplomatic victory first wins in the alliance instead of the alliance winning. I wouldn't mind a "X person's alliance has achieved diplomatic victory" so the faction that crafted the alliance gets some shout out credit.

Could it not that after X number of turns as a all powerfull allience the nations unite and build a great empire?

davea wrote:
I guess the problem is we do not know enough about how the diplo victory score is accumulated.

From reading other peoples victory situations they tend to try and control the center of a spiral galaxy and hope that no one comes crashing through. Mainly to prevent negative situations with other AIs and prevent galaxy in fighting. This seems to be a great approach when fighting an AI (on normal, can't speak for higher difficulties), I don't know how viable it is when fighting other humans. Eventually a war race could push through your influence blockade and make you very sad lol. Feeding a Hissho or Craver force without having too many allies could make that a very very nasty spot to be in.



Though it may appear that a more general approach maybe to be at peace instead of in an alliance so you aren't locked into any particular engagement, unless you really want to steal global vision with an Amoeba.

I actually managed to win diplomatically almost by accident xD It probably helps that I was Amoeba, and the other four AIs were the Sophons, the Sowers, the Pilgrims, and the Horatio. I started up an alliance with everyone, and for some reason, folks just sort of vanished out of it with no warning or apparent reason. I eventually managed to keep it going with everyone but the Sowers, who declared war on the rest of us. The war was a long and bloody one, but eventually my economy was getting 10k dust a turn, and I could just buy fleets with 15k power x3 I annihilated them, took over their spaces, and sat back to research and produce. I realized Diplomatic was at 98% by sheer accident (I had no idea how it actually worked), and I was already within spitting distance of at least three other victories xD I think the deciding point was that I had all the good/neutral races, made folks more pliable for it.

I guess the problem is we do not know enough about how the diplo victory score is accumulated. I "assume" that having an alliance gives points faster, but having a war does not give any penalty points. Perhaps a good way to choose an ally is to look at who they are at war with. If their enemies are isolated from you (by other empires) then it may be less risky to make the alliance.

I had games playing as Amoeba where i used the "neutral zone" exploit to keep peace with all other races. 6xPeace, often with open borders and corporation agreement, 1xCold War (Cravers). After 200 turns i gave up on Diplomatic Victory, because i was getting maybe 0.25% per turn (so it would have taken me another 150+ turns to achieve it). I would not join Alliances because that would have lead to war with other races and i didn't had any military.



Reading the patch notes, i'm not sure if this was before or after the patch that modified values. I might have to try again.

I agree Leonoux, the AI should behave like that and it would be fairly nice to see it working.

Well another issue is that you don't want an AI with one mindset. You want an AI that is flexible enough to represent each faction. Hissho should view favorably upon military strength in terms of respect, and maybe look down on gifts as tributes. As where the Amoeba would be wary of military strength, but be interested gifts. And the cravers...who do actually just want to expand and consume.

After reviewing a thread, HERE, I've began to wonder what the dev's team goal of what a diplomatic victory condition was, and is at the moment. As a relatively friendly guy, I'm all about making friends with my "dreaded" (haha i'm punny) Pilgrims. Right now it just doesn't seem to a be viable way to win. Expansion, tech, wonder, and supremacy all seem to be much faster ways to win. I've come up with a couple ideas not all brilliant and not all shiny but we shall see.

• My first thought is that the condition is relic. Much like the Craver's Locust Points this hasn't been revised since the game cap got dropped from 500 to 300 and therefore the game isn't counting diplomatic actions as much as it should or the threshold for victory "too damn high" (with appropriate meme image). If this is the case, quick number fix and we play it out and see if it is adjusted.
• My second thought is that the condition is relic, again. However, this time it is because it just doesn't fit in the current vision of the game. Diplomacy currently acts as a tool to achieve another victory condition and so the lone player or ai can win. If this is true it should be removed.
• My third, and much more depressing (and much more discussion-esk), thought is players and the dev team aren't seeing eye to eye on what needs to be done in order to achieve victory through the diplomatic victory. So either a re-explanation of the condition and how to achieve it or it needs to be modified to meet each others expectations.
  
  

Currently there appears to be only one "winner" in this game and that in its self seems to against my notions of a diplomatic victory. I have images of hands coming together to achieve something greater not a crown for the person who did the most amount of butt kissing. Shadowy deals and temporary alliances can make the butt kisser powerful, but in a different way. They are contextually powerful, not alone powerful (thinking Game of Thrones atm with littlefinger and the eunuch). If I can get people to all be in an alliance together to either crush a foe or "co-exist" why can't it just end the game in momentary peace? World War 2 was ended by two factions that didn't agree with each other and eventually went at each others throats, but dang-it it still ended. Or after X turns in alliance with no opposition the game ends in victory for the allied parties?



