Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

4X strategy game from Proxy Studios

Moderators: Pandora Moderators, Slitherine Core

NightReaper
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:01 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by NightReaper »

+1
ChuckGyver
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:01 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by ChuckGyver »

Imho, it's to easy right now to be best friends with all other factions, except the divines. Means, if you have enough military power at begin you get economic,science agreement, besides non-aggression, open borders and sharing the maps, even on very hard. And at begin it's a no-brainer to get an econmoic and science agreement with everyone. The only thing I have against this, would be some kind of diplomatic action points.Gaining 0.2 dip per turn and a limit of 2. You gain no dip as long you haven't met any other faction. Have a tech in each tier, that increase gain per 0.1 and limit by 1. dip are used for "good" diplomacy and only subtracted from the proposer, even when there was no success. For ending treaties, denounce and dow no dip is needed, for every other diplomatic action one point is needed.
The most valuable treaty at begin is the research agreement. To lower this a little bit, another treaty could be a requirement. So have non-aggression, open borders or economic agreement to be able to get a science agreement.
Apheirox
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:54 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by Apheirox »

^supporting what Gyver says: Diplomacy is too easy. Something seems to not be working right. In my current game on Medium difficulty I'm 'Generous' with everybody, including even Divine Ascension. I have zero military but it doesn't matter because everybody's friendly. All the AIs are on friendly terms, as well.

Worse, Divine A cancelled our non-aggression pact but I could just go to diplomacy and request a new one on the same turn - it got accepted. Generally, the AI behaviour is schizophrenic: They're both demanding tribute from me and showering me in gifts, it makes no sense at all. They've also been both denouncing and praising me but not as much as with the gifts/demands. I've been declining every demand to pay tribute and yet there has been zero deterioration of relations.

Judging from this current game, diplomacy is hopelessly broken.
boulugre
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:43 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by boulugre »

Apheirox wrote: ....
Judging from this current game, diplomacy is hopelessly broken.
+1
fortydayweekend
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:40 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by fortydayweekend »

It needs some more influences to liven things up - like religion in civ4, or government types in SMAC. Maybe "natural" allies & enemies, either scripted or random or set at options at the start (allowing "teams").

Or have your standing relative to other factions affect relations:
- Terra Salvum: based on pollution level
- Noxium: based on average tax rate
- Togra: based on percentage of scientists
- Divine Ascension: based on morale
- Imperium: based on average rank of military units (respect for combat experience/training)
- Solar Dynasty: based on percentage of workers

The idea being to have relations affected by something logical that is independent of faction size. And based on how you stand vs. the other factions. So the worst polluter would get a big TS hit, the middle rank polluter would be neutral, etc. This would give you a chance to affect relations but at a price, things would change during the game etc.
Apheirox
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:54 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by Apheirox »

Rather than basing it on somewhat obscure faction fluff I'd rather see diplomacy being based on who is winning the game. If Pandora successfully employs such a sensible system it will have done what certain mentionable other 4Xs (Civ V says hi!) has failed to do, creating a game where the tension is intact right up till the end.

If one faction starts pulling way ahead of everybody else it should see diplomatic relations deteriorating due to their 'envying their power'. A cooling of relations is the logical response to a player winning the game - the same would happen in a multiplayer game. Then, instead of being able to just lean back and comfortably win this winning faction would have to stay on top of their game and the diplomacy to maintain their lead position, making for a closer and more exciting game throughout.

The other main factor in diplomacy should be military strength; having a small army should invite aggression (Pandora already has this but as you can see from my post right above it doesn't work properly).
jdmillard
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:20 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by jdmillard »

From what I understand, the AI are already supposed to get less comfortable as others approach victory. But you are right, the effect is hardly noticeable and needs to be made more potent.

In Alpha Centauri, there was an overall faction score that was based on population, military, research, everything... and whoever was in the lead was naturally not trusted by anyone. This made the game more interesting if you were the one winning, and it made it possible to play "catch up" if you were not doing so well because you could work with other weaker factions easily enough.

