How would your ideal diplomacy system be?
- Thread starter Psychotronics
- Start date
Balkans
Warlord
Perfect diplomacy system would be something that is hard to build but it's rock solid if you manage to build it ... good relations with some nation shouldn't be something that just falls in your lap, it has to have some strategic element on how to get that good relations.
DCParry
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 76
I think the diplomacy update for BERT was a huge step forward. I definitely like how three systems (tech/virtues/traits) created emergent interactions between the factions that were reasonable, but not always predicable.
The biggest weakness was the lack of personality of the BERT leaders (in my opinion). But I think if this system, combined with the personalities of Civ leaders, could be an interesting set up for diplomacy.
The biggest weakness was the lack of personality of the BERT leaders (in my opinion). But I think if this system, combined with the personalities of Civ leaders, could be an interesting set up for diplomacy.
DefiantMars
King
There isn't the same level of emotional investment in the BE Leaders compared to the Historical Leaders of previous Civs. BE leaders have personalities (by god, I want to slap Hutama) but you have to get to know them first, where with other Civs you have general impression of them before hand due to historical references. And despite the spamminess and irrationality of the communiques I enjoyed the flavor they brought.
I like what I'm hearing about the "agendas" for VI. And I hope they iterate on BE's systems, because features like Traits, Fear/Respect, Relationship levels, etc. were neat changes... really BERT's system needs the "direct" diplopmacy options to give that agency back to the player.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
A public opinion and a cassus belli systems intertwined with other game systens such as spyionage or culture could work wonders towards a more complex, nuanced type of diplomacy.
I in particular have always wanted a public opinion system that rewards coherence between the players actions and his civilizations story.
For example, declaring war on an empire that you have been friends with for centuries for no other reason than wanting to win domination victory should come with a hefty price (higher war weariness or even decreased combat effectivity) whereas warring preventive war against a treacherous, agressive empire should give you some benefit.
That way, while players could still play in order to win and backstabbery would still be possible, coherence in your action and the AIs would be rewarded.
I in particular have always wanted a public opinion system that rewards coherence between the players actions and his civilizations story.
For example, declaring war on an empire that you have been friends with for centuries for no other reason than wanting to win domination victory should come with a hefty price (higher war weariness or even decreased combat effectivity) whereas warring preventive war against a treacherous, agressive empire should give you some benefit.
That way, while players could still play in order to win and backstabbery would still be possible, coherence in your action and the AIs would be rewarded.
The biggest thing for me would be to introduce the "tolerance" system I first saw in Star Drive 2.
The quick jist is that each item you put on the table requires a certain amount of trust, both from your people and there's. While creating a balanced deal is important, ultimately your people are only going to allow so much deal making from the backstabbing SOBs on the other side of the table. As you complete deals or perform actions that improve trust, tolerance increases and bigger deals can be made.
I found it creates wonderful improvements to diplomacy:
1) Diplomacy evolves with time. No longer do you meet another Civ and both lay out trade deals like its going out of style. You start with smaller deals and work your way up to bigger deals.
2) It forces the human to play the AI's game, at least a little. If your playing a civ with xenophobic traits dealing with another Civ who backstabbed you 10 turns ago...you can't make a super deal just because its the "mechanically best way to go". You have to work to build up trust again, creating a much more organic system.
All in all, the tolerance system I found was simple and yet created great new complexities to the system. I would love to see a flavor of it put in place.
The quick jist is that each item you put on the table requires a certain amount of trust, both from your people and there's. While creating a balanced deal is important, ultimately your people are only going to allow so much deal making from the backstabbing SOBs on the other side of the table. As you complete deals or perform actions that improve trust, tolerance increases and bigger deals can be made.
I found it creates wonderful improvements to diplomacy:
1) Diplomacy evolves with time. No longer do you meet another Civ and both lay out trade deals like its going out of style. You start with smaller deals and work your way up to bigger deals.
2) It forces the human to play the AI's game, at least a little. If your playing a civ with xenophobic traits dealing with another Civ who backstabbed you 10 turns ago...you can't make a super deal just because its the "mechanically best way to go". You have to work to build up trust again, creating a much more organic system.
All in all, the tolerance system I found was simple and yet created great new complexities to the system. I would love to see a flavor of it put in place.
@IKael
I'd like to know more about the casus belli system you have in mind.
If we just earn points towards declaring war with reduced penalty because the game thinks we are justified to do so, it will be abused and manipulated unless the system itself is rock solid and hard abuse. That is hard to do.
