eh crap... I'll read that later

ROFL. I warned you!!

I wasted the ENTIRE morning up until 2pm today writing that :p

Now I'm off to be constructive to society for the remaining 4 hours I'm here for.

And I thought I held the record for long posts... 8O

Nope, that was gone as soon as I signed up on the forums.

I have no issues whatsoever on writing novels to explain my thoughts. I try to make sure that I get my point across, regardless if it's right/wrong or good/bad idea, or whatever/notwhatever. Being thorough helps to show what I'm thinking and why I'm thinking it.


If you do read through all of it, let me know what you think. I'm really interested to see what other people had envisioned for diplomacy. Now is also a good time to discuss any of the quirks of BoTF1 diplomacy system that made you frown.

I could go point for point disproving many of your theories, but especially after reading through enough I see the basic problem. You've made a logical error of assuming that something which is HELPFUL to diplomatic relations--i.e. trust--is also NECESSARY. Trust is not a necessity for diplomacy, but merely helps relationships along. The only actual necessity for diplomacy is the ability to communicate in some form.

The Cold War is in fact a perfect example of this and several other points I have made. It was far more than "a very shakey non-aggression treaty" as you put it, but a constant diplomatic back-and-forth. Have you ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Bay of Pigs Invasion, or Iran, or Korea, or Vietnam, or the Berlin Airlift? These are all various acts of diplomacy--and sometimes failed diplomacy--in a larger effort to prevent the spread of influence of the other side. Do you think the Soviet Union abandoned shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba because it trusted the United States? Of course not. Do you think the United States now offers to help Iran develop a nuclear program because it trusts the Iranian government? Do you think military alliances among European colony powers and Native American civilizations emerged because the two sides trusted one another? Of course not. Think also of Deep Space 9 when the Dominion was truly introduced. The idea was proposed--admittedly in a simulation--that Romulus would need to enter into a survival alliance with the Bajorans if the Federation were to ally with the Dominion, despite the fact that the Romulans had no actual relationship at all with the Bajorans. Trust would not be essential to any of these treaties. I don't need to trust you in order to trade with you, nor is trust the deciding factor if things are bad enough. You say that it's necessary to trust--even when things are utterly dejected--that whomever you invite over will improve rather than worsen, but this is not even the case. Desperation can be a far more powerful motivator than trust.

Now, I'll admit that entering treaties without first establishing a strong level of trust can lead to problems. It's at least been hinted at that the Cardassians initially were invited to Bajor in hopes of solving some of the rampant famine, disease, and such, and look how that turned out. However, this is only one more reason that such options should be included in a game seeking a realistic feel. This could even open up interesting espionage possibilities, such as accepting pseudo-members (the Yridians, in love with the Cardassians, apply for Federation membership, the Federation naively accepts, and now the Cardassians have a powerful spy network built into the Federation's core infrastructure, whoops), if a sufficient means to incorporate it without great headaches could be found. Following your suggestion, however, this possibility is simply rejected.

Even if we follow your train of thought assuming that trust is a requirement for all levels of peaceful diplomatic advancement, you're looking at it through very egocentric glasses. You define trust in static terms without taking into consideration that many other races may not have any qualms about trust. What about the Edo, or the Cyth...whatever that screwed with what passes for Barclay's brain to bring the Enterprise to the center of the galaxy? For the Ferengi, no one trusts anyone but hunger for profit; they wouldn't care at all about waiting for trust to develop if there's money to be made. For the Klingons, actions speak louder than words; sitting around not attacking them and trading with them wouldn't increase trust, whereas fighting side-by-side or defending them would. Now, races like the Vulcans might insist on waiting as you suggest, getting to know one another and developing peaceful relations gradually, but this is only one possibility and would much more accurately be reflected by an individual AI personality for this race than a blanket rule for all AI personas. We must also consider that first contact, as shown by the various series, often involves more than just beaming down, saying hi, then heading back home. First contact instances have often involved a starship or two spending days or even weeks interacting with the alien race, which most certainly would help with the development of trust. The level of trust developed would depend on the actions of the crew(s), the overall cultural behaviors of both races/powers involved, and any number of other factors which could be generically represented in programming by a random variable. If a minor race, for instance, enjoyed a peaceful first contact with the Federation while facing tense relations with the Klingons, they may very well be interested in chancing skipping basic trade relations and jumping to a mutual defense treaty. They wouldn't even need to be under potential threat depending on the attitude of the race, how interested/capable they are with military defense, and of course how well first contact goes. A race such as the Caldonians may not be interested in trying to field a military and instead be interested in signing a defense agreement with a larger power simply so that they don't have to be bothered. Your suggestions so far have used a very generic, human definition of "trust" and "trust development" for application to a galaxy of diverse races.

