I think going the route of Civ3 is a little more extreme then what I was considering. My suggestion is by just giving raw materials and data some kind of weight that is to the equivalent of a credit.

Weight System:
(i.e.) 1 teraquads of data is = to 400 credits, 1 ton of deuterium is = to 1000 credits, and so on.

You can then get a read out of what you have for a net value of your empire.
(i.e.)
Empire Credits: …………………………. 200,000
Credits Spent per Turn: ………………… (000,000)
Credits Earned per Turn: ……………….. (000,000)
Empires’ Fleet Worth: ………………….. (000,000)
Empire Deuterium 2,000,000tons: 2,000,000,000 (credit value)
Empire Data: 40,000.000 teraquads: 1,600,000,000 (credit value)
Empires’ Net Worth: ……………… 5,200,000,000 (credit value)

You can use each of these to barter with other then just using your credits.

@Ritter. Your idea is a very good way to get “Ambassadorsâ€￾ in the game though, but I would assume it would be even more difficult to program then my suggestion perhaps.

I think exchanging goods and techs in lieu of credits is a good idea. It would be easy enough to have a static conversions table (i.e. 1 deuterium = 5 credits). It would also be possible to have those values fluctuate according to supply and demand, though that might unnecessarily complicate things.

Instead of counter-offers, you could specify when making a demand that you wanted, for example, "5,000 credits [or approximate value in resources [and/or technology]]." That would give you the option of paying, for example, 2,000 credits and the rest in resources or research points.

i think that a market system for these resources is something new and gives the game a more economical gameplay. Managing your resources, or influencing the market by selling and buying resources at certain times might give you a extra boost in the long run. A fluctuating value for resources sounds good to me, but should be refined totally and might be very nasty to program depending on how big this is going to be, if it even makes your game.

If a "market" system were to be included, it would likely be added much later. I would definitely use a static conversions table first, and would not change it until all the core game features had been implemeneted. In this case, though, I think such a feature would ultimately prove to be one of those ideas that looks good on paper but never seems to work quite right in implementation.

The Civ III advisor guy was a really useful tool. Think about TNG... whenever Picard needed to interact with the Klingons, all he had to do was turn around and bounce his idea off of his chief of security, who would promptly tell him if it was a good idea or if he'd get stabbed in the face. Hell, he also had Troi to get a general idea of how other people thought/felt/reacted. In just almost every situation, decision makers have access to advisors for diplomacy.

Now, assuming the diplomacy AI actually has some "I" (which it should), then the computer already knows what would be required for a race/empire to accept a specific request such as friendship/affiliation/alliance/whatever. Now I'd assume that a certain level of treaties will require the level before it to exist. For example:

War -> Non-aggression-> friendship-> affiliation-> alliance (and anything I'm forgetting.) So, if you're at just a non-aggression, it should be impossible to make an affiliation treaty regardless of how much money you throw at them. Granted, in BoTF1, I can bribe the hell out of a minor race and then have them be members in two turns. But even then, I think diplomacy should have a specific chain to follow - just like researching technologies.

Now, it should also be impossible to step up to the next level of diplomacy on the next consecutive turn. For example, I shouldn't be able to go from War -> Non-aggression on turn 56 and then hammer out a friendship treaty on 57. There needs to be some time - a base amount (I dunno, 10 turns maybe) before you can proceed to the next level of diplomacy. That would allow for a "period of time" to pass where the trust of the other empire could be earned/improved (or lost.) Also, that number can increase based on the empire's/race's attitude of you. If they do love you to death, then you only have to wait the 10 turns. Any treaty request within that time frame is 100% guarenteed to be rejected/ignored. If they barely tolerate you, then the timeframe before ANY treaty is considered could be multiplied (by 10 or 20, maybe forcing you to wait 100-200 turns). If they are half-pleased with you, then the multiplier could be 5, requiring you to wait 50 turns before you can send a new peace treaty offer.

Now, nothing is stopping you from throwing money/resources/trade at them to help increase their attitude towards you, thus lessening the amount of time you spend in the 100% rejection area.

Sounds complicated? It's not really, and would help to incorporate a diplomacy advisor. If you're in the 100% rejection zone and you attempt to initiate diplomacy with a race, the little advisor will appear and tell you so (or even disable some of your diplomacy options) and give you a recommendation on how to improve the empire's attitude with you to reduce the time, if it could use improving. Also, it might be a good idea for the computer to track recent transgressions which might be contributing to the poor attitude of the race. If an empire's attitude of you is going down, then some adjustment must be getting applied. Perhaps all of the negitive adjustments in the last 100 turns could be recorded or the last 100 negitive trangressions, which ever is less, could be recorded. For example, if you keep blowing up the Rom's ships as they travel around, that would probably piss them off and your Romulan advisor might say, "Hey, if you want to improve their attitude, don't be a dick and blow up their ships, stupid," but in a nice way :p

Keep in mind, if the diplomacy AI is smart in any way, the majority of this information is already known by the computer or can be recorded easily, as I understand things (but I have very limited knowledge of the current system/design). After all, the AI needs to know when to accept any treaties you send and when to reject them.

Now, if you're beyond the time required to get a new treaty across, the advisor can make a recommendation of what it would take to get a treaty established. Again, the computer should already know what it will take, so this simply just requires some output onto the diplomacy interface.

Oh, and if you want to get things a tad more complicated, you could modify your advisor's attitude into your intel level. For example, if you're doing espinage on the Romulans, you might have a better idea of what they'd want for a treaty (but also run the risk of getting caught and lowering the Rom's attitude of you). This might be too complicated and/or impractical.

Another idea is to allow for a margin of error on the advisor's part, allowing for a chance for the advisor to be inaccurate, particularly at the beginning of the game. As time goes on and more and more dialog is carried with another race, the better your advisors get and are able to more accurately advise you of what to do and what not to do. If the game goes long enough, then your advisor could correctly you advise with 100% accuracy 95-99% of the time (no one is perfect, so s/he can never be 100% effecient 100% of the time.) Let me expand...

At the beginning of the game, you encounter the Romulans. With the new encounter, there WILL be people devoted to learning about the Romulans and studying how they react. Since it's a new encounter, any interaction with the Romulans would be a learning experience. So, while your advisor may suggest something, there's a good chance it won't be the best solution. Your advisor could say that sending the Romulans 10,000 credits would secure peace. In actuallity, it could be WAY more than neccessary... or down-right insulting (thus hurting their attitude of you).

As time goes on, that margin of error could diminish, thus allowing your advisor to be more accurate when advising. There also needs to be a chance that the advisor advises accurately, regardless of how much experience your faction has had with said empire.

Again, this might be more complicated than neccessary, but would add a bit more depth into the diplomacy aspect of BoTF2, which I thought BoTF1 was a bit... weak on.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of having a diplomatic advisor. I think Azh made a lot of good points. I've been tossing around a couple of ideas for how diplomacy should be implemented, and I think this could be made to work pretty well. I think I shall require the advisor to be a paperclip like in MS Office, but wearing a Starfleet communicator for the Federation, ridges and a sash for the Klingons, etc.

Yeh these are nice ideas. External Affairs is the department that will control these matters, so some sort of icon, menu or control interface for them in the diplomatic screen will be required. Having a designated advisor, or representative of the department would be the way to go, and how Azhdeen described the inter-relationship and interaction with diplomatic events and the AI is a solid and logical system - if it can be implemented..

Oh, and Neutral should *definitely* be a treaty status. It should be very possible to tell another empire "If you stay out of my sandbox, I'll stay out of yours." And if either side ignores it, there's going to be a brand new dust cloud in someone's sector.

