Wartime Diplomacy:

Why It's Weird

from GalCiv3 Forums

So, here's something to consider with how diplomacy currently works, and I assume it'd be an easy fix from a technical standpoint...

 

Diplomacy between warring parties? It seems like it should be a little more limited, a little more tense, no? Buuuuut as you might know it's actually almost identical to diplomacy with friendly civilizations, except that you're shooting at each other between trading sessions.

Enemy civs will continue with trading techs, ships, and so forth as if nothing has happened... But, perhaps the most egregious aspect of this is that you can buy off invading fleets in mid-flight. I was just running a playthrough as the Yor and my forces were a wee bit overtaxed by all of the negative attention that my Diplomacy (un)skill had earned me, and right in the middle of a Terran invasion I had a cyborg-esque :borg: brainstorm--and I bought one of the invading Terran fleets and immediately turned it against the one right next to it.

Now, perhaps I could see some future Espionage mechanic that allowed us to bribe enemy units, but this was a blatant, public transaction that I'm pretty sure the Terrans would never have agreed to, had they been in their right AI minds. The worst part about it was that I purchased units comparable to my own at slightly less than 10% of the normal rush price at one of my own starbases. This... has the potential for rampant abuse.

Moreover, I'd recommend that the "fog of war" be extended to unit listings--possibly planets too--between non-allied parties, except as potential offerings in a peace settlement. As it stands, it's very easy to run through an enemy's diplo window and get a full readout of his assets and capabilities without ever having to scout much in-game. This might be fine between allied civs, but it's a real no-no between people who are trying to kill each other; it would be even worse in multiplayer. I've seen a couple of posts talking about how strangely the AI weighs planets and the like in trade deals; this might be a simple solution to that problem as well, by making them off-limits under most circumstances.

 

There's my two cents on that... I'm running as a Spelling Nazi on my next playthrough and compiling a list of typos, but that's another story for another day.   :w00t:

3,760 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

interesting?....

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

While I agree that races undervalue ships while at war, nations sell each other weapons all the time (even when just not super happy about each other in all things.   I think that economic powerhouses can substitute military might of their own making with military might bought by their own credits from everyone else, I just wish that the AI would do it from the player sometimes (iridium especially!).  

 

I do however agree that they should place a significantly greater value on it while at war with you

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I agree, we should NOT see any of the other races hardware till after a set time or event such as a trade line or such. Granted YOU the player can sell YOUR ships but I think it would make the game far more fun to not know any of the material any race has. In fact if at war NO trades should be allowed except for grovelings of peace or offerings of tribute. No tech no hardware and the entire area of each enemy should be re fogged unless there is a physical ship to view said space. 

This would give a more dynamic feel and force the player to make hard choices on where to commit resources and diplomacy tactics. 

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 3

I agree, we should NOT see any of the other races hardware till after a set time or event such as a trade line or such. Granted YOU the player can sell YOUR ships but I think it would make the game far more fun to not know any of the material any race has. In fact if at war NO trades should be allowed except for grovelings of peace or offerings of tribute. No tech no hardware and the entire area of each enemy should be re fogged unless there is a physical ship to view said space. 

This would give a more dynamic feel and force the player to make hard choices on where to commit resources and diplomacy tactics. 
End of Larsenex's quote

 

I strongly disagree.  Maybe hide a fleet percentage of the most advanced ships, but other hardware should exist there during peace time.  What you are talking about sounds more like a disable tech brokering type option.

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tetrasodium, reply 2

While I agree that races undervalue ships while at war, nations sell each other weapons all the time (even when just not super happy about each other in all things.   I think that economic powerhouses can substitute military might of their own making with military might bought by their own credits from everyone else, I just wish that the AI would do it from the player sometimes (iridium especially!).  

 

I do however agree that they should place a significantly greater value on it while at war with you
End of Tetrasodium's quote

This makes me think of something that I considered mentioning but left out of my original post--the possibility of an Arms Trade Agreement as a diplomatic option. Not a Military Alliance per se, but an agreement to disclose your military assets and put some of them up on the market to some people. This would give some flexibility to people who did or did not wish to make their fleet rosters known, and maybe add a bit more weight to Espionage for those who didn't. And, as a big GC2 fan, I'm guessing that Espionage could use some attention this time around.

But, now that we're talking about it... Yeah, let's put that on the table too.

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Jorrrrrn, reply 5


Quoting Tetrasodium,
reply 2

While I agree that races undervalue ships while at war, nations sell each other weapons all the time (even when just not super happy about each other in all things.   I think that economic powerhouses can substitute military might of their own making with military might bought by their own credits from everyone else, I just wish that the AI would do it from the player sometimes (iridium especially!).  

 

I do however agree that they should place a significantly greater value on it while at war with you



This makes me think of something that I considered mentioning but left out of my original post--the possibility of an Arms Trade Agreement as a diplomatic option. Not a Military Alliance per se, but an agreement to disclose your military assets and put some of them up on the market to some people. This would give some flexibility to people who did or did not wish to make their fleet rosters known, and maybe add a bit more weight to Espionage for those who didn't. And, as a big GC2 fan, I'm guessing that Espionage could use some attention this time around.