In Pandora, it's obvious that the AI factions act as circling vultures who go after the faction with the weakest military. This is an effective strategy in the mid-game, but it makes for a very weak end-game. I don't mind if they want to pick off the weaker factions, but they also need to keep an eye on the powerful and challenge them.
boulugre
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:43 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by boulugre »

I agree with both of you on the step you advices to improve AI diplomatic stance, however I also think those change needs to be integrated and balanced with changes in other elements of the game play.

It was discussed in other posts how unbalanced it is to swallow another faction in early or even mid game. War in this game are very brutal (which i like :twisted: ) and taking over another faction in a matter of a few tun is very easy once you won the main battle for both human player and AI faction.

If the human player does it, its a guaranteed victory. If the IA does it it forces the player to move in action or die, which makes some strategy as defensive teching to science victory or waiting late era to launch the final war impossible. And once you killed the AI faction to avoid being overrun, well the game is pretty much over as you stand as a superpower.

This in my opinion needs to be addressed before or simultaneously than the diplomatic tweaks.
fortydayweekend
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:40 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by fortydayweekend »

Apheirox wrote:If one faction starts pulling way ahead of everybody else it should see diplomatic relations deteriorating due to their 'envying their power'. A cooling of relations is the logical response to a player winning the game - the same would happen in a multiplayer game. Then, instead of being able to just lean back and comfortably win this winning faction would have to stay on top of their game and the diplomacy to maintain their lead position, making for a closer and more exciting game throughout.
Oh yeah, it definitely needs that!

I would like to see some pseudo-random element to relations though just to add some unpredictably. I just want a chance that Noxium will declare war on me in some games for some explainable but not completely controllable reason. The way it is now, I can tell exactly what each faction will do - war is never a surprise, and often *should* happen but doesn't.

Making the AI more aggressive and a balance of power strategy will help, but it'll still be predictable.

Closest thing I can think of is religion in Civ4 - it created allies and enemies, was different every game, and was only slightly controllable by the player but had logical effects. It made diplomacy an integral and interesting part of the game.
jdmillard
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:20 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by jdmillard »

void wrote:What will come the latest this weekend are the options to ask a faction to declare war on / offer peace to a third faction. Being in an alliance will greatly boost the chances of them accepting.

Also, you'll share vision with alliance partners and terminating non-aggression pacts will no longer prevent war declarations for 5 turns but decrease your standing with all factions.
Was this postponed?
void
Proxy Studios
Proxy Studios
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:19 pm

Re: Diplomacy Feedback

Post by void »

Yes, sorry, didn't feel well and we had to finish the version for the german retail.
Lorenz Ruhmann
Proxy Studios
jdmillard
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:20 pm

Re: Diplomacy and AI Behavior Feedback

Post by jdmillard »

I saw Terra Salvum so something kinda dumb. She came and built a city close to me in an area of all forests. Then she brought a former over and cleared the forest in the hexes with hills in order to build mines. What?? She get's 2 minerals from forests already. Not only is she wasting former time, but the forests also cut down on pollution.

Another annoying AI behavior is the fact that they'll send invasion forces across the ocean without an escort making it far to easy to wage a trans-oceanic war.

These are behaviors, not diplomacy, but they are still annoying.
Last edited by jdmillard on Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
arraamis
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:47 pm

Re: Diplomacy and AI Behavior Feedback

Post by arraamis »

Apheirox wrote:Rather than basing it on somewhat obscure faction fluff I'd rather see diplomacy being based on who is winning the game. If Pandora successfully employs such a sensible system it will have done what certain mentionable other 4Xs (Civ V says hi!) has failed to do, creating a game where the tension is intact right up till the end.

If one faction starts pulling way ahead of everybody else it should see diplomatic relations deteriorating due to their 'envying their power'. A cooling of relations is the logical response to a player winning the game -
the same would happen in a multiplayer game. Then, instead of being able to just lean back and comfortably win this winning faction would have to stay on top of their game and the diplomacy to maintain their lead position, making for a closer and more exciting game throughout.

The other main factor in diplomacy should be military strength; having a small army should invite aggression (Pandora already has this but as you can see from my post right above it doesn't work properly).
jdmillard wrote:From what I understand, the AI are already supposed to get less comfortable as others approach victory. But you are right, the effect is hardly noticeable and needs to be made more potent.

In Alpha Centauri, there was an overall faction score that was based on population, military, research, everything... and whoever was in the lead was naturally not trusted by anyone. This made the game more interesting if you were the one winning, and it made it possible to play "catch up" if you were not doing so well because you could work with other weaker factions easily enough.


In Pandora, it's obvious that the AI factions act as circling vultures who go after the faction with the weakest military. This is an effective strategy in the mid-game, but it makes for a very weak end-game. I don't mind if they want to pick off the weaker factions, but they also need to keep an eye on the powerful and challenge them.
The above two quotes & persons quoted align with my thinking almost exactly.

I've played several games under the military victory condition and as stated, the AI seemingly would rather wage war with each other, as opposed to teaming up to attack the human who is actually winning the game. Alliances between factions need to be incorporated and a more appropriate military\diplomatic\economic response to any faction not in that alliance.

Another predictable AI behavior is if the human player diminishes relations in preparation for a declaration for war, and moves forces into the surrounding hex's -- The AI will immediately recall all of its troops to the cities. This makes it easy to just carpet bomb the city until all the troops are eliminated and from there you can walk into the city without losing a single troop. Also, while this is happening the AI doesn't attack any of the human cities, because they're too focused on protecting their cities. There doesn't appear to be a strategic method based on conditions that would dictate AI actions, which makes them predictable.

Another feature that should be incorporated into Pandora that was in SMAC\AX, is the use of a Planetary council, which would govern the use of nuclear\Black hole weapons. At present, there are no consequences for your actions towards other factions. You can wage war faction by faction and your diplomatic relations with others don't\won't skip a beat. Thereby making it easy to eliminate the AI faction in the lead by whatever means you deem necessary while the other factions completely ignore the event, guaranteeing human win.
fortydayweekend
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:40 pm

Re: Diplomacy and AI Behavior Feedback

Post by fortydayweekend »

arraamis wrote:Another predictable AI behavior is if the human player diminishes relations in preparation for a declaration for war, and moves forces into the surrounding hex's -- The AI will immediately recall all of its troops to the cities. This makes it easy to just carpet bomb the city until all the troops are eliminated and from there you can walk into the city without losing a single troop. Also, while this is happening the AI doesn't attack any of the human cities, because they're too focused on protecting their cities. There doesn't appear to be a strategic method based on conditions that would dictate AI actions, which makes them predictable.
I've had the opposite experience - most of the AI troopers marched out of their cities to attack my weakly-defended "bait" frontier cities 2 turns of movement away. My gatling aircraft, avengers and troopers then cut them to bits on the plains. They would've been better off staying in the cities, at least until a better target presented itself (e.g. counterattack when my units within range). Either way I would've won, but by attacking they saved me a few turns of bombardments. Are you sure your AI's troops would've been better off in the field?
Acronym21
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:39 am

Re: Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

Post by Acronym21 »

Yes, these are some good suggestions. Diplomacy between factions, and the AI's use of it, could probably use a bit more polishing. Have you noticed that the Divine Ascension faction seems to anger their neighbors too much and are eliminated early in the game? The Noxium Corporation likewise is eliminated early too. At least this is what usually has happened to me in both the beta and release versions. (Interesting enough, this used to happen with Alpha Centauri a lot too!)

Trading cities and units might work well as it did in Alpha Centauri. Propping up a friend or ally with additional units, trading away a city that is too close to another faction's border, or demanding a city in exchange for peace, would add more depth. One thing I do feel is that there is not enough interaction globally between factions and there is not enough flexibility and reward in diplomacy. One doesn't feel that diplomacy is yet where it should or could be. (The recent addition of trading resources between factions is a great idea that goes beyond Alpha Centauri, but I have not yet had the chance to see how it affects gameplay.)

