How does Diplomacy work?

[Trackmaster]

I've played against the AI a lot now, but have never played online. This is mainly because my internet connection is pretty poor, and I don't want to subject other people to my lag. I've still done a lot of thinking about what it would be like (especially because most games out now are so centered around the online aspect). I realize that logistically many things would have to be different, but I'm particularly interested in how diplomacy works. I say this because the way that you treat people and vocalize your feelings is a lot different from when you're playing a finite game to go for a specific victory condition than what the AI leaders would do, because presumably its their actual life, and they're bringing the emotions into it that a real person would have when they're not just playing a game.

Are the diplomatic scores still in tact? Do people really care about them? Are there checks and balances in place to make sure that people follow them and don't just DOW on their friends, or turn on a blind eye on their enemies? Are there still incentives to do nice things for competitors in exchange for influence (like giving them archaeological sites, forgiving spies, etc.)?


I was thinking that a good way to deal with this problem is to have "sworn enemies." Where you are randomly assigned 1 or 2 Civilizations that your people arbitrarily hates, and nobody is told who has who. You are given happiness for your people when you denounce them, DOW on them, or take one of their cities, or them being eliminated from the game. Similarly, you take a happiness hit if you DOF with them, trade with them, or sign a peace treaty that results in you getting less out of it. This way, it forces people choose which side they want to be on, and make compromises on who they ally with. Who your "sworn enemy" is would be random and irrational, so somebody might like you, but you must hate them, and vice versa. And you can always choose to ignore the happiness hit if it's the only way to get into an alliance group that works for you. Thoughts?

 

[CraigMak]

It works pretty much like you would expect it to work with real humans playing. Their behavior can be completely random. One person may be a friendly wonder spammer and one may want to kill everyone around them.

You can definitely annoy or anger a human player by saying something insulting and get an enemy in the game who will not trade with you and may attempt to kill you for no reason other than the chat.

If you steal a worker or do something like that you can expect that person to hate you forever unlike a stupid AI that may forgive you. Also don't expect a human player to not crush you just because you have been nice to them. If they have a massive army and you're near them, you are probably dead regardless of past relations. Diplomacy only goes so far with humans since they can actually think and reason. Their desire to win the game supersedes diplomacy.

Also, keep in mind that skills levels vary greatly. Some people will be far better than you while others may be horrible and easy to take out yourself.

 

[Trackmaster]

Right, I'd imagine that people's actions would be random and not tied to feelings as much (because it's not their actual lives and reputation on the line, and they just care about winning). I also didn't know that there were chat features available, I could see how this would affect diplomacy.

That's why I think that it would have been smart if they would have built in a system in the game that rewards you for going along with the diplomatic rules that they have in place. Like taking big happiness hits for going to war with friends, happiness boosts for annexing and razing foe's cities happiness hits for DOF with foes (and that's why I was suggesting a new "sworn enemies" feature).

I think that diplomacy is an important feature of the game that should be followed. If you want to expand and conquer, you need to be balanced about it and still keep allies (who you will at some point have to turn on), if you want to grow and flourish, you need to go out of your way to appease your neighbors.

 

[CraigMak]

I think the way it is set up is pretty realistic. If a person has superior skill or some other advantage they can take out everyone else in the game. Just like in real life where civilizations attempted to conquer the known world.

Following set rules of behavior would be very limiting and boring. Diplomacy as it is, is very interesting since anyone can turn on you at any time. Getting a happiness hit for going to war can already happen if you are trading luxuries with them. Also, taking cities gives you a pretty big happiness hit in itself.

In a multiplayer game a DOF is pretty much pointless and serves no purpose. You can DOF some one, accept embassies and declare war on them all in the same turn. Although I guess it is important for research agreements later in the game.

 

[Mutineer]

People do use Dof to be able to trade gold. That some time usefull, because for example, player 1 way ahead and attack player 2. If player 2 die you will be next, It could be a good strategy not only dow player 1 yourself, but in addition to give player 2 enoght money to buy NUke for example, so he can survive.