By far the most complicated thing that will be needed (I think, keep in mind I don't actually know details of anything) is determining the relationship between intelligence and diplomacy. Even then, it's probably just going to be coming up with some math equation to crunch numbers and modifiers. And whatever number the computer comes up with results in the action that the computer will take (ie: saying sure or to go screw yourself.)

The advisor itself, on a basic level, would be rather easy to impliment since the computer **already knows what is required to accept a treaty** because it will have some sort of artifical intelligence. The computer has to make the decision of whether a treaty will be accepted or rejected, so it's just a matter of outputting that information in some sort of descriptive manner.

Things get complicated when you try to add error to the advisor (ie: try to make it more human and capable of mistakes). Go figure, the one time where being perfect is easier than being human :p

Well, there is a partial random component to many of the AI decisions in the game, including whether or not to accept a treaty. So there will always be some "error". The AI will not take any shortcuts, so when they propose a treaty, the other race will still weigh whether or not to accept in it the same way they would as if the proposal had come from a human player. They may accept it, or they may reject it. Granted, rejections may be less common, as the AI will only propose a treaty if there is a good chance that the other side will accept, but the decision structure is still the same.

Basically, the diplomatic advisor could calculate the desirability of a treaty without the random component, and could determine how likely the proposal is to be accepted based on how likely the needed desirability level is to be reached once the of the as-of-yet unknown random component has been introduced into equation. We could use the same logic for incoming diplomatic proposals--the advisor could say something along the lines of, "it would be wise to accept this proposal," or, "this arrangement would be disasterous!"

As for the relationship between intelligence and diplomacy, I think the best approach is one of ambiguity. Certain intelligence events could adjust some of the diplomatic relations modifiers, but the reasons for these changes do not necessarily need to be known or tracked by the diplomacy logic.

Perfect. That sounds solid and gives players an excellent basis idea how the other empires/races feel. I'm liking it.

Just make sure that I have the option to either execute or simply slap my advisor for giving me bad info or attitude. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to smack that Civ III guy for being nasty to his god.

One thing I want to point out, though, is that I think it's a very bad idea to have a forced diplomatic level progression over time. In your standard, day-to-day galactic affairs this would work, but when the Borg invade? While you're wasting time crossing T's and dotting i's in diplomacy, the Borg are swallowing up your empire. If I've been Neutral to the Dominion, and we're both losing planets/ships to the Borg or any other race, why shouldn't I be able to propose an alliance of some sort--even if it is only temporary? Likewise, if I'm fighting a war with the Klingons when the Dominion decide to take advantage of our situation and fight both of us, why can't I tell the Klingons, "While we waste our strength fighting each other, the Dominion is slowly killing us both. We should band together, if only for now, in stopping this greater common threat."

Aside from these emergency concerns, an enforced diplomatic string would severely diminish the natural bonuses in attitude from the various minor races. What would it matter if the Vorta absolutely love the Dominion but still need to wait 50 turns to join up because trade hasn't happened yet? Sure, maybe another power wouldn't be able to swoop in and nab them as easily, but this enforced treaty progression would strongly weaken the point of having different race attitudes. You'd be better off just making every race think of every other race equally. The idea of forced diplomatic progression simply doesn't make much sense from a realistic or gameplay scenario.

Okay, here's an idea. We could make diplomatic exchanges a bit more involved like in GalCiv2. For any diplomatic exchange (excluding statements, breaking of treaties, or declarations of war), you could specify the following provisions:

1. Proposed change in relationship (optional)
    a. New treaty (upgrade only)
2. Offerings / Demands (items given by sender / recipient)
    a. Give...
        i. Some amount of credits (once/recurring)
        ii. Some amount of resources (once/recurring)
        iii. Some tech(s)
        iv. Some objects (ships, systems, etc)
    b. Break treaty with... [civilization(s)]
    c. Declare war on... [civilization(s)]
    d. Grant independence to... [system(s)]
    e. Make peace with... [civilization(s)]

Whereas in GalCiv2 you knew could see the response from the other ambassador as you changed the stipulations, we could use the diplomatic advisor to the same effect. Thoughts?

I never had the opportunity to play any of the GalCiv games, so I'm not really sure on the specifics of the concept, but it seems solid.

Ritter: you bring up an excellent point, one that I had not thought of. I was looking at the diplomacy tree as if each treaty was permenant. I could see where some temporary treaties would be able to bypass some of the requirements. They are temporary and will expire so some corners could be cut to get them through, or perhaps allow for a breather while something more solid is offered.

Example: You've been at war with the Romulans for 120 turns. You're getting kind of sick of it. You check your diplomacy screen and the advisor tells you that the Romulans are growing weary of war. So, you send a temporary 25 turn non-aggression to them, which they accept. This allows you to settle down, perhaps even throw some money/resources/whatever their way to soften them up, and then you can send a more permenant resolution such as a fully-fledged peace treaty or a permenant non-aggression treaty. This would also allow you to bypass the 10*n turn wait. There could be no waiting period (IE: a multiplier of 0) after a temporary treaty to "upgrade" it.

Now, think about this for a second. If you're fighting the Romulans, and the Borg decide to show and nuke both you and the Roms, do you honestly think the Romulans would just allow you to peacefully stroll into their space right away? Not likely; you guys have been at war for several turns. And would you trust the Romulans enough to be able to access your space, shipyards, and starbases? But as desperation mounts, empires are more willing to take risks, so the ability to "jump" treaty levels could be dependant on both empire's relative strength. Also keep in mind that if an empire is pretty weak, their attitude towards you (assuming you're significantly stronger) will probably be going up since they're more worried that you'll just conquer them during their weakness.

My solution for this problem is modifying the purpose of War Pacts. I always thought that if a War Pact is established, an affilation would be formed up until one side declares peace with the at-war empire or until war between the first two empires is declared.

This could be applied to any "Oh ****, we need to stop killing each other and focus our forces elsewhere" scenario. So if the Borg start assimilating systems, they now become an empire (although I hear they suck at diplomacy - the whole "assimilation" thing). The War Pact could come into play, and can be offered to any empire/race regardless of the current state of things between the two sides. When the Pact is accepted, an affiliation will be formed between both sides, and war would be declared if not already at war (BoTF1 sucks at this, so if I accept a war pact as the Federation against an empire I'm already at war with, I take a morale hit - how lame) and now you have a new ally with a new goal.

So if you hook up a war pact with the Romulans against the Borg (or any empire) then the affiliation will last until the Borg are wiped out, or until either you or the Roms make peace with the Borg (well, not so much the borg but with other empires), or until either you or the Roms declare war on the other.

Now, since you're in an affiliation treaty, you can probably set up trade routes and toss some money around and get better results than when you were at war. So if you do manage to elimiate the Borg, you might find yourself in a position to get a permanent treaty.

I missed one of Ritter's points....

The attitude bonus is still very easily applied. The waiting period will vary depending on the race's attitude towards you, and also allows other races the chance to interact with them. Lately during my BoTF travels, I'd come across the Minitakens or the Mizarians, and very next turn I'm getting membership offers. WTF? That wouldn't happen in real life. Ever.

Guy A: Hello there. Nice to meet you. How are you today?
Girl A: I'm great. Let's get married.

Uhh...?

Now, instead of me getting membership proposals on turn 4 of the game, I'd instead get a peace treaty. If they still love me that much, then I can offer to go up a diplomacy teir around turn 14, or just wait for them to send me one around 19-24 or so. It's only 10 turns. Diplomacy is a process. No compitent leader of any country/planet/empire/whatever would jump around and let you have their way with them and accept anything.

