14-01-2001 23:20									#1
	Ideas about strategical diplomacy Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There have been many suggestions about what options to add, when negotiating with foreign AI-civs. In short: Diplomacy on a tactical level. Thats all god and well.

But, what about strategic diplomacy? What im aiming at here is some kind of text-file based power-balance thumb-rules.

1: In Civ-2/SMAC you could grow much stronger in each and every area, then the strongest AI-civ next in line - and still these AI-civs wasted much fruitless time and energy fighting amongst themselves.

In Civ-3 they should unanimously recognize such looming danger; make peace with each other and instead concentrate their efforts on trying to contain the human player. Some of your closest neighbors may choose military means, while other AI-civs on other continents concentrates on building cities, city-improvements and improving city-areas; thus making them better capable in competing with you in civil areas.
As a principal rule: AI-civs should only want you as an ally, if you neither too weak or too strong. On the other hand; as long as you fits into that category, theres should be much less of AI-backstabbing - and more of mutual help. Forming alliances must become more important in Civ-3.

To conquer another AI-Civ completely should have much more severe consequences then in Civ-2 and SMAC, both in terms of diplomacy and economy. You disturbing the power-balance.

2: Also, if your lead in each area starts to become impossible for any single AI-civ to catch up with, they should automatically join pacts: leading to...

- Parallell research, then switch techs with each other. Never switch with you.
- Strangle/terminate trade-routes with you, and instead establish trade-routes with each other (you can combat the latter somewhat, by establishing monopoly-situations in advance, with vital trade-goods).

3: Then you are equally/more powerful in each area then all the remaining AI-civs put together, they should go into "survival-mode". By that i mean that they should all unanimously join one last ditch universal AI-pact, there they all share everything; they dont just switch techs - they duplicate those techs automatically amongst themselves.
New trades-routes are established (replacing those with your cities), and all AI-units can now move freely together as brothers-in-arms. All with one single-minded purpose: To contain and supress your empire.

The more they manage to do that succesfully however, the more that universal AI-pact starts to crack and crumble, and one by one each AI-civ starts to follow their own agendas again.

4: Its important that AI-civs in Civ-3 should respond (almost) just as much against human player military build-ups, as against factual AI-empire conquerings from your part. Secret gigantic human military build-ups, like in Civ-2, should be much harder to achieve unnoticed.

5: Implementing A third state between anarchy and order is important to further contain the world-conquering human player.

Everything above should, in princip, be tweakable by the Civer, through "strategic diplomacy text-files", including how big part of the pact should deal with you with mostly military means, and how big part should do that with civil-improving means.
In short: Giving the player some means of tweak AI-thumbrules, in how he wants the AI-civs to behave, at certain points, then the player becomes too powerful:

Below is three examples of those critical AI power-balancing points:

- How shall remaining AI-civs react if you are just about number one.
- How shall remaining AI-civs react if you are stronger then the next two AI-civs, put together?
- How shall remaining AI-civs react if you are stronger then ALL remaing AI-civs, put together?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 16, 2001).]

	15-01-2001 00:16									#2
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I do see how your ideas would make for a more challenging game, but if you try to look at how the real world works you will find that there is no real basis for that sort of AI behavious (in the real world at least). All the small nations don't gang up trying to work against superpowers, it is much more profitable for the small nations to trade and work together with their big neighbours. You have too see each civ as a nation and each leader as someone trying to do what is best for his people (I know tyrants don't). Even tyrants wouldn't join in a war that he knows will eradicate his nation.
I reckon that much more emphasis should be put on making the AI competitive without cheating or ganging up on the player.

	25-01-2001 06:52									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'm really suprised that there are so few answers to this subject. It's one of the things I'd love to see in Civ3: strategic diplomacie by the AI. And I think it's a way of making the AI more of a opponent (top priority of course) and probably implementable still yet.

As I see it:

small civs should avoid war with a bigger opponent (may be except when they are horribly wronged and frustrated they will sometimes start a kamikaze war) and looking for alliances with other civs.

medium civs should be looking for alliances with other medium civs or the big ones.

In most games there will emerge two leading civs, I guess, one of them probably human, those civs should try to make the biggest alliance with medium or even small civs.

If there is war, alliances should really fight those wars together. May be the toughest part for the AI programmer, but not impossible I think.

The general idea: AI civs looking whom they should declare war or with whom they should form an alliance in a more intelligent way isn't such a CPU load. (Checking knowledge, income, # cities etc (and a little more difficult depending on location)).

Of course the behavior of the AI's will also depend on their aggressiveness and earlier behavior of the other civs.

Well, not really thought out, but my general thoughts about this subject.

btw: Ralf you're doing an excellent job expressing opinions that are mine also. Keep up the good work!

	25-01-2001 07:47									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think Ralf has a good point. Real countries don't act as Ralf describes because there is no end game in real life. The world just keeps on rolling along, and civs generally have to keep in mind that forever is a long time. If the US sends a colony to Alpha Centauri, the world isn't going to end, there is still a tomorrow to deal with.

So, should the other Civs act like civs in real life, or should they act like they are playing the game? I vote for the latter. I want the other civs to try to win. So if I'm way out ahead and the only chance they have to win is to gang up on me, then they should do it.

However, I don't want to see the situation where suddenly its me against one super-empire made up of all the civs controlled by a single set of AI rules. That isn't what playing the game should be like. Instead, if they gang up, the rules should force them to keep at least one eye on their backyard because the AI rules should allow one of the AI civs to stab another AI civ in the back if the situation calls for it (i.e. a 9 to 1 ratio of military units along a common border should make the AI civ with the upper hand start sharpening its knife. After all, once the player is beaten into submission, there is still a game to play.)

