Should honor be rewarded in the next game's multiplayer?

[tommynt]

could

obviously there are 1001 ways to improve game
a better ai diplomacy is bound to a overall better ai which is better in judging situations, and that seems very hard or resource demanding to code

 

[The QC]

obviously there are 1001 ways to improve game
a better ai diplomacy is bound to a overall better ai which is better in judging situations, and that seems very hard or resource demanding to code

Well, I tried to list stuff that would be easy and would not impact the AI, in fact it would help the current AIs. For instance, making Peace Treaties last 30 turns instead of 10 would not require a smarter AI, in fact they would help the current, extremely naive AI. The same goes for luxuries going for gold per turn instead of lump sums.

The Non Aggression Pacts would be a bit trickier, I agree. AIs would have to know when they are in inferiority and should value such pacts. They should also know a risky deal that would require a Non Aggression Pact as a guarantee. On the other hand, this kind of deal would be useful in multiplayer, where people would know how to appreciate it. And the functionality of the pact itself would be easy to do, as it's identical with the Peace Treaty, it just doesn't require a war to be in place.

 

[Silverfuturist]

Sorry if I'm bumping a somewhat dying thread

Thread is still alive!

- The example above: luxuries going for lump sums of gold, instead of gold per turn.

In MP I think giving lump sums of gold is important - there have been games where I have kept a dying player alive with gifts of gold so they can rush buy units or walls. When it comes to trading lux, I think the fix is playing with smarter humans.

- Peace Treaties lasting only 10 turns.

This is a good point... perhaps let the players chose how long the peace treaty lasts as a part of the negotiation?

- There are no Non Aggression Pacts.

Non-aggression pacts sounds like a good feature to add