What strikes me as a far better idea than arbitrarily limiting treaty availability (and, yes, writing in that an AI will never accept a treaty defeats the entire purpose of having the ability to propose the treaty, essentially taking that power away) would be creating a formula which can be used to calculate all applicable variables. It's far from a random "1 or 2" scenario which you have accused me of proposing. Whether an AI would accept a treaty or not would instead be decided by plugging the variables into a set up formula, say something like:

Cultural Attitude(time spent peacefully interacting + morale of citizens + morale change if accept + morale change if deny + Attitude towards Proposer - Positive relations with other powers/races + Current Disasters/Problems + (Galactic Rank of Proposer - Galactic Rank of Self) + Benefits of Treaty - Costs of Treaty + Sympathetic Actions of Proposer + Tone - Hindrance to Current Overall Objective + (Technology Level of Proposer - Technology Level of Self, although this could be redundant with Galactic Rank) - Past Treaty Violations of Proposer w/Self and Others + Treaties Upheld by Proposer + Random String, to preserve some measure of unpredictability in the game and catch all the other little things that could happen...) and whatever other variables might be of use, with varying weights applied to the variables. The Cultural Attitude may also be the weighting variable to apply differently to different variables within the equation, but I wanted to express that pretty much everything should be affected by the Cultural Attitude of the AI. If the total equals a certain number or higher, then the answer would be "Yes."

A system such as this would seem far more sensible to me than locking treaty progression to a chain of events, and it would offer the players far more room to play with strategy, development of relations, and potentially each individual could customize the AIs to their own particular desires by adjusting the weights. The last of these suggestions may well be cheating, but if that's what the particular individual wants to do who are any of us to say they can't in their own home?

You say that I contradict myself, but this is far from the case. I instead refer to the many different cases for how overall development and power--military, scientific, economic, diplomatic, and whatever else you could name--impact the relations between nations. A powerful nation is going to behave differently to another powerful nation than it would towards a weaker one. (Do you think the Soviet Union would have cared at all if Israel objected to the placing of nuclear weapons in Cuba? Of course not. They cared because the US cared.) Moderate nations react differently to other moderate nations than they do weak ones, but not in the same way that they would react to a powerful nation. Even weak nations interact differently with moderate-sized nations than they do truly powerful nations. Nations possessing strong military power in spite of weak economic power behave differently towards strong economic powers lacking in military strength. Development of a nation (Galactic Rank as I generally categorized it in the "equation," although it might need to be broken apart into the separate categories of strength) very much plays a part in the interaction between nations. These are the things I point out when I mention Austria, Ethiopia, China, and the like, and I'm not talking solely about membership proposals. Do you think Ethiopia would reject an offered mutual defense treaty from the US just because a developed trading relationship hasn't been formalized? That would be absurd. Why would the US offer such a treaty? There is such a thing as benevolence, or actively seeking to ensure that smaller, less powerful groups aren't overrun by stronger bullies. There's a concept of simply doing the right thing to protect others, which so far you seem to have overlooked.

With the Vorta, yes, an exception can be made. That's quick and easy. Now, what about the Vulcans and the Federation? After all, the humans apparently really got out into space because the Vulcans helped them. Or the Andorians, who were also founding members of the Federation? How do we figure in the Remans with the Romulans, if we bother with them at all? Basically, what's the point in having to create a rule that needs so many different exceptions in order to be canon when an alternative can be found? The Vorta are but one rather glaring problem--which have already inspired a considerable deal of debate on this site--among plenty of others.

Since I have plans, I have to finish up. Last point: Surrender is not subjugation, at least not for all races. Surrender is a choice, and, yes, even your bank teller has a choice. It may not be a pleasant choice, but it is a choice. She would, of course, not be held responsible for stealing the money because the level of coercion being employed is quite high, high enough to offer an excuse according to our own particular set of legal codes. From a larger, galactic power standpoint, the coerced party has several additional options: continue to fight and potentially die, seek outside support, fleeing the territory and resettling elsewhere would be a great option if it could be included, hope for some disaster to turn the tide against the invading force or convince the invader to accept a peace settlement, potentially have faith in their deity to intervene on their behalf, submit and form "La Resistance" a la France under Nazi occupation, or simply acknowledge defeat and hope for the best from the winner. Some races no doubt would object to accepting defeat adamently, but others may be more receptive--depending on what happens after surrender and the cultural tendencies of the submitting group.

Now, I need to hurry since I'm already running late, which means no time to proofread. Sorry for any mistakes.

The Vorta discussion:

The Vorta are similiar to what the Remans are to the romulans or the Vulcans/Anticans/etc.. are to the Federation, in some way.

The Federation in BOTF2 are actually the Humans, who were able to expand. Some time ago i said that as an option this might be ok: that an member planet already has joined you at the start of the game. But only as an option. You don;t want people to be forced to have a minor.

Personally i would put the Vorta as an minor race really favored to the Dominion.

Because if you give the Dominion the Vorta in such a way. Why not give the Federation the Vulcans and the Romulans the Remans? You can do the same with the Klingons in form of the tribbles.. eh i mean Chalnoth or something. Just my 2 cents but please remember this game needs to stay balanced.