I do like an idea of a casus belli system just so the AI has a number to keep track of and to quantify justifiability of wars, and it has obvious advantages like punishing the oscillating war strategy, which since Civ3 has been one of the most reliable ways humans have in expansion compared to AI, who sometimes achieve expansion through oscillating wars, but as far as I know, never by design.
I'd like to know more about the casus belli system you have in mind.
If we just earn points towards declaring war with reduced penalty because the game thinks we are justified to do so, it will be abused and manipulated unless the system itself is rock solid and hard abuse. That is hard to do.
I do like an idea of a casus belli system just so the AI has a number to keep track of and to quantify justifiability of wars, and it has obvious advantages like punishing the oscillating war strategy, which since Civ3 has been one of the most reliable ways humans have in expansion compared to AI, who sometimes achieve expansion through oscillating wars, but as far as I know, never by design.
Zyntax
Chieftain
I hope there is a way to declare war to conquer only pieces of land instead of capturing the whole city.
whyidie
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,187
Add me to the list of people who is interested in domestic impacts on war. If England were to declare war on the United States today, one would think there would be some type of domestic backlash. These effects could of course be offset with policy/civics/buildings. If you're playing as a classic warmonger type with Honor/Autocracy, one would expect the domestic effects to be limited.
Would also add to the chorus of those saying they don't want everything in diplomacy to be immediately apparent. Carrying on with our example, if there were things you could do (stop trade routes and deals) over time or the AI would do to you (denouncements, higher costs when renewing trade deals, warming up to common enemies) which decreased the foreign and domestic penalties, so long as its intuitive, I wouldn't need the modifier to be shown.
Conversely, would like some things to be more apparent. When the AI makes a nice play, I think it would behoove the developers to show it. I have strong suspicions that some AI have bribed other AI to DOW me, but I can never be sure. Would help us appreciate the AI more if they made some of their machinations more apparent after the fact. They have a lot of positive modifiers for doing business with civs that share your ideology, but I don't consider them strong enough to actually change my behavior and I have no idea if it actually changes the AIs behavior.
Adding a level of negotiation to "will you join my war" would be of interest as well. Maybe expectations (units, territory, trade disruption, resources) for each side should a war be joined with corresponding consequences should they not be achieved. Or make it less apparent and just have the AI judge your performance after the fact. Either way, the level of participation should have an effect domestically and internationally.
On that note, would love to see the AI use defense pacts more effectively. Its great when I can build a coalition, but I'd like the AI to do the same.
With the exception of actual multi-civ agreements, overall I think a lot of elements are there for blocs, they just need to make the ties stronger and the effects (if not the exact cause) more transparent.
Would also add to the chorus of those saying they don't want everything in diplomacy to be immediately apparent. Carrying on with our example, if there were things you could do (stop trade routes and deals) over time or the AI would do to you (denouncements, higher costs when renewing trade deals, warming up to common enemies) which decreased the foreign and domestic penalties, so long as its intuitive, I wouldn't need the modifier to be shown.
Conversely, would like some things to be more apparent. When the AI makes a nice play, I think it would behoove the developers to show it. I have strong suspicions that some AI have bribed other AI to DOW me, but I can never be sure. Would help us appreciate the AI more if they made some of their machinations more apparent after the fact. They have a lot of positive modifiers for doing business with civs that share your ideology, but I don't consider them strong enough to actually change my behavior and I have no idea if it actually changes the AIs behavior.
Adding a level of negotiation to "will you join my war" would be of interest as well. Maybe expectations (units, territory, trade disruption, resources) for each side should a war be joined with corresponding consequences should they not be achieved. Or make it less apparent and just have the AI judge your performance after the fact. Either way, the level of participation should have an effect domestically and internationally.
On that note, would love to see the AI use defense pacts more effectively. Its great when I can build a coalition, but I'd like the AI to do the same.
With the exception of actual multi-civ agreements, overall I think a lot of elements are there for blocs, they just need to make the ties stronger and the effects (if not the exact cause) more transparent.
Rusty Edge
Deity
What I've read about agendas sounds encouraging.
I would like to have two leaders on my Diplomacy screen at once. Mostly for triangular trade, but also not to choose a side in a war without knowing what the other intends. If I'm Dutch, I want to talk to Germany AND France before something starts.
Also, I think there should be a couple of factors A.I diplomacy uses based upon in-game history, that shouldn't necessarily be available to the player. A popularity rating ( likability ), and a credibility rating ( trustworthiness). Popularity is based on shared religions, ideology, amount of trade, gifts, whether you are caught spying against them, not attacking their friends, etc. Credibility is based on things like honoring and extending agreements, carrying out threats, defending your allies with more than a token force should they be attacked. Gifting cash, techs, or units to wartime allies. Historical Genghis had a low popularity rating, but a high credibility rating.
Backstabbing would probably hurt both ratings. Ratings would affect things like trade and alliances. Bad ratings would likely lead to isolation. That would sure be an improvement over "I hate you because you're human".
Well, maybe there should be a demographics based jealously rating, too.
I would like to have two leaders on my Diplomacy screen at once. Mostly for triangular trade, but also not to choose a side in a war without knowing what the other intends. If I'm Dutch, I want to talk to Germany AND France before something starts.
Also, I think there should be a couple of factors A.I diplomacy uses based upon in-game history, that shouldn't necessarily be available to the player. A popularity rating ( likability ), and a credibility rating ( trustworthiness). Popularity is based on shared religions, ideology, amount of trade, gifts, whether you are caught spying against them, not attacking their friends, etc. Credibility is based on things like honoring and extending agreements, carrying out threats, defending your allies with more than a token force should they be attacked. Gifting cash, techs, or units to wartime allies. Historical Genghis had a low popularity rating, but a high credibility rating.
Backstabbing would probably hurt both ratings. Ratings would affect things like trade and alliances. Bad ratings would likely lead to isolation. That would sure be an improvement over "I hate you because you're human".
Well, maybe there should be a demographics based jealously rating, too.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
I have something along with this on my mind:
A cassus belli system will be related to the public opinon that your civilization has towards another. The more favourable your public opinion is, the harder will be to wage war against that particular opponent. And conversel
Actions that would increase public opinion:
- Liberating your cities
- Waging war against a common enemy
- Been in peace for a long time
- Declarations of friendship
- Sharing the same goverments / civic / ideology
- Sharing the same religion
- Trading with you
- Keeping your word (even with a third civilization)
- Adopting your culture / religion
- Giving gifts
Actions that would decrease public opinion:
- Waging wars of agression
- Declaration of rivalry
- Waging war against an ally or against a civ that your public opinion likes
- Sharing a border
- Closing off their borders
- Rejecting your culture / religion
- Adopting a different goverment / civic / ideology
- Lifting trade embargos
- Razing cities
- Backstabbing other civs
- Persecuting your religion
- Making your spies succcessfully carry on a "fabricate cassus belli" mission
Note: You cannot do either declarations of friendship nor rivalry while in war against the "declared" civilization. Your number, frequency and effectivity of your declarations towards other empires might vary according to your techs, wonders and goverments.
The levels and effects of the public opinion would be then as it follows (from best to worst public opinion):
Brotherhood:
+50% to the effectivity of your science treaties with this civilization
+50% to your cultural influence toward this civilization
+50% trade route yields with this civilization
+75% war weariness if fighting against this civilization
-50% spyionage effectivity against this civilization
-30% strenght if fighting against this civilization
Affection:
+25% to the effectivity of your science treaties with this civilization
+25% to your cultural influence toward this civilization
+25% to the yields of trade routes with this civilization
+50% war weariness if fighting against this civilization
-25% spyionage effectivity against this civilization
-15% strenght if fighting against this civilization
Sympathy:
You might initiate science treaties with this civilization
+25% war weariness if fighting against this civilization
Indifference: No discernible effect
Antipathy:
-25% to the yields of trade routes with this civilization
+25% of spyionage effectivity towards this civilization
Disgust:
-50% to the yields of trade routes with this civilization
-25% to your cultural influence towards this civilization
-25% war weariness in case of open warfare
+50% of spyionage effectivity towards this civilization
+15% of strenght against this civilization's units
Burning Hate:
You cannot stablish trade routes with this civilization
You cannot sue for any other type of peace other than total surrendering with this civ
-50% to your cultural influence towards this civilization
-50% war weariness in case of open warfare
+75% of spyionage effectivity towards this civilization
+30% of strenght against this civilization's units
@Ikael ^ That's a really great idea.
Would there be some randomness, and 'slack' in the system?
For example, a Civ with Burning Hate of you may switch it's orientation to neutral or even friendly (with some large reduction in enmity) from a single action or choice of action that presents itself in the game, such as the selection of an ideology or the declaration of a common enemy.
Game systems like ideological alignments and changing geopolitics that is not entirely under human control would presumably also play a role.
That I think will be great layered ontop of the current Civ5 style grand strategic diplomatic system with the known addition of AI agendas.