 

[btfx]

I'm not knowledgeable enough, but maybe someone here can answer:

Are AI players blind to the fact that other players are non-AI, I have a feeling that AI treats the human slightly differently in SP. Am I wrong? How does this work with multiple humans?

Last game I DOWed a friend in the first couple of turns just to bombard their scout (mostly for fun but of course every HP they lose helps a tiny bit). Later in the game I was wondering if this would have considerable repercussions with our common AI neighbour, even though we signed DOF as soon as we had anything to trade the AI probably still sees me as a jerk.

 

[vra379971]

I've played against the AI a lot now, but have never played online. This is mainly because my internet connection is pretty poor, and I don't want to subject other people to my lag. I've still done a lot of thinking about what it would be like (especially because most games out now are so centered around the online aspect). I realize that logistically many things would have to be different, but I'm particularly interested in how diplomacy works. I say this because the way that you treat people and vocalize your feelings is a lot different from when you're playing a finite game to go for a specific victory condition than what the AI leaders would do, because presumably its their actual life, and they're bringing the emotions into it that a real person would have when they're not just playing a game.

Are the diplomatic scores still in tact? Do people really care about them? Are there checks and balances in place to make sure that people follow them and don't just DOW on their friends, or turn on a blind eye on their enemies? Are there still incentives to do nice things for competitors in exchange for influence (like giving them archaeological sites, forgiving spies, etc.)?


I was thinking that a good way to deal with this problem is to have "sworn enemies." Where you are randomly assigned 1 or 2 Civilizations that your people arbitrarily hates, and nobody is told who has who. You are given happiness for your people when you denounce them, DOW on them, or take one of their cities, or them being eliminated from the game. Similarly, you take a happiness hit if you DOF with them, trade with them, or sign a peace treaty that results in you getting less out of it. This way, it forces people choose which side they want to be on, and make compromises on who they ally with. Who your "sworn enemy" is would be random and irrational, so somebody might like you, but you must hate them, and vice versa. And you can always choose to ignore the happiness hit if it's the only way to get into an alliance group that works for you. Thoughts?

I think this is a really interesting question that really pivots on the meaning of finite within that game.

The meaning of finite is truly key because I would argue that the length of the game has a major effect on behaviour. Mainly, diplomacy in the extreme short term situation of online, simultaneous turns, focuses on vices - short term impulse decisions made in a fairly low stakes situation for both personal reputation and game reputation. Therefore, decisions made can include more 'extreme' actions like backstabbing gleefully with 10 minutes of preparation at minimal short term consequences, and hardly any, or no long term consequences.

However, a GMR game is very different. This is no evening tour, but quite likely a multiyear voyage. Nothing changes in game terms - inputs within the game are exactly the same as they would be within a limited time frame - all that changes is the amount of time between turns. This situation invokes both dynamic inconsistency and the prisoners dilemma. Virtues and morals come into play and 'winning' is no longer strictly defined in terms of a overarching condition, but increasingly weighted towards completing sub objectives which may or may not support completion of the overarching condition, but are nevertheless considered enjoyable in some fashion for the player.

For example - If I am going to backstab X, I will still need 20 turns to prepare. But instead of having 10 minutes to do it, at the rate of a turn a week, I will have 201, 600 minutes to do it. In this time, X and I will have conversations, and other things will happen, which we will both have plenty of time to contemplate as matters slowly unfold. Lying for nearly 6 months is a much harder ask. Also, I would have to commit to the fact the betrayed party would be very angry, and tell other people, in detail about my various nefarious deeds. At which point, it may be possible, that no one would want to work with me. A big deal when 100 turns goes by in less than an hour? Not so much. A big deal when those 100 turns would take nearly two years to play out? Absolutely.

In sum, diplomacy in online, non-GMR multiplayer is warped toward aggressive action, whereas GMR play is far more cooperative, despite the fact inputs haven't changed, because of the amount of real world time that passes, where one can work out inventive deals impossible and impractical within a short time frame.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_inconsistency
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma