Problems with diplomacy?

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: GodwinW




Good point in some cases.
For example, I dislike the prohibition of playing minor diplo strats on minors who are at war with majors.
In my games that means I can get maybe 1 in 4-5 minors to even do stuff with potentially. And probably not the interestingly-located ones.

Why is there no 'I'll join your fight against the Major in return for you becoming me protectee, or even my vassal', for example?

There's no option to incorporate the fact they're fighting a war into your diplomacy, which is a bit weird. Someone at war may very well want an ally!

Because game AI has no way of planning for that possibility.
Humans meanwhile? Planning ahead is trivial for us.

No way? Eh.. what?

IF offered stratagem X THEN ** stratagem x can only be played when the minor is at war with a different major
.. IF (casualties > y), or (hexes - hexes of 5 turns ago < 0), or (w/e you want) THEN
.... accept
.. End if
End if

That is the requirement to play this card.
No idea what you think that maters for the AI, wich has to deal withthe player turning a expansion war vs a minor into a major regime struggle.

Or did you seriously think I was talking about the AI being unable to attack when someone is distracted by another war? The AI already seems to do that all the time!

[GodwinW]

No.. that is not the requirement. I spoke of the requirement in a comment on why you don't need to fuss with that in that spot because the strat's requirements already set the situation.

In plain words then if that confuses you:
If the minor has a lot of casualties or if he lost a lot of hexes lately (translation: the war is going badly for him), you can code him to accept.
He should be way more willing/desperate to be rescued by another major at the cost of some sovereignty. Better to be a vassal state than dead.

And no, the example isn't precise but a broad sketch of how you could code this. I am reacting to you saying it's impossible to code it because the AI has no way of planning for that. It's not the AI who starts it, YOU play the stratagem.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

No.. that is not the requirement. I spoke of the requirement in a comment on why you don't need to fuss with that in that spot because the strat's requirements already set the situation.

In plain words then if that confuses you:
If the minor has a lot of casualties or if he lost a lot of hexes lately (translation: the war is going badly for him), you can code him to accept.
He should be way more willing/desperate to be rescued by another major at the cost of some sovereignty. Better to be a vassal state than dead.

And no, the example isn't precise but a broad sketch of how you could code this. I am reacting to you saying it's impossible to code it because the AI has no way of planning for that. It's not the AI who starts it, YOU play the stratagem.

Now you are talking about cheating the AI out of the City they have been fighting to getting this whole time.

All that fighting to get teh city. Making them weak enough to even consider your offer.
You protectorate them.
The Major just incured combat casualties without any hope of recovering the losses. Unless he goes to war with you, who just got stronger.

It does not realy mater how you slice it - this is going to be terrible for the human or AI that has been fighting to get it.
And they have no counterplay options.

These kinds of Systems never work. Excactly because of the scenario you want them for.

[GodwinW]

Ah now that's an argument!

So you ask how to balance this in order for it to not be too powerful?
Ok, well, it's a good point, not so much imo versus AI but versus other humans, for the sake of such balance.

Well, it could be made rare (tied to a profile, limited to once/game, very hard roll etc.).
It could be made costly (credit cost, PP cost, relation damage with other majors).
The consequences could be made dire (if you fail the roll you get serious relation damage with everyone (breaking a local 'code of honor' or so, failing to actually rescue the minor you promised to rescue results in war with every minor, etc).
The bonus isn't that big either if the Major is smashing the minor (laser vs farmers) and you now have to protect these weak guys and have war with that major who has his troops in place while yours may not be (at minimum you may need to cross the minor's lands).

So, I think it could be fine, but yes it could be frustrating for human players at times to get this used against you. You still make a good point.
Maybe it's better if the game doesn't have it, but I just find it difficult to believe when I see someone in dire straits *not* seeking out allies.
Heck, even one of the very starting options is: we survived because we found allies against our pursuers!
It's literally right at the start of the game

[Leslac]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

No.. that is not the requirement. I spoke of the requirement in a comment on why you don't need to fuss with that in that spot because the strat's requirements already set the situation.

In plain words then if that confuses you:
If the minor has a lot of casualties or if he lost a lot of hexes lately (translation: the war is going badly for him), you can code him to accept.
He should be way more willing/desperate to be rescued by another major at the cost of some sovereignty. Better to be a vassal state than dead.

And no, the example isn't precise but a broad sketch of how you could code this. I am reacting to you saying it's impossible to code it because the AI has no way of planning for that. It's not the AI who starts it, YOU play the stratagem.

