In most 4x games, you can pretty much talk to anyone at any time without negative repercussions. Some games have built in the ability for the AI to refuse to talk to you, but mostly diplomacy is readily available and instantaneous in it's results.
I've played games (mostly board games I think) where diplomacy was more of a resource. It took a particular figure to initiate diplomacy, such as an ambassador and potentially the more grand the request the more important an envoy would be required. Diplomacy also wasn't free. The envoy used is out of commission for X amount of time (similar to a spy) and gaining audience for the envoy costs money in terms of greasing the right palms. I am also influenced by the way Solium Infernum has a very rigid diplomatic system (and a diplomatic request costs an action, which are of high value in that game).
The reason I bring this all up is maybe it'd be worth modeling in some fashion. I'd love to see a nerf on the trick of selling the same tech to every other kingdom. If you had to send an envoy and it took 3 turns for him in travel time, plus a set 100 gold in diplomatic expenses, then that'd cut down the ability to abuse diplomatic relations. Given Elemental already has some concept of bloodlines and the value of noble figures there, maybe modelling diplomacy could fit in there. Bob, nephew of the Duke of Bloodmoor, is your low level envoy capable of trade agreements, while the niece of the king is a high level envoy capable of war/peace treaties. By modelling it, it'd also mean if you wanted to be diplomacy heavy in a game then you have to actually spend resources to do it, not just work the diplomacy screens.
What about the idea of assigning a permanent envoy to an empire. Instead of having an envoy actually on the map moving around, when you meet a civilization you assign an ambassador to that country. It is assumed that you will have some form of rapid communication with that ambassador (magic, birds, etc.), so that you can "immediately" make proposals and respond to the other faction.
However, your relations will be affected by the ambassadors abilities/characteristics, and the ambassador himself will require upkeep of some sort (perhaps gold and food, magic of some sort, a building being maintained). You could change your amabassador at any time, but you might lose some of the relationship bonus he has accrued over time.
Because it is only a single person, they can only take so many actions in a turn or every few turns.
Diplomatic options could include: murdering the ambassador of another race, trying to bribe them to your side, etc.
Awesome idea! I mean, what you're suggesting is basically a TW-like diplomacy system, but one that actually works (I liked the concept in TW but trying to get a diplomat good enough to accomplish anything was an exercise in frustration, and by the time you get one he dies of old age).
I am definitely opposed to expendable diplomacy points, though! That would be terrible. It is not an abstraction of ckessel's idea, it is a completely different method of limiting diplomacy - and an inferior method, at that. I would rather plain old GC2- or Civ -style diplomacy than expendable diplomacy points.
On the other hand, I like the idea of sovereigns communicating with each other using magical means. After all, in Elemental we are the Sovereign, not the whole empire, and therefore in order to control our whole empire in real-time our sovereigns must have some form of instant or very fast communication with their subordinates, wherever they are. Therefore, they should be able to speak to each other, too
What about Murteas's permanent envoy idea? You could send permanent diplomatic envoys to certain factions (or every faction), but at a cost (maybe a diplomatic envoy must be a champion, or maybe it'll have some upkeep cost, whatever). Diplomacy would be engaged Sovereign to Sovereign, but the purpose of a diplomatic envoy could be to warm up your counterparty to whatever ideas you are going to propose, making them more likely to accept. Envoys with different specialties could be better with certain things than others; for example, a diplomatic envoy from a merchant background could be very good at getting trade deals through, while a retired general as an envoy might be much better at pushing through mutual defense pacts or convincing the other party to declare war on your enemy, etc.
It would be nice to see diplomacy evolve from its current state of "Click diplomacy, propose every deal under the sun to see if you can get anything good out of it."
Perhaps a hybrid of some of the above ambassador ideas above might achieve the problems with standard diplomtic systems:
Players can set up an ambassador in another team's empire. This could be accomplished a little like the original civ, where you had to build a diplomat, get it to another person's city, then you could create an embassy. I prefer the simplified version mentioned above, where you can choose a champion or better to become an ambassador, mainly because this works well for the dynasty system and using sons/daughters that are more important should have some benefit vs the risk they can get assassinated.
