Poll: what makes a good diplomacy system?

[Kazimierz Wielk]

The joy of two interpretations of something posted in yet a different language.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

1st) I simply don't understand why some equate realism with lack of fun. Perhaps that is their opinion, but others find realism truly captivating and fun.

It's equally surprising to see people equate realism with fun. I'm glad the devs seems to know that neither is true and that realism never can come before gameplay.

2nd) The fact that you have penalties/happiness based on your actions and choices is not "straight-jacketing" you.

It depends on the penalties. If you take away all other strategic options in favor of realism, it is. I'm only saying that attacking a friend needs to be a viable option, even if there are penalties to it.

You still have free will to act within the choices you make. If you choose a democracy to get the financial benefit, don't complain that your people are more demanding. If you would want fewer negative effects for attacking whomever, whenever you wished, then choose a gov't system in which those are more "accepted" and have fewer negative effects. The idea that you want your cake (Democracy) and eat it too (attack whomever without any negative consequences/reactions from your population) is simply unrealistic.

I've never argued that, it's a construct of yours.

In Civ you guide your civilization; you do not play a god. You play within the parameters of the game. You are restricted in all sorts of ways, via penalties/bonuses/limitations. To say that you are straight-jacketed simply because there are consequences of your actions is just plain illogical.

Just like when saying that you shouldn't be restricted too much in your options or shouldn't be restricted in a certain way, doesn't equate you wanting no restrictions at all - that's illogical. I hope you're insightful enough to understand this.

 

[Zeiter]

Thats a very strange argument. This is a game, so AIs should play in a way that is most fun for the human, who is actually playing the game. The AIs aren't people playing the game, they're there to enhance *my* enjoyment, not there own.
Many people (myself included) feel a total break in history immersion if AIs do things that make them feel like gameplayers, rather than real countries.
For example, if the US and UK had annexed France rather than liberating it after WW2 (play to win!), or if the US troops in Britain before D-day had suddenly marched on London and conquered it (play to win!) or if the US suddenly invaded Canada during the 20th century (play to win!) then that would feel totally wrong.

This is the point exactly.

However, my beefs with Civ4's diplomacy comes when I have an incentive to do just those ridiculous sorts of things that really take me out of the "immersion" and fun aspect of the game and make it seem more "gamey."

In a situation where the game mechanics encourage me as the U.S. to attack the proverbial "Canada" (my long-time, harmless ally), but where the realism/immersion/fun aspect gives me an incentive not to do so, I waver back and forth, and no matter which way I choose, part of me is bound to feel disappointed.

If I attack Canada, then the game feels cheap and gimmicky, like a game, rather than immersive like playing the leader of a country in history. (And though it is indeed a game, a game is really all about the art of fooling oneself that the faux-stakes that one has in the game are actually meaningful stakes in something real. This is just as much the suspension of disbelief that we perform when we make ourselves believe that a game of basketball is important or has meaningful consequences (it doesn't)).

If I don't attack Canada and role-play, I might lose the game, and I will cuss myself for not having attacked Canada.

This is why the ways to victory, as well as the diplomacy system, need to be organic. You should have a gameplay incentive to act realistically and historically. Granted, nothing says that you can't act otherwise. In fact, I dislike the hard rules like the 10-turn peace treaties in Civ4 that do exactly that. That also feels gimmicky, or gamey, and it immediately takes away my ability to temporarily make-believe that I am a ruler of a country, instead reminding me that I am playing some game with arbitrary rules that exist for gameplay purposes.

 

[Agrippa]

This is a game, so AIs should play in a way that is most fun for the human, who is actually playing the game. The AIs aren't people playing the game, they're there to enhance *my* enjoyment, not there own.
Many people (myself included) feel a total break in history immersion if AIs do things that make them feel like gameplayers, rather than real countries.

For example, if the US and UK had annexed France rather than liberating it after WW2 (play to win!), or if the US troops in Britain before D-day had suddenly marched on London and conquered it (play to win!) or if the US suddenly invaded Canada during the 20th century (play to win!) then that would feel totally wrong.

I agree with the first part, but not with the second.
Of course the AI should act "somewhat" historical.
And of course the AI should try to win.

If America is a democracy it should try *more likely* to win via UN.
If country-X is (via social policies) something like a technocracy, it should try *more likely* to win via space.
and if country-Y is a fascist government, it should try *much more likely* to win via conquest.

Also, the "policies" or government types should facilitate those conditions, so let's say you run police state, of course you get better troop support.
You are a democracy? More war weariness! and so on, this is already quite good in current games, try to run Civ3 Always War games in democracy.

Last, breaking the rules gives penalties, adhering it gives rewards (no matter if AI or human player) and finally, the AIs should learn from your actions.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

This is the point exactly.

However, my beefs with Civ4's diplomacy comes when I have an incentive to do just those ridiculous sorts of things that really take me out of the "immersion" and fun aspect of the game and make it seem more "gamey."

In a situation where the game mechanics encourage me as the U.S. to attack the proverbial "Canada" (my long-time, harmless ally), but where the realism/immersion/fun aspect gives me an incentive not to do so, I waver back and forth, and no matter which way I choose, part of me is bound to feel disappointed.

If I attack Canada, then the game feels cheap and gimmicky, like a game, rather than immersive like playing the leader of a country in history. (And though it is indeed a game, a game is really all about the art of fooling oneself that the faux-stakes that one has in the game are actually meaningful stakes in something real. This is just as much the suspension of disbelief that we perform when we make ourselves believe that a game of basketball is important or has meaningful consequences (it doesn't)).

If I don't attack Canada and role-play, I might lose the game, and I will cuss myself for not having attacked Canada.

This is why the ways to victory, as well as the diplomacy system, need to be organic. You should have a gameplay incentive to act realistically and historically. Granted, nothing says that you can't act otherwise. In fact, I dislike the hard rules like the 10-turn peace treaties in Civ4 that do exactly that. That also feels gimmicky, or gamey, and it immediately takes away my ability to temporarily make-believe that I am a ruler of a country, instead reminding me that I am playing some game with arbitrary rules that exist for gameplay purposes.

I won't argue for the diplomatic system in civ4 since I've played it too little. I wonder, however, how there could be a way to:
1. encourage the player to try and take over the world (like some crossbreed between a mad Bond villain and Hitler),
2. make the player feel good about it and
3. make it happen in a realistic manner.
Civ has always prioritized gameplay before realism. If the two are combinable - great, but here I don't see it happening and I'd gladly settle for 1 and 2.

What you're basically asking is for a game that makes domination and conquest victory, as we've known them, impossible, which they historically and realistically are and should be.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What you're basically asking is for a game that makes domination and conquest victory, as we've known them, impossible, which they historically and realistically are and should be.

It doesn't need to make them impossible. They need to remain possible, but should be hard, as opposed to easy (current situation).

What if domination/conquest was actually difficult even when you controlled 2/3 of the world (what if getting that last 1/3 was just as/more difficult as getting the second 1/3)

 

[GhostWriter16]

My view is a moderate view. First of all, it ought to be leader dependent, for instance, Genghis should try to beat you via conquest, and even if friendly for awhile, he should attempt killing you. Gandhi on the other hand would probably go for a peaceable condition.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My view is a moderate view. First of all, it ought to be leader dependent, for instance, Genghis should try to beat you via conquest, and even if friendly for awhile, he should attempt killing you. Gandhi on the other hand would probably go for a peaceable condition.

So if I played India I would get penalized for attempting conquest, and if I played the Mongols I'd get a bonus for it?

 

[Ahriman]

So if I played India I would get penalized for attempting conquest, and if I played the Mongols I'd get a bonus for it?

An excellent point; this kind of factional hard-coding is fail, but it would be required in order to get different leaders to act differently in a 100% strict "play to win" fashion. Otherwise, if peace is good for Gandhi (helps him win) then its good for Genghis.