A random galaxy is exactly what a random galaxy is. Races are placed on random locations. Now the Dominion might ally with the Vulcans and the Federation with the Vorta. What is the suprise if the Dominion always has the Vorta?

Obviously a StarTrek map will be made so this will be more true in that map. I will make one this month or something. In that the Dominion will be a bit closer to the others. Because making a >90% realistic one will ruïn gameplay for the Dominion. You would be sitting there 200-500 turns doing nothing but expanding and grabbing minors here and there...the horror.

Wormholes:

What if you won't be able to see these things quick? I mean only when you are standing on them and have enough scanners? A secret wormhole might be cool, the enemy don;t know where you came from, still he knows that it couldn't be done by warpengines . Also that you might get messages that reports came in about a wormhole somewhere in those sectors, if you have inspected the sectors in that area a few times.

Might be stupid this idea and not good for the game, but it was just a suggestion.[/b]

Well it might be ok having the Vorta, Vulcans, Remans, and...Tribbles...always be found close to their respective Empire on canon and semi-canon maps.

We could set it that on canon maps, these races are with a eg. 5 square radius of the Empires homesystem.

Then on semi-canon maps, that limit could be increased to perhaps 10 squares.

We'll have to think of a race that would go with the Cardassians though. What about the Breen?

...

As for Wormholes, I thought this was how we were doing it anyway?

I thought that to be able to discover Wormholes - ALL Wormholes - you would first have to set a sufficiently advanced Science vessel to perform a detailed scan of the sector?

You will already gain a small amount of reseach points from scanning sectors, and finding Wormholes and other anomalys would be an additional bonus to this.

I agree that this would probably be a great equation to diplomacy. But now more equations are required to determine all of these variables. This would make a great AI, but the real question is: is it feasible? I don't know, so I suggested something simple. I want to make sure that the AI does not go beyond the scope and complexity of this game, which I might add is being made by volunteers. In lieu of a huge complex equation, something a tad simplier might be warranted. Something that would be, in general, a good rule of thumb for typical diplomatic interaction. I know each race is a special case. But trying to make each race act in a way that is fitting of the race in canon could turn the Diplomacy AI into something so complex that it'd become a problem.

I'd really like to see a Surrender option, but it would HAVE to result in the involved systems being subjugated. I don't agree with your reasoning. Simply put: if you invade with troop transports to take over the system, the system remains populated. This must mean that the citizens surrendered. Otherwise, the system's population would fight until the enemy is defeated or until the population reaches zero. So essentially... you are telling me there is no such thing as subjugation.

BigBaddie: You are now citizens of my empire! This troop transport is here to enforce order here! Work for me or die!

Choice A for Minor: Ok. (now subjugated)
Choice B for Minor: No way. (death - population now 0)

How is surrendering NOT subjugation? Because it's a choice? Then how would ANYONE become subjugated?

Answers.com says Subjugate is "To bring under control; conquer. See synonyms at defeat. To make subservient; enslave."

If I force you to do something against your will, are you not subjugated? If I point a gun to your head and say "Do suchandsuch now," you still technically have a choice. But the two choices available are not really choices. You can refuse and die, or you can do what I am commanding you to do, even if it is against your will.

So, the way I see it is as follows: add a surrender option which puts the involved systems under the subjugation status.

Or, remove the subjugation status entirely from the game so that all system invasions removes the population from the system if successful. And frankly, this option is not very realistic.

There isn't much of a grey issue here - even for the Mizarians. However, I might add that the Mizarians suffer less of a morale hit under subjugation, if not a positive morale bonus. Also, I would find the Mizarians more prone to accept surrenders than other races.

I do have a question: are minor races going to be an option? If so, how are the Dominion going to be without the Vorta? Perhaps the Dominion should begin with 2 systems at the start of the game (theirs and the Vorta). Since they are supposed to have large fleets, I suggest increasing their build times a tad to account for the fact that they begin with two systems. That way, if the player wishes to play without minors, the Dominion don't get screwed out of some of their special structures.

If the Major/Minor thing carries over to the other races (Feds/Vulcans, Roms/Rems, etc), then I'd leave the Dom's build times alone as now everyone has access to the same benefit (and weakness if the minor gets conqured). It could be an interesting feature.

First the simple things:

1) The issue of giving minor races to the empires has already been discussed and rejected in the forums, though off the top of my head I can't remember where. Granted, this is a separate game being developed by someone else, but I was under the impression that the same decisions would be used. If minor races were to be given to majors in the beginning, some very careful thought would have to be given to how this would be balanced out--should it be historical, random, or perhaps simply for gameplay?

2) Surrender is very well a choice that does not need to automatically lead to subjugation. Your analogy of gunpoint is rather inaccurate for a nation. I've already detailed numerous alternatives a government would have, all of which go outside of your "Submit or Die" dichotomy, so I see no need to repeat them. Even in your "gun to the head" scenario, though, we can come up with alternatives to "Submit or Die," such as attempting to knock the gun away, pretend to submit until I can kick you in the balls and take the gun, attempt to dodge out of the path of the bullet which you theoretically will fire, bide my time in hopes that another sniper will shoot you in the head...