Now, if I'm offering peace treaties and they're accepting them just for amusement, then there is no way I'd be able to successfully offer a new treaty so quickly, hence the longer the 100% treaty rejection period. So instead of only 10 turns, it's now 100 turns... and if I want to reduce that amount of time, I had better have some deep pockets.

A small revision to my previous idea: if you are in a state of neutrality with another race/empire, I could see where a non-aggression OR a full peace treaty could be offered without repurcussion. Either course of action seems like a logical step in the diplomatic ladder between two sides who are neutral.

Azh, the sort of problem you're describing (receiving membership proposals when you're neutral) shouldn't be a problem. In the original Supremacy, AI diplomatic relations were handled in this way:

If a treaty proposal is received, it is accepted or rejected, and no further action is taken. If no proposal was received, the AI would examine its current relationship with you and determine whether or not it wanted to break that relationship, and if so, it would be broken and no further action would be taken. Otherwise, it would iterate incrementally over the possible treaty proposals it could send you. It would stop at the first desired treaty it encountered, send the treaty proposal, and no further action would be taken. Thus, it would always send a Non-Aggression proposal prior to a Friendship Treaty and an Affiliation Treaty prior to an Alliance, etc. However, a human player was not bound by those same constraints, and could still propose an Alliance to an empire he has neutral relations with.

It would also consider the duration of your current relationship and the number of turns since its last proposal when determining whether or not to propose a treaty, so you would never get a treaty proposal until a few turns had passed since the last treaty was signed (or since contact was made).

Ok, cool. But how did it handle requests from the player? Is it using a similiar system?

Yeah, it uses the same system for messages from the player to an AI player. Messages from a human player to another human player don't really apply in this context.

Ok, cool. So from a BoTF1 standpoint, if diplomacy used your system, a race could have you pegged at worshipped, but if the current treaty is neutral, they'll only go up to friendly even if you send affiliation?

Oh yeah, and a way to tell the computer AI to get out of your space (like they do to you ALL the time) or pretty much anything they can warn you about would be pretty neat.

The Cards would get bent out of shape when a science vessel cuts a corner, but they're sending 8 ships into my system to cause trouble.

This could be another Civ manerism - where you demand they remove their troops (or ships in this case) from your territory, which they either agree to or declare war on you.

I think that could be done. If they agree to move their ships out of your territory, the acceptance trigger could move all of their ships residing within your borders to their nearest friendly system or starbase. That may not be the most realistic solution (if the nearest system or starbase is farther away than those ships could normally travel in one turn), but it would be the simplest and most straightforward solution.

I really hate the idea of enforced treaty progression just because it doesn't seem really logical to me--if I'm the absolute leader of an empire and I decide I want to let these neutral nothings join my empire as members, why shouldn't I be able to?--but this is also a time-consuming game being developed for free, so beggars can't exactly be choosers. If there were obvious exceptions, that might help to offset it. Such exceptions might be:

1) A race--minor or major--you are at war with but trouncing offers to join your empire in exchange for peace. Basically, they admit defeat and become your subjects in the hopes that you won't completely wipe them out.

2) A weaker race/power faces an imminent threat from another power, the Borg, or whatever and comes to you begging for help. Here, you could obviously say, "I'm not going to help you unless you grant me full access to your shipyards, join my empire, whatever," regardless of your current standing with the askers.

3) Wars can be ended and turned to temporary military alliances if a greater threat to both powers looms, and after say 25 turns the option to "Formalize" this treaty appears. Think of it as fighting side-by-side gives both powers a new respect for each other.

4) Stronger powers (within a certain point value, perhaps), should be able to demand greater treaty allowances. Maybe this could be a graduated thing. Say if you're 200 points above someone, you can demand that they not only end the war between you but allow you to trade with them/through their space. If you're 500 points above, you can demand that they become your military affiliates in exchange for peace. If you're 1,000 points above, you can demand they simply surrender and become a member of your empire. The "points" I listed here are just random numbers to get the point across.

5) Weaker powers should be allowed to offer more advanced treaties as a bargaining chip to strong powers. Say you know the Romulans are getting ready to invade you with a massive fleet, and you're still trying to colonize your first few planets. In order to stave off the invasion, you should be able to offer greater diplomatic benefits--maybe even one-sided benefits.

I think these would all be great ideas to have in, although I have no idea how difficult programming them would be. The basic point is please, please, PLEASE don't have some rigid, unrealistic diplomatic forced progression. One of the perks of being absolute ruler is being able to do anything you want and make any treaties you want. I'd absolutely hate losing that, but of course it's up to the programmer to decide what actually will be included.

Well, all AI components will inevitably need to be tweaked for realism. If the diplomatic system seems too rigid, I'll try to make it more flexible. At this point, I'm just looking for ideas regarding the types of diplomatic relationships and exchanges that should be available. AI is still a long way down the line.

Ritter:

The "rigid" diplomatic treaties is set up with the mind that under NORMAL circumstances, this is how two powers - minor or major - would act in diplomatic negotiations. What you're bringing up are all exceptions to what could be considered "normal."



A "Surrender" diplomacy offer could solve this. And this could actually make for some interesting possibilities, with the ability for players and the AI to reject and proceed to decimate your systems (not sure if you should bother letting a player offer to surrender to another power, that would end the game - which the quit button does nicely - but could be an interesting tool in multiplayer). Also, I'd assume than any systems that are surrendered are now subjegated. After all, no one really likes to surrender.



What I imagine War Pact to accomplish is that two powers who negotiate the treaty declare war on a third power (ie: the Borg/Cards/Roms/whatever) *if said powers are not already at war with that power.* Also, a Military Affiliation treaty between the two powers would be created, allowing ships from both sides to use the combined shipyards/starbases/etc of the two powers. That affiliation will last until the following occurs: the power that the pact is against is removed from the galaxy, one of the sides forges a non-aggression or better treaty with the third power, or war is declared between the two powers that forged the war pact.

This would allow you to propose war pacts with minor races so that you can save them. And if you do help them, they would most likely be more receptive to your future advances towards membership. Personally, if I knew that a group of 50 thugs were going to come to my house in 2 days and destroy/steal everything in site, but you tell me that you can defend me ONLY if I transfer ownership of my house to you, I'd tell you to go to hell and I'd move out. However, if you demand that in exchange for protection that you can stay at my house while I require protection, I'd probably accept it and let you stay past the neccessary amount of time (ie: continue the affiliation treaty.) And if you continue to be a good guy, I may infact transfer my house to you if it will benefit me. My house (ie: home system) is a very important object, and I would only entrust it to someone that I felt I could completely trust with it.



Refer to my ideas for War Pacts.

**EDIT**
Also, since you have created a War Pact with another race and since this gives both races a Military Affiliation with each other, you can now move up the treaty ladder starting from Military Affiliation. This means you can now offer alliances or memberships. If you break the War Pact, then I think your relationship with the other power should drop to neutral (unless you or the other guy declared war, in which case... well... you're at war :p ) If the third power that the war pact was against is defeated, then the military affiliation can remain in effect as a normal affiliation treaty.



The only way empire strength should play a roll in diplomatic decisions is if there is HUGELYGIANT difference in strengths. Then, obviously, the stronger empire could make slight "hints" of what should occur, and the weaker powers would be more inclined to accept those "hints" because of the strength disparity. I do not see how an empire's strength could go from, say war -> military alliance. It'd still be a gradual process. And if you are demanding (key word there - demanding) that another race joins your empire because you are significantly stronger than them, than that race is essentially surrendering to you before a war breaks out and casualties mount up (perhaps when a race surrenders to you when war is not declared it would result in a peaceful - IE: not subjegated - but low morale ownership transfer of the system(s)). Otherwise, if they're choosing to join you because they are envious of your strength, then chances are it's going to follow the normal diplomatic progressions.

