What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY! [Archive]

MythicalMino

September 20th, 2003, 03:38 PM

I too thought that there should be diplomacy (alliance making), but then I got to thinking...with every nation being led by a Pretender to Godhood, and only one can become God, then that does make it a holy war....there is no room for alliances....

Really if you think about it, it does make sense....I wouldn't make an alliance with someone I KNEW wanted me dead....sure, the "alliance of common enemies" may be valid, but still....when that person wants me dead, no matter what...and then throw in the affects of religion....it makes sense that there is only total war....

The mixing of religion with alliances shouldn't work...and in multiplayer, you can make your alliances...just nothing formal...

PDF

September 20th, 2003, 03:47 PM

Cpbeller,
I disagree with you : even if on "Holy" war and with only 1 "god" to be left, you can prefer ally with some to fight others, in order to be able to defeat thereafter your former ally ! ;evilgrin:
No, the absence of a diplomatic model in Dominions is just a "we got no resources for that" effect - and it's only lacking in SP.
But I only play SP for the moment, so I miss it !

Pocus

September 20th, 2003, 05:47 PM

not quite PDF... the problem of having no diplomacy rules in MP is that you cant move thru your allies territories. This can be circumvented with various means, but still it is a bit a pain in the rea...

realm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

lack of diplomacy is partly a problem of IW resources, and partly a design decision from the authors. I dont think we will ever get something on this topic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Mortifer

September 21st, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by cpbeller:
I too thought that there should be diplomacy (alliance making), but then I got to thinking...with every nation being led by a Pretender to Godhood, and only one can become God, then that does make it a holy war....there is no room for alliances....

Really if you think about it, it does make sense....I wouldn't make an alliance with someone I KNEW wanted me dead....sure, the "alliance of common enemies" may be valid, but still....when that person wants me dead, no matter what...and then throw in the affects of religion....it makes sense that there is only total war....

The mixing of religion with alliances shouldn't work...and in multiplayer, you can make your alliances...just nothing formal...I do not agree. In civ3 for example, you are trying to get AI allies to accomplish your goals. [Either conquer all of them, or diplo victory.]
Here you should be able to make alliances, also the AI should be able to make AI-AI alliances, that would make the game lot more interesting.

QuarianRex

September 21st, 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
I do not agree. In civ3 for example, you are trying to get AI allies to accomplish your goals. [Either conquer all of them, or diplo victory.]
Here you should be able to make alliances, also the AI should be able to make AI-AI alliances, that would make the game lot more interesting.Yes but in civ3 you have the chioce of conquering or diplomacy. In Dominions you don't, and in fact you shouldn't. Diplomacy in Dom is hobbled by the addition of dominion. If you can make treaties with other pretenders then they can potentially spread their divine influence through your lands without you being able to do anything (and vice-versa). This can weaken your troops morale, weaken both your prophet and pretender, and generally make you easier to slaughter. It's even worse when your neighbor has an incompatible dominion (abysia and caelum, ermor amd anyone...) and can turn a supposedly benign peace treaty into an offensive weapon.

If you are in a race for godhood you are not willing to risk subVersion of you divinity. For any reason. Ergo, no diplomacy.

PDF

September 21st, 2003, 08:22 PM

I think that a minimal dose of diplomacy would be nice, all those reasons some of you invent against "any" diplomacy aren't that convincing..
What for example would do a sensible god http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif against Ermorian threat ? Ally with some other to deal with it...
If this in turn cause new problems, he can always change side and declare war on his former ally ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

MythicalMino

September 21st, 2003, 09:36 PM

but we are talking about a game of world-wide holy war....if every nation in the world (real-life world) was so invested in a particular religion (ex, every nation in the world an opposing nature of Muslim and Jewish), you would not see them joining forces in any way....both religions are so excluding of other religions (like the religions of Dominions), that they don't allow (true and trustful) alliances with one another.

Even within their own religious nations, there is constant war....the Shiites vs. the Sunni, Turkey (I believe) vs. the Kurds....in the Old Testament of the Bible, the two Kingdoms of Jews vs. each other....

That is why I can believe in the Dominions world with no true Diplomacy....

Now, I understand you will not agree with me....but this is what my thoughts on it are....i love diplomacy (working models in a games vs. the AI), but in Dominions, it just makes sense to me that there is none...

Mortifer

September 21st, 2003, 10:31 PM

Well, Holy War or not, you guys dont get the point.
Just because the concept of the game is about a war, there should be dimplomacy. Gods, warlords, emperors, who cares?!
Diplomacy does make a lot of sense in all strategy/war games, regardless of the concept. Since we have territories to conquer here, diplomacy could be a nice addition.......
I am sure that lot players would agree with me.

MythicalMino

September 21st, 2003, 10:37 PM

but why change the concept? that is my point...I think illwinter has done a superb job in making this game....diplomacy or not....sure, it would be nice if there was diplomacy in the game....but I don't think it has to have it to be successful....that is my point....and, the no-diplomacy "fits" in the game....that is why I think it still works....

a game of civ3 should have it...but not dominions doesn't need it....

who knows...perhaps if illwinter makes more money with this one, they can add some diplomacy in the next installment, if they decide that they want it....but...again, this game works without it....and it makes sense with the concept...

you say "holy war or not, the game needs diplomacy", i disagree...it is a game of holy war....therefore, the game doesn't need diplomacy....

And I really would hate illwinter to change the "concept" just to put in a diplomacy model....I really like the religious theme in the game....

Kristoffer O

September 22nd, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by cpbeller:
but why change the concept? that is my point...I think illwinter has done a superb job in making this game....diplomacy or not....sure, it would be nice if there was diplomacy in the game....but I don't think it has to have it to be successful....that is my point....and, the no-diplomacy "fits" in the game....that is why I think it still works....

a game of civ3 should have it...but not dominions doesn't need it....

who knows...perhaps if illwinter makes more money with this one, they can add some diplomacy in the next installment, if they decide that they want it....but...again, this game works without it....and it makes sense with the concept...

you say "holy war or not, the game needs diplomacy", i disagree...it is a game of holy war....therefore, the game doesn't need diplomacy....

And I really would hate illwinter to change the "concept" just to put in a diplomacy model....I really like the religious theme in the game....The concept will not change, but the concept doesn't exclude diplomacy. You have it in multiplayer. If I may indulge myself:

Most religions are peaceful and do not indulge in holy wars. However if the faith is threatened they might react (the followers at least). Just as if someone attacked your house.

Religion has been used to legitimate hostilities, but is rarely the underlying reason of a war. Greed, megalomania and fear of your neighbor are.

In a fantasy world the God is not as aloof as gods of this world. Perhaps the point of faith is lost when you can actually see your god, but fear or loyalty in a manifest god should be enough to gather armies intent on conquering the lands of heathens if this was the outspoken will of said god.

In general, diplomacy is a means to an end. You could argue, as M. does, that Gods should use it as well as humans. I agree. In multiplayer this is often the case. Dominions was designed as a MP game and this is the main reason there is no SP diplomacy. I have never played civ 3, nor any SP game of diplomacy for that matter in a very long time. The most recent one that I can remember is MOO2 and I was not very impressed.

In Dominions there is peace until war breaks out. Eventually hostilities cease. You can not know if your enemy is at peace with you, but this is as it should be. If your enemy said that you were friends it would take some time for you to trust him. No removed 'war' tag on his forehead so to speak.

We have given diplomacy some short thoughts, but felt that other matters were more interesting. If we come up with some good solutions we might add it in a later patch, but as I said, we have no real experience of how a good diplomacy game should work.

I prefer the simple and uncertain war/truce/peace situation of Dominions to a stupid diplomatic AI that you can fool or abuse. If there is diplomacy you must feel that it is a person you negotiate with. Otherwise it gets annoying and the game gets boring pretty quickly.

Mortifer

September 22nd, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Dominions was designed as a MP game and this is the main reason there is no SP diplomacy. .Oh? This is new..I thought that this is a singleplayer game mainly....

but as I said, we have no real experience of how a good diplomacy game should work. .Well its never late to figure it out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I prefer the simple and uncertain war/truce/peace situation of Dominions to a stupid diplomatic AI that you can fool or abuse. If there is diplomacy you must feel that it is a person you negotiate with. Otherwise it gets annoying and the game gets boring pretty quickly.Well if the diplo AI is stupid...you are right.
There are games with awesome dimplo AI...that you cannot abuse. If you cannot abuse it, its hella fun in any games... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Dont get me wrong guys, I can live without diplomacy, BUT my point is, that IF Dom II. would have a good singleplayer dimplo AI, that would ADD A LOT TO THE GAMEPLAY! That is my only point..

[ September 21, 2003, 23:34: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

LordArioch

September 22nd, 2003, 01:43 AM

I find that far too often a really bad diplomatic AI makes things worse than they were before. (AoW anyone?) And the time that it would take to make a good enough diplomatic AI for dominions...which would be hard I'd imagine...would detract from other aspects.

I just have bad images of invading my allies undefended border. Plus the whole uncertainty thing works well...the computer is your "friend" only so long as it does not benefit him to invade you, just like any human player. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And it is certainly MP intended...thats why theres simultaneous PBEM possible.

[ September 22, 2003, 00:44: Message edited by: LordArioch ]

Mortifer

September 22nd, 2003, 09:56 AM

Eh lol, than what is that sentence on Shrapnels site? "1) The strongest AI we have EVER seen!"

If the AI is really that good, they can make a decent diplo AI as well, I guess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Anyways I understand your points, still I say that a good diplo system adds a lot to any games.
If the diplo AI is really good, you cannot abuse it.

[ September 22, 2003, 08:56: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Nerfix

September 22nd, 2003, 03:00 PM

*sigh*
Have you actualy played Dominions I?
It's peace until either you or AI attacks, and there will eventualy be a "peace". Why is it so hard to understand that its a conceptual thing?

Mortifer

September 22nd, 2003, 03:39 PM

Yes I played with it....I understand all things about the game concept, it is you who dont get my point. You say you cannot make truces or alliances even in Holy War? The best example is the Crusades. Those nations who were involved in it, lived in peace before and after it. Its all about diplomacy.
So if you ask me Dominion is more like a strategical deathmatch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I think a strategy game with a diplo system is lot better, than a 'go and conquer' game...
I like the idea that you can set up alliances in the editor at least. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Nerfix

September 22nd, 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Nerfix:
It's peace until either you or AI attacks, and there will eventualy be a "peace".Does this sound like Crusade? Just insert the religious propaganda and bragging, and you have a Crusade.

Mortifer

September 22nd, 2003, 04:19 PM

So if you attack an AI, or the AI attacks you, there will be no more peace, am I correct? I didnt remember, I played with the game long time ago.

A few final words.:
The concept of the game [holy war] shouldnt wipe out diplomacy. Its still acceptable that there wont be any kind of diplomacy, but as I said, it would be lot more fun to make alliances, exchange troops or territories. Of course this would require a decent diplo AI.

Perhaps as an addon, Illwinter should try to add something like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It would be an awesome addition...

MythicalMino

September 22nd, 2003, 04:28 PM

you misunderstand me....

I agree...a good diplomacy model would be good....but, in this game, I don't miss it...in Civ series, I would...

but I just don't really miss it...

If, they put one in that works...GREAT....that will just add that much more to move it closer to fantasy tbs perfection...but, "I" don't miss it...

Pocus

September 22nd, 2003, 04:45 PM

I think there is two issues : diplomacy, and sharing of same space. I dont care a dime about diplomacy in MP, but I would have really appreciated to have an order which would let the troops of my ally move thru one of my province without triggering a combat with the units I have there. This, I miss a lot.

the problem of not having that is that the game is more compartimented by physical positioning of players that most other games. You wont have choice, and you are forced to interact with your neighbors, be it peace or war.