"Vassalization" is another area that would add to the game. A weaker faction would survive for a time as a vassal of another. The vassal would remain or declare its independence depending on the relative strengths between the two factions. In a conquest victory type of scenario, this could also serve to meet the requirements of conquest without actually having to take each and every city.
jdmillard
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:20 pm

Re: Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

Post by jdmillard »

I was thinking. When we start to see some diplomacy changes in the near future, maybe this thread should be temporarily moved to the beta forum during all the discussion about it. Then when Proxy Studios feels good about the state of diplomacy, this thread could probably be un-stickied so that the discussion and feedback can focus on the things the devs will be working on at that future time.

Just thinking ahead.
Dr. Foo
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:28 pm

Re: Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

Post by Dr. Foo »

As of right now with 1.1.2 it's just too easy to make friends and stay friends forever. I've played game where I never even went to war and I was being given gifts on just about every turn.

There should be some modifiers, such as, if a faction is polluting the air too much it loses some points, declaring war loses point, and of course, using WMD's should lose massive points.

There is just no downside to behaving badly. Even I do declare war on a faction that is generous it does not drop to furious it will drop to angry making it easy to sue for peace and get back up to generous after I have achieved my war goals.

I would like to see an option to get the factions to fight each other, tech trading, and X amount minerals per turn.

Why is open boards so important to the AI when for most of the game they can just walk through my Civ without entering my borders? Just about every turn I get hit with open border requests. The AI really needs to tone it down and stop spamming requests or borders need to expand faster making the request have some meaning.
mugged
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:03 pm

Re: Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

Post by mugged »

2. Allies' wars should automatically pull you into the war too.
Supported +3.
+1

3. The ability to trade technology. Proxy Studios has mentioned the possibility of this feature. My only concern is that allied human players can abuse this and become over-powerful very quickly (It happened every time in SMAC multiplayer). Hiho216 said "I actually prefer that there is no tech trading in this game, as the AI never really understands this tactic and generally falls behind because of it."
Unsupported -1
+1
I'm not sure how trading tech in multiplayer could be considered abuse. I understand that researching separate branches then trading would be unbalancing. I never played multiplayer in SMAC so I never saw how well AI did with tech trading in those instances but I remember it from 1-player games well. Say for instance you traded chaos weapons to your ally. Two turns later the AI you had a vendetta with had chaos weapons when they previously only had lasers or impact weapons. I always found the tech trading to help balance the ai's lack of intelligence in the research department. Maybe it only started being like this with SMACx. It always seemed like it happened the most with the consciousness and data angels in the game.
jdmillard
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:20 pm

Re: Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

Post by jdmillard »

mugged wrote:I'm not sure how trading tech in multiplayer could be considered abuse. I understand that researching separate branches then trading would be unbalancing. I never played multiplayer in SMAC so I never saw how well AI did with tech trading in those instances but I remember it from 1-player games well. Say for instance you traded chaos weapons to your ally. Two turns later the AI you had a vendetta with had chaos weapons when they previously only had lasers or impact weapons. I always found the tech trading to help balance the ai's lack of intelligence in the research department. Maybe it only started being like this with SMACx. It always seemed like it happened the most with the consciousness and data angels in the game.
In SMAC multiplayer (assuming you were allied with another human and you shared tech whenever you discovered it), it was very evident very early in the game that the human players were exponentially leaving everyone else in the dust. Both human players had basically double the research and the game got EXTREMELY boring. There was no challenge and it wasn't worth playing co-op multiplayer unless you agreed to not share tech.
mugged
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:03 pm

Re: Diplomacy Discussion and Feedback

Post by mugged »

jdmillard wrote:There was no challenge and it wasn't worth playing co-op multiplayer unless you agreed to not share tech.
A no tech-trading option could be added to the game, maybe? That way you could disable it in single- or multiplayer if you wanted. Has anyone said anything about tech-stealing when you capture a base? That for instance was an optional rule in smac/x
Post Reply

Return to “Pandora - First Contact”