What I think won't work as well is if the system straitjackets relationships into a continuum for the remainder of the game. Knowing the lead designer of Civ6, there will be reset points and inflection points in relationships ala BNW
But otherwise, the system as described has a lot of promise in adding depth and nuance to relationships and also give players hard numbers to look at.
Thanks for explaining.
Would there be some randomness, and 'slack' in the system?
For example, a Civ with Burning Hate of you may switch it's orientation to neutral or even friendly (with some large reduction in enmity) from a single action or choice of action that presents itself in the game, such as the selection of an ideology or the declaration of a common enemy.
Game systems like ideological alignments and changing geopolitics that is not entirely under human control would presumably also play a role.
That I think will be great layered ontop of the current Civ5 style grand strategic diplomatic system with the known addition of AI agendas.
What I think won't work as well is if the system straitjackets relationships into a continuum for the remainder of the game. Knowing the lead designer of Civ6, there will be reset points and inflection points in relationships ala BNW
But otherwise, the system as described has a lot of promise in adding depth and nuance to relationships and also give players hard numbers to look at.
Thanks for explaining.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I believe pure "casus belli" is not what needed for a game like civ. To combine gameplay and immersion, I'd use something like this:
1. You could use "Begin was preparation against ..." mode, which requires X turns. After these turns war is declared without having a happiness hit from your population. However, you have a happiness hit if you cancel the preparation. Shouldn't be required against civs your people already hate, but this needs balancing.
2. You could discover other civilizations war preparations through espionage. This could work in both SP and MP.
3. There could be a diplomatic option to inform other civs about your war preparations. This way once you declare the war, you get less diplomatic hit from this civ for being a warmonger (the earlier you inform them, the less they'll care about the war). However, the civ you've informed could warn the civ you're plotting against about it through diplomacy. I'm not sure this would work well, but it looks like a nice touch.
I wouldn't use any numbers at this point as that's pure abstraction without looking at the rest of the system.
1. You could use "Begin was preparation against ..." mode, which requires X turns. After these turns war is declared without having a happiness hit from your population. However, you have a happiness hit if you cancel the preparation. Shouldn't be required against civs your people already hate, but this needs balancing.
2. You could discover other civilizations war preparations through espionage. This could work in both SP and MP.
3. There could be a diplomatic option to inform other civs about your war preparations. This way once you declare the war, you get less diplomatic hit from this civ for being a warmonger (the earlier you inform them, the less they'll care about the war). However, the civ you've informed could warn the civ you're plotting against about it through diplomacy. I'm not sure this would work well, but it looks like a nice touch.
I wouldn't use any numbers at this point as that's pure abstraction without looking at the rest of the system.
1. I would love them to focus on leader personalities instead of AI trying to play the game.
2. I would love lots of options, like vassals, lets attack this city together, and so on
3. I would love total clarity with diplomacy statistics
2. I would love lots of options, like vassals, lets attack this city together, and so on
3. I would love total clarity with diplomacy statistics
DCParry
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 76
While I understand the desire, I have often found casus belli usually a way for players to to have their war and eat it too, if you catch my meaning. Initiating war and actions during conflict should have ramifications, and these systems are often gamed to get around that. Now, I am not saying that CiV's crazy war mongering penalty was a good idea, but let's not over correct.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
Thanks! Glad that you like it!
I hope that the developers would also like to see a system like this!You're welcome! ^^
But yes, my diplomacy system would still have room for hard switchs regarding public opinion, specially trought the adoption of goverments. Switching goverments / ideologies, and changing your religion in order to appease a powerful / useful civilization should be a powerful diplomatic strategy, which would allow for great comebacks and shift in power. And conversely, creating an artificial cassus belli, while a risky strategy at first (since you will be deemed untrustworthy by most civs if you get caught) if successful it will severely trow your popullace into a bellicose frenzy.
The thing that shouldn't be as easy, however, is to declare a shudden war against a friendly civilization that you have been in good terms for a long, long time. No more "be friendly with the neighbour until you have a significant military tech lead". The main positive opinion modifier will be "never had a war nor rivalry", since it is a series of small yet cumulative positive opinion modifier bonuses that require no action in order to be created. Yes, you can still declare a war out of the blue, but better let it be quick and clean because otherwise your popullation ain't going to buy it
The idea behind this system is not so much to raiload you into a fixed, deterministic outcome, but rather to force you to "work" and tend both your friendships and enemities, forcing you to prepare the war beforehand by declaring rivalries and fabricate cassus bellis, and to incentivate you to initiate "charm offensives" with the civs that you want to trade and mingle with, carefully administering your limited amount of public declarations, which will be your prime medium for making relationships pivot towards goodwill or hatred.