Mortifer

September 22nd, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by cpbeller:

If, they put one in that works...GREAT....that will just add that much more to move it closer to fantasy tbs perfection...but, "I" don't miss it...Well said, I agree with this. If they can add something what will work, than do it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

licker

September 22nd, 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
I think there is two issues : diplomacy, and sharing of same space. I dont care a dime about diplomacy in MP, but I would have really appreciated to have an order which would let the troops of my ally move thru one of my province without triggering a combat with the units I have there. This, I miss a lot.

the problem of not having that is that the game is more compartimented by physical positioning of players that most other games. You wont have choice, and you are forced to interact with your neighbors, be it peace or war.I'm not sure this is really such a problem. It could be for some situations, but really what you need to do is agree to swap provinces with your ally or just hand over one or two so that he can get the border with the common enemy. If anything this type of action requires more diplomacy (though you can't do it SP) than just giving a right of passage (ala CivIII). Besides I'm sure there are more coding issues involved here. For example what happens when there are 3 (or more) sides involved in the battle? Its possible to happen now, but not with multiple sides already in the province.

I havn't said much on this issue because I don't think that a game like Dom really needs anykind of SP diplo model. The holy war theme leeds easilly enough to the belief that the pretenders would never grant any kind of authority to each other, at best they would just ignore the others until they had the time/resources to directly challenge them. I do understand the Machiavellian attatude of doing whatever you can to acheive your end results, but for the sake of gameplay (SP anyway) the simple approach seems to work.

That said, it shouldn't be that difficult to add some sort of an 'attitude' setting that allows the SP to see what the reletive attitudes of his neighbors towards him is. Of course the attitude doesn't have to mean anything, but it would be a nice cosmetic touch perhaps. As you can gain intel on provinces where you have dominion or spies, add to the info the relative attitude of the province toward your nation. At least that way you'd know if the other nation was seething at you, or merely annoyed, or whatever.

Mortifer

September 22nd, 2003, 05:28 PM

Well guess what! I seen the best AI in old KOEI games like the Romance of the 3 kingdoms VI. It had some awesome diplo AI. There was a table what showed you, that the AI players like you or not. [there were more attributes, so for example if you sent lot of gold they liked you more, but if you attacked a country, and the AI liked that country, your reputation was decreased as well...sorta like in civ3...but it worked better in that game...and tons of more stuff in that game..like a joint attack with the AI on a province etc! It was fantastic.

Zerger

September 22nd, 2003, 05:31 PM

Dominions 2. + diplomacy = That's what we need! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aristoteles

September 26th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Interesting idea. Diplomacy can be very good and fun, IF the diplomacy AI is good enough. If it's crap, it can be exploited.

Bard of Prey

September 26th, 2003, 12:48 AM

I'm going to have to chime in on the 'forget diplomcy' side... partly because I've seen more strategy games ruined by poor diplomacy than I've seen improved by it, but also because I don't think it suits this game very well.

One huge problem with allowing you to move through your allies' territory in Dominions is this... what's to stop you from moving your Prophet and your Pretender all over your so-called ally's territory in order to subvert their dominion (or just sitting on their capitol for that matter)?

You could conceivably destroy a nation you supposedly had an alliance with this way... and while a human player would recognize what you were doing and break the alliance, how would a computer player tell the difference between this exploit and 'accidental' interference you might cause from just being nearby?

licker

September 26th, 2003, 12:57 AM

That's a good point BoP, an excellent reason for why only one nation should be allowed per province (seiges and sneakers non withstanding).

However, it would be nice to have some basic options or information on relations. It would be nice to be able to declare (from your side) intentions vs. another empire. Non aggression, hostilities, holy war. This setting could influance your population along the boarder with the nation to increase production (while decreasing income) or other effects. It would also be nice to be able to offer bribes or swap territories (only where you have more dominion I'd imagine), things of that nature.

I agree though, that unless the devs have the time and resuorces to approach diplomacy correctly it's best to be left alone or for the MP games

Vodalian

September 28th, 2003, 12:18 PM

I think there should be an option to pre-assign your forces to not attack enemy forces, and if both sides had this activated, no combat would ensue. However, if only one side had this activated, there would be a battle as usual.
I think diplomacy on larger scale should not be implemented. It is actually very intriguing to not know what your neighbouring nations think of you, allowing you the freedom to discover their schemes through espionage and your clever thinking alone.

Aristoteles

September 28th, 2003, 02:02 PM

A good diplomacy system would raise the quality of the gameplay.

Nerfix

September 28th, 2003, 02:47 PM

One question:
Why?
What do you need diplomacy for?

As for a side note, i am getting increasingly worried the about the direction where Dominions II is being slowly steered.

Mortifer

September 28th, 2003, 02:51 PM

I think that diplomacy can be awesome, BUT ONLY if its really good. A bad system can ruin a game.

Nerfix

September 28th, 2003, 02:53 PM

Yes, but why?
The "diplomacy" i have experienced has been computers whining something from me and then attacking me if i won't agree, or the other way round. And that is, from Civ 3. Diplomacy haven't added much anything to the games i have played. It just lets you to abuse the "poor" AI.

Mortifer

September 28th, 2003, 02:58 PM

Well yes, if the diplomacy AI is bad, you can abuse the AI. The civ3 diplo system is good, the diplo AI is moderate, and can be abused.
If you want to see a decent diplo system, get some old games like RotK 4. or 6.
You cannot abuse the diplo AI there, in fact its adding a lot to the gameplay.

Nerfix

September 28th, 2003, 03:07 PM

Rigth then, what does it add to gameplay?

[ September 28, 2003, 14:07: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

PDF

September 28th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Nerfix:
Rigth then, what does it add to gameplay?The subject is twofold, IMO it's different in SP and MP :
SP : add variety to the game, as the player woul dhave to manage his relations with the others, say keeping peace with a nation while warring another etc ... But the AI diplomacy has to be good else the player will be able to easily abuse it.
In MP it's simpler : it'll allow players to give passage or join forces in war, without changing much the diplomatic aspects that are anyway handled by Messages and agreements.

I'd be glad to see some simple "diplomatic features" be available in MP, but suppose it'll be too difficult to implement properly in SP until Dominions 3 : Alliance of the Gods http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif !

st.patrik

September 28th, 2003, 04:09 PM

At first when this subject was raised I was thinking that diplomacy just wasn't what Dominions was about, and to add it would mess with something that works just fine�

�but I think I'm beginning to agree that it would be cool if there was diplomacy for single player games at least. Here's why - how many times have you been about to attack one of your neighbours when another suddenly decides to attack your flank with 200 summer lions (for example)? Pretty soon you're fighting a 2 front war against 2 powerful opponents. Now if that were to happen in the real world the first thing I'd be doing would be to try to negotiate some kind of truce with one of my neighbours so that I could fight my battles one at a time. I would gladly pay up magical items (nothing too powerful) and gems for a reprieve. Dominions already has the capability to trade items, gems and money between players.

I guess at the most basic level you could have an indicator of how nations are feeling toward you (through spies, scouts) which could be manipulated up by gifts etc. and down by you attacking them/getting too close. Plus which different AIs could be more or less aggressive. Even as thin a diplomacy as this I think would be a nice feature for single player - and to be honest I think I wouldn't even want much more of a full-blown diplomacy.

What do the developers think? Does this sound reasonable? Desirable? Possible?

Nerfix

September 28th, 2003, 04:14 PM

I already can see how one negotiates with all the AI's and kills them with Dominion...

Mortifer

September 28th, 2003, 04:20 PM

Nerfix, you can NOT abuse a well scripted diplo AI. Do not think about civ3. As I said the diplo system is good there, but the diplo AI is far from good, that is why you can abuse it!
A good diplo AI will 'think' just like the battle AI. AI and AI will sign treaties as well, do not forget about that. I remember when I played with RotK, sometimes I had a huge 4 allied AI team on me, and on my allies. There were lot of options to please the AI, like giving gold, marriage, etc. but lot stuff decreased the value of your relations, example: You attacked an AI A, and AI A was peaceful with the AI B. Than AI B begin to hate you, and you cannot make him friendly just by gold and items, you were forced to stop the war etc.
As I said, it CAN be awesome, and raise the value of the gameplay greatly, if its scripted properly! We all know that the Illwinter team can script very well, so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ September 28, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

MStavros

September 28th, 2003, 04:43 PM

I would like to see a nice diplomacy system + AI. If it is possible....if no...oh well.

[ September 28, 2003, 15:43: Message edited by: MStavros ]

apoger

October 15th, 2003, 04:59 AM

I hate chiming in late, but this is a major issue for me as well. I really hope that Illwinter will put some diplomatic functionality into the game eventually.

It is my understanding that in Dom II that gateway and other movement spells now only work between labs. This means that in multi-play you will have to attack the person next to you even if that is a bad idea. In Dom I if there was a clear leader, the smaller nations could negotiate some level of cooperation to further their interests. In Dom II if there is no way to cross anoter nations area, and the movement spells are gone, it will reduce diplomatic options even lower than Dom I.

Even if "there can be only one" it still stands to reason that nations will cooperate when it's in their best interests. By affording no diplomatic options IW is limiting player interaction, and player interaction is half the fun of multi-player.

I like seeing more options, not less. A good diplomatic system would do nothing but enhance the game. Players could always turn it off if they didn't like it.

Saber Cherry

October 15th, 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by apoger:
It is my understanding that in Dom II that gateway and other movement spells now only work between labs. Thank goodness... I only had the demo, so never got gating spells, but every time I read about them being used, it sounded like it removed the strategy from the game (other than, research a gating spell ASAP).

I agree about Diplomacy, too... free movement and formal peace treaties would be nice... SP diplomacy would be a huge bonus, too.

-Cherry

Mortifer

October 15th, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by apoger:
I hate chiming in late, but this is a major issue for me as well. I really hope that Illwinter will put some diplomatic functionality into the game eventually.

It is my understanding that in Dom II that gateway and other movement spells now only work between labs. This means that in multi-play you will have to attack the person next to you even if that is a bad idea. In Dom I if there was a clear leader, the smaller nations could negotiate some level of cooperation to further their interests. In Dom II if there is no way to cross anoter nations area, and the movement spells are gone, it will reduce diplomatic options even lower than Dom I.

Even if "there can be only one" it still stands to reason that nations will cooperate when it's in their best interests. By affording no diplomatic options IW is limiting player interaction, and player interaction is half the fun of multi-player.

I like seeing more options, not less. A good diplomatic system would do nothing but enhance the game. Players could always turn it off if they didn't like it.What should I say? I agree! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

DominionsFan

October 15th, 2003, 02:02 PM

Yer, I love this idea too! Please add some kind of diplomacy with a later patch! Hrm, if the AI will be good enough to work with it perfectly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Gandalf Parker

October 15th, 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by apoger:

It is my understanding that in Dom II that gateway and other movement spells now only work between labs.

I like seeing more options, not less. A good diplomatic system would do nothing but enhance the game. Players could always turn it off if they didn't like it.I spoke toward diplomacy early, often, and loudly. It doesnt even have to be extensive. How about if the AI could be affected by gifts and bribes? If Ulm is between me and Ermor then I send him the bags of wine and herald lances he needs to defeat Ermor. I do that now. It would be nice if it put a few points on the side of his NOT deciding to start a war with me.

Im also for more instead of limiting options. Im disturbed to hear that about transport spells. ALL transport spells or just the army ones? If its all of them then it does major damage to some of my favorite strategys for some of my favorite races. Not so much in attacking but in setting up multiple hot-spots all over the map. Scouts find a weak corner, call wind or wild there to take the province, setup castle/lab/temple in a good spot in that area. Rinse and repeat. There are ways to get a mage or priest somewhere besides the early transport spells but it will slow things down terribly for races that already have enough problems (or did in Dom 1)

[ October 15, 2003, 13:17: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Taqwus

October 15th, 2003, 04:43 PM

Quite a few uses of diplomacy come to mind.

- Allowing free passage through an area. Perhaps only along a path, 'tho, or in specified provinces?

- Requests for assistance. GalCiv's one of the only PC games that I know of in which an AI ally will ask for help when it's in trouble (in contrast to demanding tribute).

- Demands for tribute. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Has to be handled carefully; nations which give tribute should not provoke war, and should be entitled to live without further provocation in turn.

- Sharing of map. Partial or whole, hm? The ability to lie here could be amusing, too.

- Sharing of scouting reports, e.g. current estimates of enemy army sizes. "Our scouts report that... Caelum scouts report that..." et al in the province information. Perhaps should have a "we're lying; exaggerate/minimize by this much" slider. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- Gem trading/item trading. An item/gem exchange might be pushing it, 'tho. ("Fire gems up 0.05 to 1.85 Astral, Caulrons of Broth down to 30 Astral, et al"). Heh.

