I really like a lot of things about the diplomacy system. I like the variety of treaties and trade agreements you can make. I like the idea cooperation treaties and grand alliances. I like the ability to choose between allies if they go to war. But my problem with diplomacy is that it is just too rigid because of the waiting period on making and breaking treaties. Why is it that an advanced race can terraform a pile of rocks into a beautiful jungle world, but when they want to form a coalition against an aggressive enemy power they have to wait 10 turns before changing their treaty status? I honestly think that removing or substantially reducing the waiting period for treaties, at the very least between human players, would make diplomacy much more interesting. Not only would the game be more interesting if I actually have to trust that my "friend" won't back-stab me when I sign a treaty with him, but it would also make it much easier to form that coalition against that one enormously powerful player. What do others think about this?

Because lawyers and bureaucrats are greedy/untrustworthy.



As with many features of the game I think this would do well as being an option you can enable or disable in game settings before you begin a game. One of the problems however is that it then allows people with Eternal War to repeatedly war/peace other players during the course of a game to trade techs/resources (or course that could also be an option to enable/disable...).

I would at least like to see the option available. As to Eternal War players repeatedly going to war and peace, yes, of course they could, but so could everyone else. And it would allow those without eternal war to quickly form alliances to stop them.

Actually, people with eternal war could not ever go to peace with anyone. That's kind of the whole point...

Common problem with games of this type, players think they encompass the billions (or whatever) of creatures in their faction.



It's not about being unable to change agreements, in most cases you can, you just take a relations hit (and frankly you should also take an approval hit imo). The people within the empire don't like change, no one likes change, they have to be coaxed into things. Even if the player represents a despotic dictator, even those can't change things randomly as it impacts on their not being killed- or whatever theme you'd like to think about it as.



Anyway, as for the actual agreements that do have timers, good, keep them as is. If a faction changes it's alliances, wars, and peace treaties like they don't matter, they frankly should never ever be able to make them in the first place. :P

jgbaxter wrote:
It's not about being unable to change agreements, in most cases you can, you just take a relations hit (and frankly you should also take an approval hit imo).

But see this is my point. You actually are physically restricted from changing the status during a certain period. It actually won't let you make peace or declare war regardless of the relations effect.

jgbaxter wrote:
The people within the empire don't like change, no one likes change, they have to be coaxed into things. Even if the player represents a despotic dictator, even those can't change things randomly as it impacts on their not being killed- or whatever theme you'd like to think about it as.

I agree, so changing treaties prematurely should cause something like a reduction in empire wide happiness, but it should not be impossible. Consider: The President of the United States could at any time send troops to attack any country in the world, unilaterally, regardless of the United States treaty status with that other power (Afghanistan and Iraq are examples). He COULD, but then some of the American people will be outraged (i.e. drop in approval ratings), and the other power would also likely be outraged. What I am asking for is a system more like reality, rather than an arbitrary time limit.

Wud wrote:
Actually, people with eternal war could not ever go to peace with anyone. That's kind of the whole point...

Declare war, ceasefire with tech or resource or dust trade terms.

hahahahaha





I hope it's a bug but if it's not I need to female-pregnant-dog slap a dev; I suddenly found myself with a 120 turn peace treaty that I never agreed to.







Also I'd be happy with the ability to break timer treaties as long as it caused disapproval in the empire as well as relation hits with *all* factions.

Kewl, just signed a peace treaty with a faction and instead got a 240 turn cease-fire.



Stunningly stupid.

The other reason to at least have the option is that people will be more likely to sign them. I don't know if you guys play a lot of multiplayer, but in my own experience I have found that most people don't even bother with treaties because it is too much commitment.

Maybe a setting for how long u want a commitment would be nice? With the minimum amount a bit lower than currently.

Could include a research tech that reduces the amount of time to wait until you can break a treaty. That would reduce immediate flip flopping. You've got to make 'em work for it.