"Geez John, those Feds sure are strong. Perhaps it'd be a good idea to set something up so we can get a cut of their prosperiety and strength."

"That's a great idea, let's set up a peace treaty so we can export some of our goods and inject some of those Federation credits into our economy."

Negotiations would never go from neutral -> member regardless of how strong you are and how envious they are of you. Diplomacy is a process. People need to test the waters to make sure they're making a good decision, and if everything seems smooth so far, THEN you can proceed to the next step. However, if a race is more impressionable than average (Minitakans anyone?), then their attitude towards you would probably be higher than your average race, and increase faster than average as well, thus requring less time to wait to offer/recieve treaty upgrades.



If a major power is preparing an invasion of your weaker empire, then I doubt there's much you can do to change their mind. Sure, you could offer an affiliation treaty, but chances are you're not giving them anything they don't already have since they're so strong, so why would they accept it when they can just blast you into submission? Or even take it from you by force. Essentially, since you're so weak, if the Romulans in your example were to accept ANY treaty OTHER than surrender, it's actually hurting them. They could just invade you and steal your technology, if you have any they don't already have researched. You could offer them ships, but it sounds like they already have a bunch and would have no use for it. Plus, if they do invade you and succeed (which it sounds like they will), they would be gaining your systems ON TOP OF any credits/technology/whatever you may also have.

Let's switch the example - let's say that you are the Romulans. You have a GIANT fleet, and the lowly Feds are just a few sectors away. They have a handful of systems, some with awesome resources, and they have researched a higher level of propulsion than you current have. The Feds (computer or human, doesn't matter) send you an affiliation treaty allowing you access to their shipyards/starbases to extend the range of your ships. Are you going to take it? Or are you going to tell them to go F themselves and pummel their systems into submission to rule with an iron fist in subjegation and steal their technology and make it your own? Honestly ask yourself this, and then tell me if it makes sense.

**EDIT 2**
The only diplomatic option I could forsee in this example is probably Surrender. War Pact may also be an option depending on the state of the rest of the galaxy. This could create some interesting possibilities - if the Roms are about to pwn you, but you sabotage a military installation that the Klingons own and blame the Romulans, that could induce a war between them (or maybe they're already at war with each other). Now you can offer the Romulans a War Pact against the Klingons and if the accept it (there's a better chance of this than getting a normal affiliation treaty because now you have a common cause, even if you're really doing it just to save your butt), now you have an instant alliance with all of the features, bells, and whistles that come with it - like trade, shipyard access, etc.

I'm sorry, but a progression for diplomacy only makes sense. There are a few exceptions - notably war pacts and surrenders, that can be issued at almost any time, and races with a neutral treaty in effect are capable of offering non-aggression OR friendly peace treaty (enabling trade and such.)

If it would help, I'll try to spend some time to set up descriptions for every single possible treaty I can think of, how it would behave, how it would effect the races/empires involved, and such like that over the next couple days. It should help to flesh it out, and give everyone a really good idea of what I'm thinking, why I'm thinking it, and different combinations/possibilties for negotiation tactics.

Keep in mind, my ideas are to provide as much realism as possible considering this is a game. Like I posted before, I find it lame to be getting membership proposals on turn 3. I also find it lame that if I throw enough credits at a minor race, regardless of how many turns I've known them for, I can get them to membership in 6-10 turns TOPS. Sorry, but diplomacy just doesn't work like that, that stuff shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I'll see what I can write up.

I'd also like to point out that this is a discussion on what the Artificial Intelligence will do. You, as a human being, can offer any treaty you want. Just don't be surprised if the AI tells you no.

So, in a multiplayer game, you can offer any treaty you want to another human player and the decision to accept/decline it is yours. You could go from War to Alliance if you so wish - that's between you and the other player.

The computer, however, will tell you to go jump off a bridge.

Since clearly this has turned into a debate, allow me to offer my rebuttal. I apologize to anyone else reading this for the massive length I'm sure this post is going to have.

Let's be clear, we're talking about the AI, both of us. I have no interest in doing a multiplayer thing since I often find them expensive, tedious, difficult to arrange, or any combination thereof. I'm not concerned with what treaties any real person makes with any other real player. Obviously, two real people can agree to anything, regardless of what static options you have in a diplomatic window.

--->Keep in mind, my ideas are to provide as much realism as possible considering this is a game.

If your intention is to create realism in a gaming environment, then I think you're going in the wrong direction by forcing treaty limitations. Consider these points:

1) Limiting treaty possibilities by forcing a progression scale goes contrary to the style of government within the game. For all intents and purposes, the player is supreme monarch of whichever empire being played. All decisions about budget, military actions, accepting/denying diplomatic proposals, scientific research, resource use, galactic exploration, expansion, and construction are decided entirely by the player. Whatever the player wishes done within the constraints of what the player is capable of doing happens. Why, then, would you propose that suddenly this be changed solely for diplomacy? Are we to believe that some form of senate or chamber of ministers has convened solely to prevent you--supreme monarch--from indulging in whatever diplomatic choices you'd care to make? As supreme monarch, you can choose to accept anyone into your empire you'd like, and the AI must be at least willing to listen to these proposals without some computerized override or else suddenly the player is the only monarch in the entire galaxy. Having a constant, built-in "No" answer defeats the entire purpose of having the ability, and in fact goes directly against the style of government in use. If we were to issue limits on diplomacy, a good argument could be made for imposing limits on how much scientific research can be done, or how many ships you can decide to build, or how fast you can develop your infrastructure. Every decision could be done via committee, which I doubt nearly anyone would enjoy.

Perhaps you'd like to refute this by pointing out that scientific research follows a similar path of being allowed to research only along a steady, predetermined chain. This, of course, would not be a good argument as science and diplomacy are two completely separate fields. Science, construction, and even financial development all have prerequisites which can't be bypassed (you can't build a useful quantum torpedo if you don't understand the basics of torpedo design and propulsion). Diplomacy, however, requires only that you be able to communicate in some fashion with another race/empire/player. A military alliance does not absolutely need a trading agreement to be signed, and in fact a military alliance or mutual defense pact in the real world could be in spite of a potential boycott if the two powers are willing to agree to it. As long as two or more powers can communicate, they have the freedom to agree to anything they'd like. Likewise, they have the freedom to reject anything they'd like, but your argument jumps only to this latter portion of the equation without consideration of the former.

-->Personally, if I knew that a group of 50 thugs were going to come to my house in 2 days and destroy/steal everything in site, but you tell me that you can defend me ONLY if I transfer ownership of my house to you, I'd tell you to go to hell and I'd move out.

Again, this is you, not necessarily anyone else. Remember, we're talking about an entire GALAXY of sentient beings which may or may not have cultural beliefs similar to you. While you or I would prefer perhaps to go down fighting rather than simply be a passive member of someone else's group, are we to believe that the Mizarians or Mintakans would have a similar belief? What about the Ferengi, who may very well be interested in the enormous profits being a member of your empire would offer?