To get AI leaders to play differently without ridiculously hard-coded benefits, we have to abandon the idea of strong-form AI optimization, and instead program AIs to play in a way that is "fun" rather than one that is optimal.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, on this point I kind of agree with Krikkitone & Ahriman, but I would like to come in with some support for Agrippa's idea. Are any of you familiar with the board game "Attack!" In that game you could be Communist, Monarchy, Fascist or Deomcracy-& which government you were decided how your victory points were assigned (IIRC, Monarchies gained VP's for retaining their capital & for every territory they gained on different territories; Fascists got points for conquest; Democracies got points for bringing neutral territories over to their philosophy (democracy) using peaceful means-& lost points for doing so violently; Communists got points for bringing neutral territories over to Communism).
So with that in mind, it would be interesting if your various Social Policies molded the way you got points at any given point in the game &-in so doing-alter the way you & the AI play the game. So, for example, a Civ currently running a Pacifistic Social Policy will gain points for forging alliances & trade relations-especially with City States-wheras those running militaristic Social Policies are more likely to engage in war. It'd also give you a good idea of which civs (player or AI) you could most likely trust, without the need for visible diplomacy modifiers!

 

[Che Guava]

Aussie Lurker

I do think that your government type, or more specifically, the 'social policies' concerned with foreign policy and world outlook should play a part in how a civ decides to 'win'. What I mean is, if you civilization is founded on a principle of humanism and consensus, rather than imperial conquest, you should have some sort of incentive to live up to your own philosophies.

On the other hand, I suppose it would be just as easy to scopp up extra points by switching to an imperial form of government if you find yourself likely to win by domination, for eg, even if you decide to make the switch in the dying turns of your game, and I don't like the idea of having those kind of traits hardwired into your civ at the get-go.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I like the idea but Im not sure how it would be implemented....

 

[Ahriman]

So I guess what I'm saying is, I like the idea but Im not sure how it would be implemented....

Its interesting, but I think it would tend to require victory to be based off victory points that were accrued over time (by satisfying whatever social policies you had at the time), rather than satisfying an instantaneous victory condition like those in Civ have typically been.

So, to win you need X victory points, but what gives you victory points under different social policies differs.

That way you can't just change policies to meet some condition; you accrue victory points depending on your policies and contemporaneous actions.

 

[Che Guava]

Its interesting, but I think it would tend to require victory to be based off victory points that were accrued over time (by satisfying whatever social policies you had at the time), rather than satisfying an instantaneous victory condition like those in Civ have typically been.

So, to win you need X victory points, but what gives you victory points under different social policies differs.

That way you can't just change policies to meet some condition; you accrue victory points depending on your policies and contemporaneous actions.

I suppose it's all going to depend a great deal on how exactly these social policy trees actually work (and lord I can't wait for them to be explained!!!)

In the context of the above, what I think I'd like to see if a somewhat complex social tree with plent of options, but each of these clustered in groups that are (a) easier to switch between and (b) grouped by a philosophical viewpoint that would correspond to victory points.

So, for instance, you could have a 'imperial branch' that could include everything from monarchism to facism, and all the various permutations within (based on other 'civic choices' concerning economy, labour, and actual gov't type, be it absolute rule, heriditary, or constitutional). This could include examples such as Imperial rome, the Sun King's France, or Nazi Germany. As long as your civ resides in this branch, you accrue points for domination, tallied by your size and number of vassals (or whatever they wil have in civ5). A branch under the philosophy of 'humanism/rationalism' (for lack of a better term) could include areas such as liberalism and socialism (whether absolute, one-party rule, or democratic), and would have points tallied under dimplomacy, the number of other civs you convince to adopt to your civics, and perhaps the health/literacy/happiness of your populace. Examples might be the 'enlightened despots' like Jospeh II, liberal democracies like the USA, and socialist states like Tito-era Yugoslavia.

Reading over that last paragraph, I realize that the concept might be a little overly-complex for a game, btu some kind of expanded version of what Aussie suggested would add a real interesting element to the game.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not saying penaltize him, but make him so that he is better at a certain thing. For instance, Gandhi may have traits (Like Rev) which make him better at certain things, in Gandhi's case, peace, in Genghis', war.