An ongoing gem-trading treaty could help, e.g. every turn A sends a certain set of gems to B in exchange for a similar allotment.

- Perhaps agreements on future targets? e.g. if two nations could both soon conquer a number of independent provinces between them, deciding who takes who to eliminate the chance of accidentally starting a war. This could be supplemented or enforced by a non-aggression pact which would cause mutual withdrawal rather than a battle if they do both attack the same.

Could also be stated as "sphere of influence".

A lot of this might be fairly hard to do, without resorting to the usual "AIs gang up on Humans/main threat" deal. Some of the mechanics would still be helpful for MP, e.g. not having to manually type out army estimates on a shared foe.

Mortifer

October 15th, 2003, 05:29 PM

AI gang up? maybe. All games are different. I mean when you play a game and starting over, the next game will have a different situation, sometimes you can gang up with other AIs, sometimes the AIs will gang up on you, sometimes you won't notice any gang ups.

You have a nice list there. A good diplo system would be awesome. If Illwinter want to add something new, they must think about 2 things:

1. The weapon / armor system
2. The diplomacy system

PS. there was another game, with this AI request when he is in trouble: The good old Romance of the 3 Kingdoms series by KOEI. As I said those games had the best diplo model ever!

Nagot Gick Fel

October 15th, 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
A good diplo system would be awesomeI think if we just had an option to give provinces to other players, the game would be much more dynamic.

apoger

October 15th, 2003, 06:30 PM

>I think if we just had an option to give provinces to other players, the game would be much more dynamic.

I'd agree with that.

I'd also like to see some sort of non-aggression stance that would allow armies to travel across non-friendly provinces. Armies can already double occupy a province due to stealth, so the functionality is already in the game.

These two things togther could easily form the foundation of a simple diplomatic system that wouldn't be too complicated to implement and would greatly enhance the players options.

Saber Cherry

October 15th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Taqwus:
- Sharing of map. Partial or whole, hm? The ability to lie here could be amusing, too.

- Sharing of scouting reports, e.g. current estimates of enemy army sizes. "Our scouts report that... Caelum scouts report that..." et al in the province information. Perhaps should have a "we're lying; exaggerate/minimize by this much" slider. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- Gem trading/item trading. An item/gem exchange might be pushing it, 'tho. ("Fire gems up 0.05 to 1.85 Astral, Caulrons of Broth down to 30 Astral, et al"). Heh.
Both of these are good. I especially like the global stock exchange... "Blood slaves! Get your young & saucy blood slaves! Free manacles with every order!"

Hahaha... seriously, I like automated trading systems. The one in Earth 2025 (partner game to Utopia) had such a system, where you could put tanks, planes, technology levels, or whatever on the international market - at any price you chose. Any buyer could place an order for tanks (specifying a certain maximum that he would pay) and then he would automatically buy the lowest-priced tanks currently on the market. Supply and demand worked really well there...

-Cherry

Nerfix

October 15th, 2003, 06:57 PM

Lying?
YES!
I want a diplo system where YOU can actualy lie!

The global market idea is also good...

I know this is from old post from usenet, but perhaps having two friendly armies together in same province would cause unrest in the province and detoriate Dominion localy. I can see not-so-few bored soldiers getting themselves drunk and doing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif things... And you aren't so "tough" god if you let the enemies of the faith to stay in your land, even if the "enemies" would be allies.

Perhaps all non-hostile diplomatic actions could give you a sligth Dominion penalty. Afterall, you are dealing with enemies of the faith.

[ October 15, 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Nagot Gick Fel

October 15th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by apoger:
>I think if we just had an option to give provinces to other players, the game would be much more dynamic.

I'd agree with that.I knew you would ;-)

I'd also like to see some sort of non-aggression stance that would allow armies to travel across non-friendly provinces.Hem, unless these 2 armies are both sneaking, the said province can't be non-friendly - one of them has to control it.

st.patrik

October 15th, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Taqwus:
Quite a few uses of diplomacy come to mind.

- Allowing free passage through an area. Perhaps only along a path, 'tho, or in specified provinces?

- Requests for assistance. GalCiv's one of the only PC games that I know of in which an AI ally will ask for help when it's in trouble (in contrast to demanding tribute).

- Demands for tribute. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Has to be handled carefully; nations which give tribute should not provoke war, and should be entitled to live without further provocation in turn.

- Sharing of map. Partial or whole, hm? The ability to lie here could be amusing, too.

- Sharing of scouting reports, e.g. current estimates of enemy army sizes. "Our scouts report that... Caelum scouts report that..." et al in the province information. Perhaps should have a "we're lying; exaggerate/minimize by this much" slider. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- Gem trading/item trading. An item/gem exchange might be pushing it, 'tho. ("Fire gems up 0.05 to 1.85 Astral, Caulrons of Broth down to 30 Astral, et al"). Heh.

An ongoing gem-trading treaty could help, e.g. every turn A sends a certain set of gems to B in exchange for a similar allotment.

- Perhaps agreements on future targets? e.g. if two nations could both soon conquer a number of independent provinces between them, deciding who takes who to eliminate the chance of accidentally starting a war. This could be supplemented or enforced by a non-aggression pact which would cause mutual withdrawal rather than a battle if they do both attack the same.

Could also be stated as "sphere of influence".

A lot of this might be fairly hard to do, without resorting to the usual "AIs gang up on Humans/main threat" deal. Some of the mechanics would still be helpful for MP, e.g. not having to manually type out army estimates on a shared foe.I'm really in favour of diplomacy, but I think most of these things would add too much . I think it might make the game into a diplomacy game, from being a tactical strategy game.

I do think that being able to allow passage through an area would be ok - but I'd be ok without it too.

The problem behind any game in which you have full-blown diplomacy between human players and the AI is that the AI is always formulaic in it's approach. It's just a matter of figuring out what will satisfy it in order to get it off your back. It goes back to the old standard for any true AI - have a computer dialogue with a human, and another human dialogue with a human, and you have a true AI when the human can't tell which is which. We're just not there. Therefore any full-blown diplomatic system will be shallow and facile.

I voted for diplo being added in the other thread, but what I had in mind was much more simple - having a way of figuring out how much an AI nation likes/loathes you and being able to alter this by giving money/gems etc. I believe that if you want more diplo than this there's a very simple solution: play multiplayer!

p.s. no offense intended to you Taqwus. I am replying to your post just because I think what you wrote is what people have in mind/are agreeing with.

Mortifer

October 15th, 2003, 08:04 PM

Well if something like 'giving provinces to other players' will be added, there must be further options like scale for the relationship with the AI [-100 is the worst 100 is the best], option for alliance etc.

Giving provinces is only good for MP.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

If you ask me, that best would be an option like: Turn ON/OFF diplomacy.
Than everyone would be happy.

[ October 15, 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Nagot Gick Fel

October 15th, 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Well if something like 'giving provinces to other players' will be added, there must be further options like scale for the relationship with the AI [-100 is the worst 100 is the best], option for alliance etc.

Giving provinces is only good for MP.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
True, but then again I don't feel concerned about SP that much, as long as MP has all the features I want. I'd like a fully functional battle simulator better than a full-fledged AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

st.patrik

October 15th, 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
I'd like a fully functional battle simulator better than a full-fledged AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I couldn't agree more

johan osterman

October 15th, 2003, 08:57 PM

Instead of a fully functional battle simulator you will recieve no battle simulator at all, less is more. So no simulator at all is a whole lot of simulator.

Kristoffer O

October 15th, 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Instead of a fully functional battle simulator you will recieve no battle simulator at all, less is more. So no simulator at all is a whole lot of simulator.I couldn't agree more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Saber Cherry

October 15th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Instead of a fully functional battle simulator you will recieve no battle simulator at all, less is more. So no simulator at all is a whole lot of simulator.Thanks for the doublethink, Big Brother. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Gandalf Parker

October 15th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:

Giving provinces is only good for MP.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Actually I can think of ways to abuse the ability to give provinces in a solo game. :evilgrin:

Nagot Gick Fel

October 15th, 2003, 09:02 PM

Mortifer

October 15th, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
Well if something like 'giving provinces to other players' will be added, there must be further options like scale for the relationship with the AI [-100 is the worst 100 is the best], option for alliance etc.

Giving provinces is only good for MP.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
True, but then again I don't feel concerned about SP that much, as long as MP has all the features I want. I'd like a fully functional battle simulator better than a full-fledged AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>LOL. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Well depends what you like. I prefer single so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

MStavros

October 15th, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
Well if something like 'giving provinces to other players' will be added, there must be further options like scale for the relationship with the AI [-100 is the worst 100 is the best], option for alliance etc.

Giving provinces is only good for MP.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
True, but then again I don't feel concerned about SP that much, as long as MP has all the features I want. I'd like a fully functional battle simulator better than a full-fledged AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>LOL. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Well depends what you like. I prefer single so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>I couldn't agree more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I prefer singleplayer as well. MP is already good, perhaps the SP part should be enchanted first of all.
[Do not forget that most of the players are preferring singleplayer here!]
If there will be a diplo sys. ever, it must be added / tweaked for single mainly.

Zerger

October 15th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Yup. Singleplayer is #1. for me too.
Thus, I would like to see a decent diplomacy system for singleplayer. I don't really care about MP, so I won't argue about that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Aristoteles

October 15th, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Zerger:
Yup. Singleplayer is #1. for me too.
Thus, I would like to see a decent diplomacy system for singleplayer. I don't really care about MP, so I won't argue about that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif Same here.

Nagot Gick Fel

October 15th, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by MStavros:
[Do not forget that most of the players are preferring singleplayer here!]I don't forget it, on the contrary - that's an incentive for me to express my own opinions louder. Anyway I believe the IW people are more interested in MP, they should get at least 10 votes each. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Jasper

October 15th, 2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Instead of a fully functional battle simulator you will recieve no battle simulator at all, less is more. So no simulator at all is a whole lot of simulator.Heh. The funny thing is that it's true, as the old battle simulator was basically worthless. ;-) You were better off simply writing a scenario that setup the battle you wanted to test. Most competitive players in fact did just this. :-(

A simple battle simulator that let you pick any troops, equip them with any items, set each sides research levels, and give orders would go a long way towards minimizing the time needed to play Dominions competitively.

It would also lower the learning curve for new players, and be good for testing and bug finding. I would actually be surprised if Illwinter didn't already have something like this for internal testing purposes...

Would such a tool make the game too well known and thus uninteresting? IMHO no, as you still need to predict what your opponent will do, which is the most interesting part anyway.

st.patrik

October 16th, 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by johan osterman:
Instead of a fully functional battle simulator you will recieve no battle simulator at all, less is more. So no simulator at all is a whole lot of simulator.I couldn't agree more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>punk. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Zerger

October 16th, 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MStavros:
[Do not forget that most of the players are preferring singleplayer here!]I don't forget it, on the contrary - that's an incentive for me to express my own opinions louder. Anyway I believe the IW people are more interested in MP, they should get at least 10 votes each. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Uh well, they should focus on SP than. We have lot more single fans, than MP, so what are we talking about at all?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

-Storm-

October 16th, 2003, 10:26 AM

Singleplayer is preferred by me too.

Pocus

October 16th, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Zerger:
Uh well, they should focus on SP than. We have lot more single fans, than MP, so what are we talking about at all?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I would not say *a lot more*. Check previous polls about the habits of players.

Mortifer

October 16th, 2003, 02:01 PM

I dunno about the alliance in KoH. As you can see, there are non-agression, passage agreement, trade options already, and the relationship bar.
This looks awesome so far.

The release date of KoH is 2004 Q2 btw.

Pocus

October 16th, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
I dunno about the alliance in KoH. As you can see, there are non-agression, passage agreement, trade options already, and the relationship bar.
This looks awesome so far.

The release date of KoH is 2004 Q2 btw.Nice layout but not that new :
Europa Universalis has already all these options and more (alliance, annexations, vassalisation, trade embargo, etc.).

Mortifer

October 16th, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
I dunno about the alliance in KoH. As you can see, there are non-agression, passage agreement, trade options already, and the relationship bar.
This looks awesome so far.