Now you are talking about cheating the AI out of the City they have been fighting to getting this whole time.

All that fighting to get teh city. Making them weak enough to even consider your offer.
You protectorate them.
The Major just incured combat casualties without any hope of recovering the losses. Unless he goes to war with you, who just got stronger.

It does not realy mater how you slice it - this is going to be terrible for the human or AI that has been fighting to get it.
And they have no counterplay options.

These kinds of Systems never work. Excactly because of the scenario you want them for.

Honestly this pretty much describes a lot of human history up til now. It's extremely logical for a losing regime to seek strong allies, even be vassals. Which is one reason why you didn't just go to war on a whim, but waited for a moment of weakness to pounce.

Just give the same protectorate options to the ai and include the EU series option of "guarantees", which gives you access to a minor's logistics system, but don't take control of them and allow you to move into their territory to counter another major invasion (and if you decide to attack their capital, get massive word penalties, crippling unrest and neighbour hate).


The simple fact of the matter is, at this time, diplomacy very rarely really works. And minor diplomacy almost never... It needs more work - which is honestly the situation with most 4x games.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Leslac

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Now you are talking about cheating the AI out of the City they have been fighting to getting this whole time.

All that fighting to get teh city. Making them weak enough to even consider your offer.
You protectorate them.
The Major just incured combat casualties without any hope of recovering the losses. Unless he goes to war with you, who just got stronger.

It does not realy mater how you slice it - this is going to be terrible for the human or AI that has been fighting to get it.
And they have no counterplay options.

These kinds of Systems never work. Excactly because of the scenario you want them for.

Honestly this pretty much describes a lot of human history up til now. It's extremely logical for a losing regime to seek strong allies, even be vassals. Which is one reason why you didn't just go to war on a whim, but waited for a moment of weakness to pounce.

I am already playing this "life" thing 24/7.
Graphics are unbeatable. But the goals are unclear and the forced ironman mode is really frustrating.

I prefer my computer games to be a bit fairer.

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

Ah now that's an argument!

So you ask how to balance this in order for it to not be too powerful?
Ok, well, it's a good point, not so much imo versus AI but versus other humans, for the sake of such balance.

Well, it could be made rare (tied to a profile, limited to once/game, very hard roll etc.).
It could be made costly (credit cost, PP cost, relation damage with other majors).
The consequences could be made dire (if you fail the roll you get serious relation damage with everyone (breaking a local 'code of honor' or so, failing to actually rescue the minor you promised to rescue results in war with every minor, etc).

Those are all nice ideas. That failed in every single game that tried them. It would be really nice if it worked like that, but it really does not.

We have literal decades of evidence, that non-binding diplomacy does not work. Wich includes not being able to "snatch" a city from another player peacefully (the war options is always there).
Stellaris used to allow players to gift planets while at war. Wich was invariably used to cheat the enemy that defeated you out of their price - just give every planet to a 3rd party.

If this is all just about dealing with the Zombie Majors keeping Minors at war, Vic is actually adressing that problem in the Beta. At the Majors, the only place where such a problem should be adressed.

[WCG]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

I am already playing this "life" thing 24/7.
Graphics are unbeatable. But the goals are unclear and the forced ironman mode is really frustrating.

Amen, brother! [:D]

Years ago, after I'd been playing a game for some hours, I dropped a box of tacks, which spilled out all over the floor of my house. My first reaction was to reload the game. Heh, heh. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in RL. Too bad. [:)]

[concern]

It does seem to be a bug. I have Realpolitikers as well who won't accept a NAP. The reason I believe it is a bug is that I can click on the strategy, select the target major, receive the "does not support" message...then click on the REP (reports) tab, then click back to the STRAT tab and voila, you can play the strategy. Odd bug.

[WCG]

ORIGINAL: concern

It does seem to be a bug. I have Realpolitikers as well who won't accept a NAP. The reason I believe it is a bug is that I can click on the strategy, select the target major, receive the "does not support" message...then click on the REP (reports) tab, then click back to the STRAT tab and voila, you can play the strategy. Odd bug.

Yup. I just tried that, and it worked for me, too. Thanks!

It is a bug, and it's been fixed in the new version of the game, apparently. But I'd have to start a new game for it to take effect.

Thanks again. I'm still deciding whether to continue my current game - which has gotten pretty exciting - or start over with the new stuff, especially since I'm always tempted to see what a new planet looks like. Decisions, decisions. [:)]