As mentioned above, there should be a action limit per turn because people can only achieve so much in any given time period. Perhaps building on this idea though: Have the ambassador's diplo bonus apply from 0-100% depending on the number of turns he has been idle. eg, the turn after he/she has been used, if you use he/she again, their diplo bonus will be 0% of what it is normall. The turn after, it will be 33% of normal, etc etc. This would hopefully reduce the diplo spamming which has been talked about as being an issue, and still give flexibility if you want to pay through the nose to get a deal done quickly. Think of the returning bonus as the ambassador has had time to grease the wheels of the other team's palace.
maybe because games =! history? i wasn't aware that during the dark and feudal ages there were dragons and wizards fighting
Diplomacy already is a finite resource because you can't keep trading techs forever. Ok so you traded all your techs, now what? This is the reason why global voting systems were created for 4x games.
Side note, public auctions would be cool.
I think the gyst of what people are getting to when talking about making diplomcy a finite object is: restricting the ability to make diplomatic overtures to stop the diplo spam. So its not, oh, I just did diplo to all 30 team to sell my latest tech in 1 turn. It will be more like, save up, start the diplo with 1 or 2 teams, more saving, try another 2 teams.
I've just realised something about all the diplomatic systems described above when talking about getting diplomacy bonuses for the other team to say yes. They are all based on playing AI teams. I'm not saying this is bad, just, is there a way t omake having good diplomacy translate into benefits when playing with/against human players?
My first thuoght was to force players to accept if the other was high enough in the diplo bonus, but forcing players to anything is baaaaaaad!!!
So, instead, I thought, what if you compare the two human's bonuses against each others at the time of making a deal, and who ever has the highest bonus gets either a discount to what they are giving away, or a bonus to what they are receiving in? This way, there is a good reason to take diplo bonuses in mp games, because when you're making trades you are getting better deals.
eg: P1 trades with P2. The deal struck is pay 1000gp for horseback riding tech. P1 diplo bonus > P2 diplo bonus. Therefore the actual gold that P1 will pay (which only P1 knows about) is 1000gp - Y(some function of diplo bonus).
Good point. I'm leaning more and more towards purely basing diplomacy on physical units that do just that job. Whether playing with the AI or against people, you're then up against the same set of limitations on initiating diplomacy. I'm thinking you'd have to purchase (recruit) diplomatic figures. More powerful figures would cost more. So, as a kingdom, I might have the following:
Envoy - level 1 diplomat - can broker basic deals
Ambassador - level 2 diplomat - can negotiate non-aggression pacts and one-time trade agreements
Emissary - level 3 diplomat - offer peace treaties, permanent trade agreements (e.g. resource swap ala Civ IV)
King's Man - level 4 diplomat - Can can arrange marriages, alliances, etc
So, if you want to do cool diplomatic stuff you've got to invest (recruit) the guys to do it and spend the gold to have them execute their diplomatic missions. That'd work whether multiplayer or AI because it puts a more rigid control around how diplomacy can be executed. In Sins of a Solar Empire, your ability to build capital ships has to be increased and that same mechanic could apply to having to increase your "global political influence" to support a larger cadre of diplomats.
I also like the idea of diplomats being able to do field work: wooing neutral cities, inciting rebellion, and such. Not sure how that design would work though. Maybe diplomats can gain 1 "skill" per level, with a pure diplomatic skill tree and a more espionage related one, so you could specialize a diplomat for actual diplomacy or diversify him into a combo diplomat/agent.
Another change I would like to see, especially within MP play is that when I initate the Diplomatic screen, I do not reveal all the Tech's I have just because...
Against the AI, one assume it knows ALL things but is constrained bu other things to not abuse this type of thing. When I open a Diplo screen vs the AI, I get to see "where his/her Tech" level is. Instant information that I probably should not be privy to.