Instead of pursuing these options, the victim chooses to cut their losses and simply give up. Historically, numerous wars have exchanged land with little to no military occupying force suddenly moving in, especially when smaller, less advanced regions are involved--such as the colonial era or World War I. Surrender does not by definition equal subjugation, especially when you take into consideration the myriad of different cultures involved. You're making the same necessary vs. sufficient logical error.


Now, as for the equation, this need not be complicated at all. Granted, your idea of limited diplomatic options may be simpler on paper, but it is too simplified and would require too many exceptions. Computers can handle equations rather easily compared to humans. Also, consider how difficult it could be to add in new minors/majors should future developments allow that. With your proposed system, you'd have to write in or possibly rewrite the various exceptions to diplomacy for all affected races, whereas a dynamic equation makes the process of adding races diplomatically exceptionally easy. All you need to do is program a new sub-AI with weights to apply, which itself can be very easy. Think of this:

1) You yourself have proposed using various alternate incentives in negotiation, meaning that they will need to be coded to have certain values. (Peace has a value of say 10 whereas 100 deuterium has a "point value" of 1 perhaps.) The exact variables to be included could be discussed and decided upon with the help of the community, and already each variable will have a "Point Value." There's your basic equation set up already.

2) Each AI race will need its own weights. On the surface, this may seem problematic, but keep in mind that you have a few hundred races to program and getting close to 2,000 community members. Once a basic weighting system is conceived (say a multiplier of .5 for relations with other races and 1 for Technological advancement of the other power or whatever), the grunt work of typing the values in for weights could easily be delegated to the community members, especially if someone were to go through the process of writing down what the values should be (or the range of variables) for the different races. An Excel spreadsheet, perhaps, could be used to allow the community to type in these variables--not even one race per community member--and then the data could be pulled from the spreadsheet into the actual program, either via a simple copy and paste or a macro if anyone is able to program one quickly. All you'd need to do is tell the program where to put the info, or where to look for the info if you're importing. Trained monkeys can type numbers into a spreadsheet, and I think that we have people here with at least that level of intelligence.

This could be further simplified by putting one spreadsheet on the website, something that members can pull up and type into, with each race listed. If necessary, perhaps a basic set of instructions could also be available. You could also then have the community checking to be sure that information is typed in correctly, as I'm sure at least some community members would be happy to do. It might have to be "locked" each time someone is actively typing info into it to prevent confusion, but this can be done as well. If absolutely necessary, you could also simply have a general spreadsheet set up, the races not yet done, and people could sign up to enter the information, then send the product to whomever is collecting the data. Suddenly, the "massive job" can be done quite easily within perhaps a few days, and the only real work the programmer(s) will need to do is set up the means of community participation and import the final data.

Some trial and error may be required to determine the appropriate variables and weights, but with a dynamic equation these modifications can be made easily. You also wouldn't have to worry about having people whining about how they don't think this particular race is realistic or right because they could simply fix it themselves. Never underestimate the value of saving yourself the headache of dealing with upset/irritated people.

What you described here is someone or some people who are under subjugation and are revolting against the higher "authority" that is present. For a simple example, if a couple men holds a room full of people hostages, those people are now subjugated. But, if they bid their time, they can revolt against them and take them out or force them to run. I agree with this scenario, but disagree with your conclusion.

At the start of this "occupation," you and everyone else present has surrendered to the "invading force" - in this case, the two men. At this point, they can demand you to do anything and chances are you'll do it. Definition: Subjugated.

20 minutes later, both men are quite distracted. Perhaps they are both trying to shove some cash/valueables in a bag and have placed their weapons on the floor. Now is the oppotrune time to strike back and "revolt".

I'm going to assume that systems will be able to revolt against the empire they are part of if their system's morale is low enough. This occured in BoTF1 all the time, and made diplomacy and morale important factors in the game.



The American Revolutionary War itself is a perfect example to be used. It involved a large area of populated land that contained a population that felt disenfranchised with their governing country and revolted. The War commenced once the governing country (England) attempted to put a stop to it. In game terms - a system revolts against your countrol and claims independence (the colonies). You send troop transports in to restore the peace (England).

Had England been the victor, the colonies would have definitely been subjugated without question. But instead of America surrendering, it was England's armies that surrendered instead. In game terms, with the surrender a non-aggression treaty was established between America and England on the condition that England granted control of the colonies to the Colonists aka - Americans (which is convinent because that just so happened to be where the Americans lived).

Now, in the game, typically battles will continue until all forces involved are destroyed. Perhaps there should be a chance for military units to surrender instead of being destroyed, although, from the point of view of the game that's the same thing. You've lost a military unit, regardless if it surrendered or was destroyed.