Or, perhaps, let's think about this. Suppose your house is a mess, without even indoor plumbing or a sturdy roof. Now consider that you've been slowly trying to fix it up for years, decades, possibly even generations without much success. In the meantime, you and your family suffer from the elements, health problems, lack of food and/or clothing, and any number of other problems I could list. Suddenly, an opportunity presents itself to ask someone with a sprawling palace and voice-activated internal security/cleaning service to help you improve the sanitation/quality of where you live, but in exchange they want ownership of your property. You still live there, you'll be taught how to build/maintain everything, and your overall quality of life will improve, but you won't have full ownership of the land. You or I might reject such an offer, and certainly some proud races like the Klingons or Romulans would probably refuse such a proposal, but some of the minor races--with their considerably different cultural values--might be willing to accept such an agreement. Even some of the larger races such as the Vulcans might be open to such an agreement if something along the lines of a natural disaster were to occur. Is it better to live in squalor knowing that you own the mess or turn it over to someone else who can improve everything? That's a personal, cultural decision which ideally should be based on each individual stance. Making a blanket decision on your personal choice does not reflect the variety of culture within the galaxy.

We don't even need to limit ourselves to absolutely destitute situations. Various cultures within our own human race value social unity (see many of the eastern cultures) over individuality. Are we to believe that no race in the galaxy would find joining together as partners to be more valuable than remaining apart? Yes, true, "working together" has many different meanings, but one potential meaning is joining together as one society. Your suggestion absolutely negates this. It also rejects the possibility that some societies may want to join up with whomever is more advanced, seeking to progress themselves technologically. Think of the Caldonians, who would prefer to dedicate themselves to scientific research than anything else. An offer to take over administrative tasks, allowing them to focus the majority of their efforts into research, may be very attractive to such a race, especially if it means they get to examine some of your more advanced hardware up close.

Going back to your house example, let's think about this. Restricting the progression of diplomatic offers would actually take away realism in the game. In real life, if I so chose, I could go up to a stranger on the street and offer the deed to my home. We could sign right there, and suddenly I've handed over my entire domicile to a complete stranger. Though inadvisable, this is completely possible in the real world, and enforcing rules saying that it can't be done would only give the game a very mechanical feel. From a simple perspective of maintaining realism in a game, you shouldn't remove that entire possibility. Doing so would be overly controlling and parental in nature, saying that you are imposing rules on various cultures to prevent them from doing what these theoretical AI entities would like to do for...what? Their protection? In real life, if you choose to do something like this, you can. Telling the AI that it can't takes away that freedom of choice which is inherent to maintaining realism.

-->The only way empire strength should play a roll in diplomatic decisions is if there is HUGELYGIANT difference in strengths.

The simple fact is that size does matter. Saying otherwise is naive. In truth, empires don't need to be larger than another to encourage greater cooperation. Think of the interactions between the United States and the United Kingdom, or France and Germany. These nations all treat the others with greater respect in no small part due to the overall strength of the other as a whole. Sometimes, this cooperation or agreement to requests can be in the hopes of preventing a devastating war--think US and USSR during the Cold War era--other times because one wants a favor from the other which only a highly advanced nation can offer, like the US's desire for at least some foreign support from Great Britain for the "war on terror."

Also, consider how various smaller, less advanced nations would react to anyone with some higher level of advancement. Austria today may be a considerably weaker military and economic power than say China, but do you honestly think that their relatively higher standing would not affect their dealings in any way with a country like Ethiopia or Cambodia, or even that China would treat them differently than they would Liberia? In the real world, development and "standing" on the global stage does impact diplomatic dealings regardless of whom you deal with, so simply saying that it's pointless outside of huge differences is extremely unrealistic. I may be only a few points higher than you in overall standing, but if I still have the general military capability to overcome yours are you seriously going to behave the same way as if I were a nomadic tribe looking for my next berry bush? That's not very logical.

-->If a major power is preparing an invasion of your weaker empire, then I doubt there's much you can do to change their mind. Sure, you could offer an affiliation treaty, but chances are you're not giving them anything they don't already have since they're so strong, so why would they accept it when they can just blast you into submission? Or even take it from you by force. Essentially, since you're so weak, if the Romulans in your example were to accept ANY treaty OTHER than surrender, it's actually hurting them.

Here, you're assuming that there's only one reason to go to war. In reality, war is normally a very complicated balancing act examining numerous different pieces of information. If you want to continue using my example with the Romulans, then let's continue there.

The question to ask is WHY the Romulans want to go to war, in this case against me. What are they hoping to gain? If they simply want to take what I have, then, yes, a proposal of military cooperation/right of passage would be useless, but war is rarely so simple. What if the Romulans have explored all of the space available to them and need the range offered by my planet(s)? Perhaps the Romulans' overall goal is not to conquer me, but to strike at another enemy they can't reach without my territory as a base, in which case they may very much be interested in preserving the military resources which would be used in subjugating my system(s) for use in an attack on their main target (why waste anything if you don't have to?). Maybe my territory is rich in some resource that the Romulans want, in which case my offering it to them peacefully might satisfy their desires without forcing them to commit military forces to a conquest/occupation effort. Or maybe the overall aim is simply to prevent me from siding with another power, in which case--depending on their concern level--a peace treaty could accomplish the same end.

Remember that military action requires investment of resources both during the open conflict and in the aftermath, resources which may be better spent somewhere else. Diplomacy, in the real world, would also take into consideration the situation in both powers' respective homes, the general cultural beliefs of each race (whether they'd prefer diplomacy over militarism), weighing what can be gained by both diplomatic and militaristic means against how much both solutions may cost, and even the reactions of the likely losing side. If the Romulans want to attack the Klingon outpost beyond my territory, having a potentially rebellious staging post may not be in their best interests. These are factors which, in a perfect world, an AI would weigh all together, but you also have to keep in mind the resources available to make this game. This isn't a professionally developed game being put togehter by a corporation with a budget in the billions, but instead basically one guy spending his free time doing something which he finds amusing.

Needless to say, there are many factors to be considered in declaring war, and concluding that deciding not to conquer would actually be harmful to the Romulans looks only at a tiny piece of a much larger puzzle. Keep in mind also that I said there could be ONE-WAY treaties, meaning that the Romulans could accept right of passage through my space without granting me the same in return.

-->I missed one of Ritter's points....

-->The attitude bonus is still very easily applied. The waiting period will vary depending on the race's attitude towards you, and also allows other races the chance to interact with them. Lately during my BoTF travels, I'd come across the Minitakens or the Mizarians, and very next turn I'm getting membership offers. WTF? That wouldn't happen in real life. Ever.

Then allow me to explain. Are you aware of the discussion about the Vorta? Despite considerable discussion back and forth which I won't repeat for the sake of time, the final decision (at the moment) to satisfy both Star Trek mythology and game play is that the Vorta will be an independent race worshipful from the start of the Dominion. The Vorta will even have structures or access to structures vital to the growth of the Dominion. Remember, the Vorta think of the Founders (essentially, what the Dominion will be prior to including the Vorta) as gods, and have since they were sentient beings, as Weyoun explained in one of the last season episodes of DS9. According to your proposed system, the Vorta still wouldn't completely trust the beings they revere as gods, and would in fact repeatedly reject requests from these "gods" simply because they are programmed to. That doesn't make any sense to me, and could in fact be detrimental to the overall growth of the Dominion by forcing them to wait to annex the Vorta, unless they simply want to start conquering. This, of course, is but one unique situation out of potentially hundreds of others.

Likewise, diplomatic attitudes are supposed to act as bonuses for certain races, like the Federation, who expand quickly by using their diplomatic skill. Forcing arbitrary limitations on the expansion of diplomatic relations for a race which is supposed to have rapid diplomacy actually serves to weaken the race overall, especially since other powers could be trying to court these minors while you're waiting around for enough time to pass before you can move up a notch. The proposed game is supposed to have numerous ways to improve standing with minor races, including gifts of resources, expanded diplomatic initiatives, helping out ships in distress, and possibly even colonizing other planets for them and such. Your proposed forced diplomatic restrictions would allow other powers with less diplomatic skill to spend time trying to impress these other minors during this forced gap time between treaties.