The release date of KoH is 2004 Q2 btw.Nice layout but not that new :
Europa Universalis has already all these options and more (alliance, annexations, vassalisation, trade embargo, etc.).<hr /></blockquote>Oh yeah, that game is decent in diplomacy.
I think this KoH system would be perfect for Doms II. that is why I posted this screenie about the KoH diplo system.

Vodalian

October 16th, 2003, 02:22 PM

Civilization 3 had the exact same system and I have to say it didn't work too well. I can just guess how non-functional it would be in a game like dominions where the only victory condition is world domination.

Mortifer

October 16th, 2003, 02:24 PM

Aristoteles

October 16th, 2003, 03:41 PM

IMHO the civ3 diplomatic system is really good, I like it. It is not 'that easy' to abuse the AI, especially not after the latest patches.
In fact, sometimes my butt is kicked by the AI, if some of them gang up against me.

licker

October 16th, 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Vodalian:
Civilization 3 had the exact same system and I have to say it didn't work too well. I can just guess how non-functional it would be in a game like dominions where the only victory condition is world domination.ACtually Dom2 has more victroy settings than just world domination, though if I remember correctly, they all involve some kind of dominatin (no win by UN for example).

The Diplo system in Civ3 worked well enough, sure it had some flaws with how the AI handled things, but for what it allowed you to do, it was really very good. In fact if you cared about your standing with the other nations, your actions and transactions with them were very important.

As to the SP vs. MP arguement...

Whether or not the majority of players will ever play MP or not is pretty much irrelivant, the majority of actual playing time will be SP, and that's true for probably everyone, whatever they answered in the poll. That said some improvements are beneficial to both sides, but there can also be a misleading amount of verbiage on forums such as this from the MP crowd (who are more likely to post on forums in the first place) that creates the impression to the Devs that MP is more important than SP.

We all know that the Illwinter team is more interested in MP, they've said as much, however, I consider it a disservice to the game as a whole for that to be the only form of game play that gets attention. Now I don't actually think that Illwinter is giving the SP crowd short shrift, but I do think that improvements to SP typically wind up as improvements to MP while the contrary is not nearly as true.

st.patrik

October 16th, 2003, 04:46 PM

I also agree that Illwinter should make a robust SP game, whatever they do in MP. But the thing that gets me is that some of the fanatically SP players are wanting Illwinter to add complex diplo with the AI, when if you just play MP you get way better diplo, because it's with an intelligent, sentient person. It just seems to me that if you want to interact with other nations diplomatically, MP is perfect for you! I just don't understand why people would be staunchly against MP, and yet vocal about adding diplo - which at best poorly mimics the MP experience. It makes no sense to me.

Kristoffer O

October 16th, 2003, 04:49 PM

Actually I spend a lot more time MP than SP. In SP an average turn takes a fraction of the time spent in a normal MP game and I play more MP games than SP games. SP games tend to be long and tedious with turns made quickly and badly. But thats me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

MStavros

October 16th, 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by licker:
but I do think that improvements to SP typically wind up as improvements to MP while the contrary is not nearly as true.I agree.
MP diplomacy? Well it is not diplomacy, what we have now, it is only player interaction.
A nice well designed diplomacy system would be a great addition, it is pointless to argue about this.
If IW will be able to add it, well than do not hesitate, start working on it . The majority of the players would like to see a diplomacy system. We all know, that the most important thing is what the customer wants.

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Actually I spend a lot more time MP than SP. In SP an average turn takes a fraction of the time spent in a normal MP game and I play more MP games than SP games. SP games tend to be long and tedious with turns made quickly and badly. But thats me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yes it is you. You prefer MP, that is all.

[ October 16, 2003, 15:54: Message edited by: MStavros ]

Taqwus

October 16th, 2003, 05:18 PM

Regarding my earlier ideas -- yeah, I think it'd be hard for the AI to make use of them. For multi, 'tho, they would tend to either make things easier (e.g. sharing province info without typing hordes of individual Messages, and having it associated with that province) or allowing things that are simply impossible now (free passage).

One simpler, if weird idea for multi would be geographical Messages. For instance, what if somebody could send a message attached to a given province? "I'll be attacking here", "Go ahead, it's yours", et al. Buttons could be used to automatically "type in" (so it could be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) hm, army estimates; province information; maybe sites and dominion report?

A far more extreme Version would allow players to send mostly-transparent map overlays to each other, but that'd require a paint program!) (Or, allow an easy way to export maps/import overlays for sending).

st.patrik

October 16th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by MStavros:
MP diplomacy? Well it is not diplomacy, what we have now, it is only player interaction.
lol - what do you think diplomacy is, if interaction between humans doesn't count?

If what you're wanting is a system wherein you give the AI what it wants and it does what you want, and you just have to figure out the formula for how it works - that's not diplomacy! It's just another way to abuse the AI in SP.

st.patrik

October 16th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Taqwus:
Regarding my earlier ideas -- yeah, I think it'd be hard for the AI to make use of them. For multi, 'tho, they would tend to either make things easier (e.g. sharing province info without typing hordes of individual Messages, and having it associated with that province) or allowing things that are simply impossible now (free passage).

One simpler, if weird idea for multi would be geographical Messages. For instance, what if somebody could send a message attached to a given province? "I'll be attacking here", "Go ahead, it's yours", et al. Buttons could be used to automatically "type in" (so it could be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) hm, army estimates; province information; maybe sites and dominion report?

A far more extreme Version would allow players to send mostly-transparent map overlays to each other, but that'd require a paint program!) (Or, allow an easy way to export maps/import overlays for sending).I like this much more. It seems to me that ideally you should be able to send other players anything that you could send in real life warfare - which would include maps, statistics, etc.

Of course, on the other hand, if the other player has to rely on your account of those things, then it brings in the whole element of disinformation, etc., which is an important part of diplomacy.

MStavros

October 16th, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by st.patrik:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MStavros:
MP diplomacy? Well it is not diplomacy, what we have now, it is only player interaction.
lol - what do you think diplomacy is, if interaction between humans doesn't count?

If what you're wanting is a system wherein you give the AI what it wants and it does what you want, and you just have to figure out the formula for how it works - that's not diplomacy! It's just another way to abuse the AI in SP.<hr /></blockquote>Dude we are talking about SP diplomacy. Wake up.

DominionsFan

October 16th, 2003, 05:51 PM

Errrrrrrrr I always tought that were talkin about SP diplomacy! I mean in MP the players can do what they want, but in SP, we need a diplomacy system.
Talking about MP diplomacy making no sense to me.
[We always had player interaction, LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ]

Endoperez

October 16th, 2003, 06:24 PM

You can also do diplomacy by sending the maps/whatever you have and some comments, to the one you believe is your ally, outside of the game. And you can lie as much as you want, and even edit the maps' information if you know how to use paint... The only greater problem is that you have to know your co-players e-mail address. E-mail because normal mail might get too expensive, and is quite a bit slower.

About SP diplomacy, it might be good addition but it might be too much.
The AI would have to check how strong your dominion is, what scales you have, might your dominion with quite a few negative scales be pushed towards its lands by stealhy preachers, check your every battle or keep book of its provinces to be sure you don't have a theme that hurts it, and everything else that human player might come up with...
Just try to list everything AI should take into account, and you might have a glimpse about how hard coding a decent AI for DomII is. Not that I have even that, of course.

Zerger

October 16th, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Endoperez:
About SP diplomacy, it might be good addition but it might be too much.
The AI would have to check how strong your dominion is, what scales you have, might your dominion with quite a few negative scales be pushed towards its lands by stealhy preachers, check your every battle or keep book of its provinces to be sure you don't have a theme that hurts it, and everything else that human player might come up with...
Just try to list everything AI should take into account, and you might have a glimpse about how hard coding a decent AI for DomII is. Not that I have even that, of course.Well, if Illwinter can script a good AI for diplomacy....than I don't know that what is the problem with adding a diplo system.

October 16th, 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by licker:
As to the SP vs. MP arguement...

Whether or not the majority of players will ever play MP or not is pretty much irrelivant, the majority of actual playing time will be SP, and that's true for probably everyone, whatever they answered in the poll. That said some improvements are beneficial to both sides, but there can also be a misleading amount of verbiage on forums such as this from the MP crowd (who are more likely to post on forums in the first place) that creates the impression to the Devs that MP is more important than SP.

We all know that the Illwinter team is more interested in MP, they've said as much, however, I consider it a disservice to the game as a whole for that to be the only form of game play that gets attention. Now I don't actually think that Illwinter is giving the SP crowd short shrift, but I do think that improvements to SP typically wind up as improvements to MP while the contrary is not nearly as true.Well, I won't miss an opportunity to agree with licker. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You said pretty much all there is to be said about it.

October 16th, 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Endoperez:
About SP diplomacy, it might be good addition but it might be too much.
The AI would have to check how strong your dominion is, what scales you have, might your dominion with quite a few negative scales be pushed towards its lands by stealhy preachers, check your every battle or keep book of its provinces to be sure you don't have a theme that hurts it, and everything else that human player might come up with...
Just try to list everything AI should take into account, and you might have a glimpse about how hard coding a decent AI for DomII is. Not that I have even that, of course.It's touching that you care about where and how does IW spend their time, but if they want to do it, what would be the problem? I think they're capable enough to do it, judging by their products, and that they're capable to decide how to spend their time as well.

Endoperez

October 16th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Would YOU like to write no one knows how many pages of code to a game to add something you don't think would add much for it? If the coder of IW doesn't like the idea, I think he just doesn't bother to do it, and adds something he would like to see in the game.

st.patrik

October 16th, 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by MStavros:
Dude we are talking about SP diplomacy. Wake up.Since you all are not reading very carefully I'll trace the flow of this conversation for you:

Originally posted by MStavros:
Originally posted by licker:
but I do think that improvements to SP typically wind up as improvements to MP while the contrary is not nearly as true.
I agree.
MP diplomacy? Well it is not diplomacy, what we have now, it is only player interaction.Claim: MP diplomacy is not diplomacy - just player interaction

Originally posted by st.patrik:
Originally posted by MStavros:
MP diplomacy? Well it is not diplomacy, what we have now, it is only player interaction.
lol - what do you think diplomacy is, if interaction between humans doesn't count? Response: How does player interaction not qualify as diplomacy?

Originally posted by MStavros:
Dude we are talking about SP diplomacy. Wake up.Demonstration of Misunderstanding

-----

I understand that what you want is SP diplo. What I was saying is that SP diplo doesn't come close to MP diplo with actual people . If you want diplo, why not just play MP? I refer you (once again) to my earlier post:

Originally posted by st.patrik:
I also agree that Illwinter should make a robust SP game, whatever they do in MP. But the thing that gets me is that some of the fanatically SP players are wanting Illwinter to add complex diplo with the AI, when if you just play MP you get way better diplo, because it's with an intelligent, sentient person. It just seems to me that if you want to interact with other nations diplomatically, MP is perfect for you! I just don't understand why people would be staunchly against MP, and yet vocal about adding diplo - which at best poorly mimics the MP experience. It makes no sense to me.

[ October 16, 2003, 17:56: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

October 16th, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Endoperez:
Would YOU like to write no one knows how many pages of code to a game to add something you don't think would add much for it? If the coder of IW doesn't like the idea, I think he just doesn't bother to do it, and adds something he would like to see in the game.Exactly. But it's their decision, isn't it? If they like it, and deem it worthy of their time, they'll do it regardless of how long it takes. Likewise, they won't do it if they don't like it even if it takes a few minutes. So, where's the foundation of the argument that it takes too long to implement it, from your perspective as the end-user? We can talk about whether we would like it or not and what it should look like, but that doesn't have anything to do with the duration of implementation.

October 16th, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by st.patrik:

I understand that what you want is SP diplo. What I was saying is that SP diplo doesn't come close to MP diplo with actual people . If you want diplo, why not just play MP? Strange question. I mean, why does anybody play SP in the first place? Personal preference, to put it broadly, and differential appeal and aVersion between the two modes of play, along with dozens of other (individual) reasons. Why would that be a thing to wonder about?

MStavros

October 16th, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by st.patrik:

I understand that what you want is SP diplo. What I was saying is that SP diplo doesn't come close to MP diplo with actual people . If you want diplo, why not just play MP? I refer you (once again) to my earlier post:
You have no valid points. The majority here won't play MP. IW should give the majority the joy of SP diplomacy.
Yes I am sure that it will be hellish hard to script, but why not? Saying that play MP if you want diplomacy is foolish.
IMHO, a diplo system for SP would raise the overall quality of the game...greatly.
I am sure that lot of players will agree about this.