But, now that we're talking about it... Yeah, let's put that on the table too.

End of Jorrrrrn's quote

That's sounding more like a multiplayer game focused thing than a core gameplay thing

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Here's a possibility:  the AI decides which of its various techs, ships, and planets it is willing to trade with a given race right now - and only those assets are shown in the diplomacy window.  So, if you're at war, it's probably only willing to consider credits and a peace treaty - if it's losing, some techs and planets might be shown, as possible peace treaty offerings.  For a neutral race, a lot more will be visible, though some high-value planets, ships, and techs may not be listed.

This would solve both the problem of buying warships from a race you're fighting, and reduce the impact of "Diplomacy scouting".  However, this would add an extra management aspect to multiplayer - since a player would have to manage which things they're willing to trade with each other player.

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

How difficult would it be though to simply implement Tohron's idea permanently? When you negotiate Race 1 on the AI screen for the first time, it doesn't show you necessarily everything - planets/ships/tech that Race 1 has? What's shown is dependant on Your relationship with Race 1 plus what your ships have discovered plus rumours/facts you've been told by a third party/another race. The ship discoveries and rumours/facts telling you things that Race 1 hadn't yet said...

And Race 1 contacts you, you have a tick box where you can decide just what you want Race 1 to know about you (again, the ship discovery and third party rumours/facts they find out about you apply.

This "cross fingers" reveal obviously has an effect on overall Diplomacy (you don't tell your friends everything until it suits you to...) Basically, only in an Alliance would you want to voluntarily reveal to Race 1 that snazzy Star Destroyer Jesse Pinkman fleet. Even in an Alliance, some things are best not mentioned and, oops, yes, yes, we told a white lie you caught us out on, here's 50b now go away....

This should apply in SP and MP.

 

 

 

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

What is needed is distinction between the races, for modders this should be a race type setting.

 
Wartime trading: No to most races, yes to the warlike races. War to them is more like peace to us, or it should be.


However yes they wouldn't want you getting your hands on their ships or weapons techs, but I don't think they'd care less about their environmental techs. Some races shouldn't want to trade you this fullstop even in peacetime, or be more wary of it. Some traders should LOVE to do deals :) and pester you for them more often, not to the point of annoyance but the Iridium Corporation should for example be coming to me every dozen or so turns maybe.


You could also weight it by ideology instead if you liked, but i'd prefer race types to be introduced for AI and diplomacy. (I just googled the Iridium corporation for spelling, and they are a cellphone company :) ) 

 

 

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tetrasodium, reply 6


That's sounding more like a multiplayer game focused thing than a core gameplay thing

End of Tetrasodium's quote

 

Would you object to this as a part of single-player? I feel like it'd be a useful addition to both, albeit a lot more useful in multi.

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Saareth, reply 9

What is needed is distinction between the races, for modders this should be a race type setting.

 
Wartime trading: No to most races, yes to the warlike races. War to them is more like peace to us, or it should be.


However yes they wouldn't want you getting your hands on their ships or weapons techs, but I don't think they'd care less about their environmental techs. Some races shouldn't want to trade you this fullstop even in peacetime, or be more wary of it. Some traders should LOVE to do deals :) and pester you for them more often, not to the point of annoyance but the Iridium Corporation should for example be coming to me every dozen or so turns maybe.


You could also weight it by ideology instead if you liked, but i'd prefer race types to be introduced for AI and diplomacy. (I just googled the Iridium corporation for spelling, and they are a cellphone company :) ) 

 

 
End of Saareth's quote

 

Going off of what you and Tohron and Mrblondini all talked about as far as what should be available... I think that environmental techs MIGHT be important and not up for trade, but only depending on the civilization/ideology/strategy in question. Really, what I'm getting at is, I think that another aspect of the civs' unique personalities should be how they prioritize different technologies in accordance with their playing strategies.

For example, an Iridium player might have some incredibly advanced trade techs, which would make sense from their angle since they could probably get huge returns off of it. But I'm NOT certain that they'd be any more willing to part with "Intergalactic Trade Bonanza" than the Drengin would be to let go of their "Super-Duper Meatgrinder" technology. If anything, in a play style that relies so heavily on $$$ and good relations and probably involves only limited military production, the Iridium guys would probably be glad to part with their low-level military techs in order to get their hands on something that could increase economic output.

In this case, giving up their massive trade edge, even in exchange for 30 new weapon techs, would be no edge at all... They would be taking something that gave them a big relative advantage and some great hope of winning the game, and they'd barter it away for something that would be of little use to them. And, the further along they are in a particular tree, the more relative advantage they might perceive because of the required investment to catch up in that tree, not just to purchase the lone tech. If you've got something that's 100 turns ahead of anyone else in that field, well, that's probably doing a lot of work for you.

So, yes, I think the "builder" types of civilizations would have good reason to hold onto their top economic techs, just as surely as a warlike faction would want to hold onto its best weapons, just as surely as a "trader" group would want to keep its commercial/diplomatic edge. I'd like to see the AI calculate the relative advantages and disadvantages of certain techs based on their approach to the game, and then weigh those options accordingly, rather than merely assigning a monetary value based on the amount of research required to purchase the tech.