Perhaps you are thinking that it wouldn't matter since each race would have to go through the same bureaucratic loopholes and treaty progression, so the bonus would come in as being able to offer the treaty sooner. This then means that whoever manages to get a trading relationship established first basically wins the minor since no one else could pass you by with the time constraints. Or perhaps we can sabotage treaties, leading to a constant back and forth of minors breaking treaty after treaty in a tedious, never-ending diplomacy war. The simplest solution to this, I feel, is simply to throw out the idea of enforced diplomatic treaty progression and allow relationships to grow at the player’s or AI’s discretion.

-->Also, I'd assume than any systems that are surrendered are now subjugated. After all, no one really likes to surrender.

Why would you assume this? Surrendering is still a choice. Some races, such as the Klingons, may respond very poorly and seem as though they were subjugated, but I hardly see the Ferengi putting up a serious struggle, especially if they've been losing money for a long time due to the war and find new economic opportunities by simply giving in. Granted, they probably won't join you as "Pleased" or the like, but I see no reason for them to suddenly be subjugated. After all, they chose to join you, regardless if the alternative is death.

-->The "rigid" diplomatic treaties is set up with the mind that under NORMAL circumstances, this is how two powers - minor or major - would act in diplomatic negotiations. What you're bringing up are all exceptions to what could be considered "normal."

The simple fact is that life itself is a constant string of exceptions. If you want to make the game as realistic as possible, you need to account for this fact. I've so far proposed only a few of the possible "exceptions" to "normal" galactic life which I can think of. What about natural disasters, or lagging technology? Would an exception be made also for a minor which wishes to expand with the help of a larger power? What about a shortage of food supplies for whatever reason? What if a power has reached the maximum level of ship construction it can safely support (think credits in the original game) and feels the need to continue growing? What if a particular, vital resource runs out or is lost for several different possible reasons? What if an AI is simply scared of another power? What if a stronger minor race grows too close to the borders of another minor? What if the Federation is distressed by the sudden diplomatic overtures by the Cardassians to the Bajorans? Granted, a programmer could probably calculate all these in and create different exception rules for every possibility which could arise should that programmer feel the need to do so, but rules which require exception after exception only serve to add unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and consume the programmer's time--especially on an independent project such as this. The simplest, most time and resource effective solution is to simply throw such a problem out and add varying weights to the different AI personas.

If you don't like the Mintakans offering a membership proposal two turns after you meet them, then don't accept. Saying instead that they can't ask simply because you don't like it takes away the whole point of having various cultures and personas. While I agree that an overall, general progression ladder should be in place, I see no reason from a game play or realistic standpoint to force living players or AI personas to adhere to this ladder.

While I have read your entire repsonse, I want to re-read it a second time so I can respond.

However, how you're making the system sound out to be is a random generator run by the computer to determine if a race should accept your treaty or not. I'll expand this later.

Also, I'd like to point out that when I do get a membership treaty on turn 2, the minor in question is still of neutral attitude to me. Sure, if I don't like it, I can deny it. But the computer-controlled majors won't.

Major A: "Hello, we're Major A. Good to meet you."

Minor B: "Hi Major A, we're Minor B. Take control of my planet and do with it as you will. Perhaps you would like to strip the natural resources to fuel your future war machine. Please build a Mining Prision for additional Dilithum and Forced Labor Camps so we can get more food. Thanks."

Again, more on this topic later.

As for the Dominion's little sister system - the Vorta, I don't see why that the game can't begin with a treaty already in place. It's not too complicated to give a default treaty at the start of the game. Besides, even if this one minor is nearly *required* for the Dominion to function correctly, I'm going to assume that the Dominion and the Vorta will be balanced around this fact (which could include starting with an established treaty of some sort at the start of the game).

EDIT
Also, I'm really glad that you responded. This is a discussion, which is the intent of the post. The examples included are helping to put the discussion in context. My ideas might not be the best to impliment, but I'd like to think so, which is why I'm discussing them. :p

Also, if you any more... specific... way of implimenting the AI, I'd like to hear it. Right now, I'm just rebutting your descriptions and examples. But there needs to be some actual I in the AI for diplomacy and I don't know how you plan on including it. I get the feeling from your descriptions that it really is just a random generator that determines a "yes" or "no."

This is probably the longest post on these forums. Ever. You have been warned.



I agree.



I don't agree. You're looking at this from the perspective of the player while I am looking at it from the perspective of the minor race. You are more than free to offer memberships to anyone you want at any time because you ARE the supreme monarch, so to speak. But just because YOU are a supreme monarch does not mean that every race should be. The computer's AI should opporate in a manner that would attempt to protect it's best interest. They keyword there is *protect*. More further down....



I know. I agree.



Almost. ANY sort of peaceful treaty requires a level of trust in addition to being able to communicate effectively. As the treaties get "better" and come with better benefits. For example, with a military affiliation... this treaty would allow you to use another empire's starbases and shipyards to extend ship ranges and also allow them to use yours to the same effect. Now try to think about this realistically.... When you're "using their starbases to extend the range of your ships" think about what would ACTUALLY happen. When a Romulan ship stops at your starbase for whatever reason (supplies/fuel/entertainment, doesn't matter, you have an affiliation treaty. They're allowed to stop there if they please) do you really expect the crew to just sit tight in the ship? How will they get the things they stopped to get? If you're at war with the Romulans and then 2 turns later you have an Affiliation Treaty and a ship chock full of Romulans stops at a starbase, can you HONESTLY tell me that it would be ok for your starbase? That it'd be ok for them to sit there in close proximity to your starbase... easily capable of attacking it. Can you honestly say that if some romulans were to enter the starbase that everything would be all fine and dandy? Hell no. The Romulans would be VERY skittish, assuming they were there for peaceful reasons. The crew/population of your starbase would be rewritting the definition of pissed off. Chances are something is GOING to happen that would set off either your starbase or the Romulan ship, and something is going to end up space dust.

While the game is using affiliation treaties to give you a military advantage, it is doing that because the entire point of the game is conquer the galaxy in some fashion (through peace or war, that's up to you). But in reality, there is a LOT more going on during an affiliation treaty that is too detailed for the game to worry about.

So, this brings me back to requiring a certain level of trust in order for diplomacy to progress. Now, no amount of money/resources/ships/whatever will equal a high level of trust. The race in question would like you a lot for sure... but do they trust you? They are NOT THE SAME. I can give everyone a billion dollars and I'm sure people would like me, even love me a lot. But I could also be the world's biggest... jerk (not quite what I would like to use to describe it, but these are forums ). I could use people left and right to get what I want (perhaps more money/resources/whatever) and not care what happens to the people I use in my schemes. Once people find out what a jerk I am, they'd probably love me a lot less. But that takes TIME for that to come out.

Let me expand: How the current system in BOTF1 works is completely based on the here and now. If I throw enough credits at a race, that race likes me more. If I spend 5 turns in a row throwing max credits at them, they'll probably accept any proposal I send. This is NOT an accurate representation of diplomacy in any sense of the word. If it only takes a few credits to make someone join my empire... well... that's a pretty socially inept society. Add the fact that you can do that to *every* race - including several where that should be *impossible* like the Vulcans - then the system is now broken. BOTF1 is incapable of measuring trust in any sense of the word. I can subjugate ENTIRE EMPIRES all while throwing money at every minor I see and STILL get EVERY ONE OF THEM to join me as members. That is NOT diplomacy at all.