[ October 16, 2003, 18:28: Message edited by: MStavros ]

Particle

October 16th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by MStavros:
a diplo system for SP would raise the overall quality of the game...greatly.
I am sure that lot of players will agree about this.I agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

apoger

October 16th, 2003, 07:52 PM

Please stop this silly bickering about SP and MP dippy. You are acting like IW has announced they are making dippy in the first place, plus that they can only go one way.

I'd like to see some basic dippy/interaction options added to both MP and SP. A simple system should be a breeze considering the complexity of what they have already created. What we need to do is convince IW that the players really do want such functionality.

Endoperez

October 16th, 2003, 08:05 PM

I think we cannot say what IW should do, at best we can tell what would sell their product most. I don't think they are very interested in getting money from DomII. Of course they would like to get some, but it is more important for them to have a game they enjoy playing. If others enjoy it it's just a plus.

Because of this, we have to let them think themselves what is good for the game. We can offer them ideas, yes, but they have to fit them to the Ascension Wars. Of course, some things simply make the game a lot better, like the command scripts, and are added like they are.
But we can only ask and hope that they do as we want, not say they should do that, or that their game would be better if they did this. How many games publishers ordered do you know that have been good?

Mortifer

October 16th, 2003, 08:06 PM

Yeah, if IW will decide to add a system we can argue than.
This is totally pointless now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Anyways, a good SP diplo sys. will surely enchant the game, it will be a big ++ and not a --.
Simple.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

st.patrik

October 16th, 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by HJ:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by st.patrik:

I understand that what you want is SP diplo. What I was saying is that SP diplo doesn't come close to MP diplo with actual people . If you want diplo, why not just play MP? Strange question. I mean, why does anybody play SP in the first place? Personal preference, to put it broadly, and differential appeal and aVersion between the two modes of play, along with dozens of other (individual) reasons. Why would that be a thing to wonder about?<hr /></blockquote>Well honestly (although I suspect that some people here are not particularly interested in honest dialogue) I think that people are drawn to SP for certain reasons, and to MP for certain reasons. I just happen to think that one of the main reasons people are drawn to MP is the desire to have diplomacy - by which I mean strategic relations between nations involving sharing of information, reading of intentions, negotiating alliances, laying down disinformation, judging if/when to break faith and attack, etc. Therefore it seems strange to me that people who seem to have this desire would want to play SP, especially since SP AI cannot replicate these things. I don't question people desiring to play SP at all . I myself more often than not play SP - I am not a die-hard MP fan. There are times when it's more fun to just sit down and play against a few computer opponents.

However, what is lacking in this experience is real diplomacy. And I think the logical action to take in response to this lack (insofar as it is felt) is to play with other people, who you will be able to dialogue with. I think an action that makes less sense is to campaign for an AI diplomacy element, which cannot even approach what real diplomacy is like.

If it were possible, it would be great because you could game at your convenience, without the hassle of waiting for other players. etc. However, AI technology just isn't there yet. - It cannot take the place of human opponents when it comes to diplomacy.

Anyone is free to disagree with this, though I would ask that you at least keep your disagreement civil. However, I do think if you actually read what I said that it makes some sense. And just to re-iterate: I am not against SP [in fact I even argued FOR limited AI diplomacy earlier in this thread] - it is what I play most of the time; my only point is that if you want diplomacy the natural place to find it is MP.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

October 16th, 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by st.patrik:
Well honestly (although I suspect that some people here are not particularly interested in honest dialogue) I think that people are drawn to SP for certain reasons, and to MP for certain reasons.

Anyone is free to disagree with this, though I would ask that you at least keep your disagreement civil. However, I do think if you actually read what I said that it makes some sense. And just to re-iterate: I am not against SP [in fact I even argued FOR limited AI diplomacy earlier in this thread] - it is what I play most of the time; my only point is that if you want diplomacy the natural place to find it is MP.I would be seriously surprised and even slightly offended if you consider my Posts as the ones not in line with desire for honest dialogue. I assure you that there is no malice intended or involved behind any of them, not directed to you, and not to anyone else either, regardless of whether they are in this thread or other threads. But let's not talk abut that any more, and let's not do finger pointing; feel free to pm me if you think I personally was out of line.

You provided the reasons for SP diplomacy in your post quite well (although I snipped out the parts of it). For my own personal reasons, I don't play MP at all. Therefore, for me it's no compensation if you can do it that way. However, in my opinion it would enrich the gaming experience in the mode that I do play and enjoy playing, and hence I would like to see it implemented. I'm not thinking human level of reasoning, as this is not what I look for in my games, otherwise I would play MP probably, with the current state of the affairs. I'm thinking about enrichment of the gaming environment I peruse, and if you tell me to play MP, it's the same thing as if you're telling me to play some other game altogether. That's why I said that your question was a strange one, as later you yourself have provided reasoning for people opting for one mode or the other.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: HJ ]

Mortifer

October 16th, 2003, 09:06 PM

I think the major problem here is that some of the lads think, that the diplo AI will be abused. Adding a diplo system cannot be a problem, the diplo AI is the problematic point here.
Well I dont know too much about scripting, but I am sure, that IW could make a decent diplo AI.
The new Civ3 AI is lot better than the old, and the normal AI there is worse than the old Doms I. AI.

I think that the majority would be happy with the SP diplo AI. It is up to IW, that what will they do.

If the diplo system won't be implented, than Saber's idea about the weapon/armor system should be added with an add-on pack or with a later patch.
Implenting either of these would bring the game to a new level. Imagine if we would have both of them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ October 16, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

licker

October 16th, 2003, 09:22 PM

Woah Nellie!

Why would people not play MP? Yeesh there are a bazillion reasons why, some people simply cannot play MP (no internet maybe? no friends interested for LAN or hot seat?) Some people don't have the time, or don't want to spend the time (time over a period of weeks or months) to play MP.

Look the MP experience (usually) is going to be superior to the SP experience for reasons beyond the ability to have some form of diplomacy, but that doesn't mean that every wants to, or indeed is able to, engage in MP.

I for one play almost entirely SP. I will try the odd PBEM, but that's about it, I don't have flexible enough time to be able to set aside 5+ hours for a LAN or internet match, so its really not much of a choice for me.

Anyway, some diplo rules or settings would be nice, but I don't think the system has to become overly complicated. Simple things like trades (GalCiv and Civ3 do this pretty well) and NAPs could work well. NAPs would have to have the penalty that if you break one no one else will NAP you for a fixed time, if you break a second one, make that time longer, if you break a thrid... no one will ever NAP or trade with you. Simple things are best, non of this sharing provinces, granting rights of passage, esentially anything that would require the existing code to be modified to incorperate new rules.

Kristoffer O

October 16th, 2003, 09:22 PM

I think the major problem with diplo AI is that I don't know anything about AI coding and JK is bored by it (he made the AI so he should know). This doesn't mean that there will never be any diplomacy, but it means that if it will be made it will be so out of a sudden whim.

An outstanding AI might also see the day of light if one of you guys suddenly comes up with a simple yet brilliant system for a diplomatic AI that is unabusable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Meanwhile you will have to wait and hope.

st.patrik

October 16th, 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by HJ:
I would be seriously surprised and even slightly offended if you consider my Posts as the ones not in line with desire for honest dialogue. I assure you that there is no malice intended or involved behind any of them, not directed to you, and not to anyone else either, regardless of whether they are in this thread or other threads. But let's not talk abut that any more, and let's not do finger pointing; feel free to pm me if you think I personally was out of line.I didn't mean that you in particular were not interested in honest dialogue - in fact reading over your Posts I notice that you have not made the kind of comments I was reacting against. So I apologise if I communicated otherwise, and thank you for your thoughtful response.

Mortifer

October 16th, 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
I think the major problem with diplo AI is that I don't know anything about AI coding and JK is bored by it (he made the AI so he should know). This doesn't mean that there will never be any diplomacy, but it means that if it will be made it will be so out of a sudden whim.

An outstanding AI might also see the day of light if one of you guys suddenly comes up with a simple yet brilliant system for a diplomatic AI that is unabusable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Meanwhile you will have to wait and hope.I have some ideas, I will post about it.
Gotta run, no time now.
I am happy that you lads @ Illwinter are paying enough attention, and listening to our ideas and suggestions! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
I will be back tomorrow, I will post my detailed ideas than.

DominionsFan

October 16th, 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
I think the major problem with diplo AI is that I don't know anything about AI coding and JK is bored by it (he made the AI so he should know).bored? LOL? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Taqwus

October 16th, 2003, 11:19 PM

*shrug*

I normally don't play multi since I'm not inclined to take games that seriously, and thus veer strongly towards the silly side rather than being a serious, competitive player. I'm more of a "ooh, let's try this and see what happens" chap rather than one who'll carefully plan ahead, figuring out a focused strategy e.g. what to research, when to start summoning seasonal spirits, et al.

But for those that do play MP, beefing up the in-game messaging capabilities wouldn't be a bad idea. *shrug* And yes, it could be done out of the game, but not as conveniently. Eh.

Particle

October 17th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Zerger:
Uh well, they should focus on SP than. We have lot more single fans, than MP, so what are we talking about at all?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I would not say *a lot more*. Check previous polls about the habits of players.<hr /></blockquote>From your poll Pocus:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18)
I sometime play with a friend 24% (10)
I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7)
I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

I sometime play with my friend means that they are playing single mostly, and sometimes multi, if I am correct.

Anyways if you compare:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18) >>> I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

And yes, I am a singleplayer 'fan' myself.

[ October 16, 2003, 12:06: Message edited by: Particle ]

Nagot Gick Fel

October 17th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Particle:
Anyways if you compare:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18) >>> I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)That's not a fair comparison: it's a lot easier to set an SP game up, therefore most MPers also play a lot SP, while the reverse isn't true. You should include the following line

I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7) in your stats to get a correct assessment of the MP community.

Mortifer

October 17th, 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Particle:
Anyways if you compare:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18) >>> I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)That's not a fair comparison: it's a lot easier to set an SP game up, therefore most MPers also play a lot SP, while the reverse isn't true. You should include the following line

I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7) in your stats to get a correct
assessment of the MP community.<hr /></blockquote>Heh, that is still 26 [single] vs 13 [multi]! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Back to diplomacy now!
Check out this screenshot from from the upcoming, awesome game, Knights of Honor [I cant wait for this one btw, it will be an incredible strategy game, more info about KoH: http://www.knights-of-honor.net/ .]

The diplo screenie:

http://www.knights-of-honor.net/gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0038.jpg

We need a diplo model like this. Relationship with the AI, pacts etc.

[ October 16, 2003, 12:37: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

DominionsFan

October 17th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Particle:
Anyways if you compare:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18) >>> I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)That's not a fair comparison: it's a lot easier to set an SP game up, therefore most MPers also play a lot SP, while the reverse isn't true. You should include the following line

I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7) in your stats to get a correct
assessment of the MP community.<hr /></blockquote>Heh, that is still 26 [single] vs 13 [multi]! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Back to diplomacy now!
Check out this screenshot from from the upcoming, awesome game, Knights of Honor [I cant wait for this one btw, it will be an incredible strategy game, more info about KoH: http://www.knights-of-honor.net/ .]

The diplo screenie:

http://www.knights-of-honor.net/gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0038.jpg

We need a diplo model like this. Relationship with the AI, pacts etc.<hr /></blockquote>WOW THAT GAME LOOKS AMAZING! Hey, that diplomacy screenshot is cool, I love that relationship bar + the diplomatic options. Er where is the alliance button? There will be no alliance in that game?

Pocus

October 17th, 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Particle:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Zerger:
Uh well, they should focus on SP than. We have lot more single fans, than MP, so what are we talking about at all?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I would not say *a lot more*. Check previous polls about the habits of players.<hr /></blockquote>From your poll Pocus:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18)
I sometime play with a friend 24% (10)
I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7)
I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

I sometime play with my friend means that they are playing single mostly, and sometimes multi, if I am correct.

