Diplomacy polish

Brad,

I like to see personality differences. (I think you mentioned that the team was already working on this in another thread.) In this case though, I'm referring to the graphic representations of the various ambassadors.

I'd like to see the AI reps exhibit different mannerisms (the Torians might use very fluid movements, especially compared to the Yor). Perhaps aggressive Drengin communiques would only feature a close-up of a sneering Drengin (they wouldn't want you to see what they were doing with their hands). Unfortunately, I have no idea how much extra work the cut scenes entail.

As well, the background in AI graphics and sound should reflect the culture of the AI (maybe lots of machinery for the Yor and crystalline sculptures with Andean flute music for the Arceans). Right now the backgrounds are universally dark and the music selection is limited.

The written portion of Foreign Policy communications seems to convey some of the differences (although the last time I checked the same messages were being used by three of the AIs), but it's the visual and auditory stuff that will grab players, especially the first time through.

As far as your actual question, I like to see the AI players behave with logical consistency, something that I think you've already made great progress in. What you might want to consider is making some of the AI reactions more "alien". If any of your team has read the works of C. J. Cherryh, she creates truly alien species. It might be worth a try to build an alien AI that clearly doesn't follow known rules of engagement. Bad enough to deal with other races, but trying to figure out why the seemingly insane aliens are beating you could be a real challenge. Again, unfortunately, I have no idea how much extra work this would entail.

End transmission.

I'd love to see the AI give me more feedback about what it likes/dislikes about my actions. I would love to see an AI request that I set up a trade route with it, or request that I remove a cultural upgrade from a space station which affects it (not sure if this is currently possible), or admire my peaceful coexistence, or that relations are suffering due to my huge economic / research / military advanctage (hint ... give a gift), or complain that I seem to always be declaring war and it may be forced into an alliance with my enemies in fear if I don't stop.

This sort of feedback would be great.

Paul.

I agree with much of what is said here, especially the idea of logically consistent AI's. A good AI should engender a 'suspension of belief' on the part of the user. This is not only in the words of the AI but the actions of the AI.

The big problem of the AI was that it was SO mechanical in its approach to the game that I couldn't believe they were real and as a result changed my attitude toward the AI and strategy in terms of the game. Diplomacy should have a psycological strategy that appeals to the emotions, engenders trust and loyalty, not cuts throats at the slightest opportunity. If an AI is going to betray you he should wait for the right time and give no indication diplomatically, unless you have good espionage. He should use your emotions against you.

whups.........I mean 'suspension of DISbelief'..........

When I say 'The AI' I mean the AI's of other strategy games over the years......This AI is much improved over the rest..............

Well, my last few games I have started "suprise attacks" by building star bases with military improvements in enemy territory. After I am satisfied with the attack/defense bonus outlook I have placed fleets in striking distances of enemy star systems often deep within enemy territory.

The buildup usually lasts for 10-20 turns and a AI more "real" would probably object to my military presence.

Perhaps it does so on the higher levels of difficulty? I have only played normal.

For four games I haven't been asked to gang up on another race either. That would probably help realism also.

Although I paid for the beta several months ago I've only played a few times, and not the most recent versions, so forgive me if this is already been covered.

Building on jelvemark's point, I'd like to see the AI become more aware of potential hostile build-ups by the player. In response, I'd like to see it either try and trigger a war before the human is ready, or if it isn't in a strong position, be prepared to sell it's soul for strong allies. It makes for a more fun game that the AI empire I am targetting is forced into the arms of another AI player rather than it be gobbled piecemeal by me.

On a related point, and again forgive me if this is already included, but the EU notion of a "Bad Boy" factor is also a good counterbalance to humans. Perhaps the AI player should be more attune to rampaging empires and be prepared to ally together temporarily for mutual security to destroy or keep them in check. "Rampaging" could apply to cultural and technological as well as military dominance.

Hondo

I agree with jelvemaek & SpaceHondo on ganging up on stronger opponents; temporary allainces brought on to maintain a balance of power.

Any good player of "Hearts" knows that if it is at all possible you hit the low man. (unless, of course, you are the low man)

This would also allow for shifting alliances throughout the game as the power changes to and fro.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how the A.I. would evaluate the myriad factors that could have to be considered in forming such alliances.

Elrikk

I didn't played the game yet but just one comment. Many games tend to forget that they are diplomatic specialists, politicians. Thus, they will react correspondingly. I already saw a diplomatic lawyer's manners, and it's pretty characteristic. Very social, etc etc. Politic guys always keep a good image, always sympatic, would react correspondingly to the relation he wants with the other, with tact....

Solitair speaks for me some mechanism to give good feedback on the impact of our impact on the AI - based on the code that is already probably in there. I would like to know what they think about me spying on them - thats if teh Ai is coded to be awre of this and responds.

Starbases and starships being built up around AI planets should really provoke a response - both in terms of feedback and action by teh AI

s

I think everything said so far is good.

1. In the trade dialogue screen, I would like to see an a.i’s responses change based on his current relationship with us.

i.e. If we are overpowering them, and they feel submissive
“your exalted ... what would you like to talk about today...”

If they are hostile
“You are the ugliest race in existence. What do you want to talk
about monkey boy?”

If they are cool
“you wish to say something”

I would like a few variations of each theme that could be randomized,
so the same message doesn’t show up all the time.