When playing another human player, I do not wish them to use the Diplo screen as a window into my Realm, without my consent.
Not sure how to deal with it but I guess we could use a check box system, that any item I check the box on, gets revealed as available to trade, or be negotiated for. If not checked, it is hidden from the other opponent, thus keeping my Techs, # of Cities, and even Troops count secret, UNLESS, I decide to reveal that info.
The use of Diplomacy could even be applied in this area to have certain Techs, low-Mid level say, be always check boxed, based on the Level of Diplomacy you and another faction currently enjoy.
Good relations would reveal all low level techs by default. Mid level relations, the next tier is revealed, then when you marry in, all is revealed.
Just something else to consider.
Well, sending envoi makes me think about romance of the 3 kingdom where managing personnel was actually something that you needed to do. Still I don't want that level of detail in elemental.
Diplomatic points would be awesome. For example, compare it with command points in master of orion 2. Command points is an abstraction of all the installations and communication capabilities of the player. Diplomatic points could be the same things.
Points could not only be used to initiate diplomatic relations but also to maintain relations. For example, trade or research treaties could use some of your diplomatic points everyturn.
Else, I would do like in orion 2, make research/trade treaty with everybody and get a huge amount of income.
But, there is still some elements in the theme that makes sure that you do not necessairly need envoi to do stuff:
A ) magical communication: You can talk to any wizard when you know where they are. That is how it works in MOM. You could make sure that simple yes/no agreements does not requires diplomatic points (ex: I declare war), but doing more complex negociation that require more than the 2 wizards talking to each other.
B ) Councils: In my board game of MOM, I would have councils. Which mean reunions where wizards can talk and negotiate stuff. Again, it reduce the need of envoi because you can talk to everybody you want. So again that could lead to the solution where diplomatic points are used to maintain agreements rather than create them.
Yeah, I always loved those KOEI RotK games....also "that" level of detail? It wasn't that "micromanagey" at all.
I love the idea of a more robust diplomatic engine that
Limits the amount of offers and diplo spam you get.
Makes you have to think about what you are offering or accepting due to a finite nature of treaties you can have.
The idea of hiding your information from other human players is something that really really should happen. If my fantasy kingdom manages to invent the nuke. I really don't want them knowing about it till after their city is already glowing.
But if units it would definitely need to have a limiter on number of diplo units that can be made.
But if points it would also need a limiter on max number of points you could have and I think a slow build up of those points in replenishment.
Third option would be embassies that the opposing player could request in a city, and if you agree they take up 1 of your building tiles and creates a embassy in your town for that faction. One you could demolish at a huge diplomatic penalty/repercussion. It would open up a interesting idea for a specialty town that is mostly prestige and diplomatic buildings.
Just a note on teh MoO 2 command point system: It was crippling early game, and useless end game (command points stopped being a constraining choice factor). I would recommend against any type of MoO 2 command point system every time.
The whole envoy thing in my opinion was a greaser of diplomacy. I'm with everyone who states that diplo should be all in one turn for any reason at all, including keepin the diplo easy to keep track of (most people say tere is magic therefore.... which is cool). However, I don't really want another set of production points for me to generate for diplo. I just had a dabble in the Z4 beta today, and I'm already looking at managing up to 10 resources already......5 of them are needed ALL the time, so havingdiplo points as well would just be a bother.
Merging a couple of ideas above with my own spin: Use a diplo scree that has a list of envoys with various diplo skill, you can hire/retain a set limit of these folks. When you want to do diplo, you select which envoy you want to use for which empire you want to talk to. *hocus pocus goes in here*. The diplo resolves in that same turn. However, that envoy you used has a cooldown time before you can use him/her again. Calll itmagical teleporting sickness or something. Really, it is just a system to limit and make you choose which diplo you want to do before others. I don't think embassies are needed, just think teleport
The other good thing about having envoys, is the possibility of having them give bonus to specific areas of diplo ( I believe this was mentioned above - war veteran giving bnonus to peace treaties or mutual enemy pacts), INSTEAD of blanket bonus to diplo. This way, it is still your sov that is the main modifier for diplo, which is better in my opinion.