I guess that is the heart of the problem, with the lowered turn limit, there doesn't seem to be enough time to have a stalemate occur where people can take advantage of diplomatic victory, in its current form. I believe an overhaul of this condition is required so it is as viable as the other victory conditions and a desirable choice amongst the more "peaceful" factions. Personally, I would like to see the game ended because of an alliance if it stays together long enough and that being called "Diplomatic Victory," instead of "golden butt kisser" which it appears to be at the moment.

All I can say to this thread is... Oh. Thanks for the heads up guys! Might be that I'll try to not destructificate everyone in my path now...

eltro102 wrote:
[...] which could either be an alliance or a person. This means that everyone else loses.

Currently, if you win in an alliance...you don't win as an alliance it is declared through whatever way was "achieved." Nullifying any of the other groups work. Also theoretically you could achieve "global" alliance and achieve a state of peace across all parties interested wouldn't that be most like "how it works in real life?" If I can add people to my team, I could in theory add everyone to my team...well except cravers...they suck.



eltro102 I won't try and put word in your mouth, but no one wants this to be "easier than the rest." We just want it to work properly or in a more intuitive manner. Yes diplomatic situations are complex, but they tend to follow a train of thought not schizophrenia.



The other part, could be it doesn't belong anymore...diplomacy's nature is the opposite of expand and eradicate so having the notion that "no victory if there are no losers" isn't going to get you very far in a diplomatic situation. It can still be used as a way to trade tech and economy but does it belong if people are really expecting only one "winner?"

TheFrozenOne wrote:
Diplomacy is definitely a weak link. I've tried to win with it many times, but it is just too difficult, with too little pay off. The entire system feels as though you are tiptoeing around the the inevitable conflict by trying to please the impossible-to-please AI.



"Your military is too strong!"

"Your military is too weak!"

"Our boarders are touching!"

"You defended yourself against an enemy and I hate you for it!"



A Diplo victory forces the player to play in a narrow tunnel or risk sparking a war, which is NOTHING like it should be. Diplomacy offers very little benefit. Diplomacy should be about forging unbreakable partnerships, resulting in a powerful alliance of contiguous empires who share similar goals.

But this is how it works in real life.

I think what everyone here wants is an easier victory than the rest.

Endless Space is a game which has a winner, which could either be an alliance or a person. This means that everyone else loses.



There can be no victory if there are no losers

Jebus, same. I just think at the moment it needs to be examined to see if it is working as intended. Taking your time and avoiding other options is okay against the AI (at the moment) but with competitive play in multiplayer it just doesn't seem viable. Or intuitive...

The thread linked in the original post now contains a story from one player who did win a diplo victory. He basically had to avoid all the other victory conditions while pushing "next turn" 50 times to wait for the diplo victory counter to reach 100%. He has much more patience than I do!

Diplomacy victory is near impossible,

I had an aliance with the sophons (playing as horatio) and was "very close" with them,

yet, I only had a score of ~17% while my expansion was already at ~68%

(this was around turn 90), then the amoeboe (<- is this written correct?) declared war on my because on inch of

my border touched theirs. Then the Sophon got mad because I created a "large military" (to defend myself). and they

quit the alliance... :l (however, the game states "very close" as: "this empire loves you and will follow you in every occasion", well I guess not )



EDIT:

Oh yeah, wouldn't it be nice if, at diplomacy victory, an alliance could win, instead of 1 faction ?

I always liked how Civ IV handled diplomatic victories. Someone, not necessarily you, needed to build one of two wonders (the Apostolic Palace or the U.N.). Then about every 30 turns the member nations would get together and vote on an issue brought up by the current elected nation leader, one of which would be to vote someone the Supreme Leader of Earth. This would require 2/3 of the votes with each nation having a number of votes being based on relative population size, so you would need a majority of the world as your ally/vassal to win this way. Alpha Centauri also had a similar diplomatic victory, but instead of building a wonder instead once anyone had made contact with every faction they could call the faction leaders together to hold a council to vote on a single issue, one of which would be electing them the Hegemon of Planet.

I agree with the zeal, but I do believe it also has a function as trade tool as well. At the moment it seems to be much more of a trade tool than a way to win, or even a way to form a cohesive alliances.

TheFrozenOne wrote:
[...] trying to please the impossible-to-please AI.

As to this, on normal (the only mode I've been playing till gold ai is released) I've noticed that they are much more practical. Willing to stay comfortably in long term peaces, instead of freaking out and declaring war on me after 3 turns of peace. Still those some of the negatives build erratically. I've had expansion hatred in the triple digits with one faction, single digits with another while taking solar systems from a third closer to the single digit faction.