The French were involved as "allies" for lack of a better term. I see the French involvement in the Revolutionary War as a War Pact more than an alliance. As part of the War Pact, French ships were able to utilize American ports for their ships. Once the war is over, the relationship between America and the French changed to reflect the peacetime. No longer did either country have to worry about war, and diplomacy between the two countries countinued. In this example, the alliance between the countries was maintaned, but it didn't have to.

The Americans could have said "Thanks for the help, we're all set now, goodbye" or they could have made a stronger alliance (like... a real alliance... not just military affiliation) which is what actually occured. War Pacts are designed to be temporary, and are designed to be "Oh ****, we need help" treaties that can be offered at any time. The American Revolution is a PERFECT example of War Pacts at work, and is how I'd like to see them implimented. And afterwards, both sides decided to continue the treaty and improve on it.



I must admit that I do not recall any land being transfered at the end of WWI. Maybe some of the land around the Rhine river or something, but I don't recall. However, I do very much recall the occupation of Germany between the Allies and the USSR at the end of WWII. Ya know... that whole Berlin Wall thing....

The USSR (and the allies as well, to an extent, if only to maintain military bases near USSR territory - yay Cold War) occupied Germany for many years. While I am not too sure on the details as I wasn't technically alive and history class didn't exactly go into the details of the occupations of whether the occupations for each side were brutal or not. But irregardless, that is the definition of subjugation. BUT - just because someone (or people) are subjugated DOES NOT mean that their attitude is neccessarily negitive.

In a game sense, a subjugated system's morale can still rise and fall. Perhaps the morale of a subjugated system could even go up to Loyal. Again, this would depend on many factors, that would be carried out in the diplomatic process. Perhaps this loyalty can come from a variety of different reasons. There seems to be a lot of Stargate buffs around, and the Gould's relationship with the Jafar is a PERFECT example of a group of people who are loyal to the very people that are subjugating them. You can try to describe the situation however you want, but that is, by definition, exactly what is occuring.

I'd like to continue the discussion about real events that has happened in history, but I'm at work and have wasted way too much time already.



Yes it does, by definition. Answers.com: "To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion." In a military sense, it says, "To surrender is when soldiers give up fighting and become prisoners of war, either as individuals or when ordered to by their officers."

Now, we could get more and more detailed with this and continue on to conditional and unconditional surrender. But, I think that needlessly complicates diplomacy even more, which is the main reason why I disagree with your diplomacy ideas. Even if a more simple diplomacy system was put in such as mine (or left alone as diplomacy is already a part of Supremacy), it simplifies Diplomacy to the point where an instruction manual just for it isn't needed.

Sure, people like things to be realistic. But diplomacy is definitely not realistically simple. If the system becomes too complicated, then it's not any fun. My idea is essentially to "fake" some sort of realism so that the races act in a rather realistic fashion, yet keeps it simple so that the user does not get confused on how to increase diplomatic relations with the races they do encounter.

Also, with such a lengthy equation, each part of the equation weighs MUCH less to the overall whole. For example, if you are much more advanced, then the reactions you get from other races should be much different than if you someone who is less advanced, as you described. However, the "level of advancement" is but just one part of that entire diplomacy equation that is attempting to make a decision. How much weight should that part of the equation have? Ok, so maybe we add a modifier to that part of the equation.

If I give a race 1000 units or resources, will it affect my diplomacy? Or will it make a difference at all? To help empires that are more technologically advanced to have a great impression on a race, we added a modifier. But my current tecnology level is slightly below the galaxy's "average" level, and it's getting modified... perhaps to the point that my gift is irrelevant. And we could keep throwing modifiers around through the entire equation... and it will get to the point that the modifiers do next to nothing and leave us with the same problem as before, or trivializes the rest of the equation so that parts of it are irrelvant. Keeping it simple makes it easier for the programmers and the users. You want it to APPEAR to be realistic while being SIMPLE for the user to USE the diplomacy in the game.

If it's too complicated, it won't be used - which would be a major blow to Federation players.

I have more I could add, but no time :/

If you wish to quote definitions, then so be it:

Surrender (both definitions according to Merriam-Webster) - to give (oneself) over to something (as an influence)

Subjugate - : to bring under control and governance as a subject : CONQUER
2 : to make submissive : SUBDUE


Obviously, these are two very different definitions and will never be equal, though they can be complimentary to each other. Note, however, that surrender is simply giving in, it need not mean you have been beaten to the point of death and simply unable to do anything else. Perhaps it could be, but it does not HAVE to be.

-->What you described here is someone or some people who are under subjugation and are revolting against the higher "authority" that is present.

You are simply incorrect. You assume that the moment a threat appears, the threatened must instantaneously choose to give up and hence become "subjugated." You neglect the fact that, by definition of surrender, the surrendering party must make a conscious choice to allow themselves to be under someone else's control. Subjugation does not need involve the victim to consciously choose to give in. You jump from Threat->Aftermath without leaving room for the possibility of Threat->Response->Aftermath.