2. I would like espionage reports that would tell us why the a.i. has become cool to us. We have too many military ships in their sectors, We’ve colonized systems in their sphere of influence, They just plain don’t like us. etc...

3. I’d like espionage reports to also tell us how they feel about the other a.i.’s. Who do they like, who do they dislike. (war to ally) This would definitely help me in my strategy on how i play that game. I also would like to know what they are currently are building. Are they going for constructors, or have they suddenly shifted to transports.
Who are they getting tribute from?

4. I’d like espionage to steal tech again! I haven’t been able to at all in z. (and maybe have a randomized chance of our agents being caught and relations cooling)

5. More consequences of your actions, Trade with the Yor and the Drengin get mad at you because they are wary of the Yor (maybe for games with higher degrees of difficulties?)

This is great stuff. I'll see what I can do.

Perhaps large civilizations having a sympathetic ear to a particular minor race, so that if anyone attacks them they would warn them to stop, or attack them for doing so.

It might be interesting for minor races to have an two extra bonuses, one random and one diplomatic(+20) in the beginning. This would serve two purposes: 1. it would give them a leg up in surviving attacks from larger empires(they never seem to make it to endgame)2. People like me wouldn't be able to get as much money for techs.

How about UP Warnings to you and other empires against particular behaviours? And your vote would affect your standing with that race and other races......sort of a catch-22......whom do you offend...the drengins who are spreading too quickly...or the altarians who are accusing them?

And I still want the "make peace with..." option. The consequences don't have to be automatic, and they can reply in the negative immediately or not, but you shoud have some way of knowing what the outcome of a peace offer was, too.

I like AI's that acknowledge their weakness when losing, rather than fighting suicidally to the end. Come and beg to me

Also, another thought, any way like in Alpha Centauri for an AI to become a protectorate or in submission to me? I always thought that was a very good twist in AC that few if any games had. I liked it when they begged and I could have mercy on them.

I'd also like the AI to approach me if another AI is getting too powerful: "Humans, the Drengins will rule the galaxy if we don't do something - will you ally with me against them?" Or "Perhaps we can both embargo the Altarians - their economy is threatening both of us?"

And I like it if relative power is acknowledged - boastful and proud if they are leading, respectful if equal, submissive if weaker. Anything that makes it seem like they really understand the situation.

Grifman

One last one from me if its not too late - got me excited as I drove into work today

a) implications on relationships from the UP voles. Irrespective of the outcome of the majority vote, in some cases the races that voted for and against would have some change in their relationship - if its about banning certain warships - then the relationships should worsten betweeen piecemakers and warmakers, if its about tech or trade then spying or trade embargo's should follow between oppositing voters respectively. Or something more subtle in some cases (changes selected destinations for trade routes for example)

Now the key point - because of the above risk to relationships of voting, there should be an 'abstain' option on the UP screen, This would be fantastic in my view as it would add so much.

Why? When abstaining, you lose the ability to influence a vote but reduce the possibility of relationship damaging events. Tough choices may result as you may believe that the vote is all but won or lost with or without your casting or your influence in the UP may be too small and relationships more important at this stage.

I think this would really 'politicise' the UP and add quite a bit.

Classically the French may abstain from the vote on a second UN resolution for an attack on Iraq. Why? it is thought that by abstaining that they may not antagonise the Iraqi's and win lucrative rebuilding contracs after the war. At the same time they don't want to be seen to be voting against their US and UK 'allies'

What would be really nice is to be forewarned a 2-3 months in advance of the topic of the next UP meeting and to have the aliens contact you about voting. If the vote was about limiting trade routes then an alien empire going for an economic win should lobby you for your vote in advance. Similarly you should have the option of lobbying the aliens,

Paul.

Steevodeevo,

I like the idea of an abstension but to _really_ work we should also have the ability for a race to propose UP issues for vote.

Failing that, as Solitair said, knowing in advance what was coming up for a vote would greatly increase the utility of influence trading.

2 points:
- do not provide a colored (green-yellow) feedback like now on the possibility of success of a proposal when you build it. This draws you to make tentative deals (like in real life) that the AI can analyze to make counter offers and your needs... Include starbases in trades and stand off zones (after a war for example).
- espionage is mostly meaningless. Need to provide more knowledge as stated in previous posts.

BTW, when is the Eye of the Universe function beeing fixed...!!!

gherardo, it's too late to make a change of that magnitude even if I agreed with you.

Likely too late for this but I will try:

My starbases in foreign space sure would make nice bargaining chips... And there is no where to do that. Surely they can be traded like ships, but I know that extra AI code would have to go along with it.

How about planetary lock downs .. i.e. station a warship at a system so can deny to other AI (or AI deny to you). Thus can get colonizer there before AI or use it as a bargining chip. Other option being to attack and take the system for colonization.
May be to hard at this stage but didn't make sense that couldn't defend system with ships while colony is dispatched.

I think that on every patch you sould add more diplomacy responses. If they just keep saying the same thing, it would get boring. It would be cool after you patched the game the AI said something they never said before.

'BTW, when is the Eye of the Universe function beeing fixed...!!!'

The Eyes of the Univers does work as it's supposed to. It's the Fog of War that's problematic. Any increase of sensor range, not just the EotU, will cause the temporary non-updating mess.

I'd love to see a cornucopia of options to offer the other races. Right now the selections available in the Diplomacy screen are rather scarce. Give me quantity! I barely use this screen and I feel like it should be the most important one in the game, considering the political focus.