Did anyone have ideas on how diplo bonuses should work in mp?? I'm with you all on the shouldn't be able to see all my stuff in diplo window!!
I would personally like to see "political capital." Basically, with each major faction you would have an abstract currency representing all of the favors you have done for them. When you want them to do something for you or seal an important deal, you can use political capital to influence the outcome.
For instance, you approach the Acacian Kingdom and propose a special trade pact. The Acacians have less to gain from it and innitially refuse. That's when you throw in 100 points of political capital (Hey man, remember that time when I cleared those worgs out of the the Velan Wood.)
If they still refuse, it would hurt their standing with other nations as well (I don't know how I feel about those Acacians anymore. They seem to forget their debts too easily.)
Likewise, if another faction uses political capital against you and you decline, you would suffer similar detriment.
Though while we are on the topic of diplomacy. I would like to share a few thoughts that I find frustrate the hell out of me with the whole exercise. Due to the nature of the implementation in almost all games I have played. I find the only thing I ever do diplomaticly is either trade tech or set up trade agreements. as for peace treaties, war declarations and such I almost completely ignore them. Why you may ask...
1. Faction A asks me to go to war with Faction B. Two turns later Faction A hasn't attacked Faction B at all and they make peace. While Faction B is now trying to exterminate me with extreme prejudice.
2. Faction A asks to trade tech. they Offer me Horseback Riding and only ask for ICBM in return. When I say no they declare war on me.
3. Faction A asks me for a peace treaty, and then when I grant it they proceed to run their units all over my territory. Which I most certainly didn't give them permission to do. So the only way to keep them off my land is to stay at war.
4. Faction X makes a demand for tribute on turn 3.. then turn 5... then turn 10 ad naseum
5. I decide I need Faction C to stay alive a little longer as a buffer from other factions. So I generously share with Faction C the technology to make tanks. Next thing I know every other faction has tanks.
Thes are just a few of the things that make me ignore most diplomatic activities unless I am playing MP against another human player. Now I know an AI isn't easy to write and wouldn't even begin to belittle the talents of any programmer that is able to make even a passably simple one.
But I definitely would like to see if possible a AI with a better memory of past wrongs and past generosity. And an AI that makes it clear why the faction I have just spent the last 250 turns coexisting peacefully with as neighbors just decided they hated my guts and launched an all out offensive. And an AI that doesn't expect handouts and then when you laugh in their faces the get all upright and pretentious.
While we are at it. An ability to set the tone of our declination. From a polite" I am sorry Mr. Khan, but with your understanding of horsemanship, giving you are assault rifle technology would be kind of stupid" to a "While I understand Mr. Gorbechev and we respect your nation we just cannot accept your proposal" to a "Screw you Kim Jong Ill, and if you even look at our land we will turn you into a radiocative pile of dust"
Okay. Hopefully we can all agree that it would be awesome for unit interaction to necessitate Diplomacy.
What I mean by this, is that if any one of your Champions/Sov is within unit-LOS of their SOV, or one of your Champions/SOV is in one of their cities, or vice versa ... free form diplomacy can take place.
If neither of these two presumptions are met, then diplomacy is not possible (or extremely limited).
Perhaps this "limited" nature could be that, if neither of the two presumptions are met (Sov LOS or Champ in city), each Diplomatic gesture takes 4 turns to reach the other Player/ AI. Whereas if one of your Champions is within their city walls, such discussions can take place instantaneously (all within one turn).