Your analogy of a bank robbery is again insufficient to relate to a struggle between nations. You neglect the fact that the people in the bank would have to see the gunmen coming to compare to a national struggle, and on a national level would have the option to leave or seek additional, unaffiliated gunmen to attack the base of the gunmen. You also neglect the fact that controlling one part of a bank (or empire) with military force does not constitute whole subjugation--I may control your capital, but that doesn't mean I run your entire nation, especially if the leaders manage to flee the city/world before my armies take it. Also, surrendering and offering the gunmen to take control of one part of the bank for the rest of eternity is simply preposterous. Surrender is an agreement between leaders, except individual soldiers on the battlefield, which we are not discussing at the moment. A bank robbery, at least as you put it forth, is simply not analogous and drastically threatens to oversimplify the situation. You also again jump from point A to C without examining B and neglecting the possibility of reaching D, the process of how we move from a military threat to possession of land. You assume simply that threat equals military domination, and this is incorrect.

-->The American Revolutionary War itself is a perfect example to be used.

I am uncertain why you chose to use this, but I do thank you for doing so. You've provided a perfectly explained example of precisely what I'm saying. All I need do is ask the simple question of, when the British forces surrendered their territorial possessions to the Revolutionaries, did these territories become subjugated? Remember, John Adams himself said that at least a third of the total colonists were Loyalists to the British Crown, another third neutral, leaving only one third of the colonists actively striving to "claim independence." In many instances, particularly in the southern colonies, Loyalist factions actively engaged in warfare against the Revolutionary forces. Given this, we can hardly conclude that the Revolutionary War was simply a "just struggle for independence" orchestrated by a "united people" against a "tyrannical government." The people were far from united, many did not want independence, and the territory did actually belong to Great Britain prior to the conflict. After the British surrender, however, the colonies were transferred to the United States and did not fall under military subjugation. Your example only lends further support to my point that surrender does not automatically HAVE to equal subjugation.

-->I must admit that I do not recall any land being transfered at the end of WWI.

Read the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, particularly those pertaining to border establishment.

-->However, I do very much recall the occupation of Germany between the Allies and the USSR at the end of WWII.

This point is superfluous. The entire point of this example seems to be only to lend support to the idea of a potential outcome which we have already agreed is a potential outcome. The issue here is not whether surrender CAN become subjugation, but whether surrender MUST become subjugation. This entire part of your argument is redundant.

-->Also, with such a lengthy equation, each part of the equation weighs MUCH less to the overall whole.

Do you know what weights are? I admit that some discussion must be put into determining the "correct" values, and more than a touch of trial and error will probably be involved, but you'll have an entire community testing it out routinely to handle the fine-tuning. This system will also take out the need for "perfection" of programming as anyone who thinks it is off can fix it themselves. The method you propose would require the entire burden to fall on those developing the program, whereas this way the burden of determining the values would have a host of over 1700 people to make the determinations. Your method is simply too static and limiting.

-->For example, if you are much more advanced, then the reactions you get from other races should be much different than if you someone who is less advanced, as you described.

So you have switched your position on this? ("The only way empire strength should play a roll in diplomatic decisions is if there is HUGELYGIANT difference in strengths.") You seem to be trying to argue that my system wouldn't work because this would not be represented well enough (though obviously that is what weights are for, and equations can easily be manipulated if you feel that it must be put somewhere else, perhaps even turning this particular value into a weight itself to multiply everything against).

-->Sure, people like things to be realistic. But diplomacy is definitely not realistically simple.

Then you have abandoned your prior statement?

-->my ideas are to provide as much realism as possible

While it is certainly possible that your system of limiting treaty progression could turn out to be simpler than writing an equation (which I find rather hard to believe, but for the sake of argument I'll simply let that go), especially if no additional races are allowed to be added once the game is put forth, I feel that the limitation would severely damage the gameplay. Your treaty solution would also only solve one aspect of the AI--whether it would accept/possibly propose treaties--whereas a formula could be much more easily adapted to make other decisions as well, such as resource investment, military actions, and possibly even research. Your limitations on treaties simply relegates the gameplay to an even more unrealistic style than that of the original game's AI, and may very well make the diplomatic side completely lackluster and archaic in a time of increasing innovation. Granted, this is not a game seeking to be sold to the public for millions of dollars, but I assume that the developers would still like their game to be at least SOMEWHAT respected. If you're going to do something, do it right or don't waste the time.

Though I am pleased to see you abandoning the staunch defense previously based on an error in overstating a sufficiency qualifier, I'm seeing the same basic flaw in your logic showing up again. You note one potentiality--that a surrendered system could need to be subjugated via military force--and turn it into the sole possibility. Your own examples have undermined this.

Hi guys,

Just a question, but when this discussion is over, would someone be so kind as to give me (and undoubtedly a lot of others) a detailed summary of what's been said and agreed upon. I've read quite some posts here and there, but I realy can't be bothered to spend an entire day to read the whole thread.