Of course, this all assumes that only one victor is possible. I read another thread where the idea of multiple victors was floated. That would require a rethink of the above.

------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you ... will likely try harder the next time."
[This message has been edited by Echinda (edited January 24, 2001).]

	25-01-2001 20:10									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Here are what I believe to be essentials for a diplomacy interface:

1) give AI opponents the ability to forge peace treaties and alliances with other AI civs

2) allow for human players and AI civs to use counter-proposals

3) give AI civs the ability to determine their diplomatic actions by actually calculating the strength of other AI civs and the human player

	25-01-2001 21:49									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Actually real countries does do these things:
During the 17th century most countries ganged up against Spain since they where in "the lead" this resulted in France (who lead the contamination of Spain) becoming the most powerfull nation. Later on (in the 19th century) the recipe of brittish politics was to keep the countries on the continent fighting eachother since they would otherwise gang up against the English.
This sort of things happens all the time in history, and when it is avoided it's becouse it failed for some reason or becouse the leading country was able to play out its opponents against each other instead (this was to some extent acheived by the brittish).
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited January 25, 2001).]

	26-01-2001 03:10									#10
	Remove this text

I agree that strategic diplomacy is very important. However, I do not want civs to automatically gang up on me just because I am super powerful. It does not make sense for civs who can't possibly beat me to suddenly attack me! Neither does it make sense for a civ who is my long time ally to suddenly hate me because I am much more powerful. Does England hate the US just because we are much more powerful than they? Of course not, because we are close allies. There are many small countries to hate the USA but they do not outright declare war on us since they know that they can't possibly win. Furthermore, many nations depend on trade with the USA so they stay friendly with us because they need us.

Here is what I propose:
Each civ would have a "Threat-meter" for every other civ that they have relations with. The relative power between civs would affect the threat level. But other factors would play a big role as well. If the 2 civs have a friendly alliance, then the threat level would drop. If there is lots of trade between the 2 civs, the threat level would drop too. If the civ engaged in previous atrocities, then the threat level would go up etc... The comp would weight all the factors together to determine if the threat level goes up or down. If the threat level reaches a certain height, then the civ would increase its military, seek common alliances, engage in spying, and do the things to counter the threat. So, if the threat were high, then yes the civ would become more hostile militarily and try to contain the civ in question.

In summary the general rules should something like this:
A civ should not "gang up" on another civ if:
1- the 2 civs have a long time friendly relationship.
2-there is lots of trade.
3-they are both fighting a common enemy.
4- one civ is hopelessly outmatched.

In other situations the civ should take action to contain the superciv:
5-if the civ has performed atrocities or other hostile acts in the past.
6-if the civ is growing too powerful (and factors 1 through 4 are not met)
7-if the civ has allied with a mortal enemy ("the friend of my enemy is my enemy")


The bottom line is I want an intelligent strategic diplomacy as much as possible. I do not want a strategic diplomacy that is too 1 dimensional where a civ always attacks me becaus I am powerful. Finally, I do realize that these concepts are extremely dificult to implement in a civ game so a compromise will have to struck between simplicity and realism.


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

	26-01-2001 06:49									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I agree there should be better rules for Diplomacy and on this thread I think the idea mentioned earlier about counter-proposals is a valid one...for instance, in CIV II when you contact an AI, it IMMEDIATELY demands and advance from you. Your opening choices are yes or no. Shouldn't there be a "maybe" (like, I will give you such advance if you give me advance/gold/map/unit/city) or having the option of giving the AI an "alternate advance." As it stands now in CIVII, the "alternate advance" choice only comes into play when the AI has already agreed to exchange knowledge with you.

	26-01-2001 08:04									#12
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Wittlich - we can call it what CTP II designers called it - counter-proposals.

	26-01-2001 16:44									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Great idea, but look at it this way (AI situation)You've been trading techs with other civs, giving them cash, establishing trade routes with them for eons and now they're breaking your alliance because you're the biggest and best? what about the perfectionist and civilized civs in the game? I think that if you keep an 'excellent at worst' reputation in the game and you haven't been at war with the civ for a long time, that civ should be nice to you and not break your alliance for no reason except you're most powerful (and since you've shown your peacefulness, they should trust you enough.). Of course, if you break a peace/ alliance treaty with that civ your rep. is irrevocably atrocious (unless the said AI civ has allied with an enemy civ).

	26-01-2001 18:06									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The diplomat has some good point. Earlier today I was playing SMAC. I was morgan, slightly more powerful than zak and dierdre. I was extremely pacifist, taking no part in vendetta's, having only defensive units and I wasn't the governor (lal and his empath guild ). Anyway, all of a sudden everyone up and decides they're going to attack me. That really ****ed me off.

The civ's should gang up on you but as the diplomat said, only if you pose a threat, i.e:
-You're extremely powerful (double anyone else)
-You're fairly powerful(leader, but only just), but aggressive
-You're average power (2nd or 3rd) but you go around stealing and commiting atrocities
-You simply occupy a piece of land that the other civ's decide to carve up between themselves :P

	27-01-2001 14:28									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It's also possible that a civ, AI or human, would rather cozy up to the #1 guy to get some extra tech &/or money plus protection in order to build themselves up to 2nd place, and then make a grab for the #1 slot when the opportunity presented itself.

	27-01-2001 21:53									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I have to agree with Theben. A weaker civ would most likely try to suck-up to the #1 civ (in order to recieve preferential treatment) than go on an all out war against the #1 civ. Of course, the actions of the #1 civ can influence the weaker civs attitude (ie, #1 civ pushing around the weaker civ).