I am going to be honest and say that I don't entirely understand this part. However, I will address what I do understand with: I agree, a military affiliation does not need a trading agreement to be signed, particularly when it is in an attempt to contain a third power. It sounds like it's time for a War Pact to be offered, which as I see it, can be offered at ANY time with another empire regardless of the current treaty in effect. Yes, you can EVEN send them to another empire you are at WAR with and the AI will actually have the ability to accept it.



Passive races such as the Mizirians and Minitakans will react more favorably to first contact then average minor races and their attitudes may increase faster as well. However, they should not be SOOOOO impressed to say "Hey, we're going to join you" one turn after you meet them. This requires trust, even for them, and not enough time has passed for this level of commitment to occur yet.

Also, I'd like to point out that the 10 turns I came up with is subject to change. Also, *modifiers* will be used to change the amount of turns you have to wait. There is nothing stopping us from including decimals as modifiers. 0.5 * 10 = 5 turns. For the Vorta, they would probably have a decimal modifier when it concerns the Dominion. Again, it will be part of the balancing process.

However, while we could apply a modifier of 0, I do not think there is ANY situation that would warrant it. I could be wrong here, but I cannot currently think of one.



While I agree with your example to an extent, you are attempting to put the entire process into speedpass lane, which I disagree with. Let's say my house (or system) is a mess. Try as I might, I can't make it too much better. My technology sucks, my people are starving, I have minimal defenses - everything that could go wrong is going wrong. In comes the Federation (or maybe the Cardassians) and they make grand promises of how they can make everything better. It sounds great and I'm surely intregued by it. But... can I trust them to make it better? Or will they make it worse? From the standpoint of the Federation, things will probably become quite great. But the Cardassians might just be interested in building a giant starbase in orbit so they can launch military strikes. The Romulans might just ignore my problems and when I have a problem with it, they send the Talshi'ar to placate everyone. And who knows? Maybe even the Federation is only interested in a large cache of resources that I have yet to discover.

Trust must first be established in order for the control of my house (system) to be passed on to another person/race/whatever. I want to KNOW that the situation is going to get better, NOT worse. Just because my situation sucks does not mean that I'm going to immediately trust the next person that comes along will help me out.

Trust, trust, trust, trust. Liking someone or being envious of someone is often based on first impressions and/or any gifts. Trust takes time. And with increased trust also comes increase in impressions. (at this point, I may modify my idea. However, this might complicate diplomacy... but it could actually simplify everything as well. Who knows?)



This is going on the assumption that social unity is a benefit to everyone involved. It might not be. If one member of any cultures decides to increase his personal gain at the expense of his peers, that concept of social unity is now shattered. That unity exists in the first place because of the level of trust they have with their peers. Again, trust must exist in order for these situations you bring up can occur.



Good point. But never did I say that it was impossible for races to join you empire. And it will be a cold day in hell before the Caldonians simply hand over the keys to their planet to the first powerful race that happens to beam down and say hello. They are going to ensure that they are making the right choice. They are going to make sure that you're going to take care of them so the CAN concentrate on that research. Keep in mind, it is to your advantage to develop their world because the minor races can have some very important advantages in the game. However, if they were so minor that they were unimportant, then they wouldn't be in the game. So, ofcourse you are going to build structures such as farms and such, and keep the population healthy. It is to your benefit in terms of the game. However, in reality, it might be too expensive to bother with. And now the Caldonians would be pissed. But since this is a game, and every minor race does have something to offer to the game, it will ALWAYS be in your best interest to "help them out." This goes against reality, so a forced diplomacy progression helps to keep it a bit more "real."



This is EXACTLY my point. I know that I cut out the rest of the paragrah, so it is slightly out of context (the rest of it is below), but this statement right here makes my point exactly. It is inadvisable. Why in the world would the computer AI even THINK about doing this? It wouldn't. It's crazy. You said so yourself. So why should it be ok for the computer to do this? Because it will be to your advantage in the context of the video game? That's a bad idea - and also keep in mind that every other race - even the other computer races will be bound by these same "rules". No one is getting an advantage.



The freedom is there. But the computer is only capable of doing what it is programmed to do. Programming the computer to be "free" will result in the computer being too free. What this sounds like is that the computer should roll a random number between 1 and 2. If it's a 1, it will accept your treaty and if it's a 2, it will decline it. The computer NEEDS rules - fundamentally in the programming - in order to opporate correctly. That's part of the diplomacy AI design, which is the entire point of this thread.

Diplomacy Options are really diplomacy rules that the computer will follow. You can give the computer all the options in the universe, but how is it going to decide which option to take? Randomly rolling a number without any other constraints will result in a very stupid AI. There needs to be other rules, modifiers, and conditions in order for the AI to be exactly that - an Artifical Intelligence. You have yet to address this, but I would love to see any ideas you have on it.



"It's not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean." Haha, couldn't help but include that :p

I don't agree, primarily with your examples as I find them to be a poor representation. The respect, or lack there of, with the countries you mentioned has very little to do with their relative size or capability as a country. While this is debatable somewhat, the Unitied States is one of the strongest economies in the world, and also happens to have the largest military force in the world. Yet it does not command as much respect as you are alluding to. The Cold War is a very poor example of a treaty, as it was at best - in terms of BoTF1 - a very shakey non-aggression treaty at best (one step away from war). The Cold War consisted of a huge arms buildup between the USSR (now Russia and a dozen other different countries) and the United States. Essentially, both sides were oneor two mistake away from global nuclear war which would have quite soundly destroyed both sides. Both sides were heavily involved in covert ops and intel gathering to see what the other had or was planning. And both countries were willing to send dozens upon dozens of nuclear warheads at each other at the slightest hint of trouble.



This contradicts what you just said, so I am somewhat confused at what your point is. However, I do agree with the majority of this statement, but I disagree on how you would like it to see implimented in the game. I do think that a higher level of capability, as an empire, would allow other races to be "Wow'd" upon first contact, and continue to be impressed with the technological, economical, and militaristic strength that you gain (or could disdain it). This would affect that race's attitude of you, which in turn will affect how long you must wait before you can offer new and better treaties. If they are super impressed, then you won't have to wait as long.

Using your example with even something as extreme as the United States and Ethiopia (or an even smaller/poorer country), it would seem logical that the Ethiopians are impressed with our technological advancement, the strength of our economy, and the strength of our military. So, their attitudes towards us might be higher than say... China's. However, just because we have cool toys and a lot of money doesn't mean they want to join our nation. They might not even be impressed at all. It would probably prevent them from declaring war on us (neutral or non-aggression). And perhaps if they'd like a slice of the pie, they'd be inclined to set up a trade agreement to take advantage of our large economy. But if we ask them for a military affiliation so we can set up a military base on their land, there's still a good possibility they'd say no. And they would probably still choose to be independant of the United States regardless of how great things are. The level of trust to fully join the US is just not there. It's possible it could come, over time. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.

But, the diplomacy system I have laid out already accounts for all of this. It just prevents the entire process from occuring instantly, which it seems you are trying to get. I cannot see how any of this should be allowed to occur instantly, because it just does not make any sense. At all.



I agree.



I agree with this too... to a point. Let's continue and I'll explain....



I agree, for the most part.