Thnx!

8O I stopped reading them after they got passed 3 minutes long. no offense guys, but really get the ideas out here. if you want to debate each others thoughts and suggestions start a new thread about them. I think each of you have good points. As well great ideas, but they are all getting lost in the sea of debates and reasoning. I think in most cases people like the follow the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple silly) rule. Let mstrobel be the determining factor of going in to extreme posting.



looks like he himself has already giving up trying to follow this until later.

Honestly, I'm really confused.

I know what I'm thinking, but I don't understand Ritter's points very well... and I'm getting the feeling he's not understanding what I'm trying to convey either.



This is exactly what I'm thinking right now. And it's also what I wanted to avoid. I wanted some *simple* rules for diplomacy to follow, and was mearily suggested them.

I'm a pretty fierce debater, and I'll even defend positions and ideas that I don't neccessarily agree with if there is point that can be defended.

While I enjoy trying to keep things as realistic as possible, this is a video game. It needs to be simple.

You got that right . Generally, though, I'm a strong proponent of the KISS philosophy. Simplicity may not always be the most realistic, but that's not necessarily a problem as long as it's logical and believable.

I plan on going back and reading this thread sometime later this week or maybe on Saturday, when I can give it the focus it deserves.

Ha, in a nutshell... this is *exactly* what I'm asking for.

Greetings! I'm new to this postings so bear with me here! I have read this whole thing and it seems one thing is mising a bit... why not have a type of "engagement" directly with whatever ambassador from whatever empire is on your homeworld or that you have made contact with. A bit more personal that way. ( but could be a pain for programing) But here is an example.

You have encountered the klingons in sector ****. **** They have dispatched an ambassador to discuss details for surrender ___ or for offical diplomatic relations__ or to estlablish trade routes... ect..

during your first meeting, you make a serious blunder and insult the ambassador causing him to storm out screaming in klingon about reprisals.

something kinda like Matress layed out for blackholes ect....

Could catch all of us off guard as the responces would be generated by the AI (unless your in a multiplayer game).

Just a thought!

[ EDIT Nov 08 2006]

Went back through and reread this whole thing except for the last half of page 4 and page 5. then any long statements made afterwards.

I Am a simple thinker. I could be as complex but it would make me insane trying to type with two fingers everything that was in my mind. so here is my simple suggestion:


A LONG Discussion was done about the AI and dealing with treaties and such. Concider this! While your busy yak yak yaking to whatever major through your ambassador, you Intel is busy doing other things.

No one has mentioned the fact that Intel works seperately from the rest and does not "share" it's information to it's diplomats to often. Therefor while you are busy trying to make a deal of whatever kind your Intel finds out that the major/ whoever, is actually planing against you. Such as the Cardiassions do as soon as you respond to a first meeting with them. (in old botf anyway).

Here is an example of what I mean...
-----------
I am Major (Rom) and I am talking with Major {AI operated} or Major {player operated} They are offering me a treaty of any kind.... while I am being diplomatic and loving what they tell me, My intel finds out that they are actually planning a major attack as soon as my guard is down. My Intel passes this to me... Would I be stupid and not listen to them? Would I also just stop the talks? NO and NO... I as a player would not wish to alert my opponent to what is on my mind.. BUT I could take this information to the table without tipping my hand. It would be to my advantage to do so as I could end up with a better deal.. Or not.. Or vice versa..

NOW.. The same Intel persons may have been given FALSE information as a test to see if I was spying ect ect.... So adding something that sounded natural might tip off my opponent that I have an idea of his plans or that I did in fact recieve the fake information, which in due course Could be used against me!

Does this make sence?... It does to me.... and I didn't even have to write an entire 10 book novel set to convey it! lol

My point is that when you write anything dealing with treaties ect. Intel must be concidered into the big picture....

I only know this to be true due to being a military man for a number of years and having friends who really were diplomats and aides in Washington D.C. and at a few Embassys...

Remember the OLD RULE.. "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer"

Winter..

The original BotF kept diplomacy and intelligence fairly separate, and I plan to deviate from that model quite a bit. I envision a multifaceted model of inter-species relations that includes diplomacy (direct interaction), intelligence, and politics (internal and external affairs). It makes sense that these facets should all draw from a common information network in addition to tracking and utilizing specialized data. The details of your relationships with other civilizations should be shared between "departments" in your empire. It absolutely makes sense that your intelligence division would keep your diplomats apprised of its findings. Likewise, internal and external affairs would want to be aware of what the other empires are up to both inside and outside your borders so that they can respond accodingly.

Question:
How do you determine what the other player is thinking? By that, how does the game know that so your "intel" can inform you of it?

I guess some simple code for the AI could be possible. Essentially, once the AI decides to attack, perhaps delay it for 3-5 turns to give player intel a chance to be warned of it before the order is executed. I find that somewhat lame, though as it could handicap the computer. Essentially, the computer would be assigning orders 3-5 turns later than the AI wanted to, essentially making the computer 5 turns behind the rest of the human players in the game. As such, I'm not too thrilled about the idea.