Anyways if you compare:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18) >>> I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

And yes, I am a singleplayer 'fan' myself.<hr /></blockquote>if I count right, 32% (rounded to a third) play mostly MP then. So what are the MP fans asking : they are asking for features which serve the SP fans too : diplomacy (works for the AI too), less micromanagement (I suppose you would enjoy this in SP too, nobody like to handle 100 mages with a bad interface), and game balance (same thing here, even if you play with yourself, I suppose you want the game to be balanced).

So no need to oppose MP players versus SP players, we converge toward having a better game.

-Storm-

October 17th, 2003, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
The diplo screenie:

http://www.knights-of-honor.net/gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0038.jpg

We need a diplo model like this. Relationship with the AI, pacts etc.Hmmmmmm this looks good. That game will be decent. What is the release date of it?

-Storm-

October 17th, 2003, 01:56 AM

Sorry, double post.

[ October 16, 2003, 12:57: Message edited by: -Storm- ]

Aristoteles

October 17th, 2003, 02:14 PM

Ok here is my idea:

We need a relationship bar. That way we will be able to see the relations with the other nations. Also there should be a a huge table with all relations. IE. between AI A and AI F, or between AI B and AI G, etc.

Basic options should be:

Send gold
Send magic gems
Transfer / Give unit(s)
Transfer / Give province(s)

Basic hostile options

Demand gold
Demand magic gems
Demand provinces

Diplomatic options

Right of Passage / Passage Agreement
Trade Embargo
Non Agression Pact
Alliance (against)
Total Alliance

All actions will raise / lower the relationship between the nations. Basic Options will raise the relationship, any hostile actions & basic hostile options will lower it.

Hostile actions what will lower the relationship:

-Sending spies

-Attacking a nation whose relations with the 'target' is good. [No alliance or any diplo relations between them, just good relationship!]IE. You want good relations with AI A. The relations between AI A and AI B is very good. You are attacking AI B.
Your relations with AI A will be decreased, greatly.

-Casting any hostile spells. This should work like the above one, IE. You want good relations with AI A. The relations between AI A and AI B is very good. You are casting some hostile spells against AI B.
Your relations with AI A will be decreased.

-Attacking a nation should lower the relations to -100. Also lets say that you attacked AI A.
There was an alliance between AI A, AI B and AI C.
Your relations should be -100 with AI A, AI B and AI C after the attack.

The relationship bar is quite simple, the max is 100, the min is -100. 100 is the best, -100 is the worst.

Now about the abuse. If you are sending lot of gold/giving away units etc, will increase your relations for sure. If you call that abusing, than we wont have a good diplo AI in any games EVER
Just think what happened in history. The various empires always used this way to improve their relations with other Kingdoms/Empires. This is supposed to work like this.

[ October 17, 2003, 13:21: Message edited by: Aristoteles ]

Kristoffer O

October 17th, 2003, 03:11 PM

I wasn't entirely serious, but if you want to try to think up a diplomatic AI I don't mind.

As I said we need a simple yet brilliant system. You give suggestions on options and diplomatic actions that lower or increases the relations. These can be added later, when there is a system that works.

Instead try to figure out how relationships are measured, how they change, when the AI makes war, how to react to stronger/weaker players, how to measure other players stance against each other (is it better to gang up on one player?), does the AI have a long memory (and what does it remember) or does it only have a current relationship measure (very abusable) etc.

We will never implement giving troops away.

Gandalf Parker

October 17th, 2003, 03:15 PM

Theres alot of programming in that previous suggestion. Before we see anything close to that maybe we could suggest some simpler fixes we might actualy see soon. The best would be simple additions to re-action formulas which might already be in the game. Stuff with no menu.

Im with others that the diplomacy which existed in MP games was plenty. In fact, almost too much. We had to develop ways of doing games to make diplomacy harder to use. And yes I was A-#1 hacker who used the Dom 1 diplomatic options ALOT!

Anyway, one of the places where the solo game falls far short of the MP game is in the area of diplomacy. Maybe the "formula experts" (we had some of those in the newsgroup discussions) could come up with ways to add a simple variable or two to the logic.

Dom 1 seemed to have some logic to its decisions of whether or not to attack you. There is a formula in there somewhere and aparently a variable which kept track of whether or not you were an enemy. Do gifts give pluses the way attacking them gives minuses? Can they?

Mortifer

October 17th, 2003, 04:00 PM

Hey, that is a nice diplo system, Aristoteles! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
I wasn't entirely serious, but if you want to try to think up a diplomatic AI I don't mind.

As I said we need a simple yet brilliant system. You give suggestions on options and diplomatic actions that lower or increases the relations. These can be added later, when there is a system that works.

Instead try to figure out how relationships are measured, how they change, when the AI makes war, how to react to stronger/weaker players, how to measure other players stance against each other (is it better to gang up on one player?), does the AI have a long memory (and what does it remember) or does it only have a current relationship measure (very abusable) etc.

We will never implement giving troops away.IMHO, it should work like this:
All nations should start with a "natural relation system."
This means that some nations will dislike eachother from start, some of them won't.

Example: Pangea will dislike Ermor from the start, the relationship between them should start with -20. [0 is normal]
It is up to the devs, to set up these starting relations.

I think Aristoteles already mentioned that how these relations should change, positive actions will raise, negative actions will lower the relations between the nations.
The AI must have a long memory. This will prevent the abusing.
Example: You attacked the AI, but you've made a peace later on. The AI basically won't trust you anymore. You will have to send lot more things/per turn to keep up the good relations with him, than normally from that point. -> You cannot abuse the 'alliance/war' than.

Same goes for provinces.
Example: You are giving away a province to the AI. Your relations will improve. There must be some options like you cannot attack that province for at least 10 turns. Meanwhile you are making an alliance against someone with the AI. If you broke this alliance later on, the relationship should be -80. If you broke the alliance by conquering the province, what you gave to the AI, the relationship should be -100.
Also if you broke an alliance like that, it should have a global effect. -10 relationship with all nations, and -30 with your allies.

In fact all of your actions should have global effects. Like attacking an AI, whos part of an alliance will force you to war with the whole alliance.
If you are attacking an AI nation, whos got good relations with other AIs, your relations with all of them should decrease by a given amount of relation points.
That way you will be forced to make smart moves, also you cannot abuse the AI.

Restrictions / global effects will prevent the diplo AI abusing.

[ October 17, 2003, 15:05: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Pocus

October 17th, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

Dom 1 seemed to have some logic to its decisions of whether or not to attack you. There is a formula in there somewhere and aparently a variable which kept track of whether or not you were an enemy. Do gifts give pluses the way attacking them gives minuses? Can they?i would like that to be implemented. No need for an interface, you can still hide the current relationship level of each AI against a player. But if we can maintain the AI at peace (or revert to peace if at war) by giving gifts, then at least you would have an embryonic diplo system in SP (and in MP too where a big Ai play the role of the bad guy).

Gandalf Parker

October 17th, 2003, 04:12 PM

One of the biggest problems with creating diplomacy AI is giving the AI time to think, and a memory. Luckily this being mainly a PBEM game, we have some room to do with but Im not sure how much of that "twirling block" the Dom players would put up with. I suppose if diplomacy had a game switch for having it skip that part of the "thinking" process then we would have some more room to play.

Lets see, simple memory would be a variable for each race. Simple storage would be a range of some variable of 8 such as 8, 16, 64, or 256. Lets say 256. OK obviously the extremes would be something like 1is jihad, total concentration toward destruction and sending everything to that border. 255 would be total friendship, we are as one nation what is mine is yours. At 100 a nation is attackable. At 200 a nation is giftable.

For killing my pretender -200
for killing my prophet -100
for killing my commander -10
for taking a province -20
for dominion overlap -20? maybe a formula?

For giving me a magic item (questionable use there) +20
for giving me gold (cant go wrong here) 10+donation/10? max 100? cant make it too easy to buy a 256 rating
for giving me gems 10+donation/10? max 100?

Army size near me -army-size/50?
every province neighboring me with only defence +20

Now comes the tricky part. As one example, to give troop movement memory means remembering things.
for suddenly increasing army size on my border -50
for decreasing the army size on my border +20
but this means they must remember the army sizes from Last turn. The AI can do specific +/- based on what it sees. I dont think it actually "sees" troop movement. The change is only visible if it "remembers" what was there before. That means it must be stored in a file? I dont think that would be good for the game and probably not a fast add either.

[ October 17, 2003, 15:13: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Mortifer

October 17th, 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

Now comes the tricky part. As one example, to give troop movement memory means remembering things.
for suddenly increasing army size on my border -50
for decreasing the army size on my border +20
but this means they must remember the army sizes from Last turn. The AI can do specific +/- based on what it sees. I dont think it actually "sees" troop movement. The change is only visible if it "remembers" what was there before. That means it must be stored in a file? I dont think that would be good for the game and probably not a fast add either.Ok but what, if you are moving your army to a border province, to attack another AI? You will loose -50 relation points, and you didnt wanted to do anything bad against that AI.

I like this -256 - 256 system.
I think by giving gold, the max relationship what could be reached must be max. 100.
With giving items it should be 150.
With giving provinces, it should be 200.
You can make an alliance after 201.
After 200, only good actions will raise the "relation points". Example: attacking a disliked nation by that AI, casting destructive spells on common oppoments. etc.

I think it must be hard to gain enough points for an alliance. Also there must be a huge penalty, if you break the alliance. Maybe breaking an alliance should set you back to -200 relation points/+ various global effects.

[ October 17, 2003, 15:28: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Gandalf Parker

October 17th, 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Ok but what, if you are moving your army to a border province, to attack another AI? You will loose -50 relation points, and you didnt wanted to do anything bad against that AI.
Unless you can think of a way to easily formula that, Im afraid the answer would have to fall to "thats realistic". If another nations starts building up a huge army on my border, even if he says its for another reason SHOULDNT I get nervous anyway? Its not like that hasnt happened in the real world. Maybe, it could be lesser minus IF we are allies. It might be you coming to help me. But even then, to avoid abuse, I wouldnt make the AI totally trusting about large armies.

I like this -256 - 256 system.
Nope it would have to be just 1-256, or technically 0-255. The explanation why isnt worth going into here. It has something to do with computers only having two modes of counting efficient. Fingers or thumbs. One or the other but not both.

I think by giving gold, the max relationship what could be reached must be max. 100.
With giving items it should be 150.
With giving provinces, it should be 200.
You can make an alliance after 201.
After 200, only good actions will raise the "relation points". Example: attacking a disliked nation by that AI, casting destructive spells on common oppoments. etc.
Ouch. Now we are back in the memory thing. To track all those over time we would need more variables. Shall we have 8 variables with a 256 range for each of the (16?) races? Can we get along with one of the lesser scales if we do it as multiple variables? can we come up with 8 scales of 16?

For this discussion its going to be really hard to consider the things that the game can "see" in a single turn file vs storing information to make better judgements. Even though storing and thinking are obviously good things to have the AI do, it can move the whole project into the Category of major rewrite. We might need to split this conversation into 2 threads. One for really simple do-it-soon things. And one for the this-would-be-better but major-project-later things.

Mortifer

October 17th, 2003, 05:09 PM

I just posted some examples of course, they are not written in stone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I agree that simple things must be implented firstly, but the diplo AI is very important. It must be scripted first of all, and later on the diplo options.
We posted some ideas about the diplo AI/prevent AI abusing.
Just post more ideas, the devs are waiting for them.

[ October 17, 2003, 16:12: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

October 17th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<snip>Im not sure how much of that "twirling block" the Dom players would put up with.Well, when compared to the duration it takes the AI to do the turn in other TBSs, I would say waiting time is way below average in Doms I, so this probably shouldn't be a concern.

johan osterman

October 17th, 2003, 06:24 PM

Unfortunately for all its fans the twirling cube marble no longer livens up the screens during the turn generation. Now you will instead recive helpfull tips and pointers to steer you into the right direction.

MStavros

October 17th, 2003, 06:33 PM

Well, there are many ways to prevent the player to abuse the AI.
The best way is the 'global reactions'. When you sign an alliance, just to abuse the AI, and get his help to weaken an oppoment, and you are cancelling that alliance later on with a hostile move (attack on the AI, attacking another ally of the AI etc. etc.), your global reputation must decrease by a lot. I think it won't be worth to risk this abuse, if all nations will be mad at you for it.