Vespidae wrote:
Could include a research tech that reduces the amount of time to wait until you can break a treaty. That would reduce immediate flip flopping. You've got to make 'em work for it.

hmmmm





up to half the time, yes. Shorter than that: no

KingJohnVI wrote:
I really like a lot of things about the diplomacy system. I like the variety of treaties and trade agreements you can make. I like the idea cooperation treaties and grand alliances. I like the ability to choose between allies if they go to war. But my problem with diplomacy is that it is just too rigid because of the waiting period on making and breaking treaties. Why is it that an advanced race can terraform a pile of rocks into a beautiful jungle world, but when they want to form a coalition against an aggressive enemy power they have to wait 10 turns before changing their treaty status? I honestly think that removing or substantially reducing the waiting period for treaties, at the very least between human players, would make diplomacy much more interesting. Not only would the game be more interesting if I actually have to trust that my "friend" won't back-stab me when I sign a treaty with him, but it would also make it much easier to form that coalition against that one enormously powerful player. What do others think about this?

Wait turns are there to make you think twice before making any treaties and ensure treaties do have some impact before they are voided. It's also quite annoying being spammed with treaties each turns, at least that delay ensure you can do other things than play diplomat each turn (especially in MP).

I actually have an idea for diplomacy for a long term MP game:



House Rules for Diplomacy in Endless Space

Rationale: The purpose of these rules is to bring some semblance of what true diplomacy is often like between nations, and to reflect the fact that even despots are not truly in complete control of an entire race or nation of people. Instead, politics makes things more complicated:

Peace Treaty – No changes here except when combined with other treaties below.

Open Borders – This Treaty is required in order to exchange Technology or Dust (or border systems). Systems that are Colonies cannot be exchanged any longer, only Outposts. Think of this as a general cooperation and trade treaty. It allows for more control of where trades take place and how, and less of the Wild West I traded it and you traded it to the next guy and so on. Now you need to choose your trading partners wisely.

Announcement: It should be announced in the game when a treaty is made.

Termination: A termination is also announced. At the same time, the Peace Treaty should be cancelled and re-offered in order to allow for a 10 Turn period of Peace, so war can’t happen until the time has passed. It is permissible for the offer to be refused, meaning both parties are likely interested in war.

Alliance: Alliances are also announced and must be terminated with a re-entry into Open Borders and a Peace Treaty, so they are a step up from the previous Open Borders agreement. In this case, the Open Borders can be refused but not the Peace. The reason is it will take time for citizens and sentiment, propaganda, etc. to change attitudes.

AI Diplomacy: Since the AI has such strange tendencies in the game that can be abused, all players are forbidden from any offers to/from the AI at all times. The intention is not to play this with AI but sometimes that may happen.

Declarations of War: These must be announced from a state of Peace or Cold War and announced to all of the Players. If an Alliance is involved and you leave it, then the requirements above still apply.

Cease Fire: To reflect the fact that populations grow tired of war, some rules will be applied here as well. If either side asks for a Cease Fire, under certain conditions it must be accepted. If the offer is refused, then the opponent can ask for a demand, which if accepted requires the Cease Fire to be accepted. The demand is limited to:

1 – Dust per Turn equal to 10% of the Empire’s Income (can I get this? Must be some way) or a flat fee equal to 10 turns of income (or a combination – say the fee is 10 dust/Turn, you can ask for 5 dust/turn and 50 dust (10 turn’s worth).

2 – Any Tech (is that possible?) the opponent wishes.

3 – Any number of Outposts the opponent wishes that the player has a clear path to – i.e. he must be able to get to it without passing through any influence area that is not open to him.

4 – Any one Colony the opponent wishes, except for the Home System, that the player has a clear path into (you can pass through influence to get to just THAT Colony, so you can’t pick a system that requires you to jump through another Colony you don’t have permission to.

Endless War has to abide by the same restrictions above, but that also means the same rules apply for them as well.

This may make wars more grueling or create a series of wars. It also allows for shifting of alliances between cease fires and other fun possibilities.



Have to work through some of those details - but it would be nice to have things a bit more like this in some fashion. The cease fire part is something that would be optional as it depends what kind of game you want to play - my idea on that is for something else I am thinking of for MP.

@ Vypuero Niiiccceee ideas.