" 1. Faction A asks me to go to war with Faction B. Two turns later Faction A hasn't attacked Faction B at all and they make peace. While Faction B is now trying to exterminate me with extreme prejudice. 2. Faction A asks to trade tech. they Offer me Horseback Riding and only ask for ICBM in return. When I say no they declare war on me. 3. Faction A asks me for a peace treaty, and then when I grant it they proceed to run their units all over my territory. Which I most certainly didn't give them permission to do. So the only way to keep them off my land is to stay at war. 4. Faction X makes a demand for tribute on turn 3.. then turn 5... then turn 10 ad naseum 5. I decide I need Faction C to stay alive a little longer as a buffer from other factions. So I generously share with Faction C the technology to make tanks. Next thing I know every other faction has tanks."
5. I decide I need Faction C to stay alive a little longer as a buffer from other factions. So I generously share with Faction C the technology to make tanks. Next thing I know every other faction has tanks."
Well stated indeed. And I would add one of mine as well.
6. When I open a a Diplomatic window, often times I will make an offer and it will get refused. I then sweeten the pot, or do a re-mix and re-offer, only to be refused again. This can continue until finally frustration clicks the Close button.
How about after my first attempt, the AI steps up and says.
"Here is what I would prefer to have at this time. Despite knowing that did not want to trade "it", as you did not offer it first time". As it was not on the available Trade Listing, due to being unchecked. (hint hint)
Then I could decide what I might be wiling to accept for that Trade item and if refused, we part ways amicably and can try again later.
I play several games other than fantasy and one I am currently on is called Crown of Glory - a napoleonic game. The diplomacy in this one is a bit more convoluted than the typical 4x, but it is a valuable and fun component.
Just an FYi that we're reading this thread closely.
Awesome. and is there any FYI on thoughts the wonderful devs have to add?
@Tasunke, the game has too much magic in it to limit diplomacy based on FOV, in my opinion, it just adds complexity and will cause diplomacy to be frustrating. Also, early game this cuold be crippling for diplo, and late game (FOV gets bigger late game due to equip + more resources), the mechanic will become in-effective.
@John, I like the non-repurcussion system you describe if you offer a counter proposal rather than a flat decline and goodbye (or if the AI offers a counter proposal). Although, I think it wuold promote diplo spam because so long as you offer a counter proposal there is no reduction in team relations. That being said, I don't think that having reduction in team relations for declined offers is a mechanic that works overly well to reduce diplo spam.
I think that if anyone breaks a diplomatic deal
-like declaring war on an ally
-or attacking a neutral city while "just passing through"
Your cities should get hit with a prestige penalty for 10-20 turns, so that if you keep acting decietful your people will start to migrate away. Of course,, you can always choose to kill them instead with Sacrificial ALtars ... :3
Anyways, point being that doing crappy things should probably be dealt with by causing long term (yet temporary) prestige penalties.
While I am not sure of the scale of the penalty I can definitely get behind the prestige penalty for broken treaties.
Well, I was thinking -2 prestige in every city for 20 turns. (for breaking a pact)
Now, you can still diplomatically tell the person that you are "nullifying contract" and then you have a pact of 10 turns peace before doing anything against them (other than espionage/assassination attempts)
but rather, if you break the pact through violent action (or declaration of war) you get the penalty.
The one type of pact that would not do this is an economic treaties. Trading pacts or research pacts that are broken due to a Declaration of war do not bestow this penalty. Only diplomatic/political/religious? pacts.
I like this.
Side note: The envoys should be "killable". Example: You send an envoy to X city, and that city is being captured by a third faction later on...."that third faction" should decide to execute your envoy or let him go. Also I think that even moving armies should be able to attack envoys on the strategic map. However if we gonna end up having assassins, the ability to attack an envoy with an army should be removed perhaps. [Just like in TW] Let the assassins do their job instead. Also, maybe we should be able to assign personal bodyguards to the envoys, if assassins will be added.
I agree with permanent envoys.
I also think that envoys should be champions.
I also think that, in order to form an alliance, your permanent envoys to each other must be Family Members.
Also, a vassal's permanent envoy to his Lord/Master should be a family member. (meanwhile the Lord doesn't need a permanent envoy for his vassal)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