What other abuse you know about? I have no idea about other ways to abuse the AI.

I love Gandalf's idea. If you are moving a huge army to a border province, your relations with the border nations must decrease.

LordArioch

October 17th, 2003, 06:56 PM

No twirling marble cube? Oh no! Maybe I should just cancel my preorder now...turn after turn only the twirling marble cube helped me maintain my sanity. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I did rather like it actually...as soon as I started playing dominions I became addicted to twirling marble cubes.
I guess I'll have to trust the turn generate will still be sufficiently interesting anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
But that was an awsome cube.

johan osterman

October 17th, 2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by LordArioch:
No twirling marble cube? Oh no! Maybe I should just cancel my preorder now...turn after turn only the twirling marble cube helped me maintain my sanity. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I did rather like it actually...as soon as I started playing dominions I became addicted to twirling marble cubes.
I guess I'll have to trust the turn generate will still be sufficiently interesting anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
But that was an awsome cube.I sympathize with your pain, I miss it terribly myself. There is talk here about creating a cube simulator, so that you would not have to go cold turkey. If I were to decide I would combine the twirling cube with the turn tips, printing tips on the six sides of the cube, thus making an exciting game within the game where you could recieve useful nuggets of information during turn generation by trying to decipher the tips written on its sides. I understand that these games within the games are all the rage know, so I think the spinning cube game would be an excellent addition and significantly increase dom 2 market potentional.

Vodalian

October 17th, 2003, 07:10 PM

I always used to trace the edges of the marble cube with my cursor while waiting for the next turn to load. I'm truly disappointed that it was taken away.
In my opinion, you should have added a small changing dominions trivia to the loading screen.

MStavros

October 17th, 2003, 07:26 PM

What about posting your ideas about diplomacy, instead of talking about some cubes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Truper

October 17th, 2003, 07:32 PM

I think the cube should be the diplo interface.

"Cubie cubie on my screen,
which ai is really Mean?"

Mortifer

October 17th, 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by MStavros:
Well, there are many ways to prevent the player to abuse the AI.
The best way is the 'global reactions'. When you sign an alliance, just to abuse the AI, and get his help to weaken an oppoment, and you are cancelling that alliance later on with a hostile move (attack on the AI, attacking another ally of the AI etc. etc.), your global reputation must decrease by a lot. I think it won't be worth to risk this abuse, if all nations will be mad at you for it.

What other abuse you know about? I have no idea about other ways to abuse the AI.

I love Gandalf's idea. If you are moving a huge army to a border province, your relations with the border nations must decrease.Uhm, I posted about this too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

PvK

October 17th, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
...
If I were to decide I would combine the twirling cube with the turn tips, printing tips on the six sides of the cube, thus making an exciting game within the game where you could recieve useful nuggets of information during turn generation by trying to decipher the tips written on its sides. I understand that these games within the games are all the rage know, so I think the spinning cube game would be an excellent addition and significantly increase dom 2 market potentional.Great idea! Perhaps players could have a choice of paying setup points to get tips on their twirling cube or not. It could come in levels of usefulness, and with an option to have the clues in English or in glyphs which must be deciphered (costs fewer points). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Nerfix

October 17th, 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Truper:
I think the cube should be the diplo interface.

"Cubie cubie on my screen,
which ai is really Mean?"Yes, that is a briliant idea!

-Storm-

October 17th, 2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Nerfix:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Truper:
I think the cube should be the diplo interface.

"Cubie cubie on my screen,
which ai is really Mean?"Yes, that is a briliant idea!<hr /></blockquote>FFS, stop infecting this thread with idiotism please.
Can't we stick to the topic?
Go and post in Saber Cherry's heroic abilities thread, if you want to say things like this.
You are breaking the line of good ideas. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Now back to the topic.
I think these mentioned ideas are very good. If things like these will be added, the AI won't be abusable. Of course this won't be easy to script, but it will be worth of it, I am totally sure about it.
I say, that the best way to prevent the player to abuse the AI, if those special "AI abuse situations" will be sorted out, and if any abuse situation will happen, the player must be punished by somehow.
That idea about the global reactions is a very nice example.

[ October 17, 2003, 19:41: Message edited by: -Storm- ]

Mameluk

October 17th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Hi, I am new here. I plan to buy Dominions 2, but I am not sure about it yet.

Dominions 2. costs more than Max Payne 2. This is sorta ridicolous.

I am also shocked that Dominions 2. won't have diplomacy. I don't know why. All decent strategy games must have diplomacy, regardless that it is a pure wargame or a full scaled strategy game.
However, reading some developer replies, that they were bored by scripting....well maybe no wonder than.

Gandalf Parker

October 17th, 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Unfortunately for all its fans the twirling cube marble no longer livens up the screens during the turn generation. Now you will instead recive helpfull tips and pointers to steer you into the right direction.Hmmm do I see a large area for user contributions?

There goes my dom sig?
-- Do not curse the time it takes for a turn to process in Dominions. It keeps us from losing so many players to starvation or exploded bladders.
(this game is WAY too addictive)

[ October 17, 2003, 20:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Gandalf Parker

October 17th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by MStavros:
What other abuse you know about? I have no idea about other ways to abuse the AI.
Dominions became the target of my hacking attitude early on. While others pursued each other up thru the chains of good-better-best strategys I took the discarded items and experimented to try and find a use for them. Early on in Dom you could only send things to human players. I was one of the people who pushed to have it changed. Ive usedit ever since with the poor AIs.

I sent gas-bladder sticks and cursing daggers and exploding amulets to nations that had too powerful commanders. I sent food cauldrons and herald lances to nations there were next to ermor. I sent air gems to caelum and nature gems to man when I played nations not susceptable to "call of the xxxx" attacks so that they would pester others. I basically supported whatever races with whatever items I felt my race would have no problem with when I finally had to confront them.

These arent necessarily abuses but if it becomes an automatically good thing to do then it would need fixed.

Mortifer

October 17th, 2003, 10:14 PM

Some items should flagged as 'can be traded', that way this abuse is no more.
Or just do not allow to trade items like exploding amulets.

I think that seeking the aid of the AI to attack another nation is ok. That is how it is supposed to work.
Just take a look at the medieval/dark ages. This happened a lot.

[ October 17, 2003, 21:14: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Gandalf Parker

October 17th, 2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Some items should flagged as 'can be traded', that way this abuse is no more.
Or just do not allow to trade items like exploding amulets.
That could grow to an extreme database. And probably just lead to more creative acts. Alot of the items would be variable also. What is a good thing for abyssia could be a bad thing for caelum.

In my earlier scales I made an item trade to be a minor-good thing while gold or gems was worth more. To be entirely safe, trading items might be worth nothing or not even allowed. Maybe take it back to only allowing for human players or having AI's automatically destroy any item they are traded.

Taqwus

October 17th, 2003, 10:52 PM

Plus, whether or not an item would be useful is situation-dependent. For instance, if Man's making heavy use of longbowmen, then he probably does not want to field a Staff of Storms. Bone armor, or others with harmful area effects, can be useful... but not on a commander who's constantly surrounded by friendlies. Robes of Missile Protection are weak, weak armor if you're not going to be using archers...

Mortifer

October 17th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Yeah, that is true. Hrm maybe trading items shouldn't be allowed at all?
Or just limit it? Let's say only 'common'** items should be traded, like a flaming sword, etc.

**Items what won't cause any trouble 'abusing wise'.

[ October 17, 2003, 22:00: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Gandalf Parker

October 18th, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Yeah, that is true. Hrm maybe trading items shouldn't be allowed at all?
Or just limit it? Let's say only 'common'** items should be traded, like a flaming sword, etc.

**Items what won't cause any trouble 'abusing wise'.I think that would be more trouble than its worth. I dont mean to seem bragging or anything but I can almost gaurantee you that if your list infludes a couple of dozen items I will find one that I can abuse.

Just for an example.... there are some armor items that would be great for pangaea but sending them to ulm would cause ulm to downgrade his commanders. Some swords also.

Zerger

October 18th, 2003, 09:03 AM

Yeah, I think that trading items is a bad idea.
Sending gold, gems, or transferring provinces is enough.
Those cannot be abused. + The devs won't have to mess around with 2000 items. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Nerfix

October 18th, 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
Yeah, that is true. Hrm maybe trading items shouldn't be allowed at all?
Or just limit it? Let's say only 'common'** items should be traded, like a flaming sword, etc.

**Items what won't cause any trouble 'abusing wise'.I think that would be more trouble than its worth. I dont mean to seem bragging or anything but I can almost gaurantee you that if your list infludes a couple of dozen items I will find one that I can abuse.

Just for an example.... there are some armor items that would be great for pangaea but sending them to ulm would cause ulm to downgrade his commanders. Some swords also.<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps there could be a nation-specific list of abusable and non-abusable items? RoLK might be abusable with Marignon, but C'tis and Ermor are a diffrent story. And do we count items that are potent(Robe of the Magi, Lifelong Protection), but Horror Mark or Curse the wearer abusable items?

Particle

October 18th, 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Zerger:
Yeah, I think that trading items is a bad idea.
Sending gold, gems, or transferring provinces is enough.
Those cannot be abused. + The devs won't have to mess around with 2000 items. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif Yeah, I agree.
Well if the devs will have time, they should sort out the items, and perhaps trading items should be allowed than.

Aristoteles

October 18th, 2003, 12:27 PM

Ok so my diplo system idea is good than. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I don't know too much about diplo AI, but there must be some way to prevent the abusing.
Those global effects via diplo abusing sounds very cool. When the AI will detect that you are trying to double cross him with a fake alliance, and there will be big penalties for it, no one will abuse the diplo AI than. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I have another idea, maybe there should be a minimum time limit for alliances. Like for 10 turns you cannot cancel the alliance, and for additional 10 you cannot attack your former ally.

The AI must have a long memory, IE it must remember all major things, like alliances, wars, global spells, aggression, etc.

Items. Well the trading items is a very good part of the game, but you can abuse it. If it will be allowed to trade items, that must affect diplomacy.
All items must be categorized. Also only the "usable by everyone" items should be allowed to trade. Than we wont have a situation that the item is good good for "XY" but it is not good for "VZ". If you are giving away a good item, the relations will improve, if you are giving away a bad item, the relation points will decrease.
There is a more simple way, only allow "good, usable by everyone" items to trade.

[ October 18, 2003, 11:30: Message edited by: Aristoteles ]

Gandalf Parker

October 18th, 2003, 02:55 PM

Any game which has allowed gifting provinces/planets/colonies/outPosts has been abused by me big-time. Ive used it to manipulate wars between AIs or to abuse an AI as a buffer zone. I would put the reaction to province gifts as low as magic items, with a much higher reaction to gold and gems.

And adding time to alliances might be good. One thing that developed in the MP games was non-aggression pacts which had something like a 3-turn notice. If you gave the 3-turn notice before breaking the alliance then there were no extra consequences. Breaking an alliance without warning tended to have "global" consequences with the other players. Maybe that could be worked into the AI agreements also.

[ October 18, 2003, 13:59: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

-Storm-

October 18th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
And adding time to alliances might be good. One thing that developed in the MP games was non-aggression pacts which had something like a 3-turn notice. If you gave the 3-turn notice before breaking the alliance then there were no extra consequences. Breaking an alliance without warning tended to have "global" consequences with the other players. Maybe that could be worked into the AI agreements also.Yeah, that is the way to stop abusing.

How can you abuse things, like giving provinces?
You mean you are giving a province to raise the relations, right? Well that is normal.
Never forget, that the AI will do it too, and maybe you will be gang banged by the AI. That is the wonderful part of diplomacy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PDF

October 18th, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Aristoteles:
Ok so my diplo system idea is good than. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I don't know too much about diplo AI, but there must be some way to prevent the abusing.
Those global effects via diplo abusing sounds very cool. When the AI will detect that you are trying to double cross him with a fake alliance, and there will be big penalties for it, no one will abuse the diplo AI than. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I have another idea, maybe there should be a minimum time limit for alliances. Like for 10 turns you cannot cancel the alliance, and for additional 10 you cannot attack your former ally.

The AI must have a long memory, IE it must remember all major things, like alliances, wars, global spells, aggression, etc.

