I want to start out with two game theory concepts (Nash Equilibrium & prisoners dillema) that will help in the treaty suggestions themselves
- In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy. Think of this like the vortex you get when stirring a cup of coffee. in the center is a point that remains stable that represents the optimal solution for involved parties with all involved parties sitting along the vortex ring, no one party can improve their position alone... i.e. cold war arms race: disarm alone = you become vulnerable by placing yourself in a position of weakness that outweighs the money saved & lose Massively raise your arms spending: your opponent does the same & both lose. Agree to mutually disarm: You each have to risk the other side bluffing & stabbing you in the back resulting in significant expenditures verifying it happens that makes mutual disarming less beneficial to both
- The prisoner's dilemma is a canonical example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two purely "rational" individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests. everyone has probably heard of this one, but it can be applied to almost anything rather than just criminals
right now, there is a treaty option to declare war on so & so... but on larger galaxy sizes it's entirely possible that the other party is not even capable of building the infrastructure to reach so&so before the war ends one way or another.... The Ai(lets call them A) is also inclined to look at various factors about a given faction(
. The cold war example is a prisoner's dillema, but I'll get into why I list both types
Prisoner's Dilemma becomes something else when you add more participants to the game (i.e. a nash equilibrium). There are lots of treaties that try to make use of these two concepts (embargoes & such), but unless the targeted race actually interacts with the embargoing race, nothing much is really lost/gained by using them (from what I can tell?).
Part of that identified problem is there is nothing that a weaker B can offer the more powerful without harming B itself (i.e. mostly only exploitive gunboat diplomacy backed trades)meaning C can't really do much to squeeze the weaker B to hurt A & that A really has very little reason to care much if B is being squeezed directly by C or indirectly by C>D. some ideas that could help with this are below & names are just placeholders
- ceed management of x shipyard: The basic idea is that raceA pressures/buys off race B into giving them control over a given shipyard for a set# of turns (say 50-100?), perhaps race B pays for full/partial upkeep of the <ImprovementType>Manufacturing</ImprovementType> maintenance costs supplying that shipyard. In return Race B gets to build their own ships using that shipyard but not treat it as a resupply port
- B is now put in the difficult position of being under A's themb if A& C get in a scuffle, C can leverage D to squeeze B & perhaps harm the output of that shipyard more than C alone could
- Alternately, maybe B is a race with a strong manufacturing foundationwho wants to proactively trade excess shipyard capacity they don't really need themselves for something A can offer (a different branch of the tech tree, a distant planet, some military power, to protect against D, etc).
- Management/Cultural Exchanges: This doesn't work well with every racial bonus (i.e. a percentage of +1 moves/sensor range is basically still +0), but the idea is that for a given# of turns (20-50?)A could trade B a portion (say 1/3?) of a valid racial bonus Maybe it's a lossy transmission where say the irridium (or anyone)could get +5 to +7% growth from krynn & krynn lose -7 to -8% until the duration has expired or Krynn ceases to become a powerful enough faction to qualify for it/gets wiped out
- There are any number of situations where you might want a little of what your (fr)enemy has or be willing to give a little of it because it makes an enemy into a frenemy
- the exchange could be entirely mutual, maye the altarians are having a bad war with Iridium & the drengin are finding they just can't keep their population happy enough but really would like a chunk of that research tech lead too, a mutual solution is available. Maybe as a result, Yor offer Iridium shipyard management or a chunk of their manufacturing bonus rather than risk the Altarian/Drengin alliance turning their way if Iridium loses