I agree!!! And you even came up with the solution to it, which I agree with. Hello gift treaty. Gift treaties are one-way treaties (and to request a gift from another race are demands - just like BoTF1). There is NOTHING stopping us from allowing shipyard and starbase access to be included as gift/demand treaties. I disagree that any sort of affiliation is possible when the two sides are at war, neutral, or non-aggression.

However: if the Romulans ARE about to pwn you into oblivion so they can get past your territory, you can offer them a non-aggression treaty and to sweeten the pot you can include access to your shipyards and starbases for starship range. It'd be another bargaining chip, just like resources and credits. I think it's great and it should be added to the list of gifts/demands that can be offered/asked. This makes sense! What does NOT make sense is getting a military affiliation treaty with the Romulans so that YOU can use THEIR starbases and shipyards. That makes no sense whatsoever since the Romulans obviously have the upper-hand.
Even the peace-loving Federation would tell you where to stick your phaser.



A unique situation such as this is easily taken cared of. If in Canon, the Vorta are even remotely close to the Dominion homeworld (the same arguement can be made for the Federation and Vulcans to a lesser extent), then the game could start the two races off with a default peace treaty. Also, the modifiers to the "wait 10 turns" can be decimals, which will actually lower the amount of turns you have to wait to under 10. It's not that difficult to account for this exception. Also, I am going to assume that the Dominion is going to be balanced out to be effective with this knowledge in mind. There isn't much of an issue here, if any at all.



The Federation will have better diplomacy prowess. On first contact, they get a better attitude bonus (for the most part, there are exceptions which will be included in the code for each minor race) and will probably gain better attitudes from the other races than say... the romulans or klingons would if all other conditions were equal. This will reduce the amount of time the Federation will have to wait around before they can proceed to the next treaty level, which is still going to be a great advantage. Again, the modifiers that the Feds get will have to be balanced to bring them in line to what the strength should be, which shouldn't too difficult. Just like how the Romulan's cloak and torpedos will get balanced... how the cardassian ships will get balanced... and everything else that is in the game will get balanced.



What my system is doing is preventing certain treaties from instantly being offered when in all logical sense, there is no way it should be possible. In exchange, I have tried to come up with some additional options which will allow players to interact with the computer and help take care of different situations as they arise. 'Whoever manages to get a trading relationship established first" does NOT "basically win the minor race" because you and I have NO idea how effective trading will really be. Perhaps in order to keep a minor race pleased with you, may now have to hand them something. Currently in BoTF1, I very rarely lose a minor race once I've established a trade treaty with them. I typically lock them up with trade and forget about them until they come to me looking to upgrade their treaty. I also reguarly bribe minors away from their membership treaties. At that point, I also typically have them become members in the next two turns. That should NOT be possible. They don't know anything about me, other than I gave them a boatload of cash. Why in the world would they throw their entire system at me for a couple of credits? Is their system for sale? I missed the "For Sale" sign that was supposed to be posted at the first planet.

What's missing here? Yep, trust. By bribing a minor away, I have only proven that I'm loaded. Not whether or not if I am trustworty or not.



If you are given a "choice" or you will be killed, is that really a choice? If a guy goes to a bank teller, points a gun to his/her head, and demands 100,000 dollars, you are trying to tell me that the teller had a choice? If she did, then she should be thrown in jail if she is still alive.

At the end of a battle/war, there are two sides involved. A winner, and a loser. Let's say that a country (or race) were to invade another country's (or race's) territory and take them over... and the only options are to surrender or be erradicated, that there is really a choice here?

What do you think happens when you send troop transports down to a system to take it over? Surrender happens! How come your loyal citizens are not fighting to the death? Because they surrendered! ANY system that is subjugated has ALREADY SURRENDERED. All I'm suggesting is that it becomes a part of diplomacy, as it should be. It could also become a useful tool for getting non-aggression treaties signed at almost any time you want as you could surrender systems to an advancing empire to halt a war. It can also save you from the destruction of your ships and other defenses, and in general, can be a very useful diplomacy tactic. However, anyone that has surrendered HAS to be considered subjugated.

After all, if your country surrenders to an advancing country, wouldn't you be rather upset? And wouldn't you be thankful if another power came along and over-threw the opposing country (or even if you overthrew them yourselves?) Yep, that sounds like subjugation to me.



I agree. But, when I say "as realistic as possible," I'm really meaning "as realistic as possible **within reason.**"



And they were good, and added to the discussion. Thanks



I think that is another part of the game concerning the hospital ships, which will probably improve your standing with said race if you help them out.



I'm not really sure if this a problem, so to speak. However, the "solution" is in gradual diplomacy. Is it really in your best interest to be handing out your latest warp drives, quantum torpedos, phaser banks, and ship hulls to every race you meet within the next 2 turns? I don't think so... unless they were to join you so you could develop their planet into something that will be useful to your empire. That sounds like a gameplay desire to help further your empire along, when in actuality... this wouldn't make any realistic sense at all.



No, this would be a natural course of diplomacy. If a race you just met says, "Hey, I want to go colonize the 4 neighboring systems next door" are you honestly going to consider it? Well... you would... if they were going to join your empire so you can develop their system into something that will further your gameplay along. In reality, you wouldn't, and neither would any of the other races in the game.



Hospital Ships again. Here are some good attitude points waiting to be claimed. You don't need a treaty to help with this.



Again, there is no way in hell anyone would be willing to instantly help out with this for someone they just met. Some level of trust is required here.



Then you trade for it. Or go to war for it. The choice is yours (or whoever's).



Diplomacy at it's finest. If any race is worried about another race, then it is in their best interest to find some powerful friends. But friendship implies trust. You don't want to get "help" from the Cardasians and low-and-behold, they show up with a dozen troop transports because you gave them access to fly ships through your territory. Some measure of trust is required here. A good idea here, possibly, is to offer them some military support (a destroyer or two, starbase, something) as a gift, which would give you +attitude points and help speed up the diplomacy process.



I'm not sure about this one, because I don't know how diplomacy interaction with you can change this situation between the two minors. The systems aren't moving anywhere, and no amount of diplomacy will ever change that. So the best you can do is hope they become friends, or atleast respect each other so they don't fight over it.



Again, I'm not really sure how this one will fly either. That's between the Cards and the Bajorans. However, if the Cards declare war, the Bajoran can request a war pact from the Feds, which includes a military affiliation standard. Military Alliance/Membership is an optional after-market modification.



I agree. I'm a programmer for a living. I know.



I disagree. The system I've proposed isn't that overly complicated. I can psudeocode it in a couple hours or less, and if I had some references/structures to work with, I think I could get a lot of the basic structure in place without a huge time investment. It's complicated to explain... because it requires a lot of explanation. Explaining it is actually harder than implimenting it.



It's not that easy. The other computer AI's will be able to. I don't like it because **it should not be happening** if the diplomacy algorithms had actual AI.



Answers.com says that "AI here involves an attempt to model the reasoning process in solving a problem..." But there is no "reasoning" behind the instant memberships. None at all. Reasoning actually dictates that it should NEVER HAPPEN. Like you said above... it's inadvisible. Then why should the computer be capable of making that inadvisible decision?

Now, I can see removing ALL rules of diplomacy and leaving JUST the options if it we are capable of giving the AI the capacity to learn. That way, the computer could learn what is inadvisible, and not do it again. Essentially, it would allow the computer to make it's own mistakes. But that would be SO complicated that it would be a larger program in of itself and would dwarf the complexity that is the rest of Supremacy.

I'm sorry, but the rules have to stay. Without a true AI (which is beyond the scope of this program), some rules telling the computer what it can and can't do must be included. Otherwise, there won't be any AI to speak of. Just a lot of "A" without the "I".