Items. Well the trading items is a very good part of the game, but you can abuse it. If it will be allowed to trade items, that must affect diplomacy.
All items must be categorized. Also only the "usable by everyone" items should be allowed to trade. Than we wont have a situation that the item is good good for "XY" but it is not good for "VZ". If you are giving away a good item, the relations will improve, if you are giving away a bad item, the relation points will decrease.
There is a more simple way, only allow "good, usable by everyone" items to trade.You're talking about AIs as if they were real beings ... Back to Earth, man, those are only lines of codes, and ALL AIs are and will be abused for at least 20 years more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

MStavros

October 18th, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by PDF:
Back to Earth, man, those are only lines of codes, and ALL AIs are and will be abused for at least 20 years more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I don't think so. Just think. If there will be options, like giving something to the AI, and it will raise the relation points between the 2 nations, that is ok. If you call that 'abuse', than what is your idea about diplomacy?
It is normal to use these ways to improve the relations.
Abusing means, that you are trying to cheat the AI.
We must list all possible abuse situations.

1. Improving the relations with the AI, to use him against others.

I think that this is normal. Everyone did this in the history.
BUT the other AIs must see these moves by the players, they must memorize it.
Example: You are trying to make an alliance with AI 1.
You are improving the relations with AI 1, and finally you are making an alliance with AI 1.
All of the other nations must react somehow: The AIs near your borders should try to make alliances as well, if it is possible. (example)

All little situations can be tweaked like this.
Just list more.

Taqwus

October 18th, 2003, 05:39 PM

The "traditional" abuse in games that allow arbitrary gifting of territory is to give provinces in one AI's sphere of influence to a second AI, in order to start trouble between them. This works especially well if first AI (non-recipient) has some attachment to the province in question. A second form came up in GalCiv where a planet could change sides without war; namely, trading a planet for something while knowing that you'll get the planet back anyway.

Memories are important for diplomacy. Building a rapport over time should matter; e.g. you shouldn't be able to cancel the bad feeling from a recent war with a large gift immediately thereafter. Conversely, they should be readily destroyed given sufficient provocation; the friendlier you seemed beforehand, actually, the greater the perceived magnitude of betrayal. Enemies /expect/ things like hostile magic and assassinations, while doing an "alpha strike" on an ally would demolish that trust completely, provoke vast amounts of resentment, and make it harder to build rapports with anybody else for pretty much... forever, actually. And casus belli should matter as well; a war preceded by well-known provocations on both sides should hit global reputation less.

Endoperez

October 18th, 2003, 06:47 PM

I think game should be keeping track how many times you have cheated AI or broken an alliance. Everybody would see them, and everyone would react to them. Maybe exponential increase in the effect after more bad things are made. Ideally, this would effect most powerful to the AI you acted against, more than normal to his allies, and less than normal to those that are in war against him. This would need much bookkiining, so having same effect to all nations would be enough.
'Cheating' I mentioned before, is assasinations with Gateway/CoWild/Wind attacks/sneaky forces which destroy big armies, MW or FFtS, and global enchantments harmful to all others.
Too much power should maybe lower relationships with all nations, or make them harder to rise, because you can more easily destroy them and they are REALLY nervous. Heck, they want to be like Zeus, over-god of his pantheon, not like Hermes, his postman.

Please, someone, speculate how would things go bad with this thing; how would you abuse this.

Oh, and I think there should be no 'you are a heretic, but you can go through my lands'. And, it shouldn't be possible to give away provinces. Atleast not those in which people don't believe to the pretender you are giving the province. This is simply because even if you had no armies in there, other player would have to conquer the province, because the people would not want to change sides.

I hope this makes sense to someone,

and please forgive me for editing these Posts all the time. It seems I cannot force myself to press that Preview msg button... Lazy me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ October 18, 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: Endoperez ]

DominionsFan

October 18th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Plz consider to add SP diplomacy, I really missed it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

The guys here had posted very good ideas. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Mortifer

October 21st, 2003, 10:07 AM

All right I think we had nice ideas so far, maybe trading items should be restricted, I agree.

If the AI can be scripted to have long memory, than the abuse problem will be solved.
If it will 'remember' everything, what the player did, than we won't have problems.
It must be tweaked perfectly, and that will be the hardest part of it.
[How will the AI react in various situations, like getting a province as a gift, etc.]

MStavros

October 21st, 2003, 11:49 AM

I wonder...the devs liked these suggestions/ideas? Any comments from IW? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Pocus

October 21st, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
All right I think we had nice ideas so far, maybe trading items should be restricted, I agree.

If the AI can be scripted to have long memory, than the abuse problem will be solved.
If it will 'remember' everything, what the player did, than we won't have problems.
It must be tweaked perfectly, and that will be the hardest part of it.
[How will the AI react in various situations, like getting a province as a gift, etc.] Not necessarly a big problem IMO, thats the kind of parameters which ought to be externalized in a text file. The devs should be confident that in a matter of weeks the fan community will have found what is the best tweaking to be done (just check the awesome mods made for Hearts of Iron - some asked for hundred of hours).

October 21st, 2003, 06:26 PM

Lots of good ideas proposed so far.
I just wanted to add one thing that I wouldn't like to see in possible diplo system, and that is ganging up on human player. This has been implemented in more games than I care to remember, and it invariably ruins a good portion of gaming sessions for me. I mean, if I transgress, such as declare war to everybody or break a dozen alliances, then ok. But NOT, please not, just because my only sin is that my domain happens to be of a certain size, and then everybody declares war just for the heck of it. That's just lame, and a big party breaker for me. It equates to the AI cheating: I want to be on same terms as far as the game is concerned.

-Storm-

October 22nd, 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
All right I think we had nice ideas so far, maybe trading items should be restricted, I agree.

If the AI can be scripted to have long memory, than the abuse problem will be solved.
If it will 'remember' everything, what the player did, than we won't have problems.
It must be tweaked perfectly, and that will be the hardest part of it.
[How will the AI react in various situations, like getting a province as a gift, etc.] Not necessarly a big problem IMO, thats the kind of parameters which ought to be externalized in a text file. The devs should be confident that in a matter of weeks the fan community will have found what is the best tweaking to be done (just check the awesome mods made for Hearts of Iron - some asked for hundred of hours). <hr /></blockquote>Yeah, this must be added very carefully, but I think 10/8 players will agree that the diplomacy is another must have in SP.

Mortifer

October 22nd, 2003, 11:13 AM

I think the most important thing is the 'relation points system'. There must be many ways to increase/decrease the points with a nation. All things must effect the relations between the nations. Aside this the AI's long memory is the second key for a very good diplo AI/system. The AI must remember everything, and there must be certain cases, when you won't be able to raise the relation points anymore above a specific limit. Example: a sneak attack on the AI, when you had good relations with it. Also these happenings must have global consequences. All AI must react somehow.

[ October 22, 2003, 10:13: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

MStavros

October 22nd, 2003, 02:13 PM

Well correct me if I am wrong, but scripting this diplo AI will be very hard. However it is a must have in SP, so do not give up please.

Gandalf Parker

October 22nd, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by MStavros:
Well correct me if I am wrong, but scripting this diplo AI will be very hard. However it is a must have in SP, so do not give up please. There are different levels. Something that would require adding another menu to the game would take a long time. Something that recognizes things happening in the game and +/- a formula somewhere would be much easier to put in. Such as... if I give an AI money or gems (which I can already do) can I get a plus to my standing with them (which is a formula already in the game?)

Mortifer

October 22nd, 2003, 03:46 PM

The hard part will be the balancing / tweaking of the AI and the AI - player reactions. I guess it is not impossible but surely it will take some time to add.
I agree that this is a must have in SP, but we must be very patient. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Pocus

October 22nd, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:

I agree that this is a must have in SP, but we must be very patient. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif mmmh, are we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aristoteles

October 22nd, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:

I agree that this is a must have in SP, but we must be very patient. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif mmmh, are we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Not me! I want to see diplomacy in the retail Version! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Well that would be awesome..ok ok I will be patient too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

-Storm-

October 23rd, 2003, 09:13 AM

We must be very patient. IW is propably working very hard on the mod tools, and on the first patch right now.

Zerger

October 26th, 2003, 06:03 PM

I guess, singleplayer diplomacy won't be added ever. Iw don't like the idea of SP diplomacy, and if they don't like it, you can say what you want.

Particle

October 26th, 2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Zerger:
I guess, singleplayer diplomacy won't be added ever. Iw don't like the idea of SP diplomacy, and if they don't like it, you can say what you want. Sad but I tend to agree with you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

+ IW: They are interacting with their fans
- IW: They won't listen, if they don't like something.

Kristoffer O

October 26th, 2003, 11:56 PM

Actually I am intrigued by SP diplomacy, but I'm not sure that we can do it in a satisfying way.

Kristoffer O

October 26th, 2003, 11:57 PM

And yes, we do listen, but we do not always act on what we hear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Pocus

October 27th, 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by -Storm-:
We must be very patient. IW is propably working very hard on the mod tools, and on the first patch right now. ahah, you are lured you too, as all of us. The 3 of IW are in the Bahamas right now. The replies you get from them in the forum are made by the dom AI on impossible.

MStavros

October 27th, 2003, 11:42 AM

Kristoffer O

October 28th, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by MStavros:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Actually I am intrigued by SP diplomacy, but I'm not sure that we can do it in a satisfying way. Yes you can. Don't drop this idea. <hr /></blockquote>Thank you for keeping faith in us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gandalf Parker

October 29th, 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Actually I am intrigued by SP diplomacy, but I'm not sure that we can do it in a satisfying way. For a full menu Version I can see a long wait. How about some small steps?

Can I get added a friendship boost with an AI by giving it gifts? I understand the problems with magic items but I dont think gold/gems can be abused so maybe they could count for more. Not sure what forumula the AI works with for deciding to attack me or not but if there is a variable there which represents MY race then maybe some pluses wont mess things up much.

Kristoffer O

October 29th, 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by -Storm-:
Always. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I hope that the strategic AI & Diplomacy are the first things on your list Kris. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Apart from moddability, quicker battle replays, better demo SP UI, other colours in unit display, bug fixes, castle battle results and balance changes that limits the impact of supercombatants? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Actually there are lots of things that people want. I barely remember half of them anymore. Most urgent will be dealt with first (suspected bugs).

It might be a good idea if someone summed up problems and issues (without judging what is important and not - we do not want personal opinions on MP/SP focus or whether diplomacy or modding is most important - that is for the forum discussions).

st.patrik

October 29th, 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by -Storm-:
Always. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I hope that the strategic AI & Diplomacy are the first things on your list Kris. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Apart from moddability, quicker battle replays, better demo SP UI, other colours in unit display, bug fixes, castle battle results and balance changes that limits the impact of supercombatants? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Actually there are lots of things that people want. I barely remember half of them anymore. Most urgent will be dealt with first (suspected bugs).

It might be a good idea if someone summed up problems and issues (without judging what is important and not - we do not want personal opinions on MP/SP focus or whether diplomacy or modding is most important - that is for the forum discussions). <hr /></blockquote>Your wish is my command. Here's a trial list of things that have been mentioned (in no particular order):

� strategic AI
� SP diplomacy
� increased battle replay functionality (various speeds, etc.)
� castle battle results
� more than one god for each nation
� darker colours/textures in unit displays
� newbie demo 'get started' stuff
� bug fixes
� moddability
� alignment of stats in unit info screens

anything I'm missing?

thought: we should probably make this its own thread...

MStavros

October 29th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Hehe. It is always good, if you have to do something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Anyways, I guess the most important things are: fixing bugs, upgrading the strategic AI, mod tools and diplomacy.

st.patrik

October 29th, 2003, 05:07 PM

I made a new topic for the list. If there is anything important that I missed please post it here (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=74&t=000203). Thanks.

Mortifer

October 29th, 2003, 07:07 PM

Sure patrik, this is a diplomacy thread originally. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

-Storm-

October 30th, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MStavros:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Actually I am intrigued by SP diplomacy, but I'm not sure that we can do it in a satisfying way. Yes you can. Don't drop this idea. <hr /></blockquote>Thank you for keeping faith in us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>Always. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I hope that the strategic AI & Diplomacy are the first things on your list Kris. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ October 29, 2003, 12:25: Message edited by: -Storm- ]