 

[chongli]

I agree that its a nice idea, but the devil is in the details.

What does it mean for someone to be a close ally?

In Civ4, each faction has a diplomatic opinion of each other faction, except for the human player, who has no such diplomatic values.

Your diplomatic reliations with faction X are what THEY think of YOU, not what you think of them.
Its entirely possible in-game for faction A to really like faction B, while faction B hates faction A. If A declares war on B, then B gets mad at A, but A doesn't get mad at B.

Thus, it is impossible to define things like "close ally" without creating a preference for the human player's faction over countries (unless we were willing to say that our ally is anyone who likes us - no matter how we feel about them).

Nah, it's pretty simple. Make the player specify their "official opinions" of the other Civs. Once this is done, the AIs have a standard to which they can measure the human player's actions. Deviating from your stated positions will get you in trouble.

Having said that, I still continue to dispute your statement that "diplomacy is impossible" if you cannot trust the AI. One need only learn about the uneasy relationships in the criminal underworld (drug dealers, mobsters etc.) to see that diplomacy and trade flourish even in a world devoid of trust.

 

[RD-BH]

Diplomacy is give and take.
For everything you gain, you give up something else.

I would enjoy a lively diplomacy system that holds promise of a long-term gain on top of the short-term risk.

Example:
Subsidies currently involve a small risk
--- (tributing wealth on the hope the opponent's gpt increases)
in exchange for the chance to gain even more gpt
--- (multiple trades for a larger sum)

A diplomacy system that invokes a similar upfront risk for a possible long-term gain would be most enjoyable.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Domination3000, that makes more sense-so not hard-wiring them, just giving them a special ability which plays to their historical strengths. Players & AI's alike can ignore that ability & just play against type, but playing to type will probably be to their benefit in the longer term.

As to my idea, I'm all for retaining the main victory conditions-& having them end the game, but having these victories merely play into your total score-for determining who actually wins. Also, depending on what kind of social policies you're running, achieving one of the victories could actually *deduct* from your score (so a militant civ getting a diplomatic victory ).
I think the way to stop people chopping & changing their social policies is to make "back-stepping" a difficult process. So if, for example, social policies mimic the system from Hearts of Iron, then you can choose to go down an Authoritarian Path or a Democratic Path but-once you've chosen a direction, changing direction-initially-should require a great cost. Each change of direction should probably depend on (a) how far down the path you are & (b) how often you've previously changed direction.
So if you're close to an Absolutist State (an 8 on a scale of 0-10), then trying to become more democratic is going to be costly, wheras if you're Monarchist (say a 1-2 on the scale of 0-10) it might be much less costly. If the cost of chopping & changing is sufficiently high, then I believe it will prevent exploits from a victory point scoring perspective.

Aussie.

 

[RD-BH]

.. victories merely play into your total score-for determining who actually wins. Also, depending on what kind of social policies you're running, achieving one of the victories could actually *deduct* from your score (so a militant civ getting a diplomatic victory ).

Brilliant! I love it!

I think the way to stop people chopping & changing their social policies is to make "back-stepping" a difficult process. ... changing direction-initially-should require a great cost. ...

I love these ideas.

 

[Dale]

1st) I simply don't understand why some equate realism with lack of fun. Perhaps that is their opinion, but others find realism truly captivating and fun.

- Real-time. Realism == fun? (Original concept for Civ1, scrapped as "un-fun" by Sid)
- Corruption. Realism == fun? (Civ3)
- Espionage. Realism == fun? (Civ4)
- Stacks. Realism == fun? (Civ4)
- 1 year per turn whole game. Realism == fun? (Instead of current turn system)
- Micro/Macro economics. Realism == fun? (Instead of current resource system)
- Fringe groups, minorities, extremists. Realism == fun? (Instead of current population system)

I couldn't think of anything more boring than a totally realistic game. For me, fun > realism every single time. I'd rather something abstracted and fun over realistic and boring.

 

[Ahovking]

I Hate when AI attack their close allies its like if Australia attacks New zealand or if Canada attacks USA is just not right.