But the even better question is how does the game know that a human player is about to attack you? Short of computers suddenly having pshycic abilities and spontaneously developing automatically super-advanced AI that doesn't exist anywhere in the world, this is an impossibility.

At best you could have your intelligence report where their fleets are positioned relative to your territory and/or ships. The computer can do that. And I think that's as much advanced warning as you'd be able to get.

It could perhaps even be capable of reporting to you the destination of an enemy fleet that would cross into your territory. For example, if a player assigns a group of Warbirds to travel to the Sol system, with a high enough intel the Fed player could be informed of "X number of Romulan starships have plotted a course for Sol" or some type deal. But again, you don't find out until the invasion is essentially underway. But depending on how computer movement is programmed, this could be an issue. If the computer evaluates what it can see every turn and assigns brand new movement orders every turn, even if it happens to be a straight line, then this type of "intel" is impossible to program as the computer won't know Sol is a destination until the turn the computer fleet arives.

Not to mention that a human player could simply assign ship movement one turn at a time to counter-act this type of intel report from ever being generated.

So... I think we're left with "Hey player, our intel has detected X Warbirds and Y Battle Cruisers in sector Z, which is about W sectors away from the Zomgwhatever System." That's about as much reliable warning as you'll be able to get, I think.

The game will never be able to tell you the intentions of an empire because those intentions don't usually exist until orders are being assigned and the turn is processed.

Having said all that, I too would like to see a closer relationship between diplomacy and intelligence. The perfect example is that submarine movie with Sean Connery (Hunt for Red October?) and observe the American ambassador when he speaks with his Russian counterpart during the "crisis" that the Russians have. Granted it's just a movie, but this is what should be occuring as it'd be silly to not inform the ambassador of events if they can provide a diplomatic edge.

Obviously, you won't "know" if the computer player is going to attack. I plan on providing some features like risk analysis and threat assessment. The player should be able to see some sort of list of both positive and negative factors that are affecting their relationships, as well as "observations" that the player should be aware of. Something like this:
A report like this would indicate that a once fruitful relationship has taken a turn for the worse, and clues the player in to the same information that the AI is using to make its decisions. The player isn't explicitly told that the other civilization will attack (it may, it may not), but the player should be prepared for the possibility.

I would say that covers those bases well. I mentioned "false"information as well due to it being a very useful tool. and could be used by both teh A.I. and a human player. And yes I have taken into account the A.I. can not decide what information to give as it can only go by what is programed into it. In the same tokem Live players are just as predictable. (man thats a sad thought but true) I only mentin it to offer a different edge.

I just hope this does not mean that Mstrobel would have to write another 50,000 lines of code! lol Not good... lol

Well, alot of that code has to be written anyway, as it will be needed for the AI opponents. This just lets the player take advantage of analysis that's already being done. Civ4 does something similar, and that's what gave the me the idea.

Ahh excellent. Was also thinking... (might be stupid here) On Occasion.. ( as in not the norm...) is it possable that there would be 3rd party talks? like having an arbritrator convene on behalf of both majors?

Regardless if player is against another player or A.I.

I tend to think that implementing mediators would be more trouble than it's worth. It would require a lot of special considerations (changes in relationships, dropped players, etc), and since it's outside the norm, there would be relatively little payoff.

I'd be interested to see what techniques are or maybe employed for the artificial intellignece part of the game, whether trivial AI, such as, opponent has several warbirds on grid XY move Several ships to protect nearest system/strategic point etc.

Or more formal AI techniques, Nueral networks, fuzzy systems, learning classifiers etc. though they may be code heavy and i wouldn't geuss at how long it would take for the computer to compute each turn.

Would be nice to be able to MOD it afterwards though.

Did you do Computer Science Mstrobel??

I've actually been doing a lot of reading on AI techniques lately. In fact, my stack of books from the Game Programming Gems series is sitting right next to me. I've been taking a lot of notes, and I may put together a Wiki to organize my thoughts on the AI. If I do that, I'll make sure you get a link. Also, you're welcome to any of my code (though I don't have any AI code at the moment). In answer to your question, yes, I am in my final year as an Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

On the topic of modding the AI, I've been giving heavy consideration into having a scripted AI using Python. That would make it quite modable.

I want to understand this. IF something like that could be added then some of the things we have been talking "Could" be deployed? Kinda sounds like it...

i've just gone and skipped through this... so sorry if its already been mentioned...

but hows about having Trade Embargo's on other races? bit like on Civ?

How would embargos work? What would their effects be, and what would be required to impose them? I'm open to the idea, but you've gotta propose a concept first .

Well you could be having a great relationship with other major(s) but they do something that gets you upset. So you tell them to either stop, change there ways or you are going to cut off the shipments of food, fuel ect. for so many turns.... if they do not comply then your rating for them can drop ect ect...