15-02-2005 21:16									#61
	Got spare money?

quote: I think that players will either reload the game after knowing the deal or try making 25 different deals until they get the good one if we don't provide a tool that lets know the result.

I think that can happen in Civ3 in my experience. Having said that, I don't think many people could be arsed to keep rebooting the game for such a piddly result - unless they're obsessive.

I don't see the point in "moods", unless you're dealing with a single character who has supreme control over a domain.
More complex governments would not really have such a factor playing a significant role in decisionmaking.
So perhaps it's a govt tech level thing.


The aspect of realism I'd like to see is relationships between countries - not in the way I described above, but rather like a bucket with a hole in it - you have to keep a trickle of water going into it to keep the level up to where you want it.
And although it mightn't be the overriding factor in AI policy-decisions it could be a contributing one, along with the more important ECONOMIC relationships as mentioned previously (in what I thought was a decent way of structuring it).

I think there can be a compromise between the two positions of Alms and LdC...
That the level of intelligence and relations (i.e. bilateral agreements) can dictate the degree to which you know what the result of an offer will be - and I think that satisfies the realism aspect.

	16-02-2005 17:24									#62
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I don't see the point in "moods", unless you're dealing with a single character who has supreme control over a domain. More complex governments would not really have such a factor playing a significant role in decisionmaking. So perhaps it's a govt tech level thing.

My reference to moods were to use them as a method of displaying the AI's reaction to a deal. So if you put 1 gold down and the AI is giving up Alaska, the mood would probably be 'very angry', so if you were to propose this deal and the AI accepted (moods don't indicate acceptance, just the reaction), your relations with the AI would have just taken a massive hit. On the other hand, if you put down 1,000,000 gold for Alaska, the AI's mood might be 'very happy', so if you proposed the deal and the AI accepted, you'd get a boost to relations.

The moods would be emoticons of sorts displaying the AI's feelings about the deal, whereas the trade bar would aid in deciding whether or not the deal was balanced, and your advisor would help you decide when the deal would most likely be accepted. Even if it's not accepted (assuming you haven't made the AI storm out of the discussions declaring war), it would be altered to a more acceptable form by the AI, which the AI would then propose to you. And this would occur over and over, until a deal was struck. We could put a cap on the number of proposals allowed (say 3 per side?), forcing the player to 'continue the talks' the following turn. Each deal should then be in a list of treaties (unless the deal was a one-time trade like gold for Alaska), allowing the player to leave any treaty he desires at any time.

quote: I think there can be a compromise between the two positions of Alms and LdC... That the level of intelligence and relations (i.e. bilateral agreements) can dictate the degree to which you know what the result of an offer will be - and I think that satisfies the realism aspect.

I don't like it. I want to have equal knowledge regardless of whether I just made contact with them or have known them for 1000 years.

quote: The aspect of realism I'd like to see is relationships between countries - not in the way I described above, but rather like a bucket with a hole in it - you have to keep a trickle of water going into it to keep the level up to where you want it.

I want to second this. Relations should not tend towards neutral, they should always be dropping instead. If you put enough money & time into relations you can reach a balance or even a positive flow. If your relations have hit rock-bottom with another civ, you should have to work hard to regain a neutral level.
One way I could imagine this working is that there is always a -5 to relations per turn after contact is established. Trade deals might add a +.1 per turn for the length of the treaty, other deals might add anything from +.01-+1 for the length of the treaty. An abstracted 'Foreign Ministry - Relations' entry in the budget would put cash into improving relations and might net as much as +3 per turn (though that amount should be very rare).

I imagine this running on a scale of -1000 to +1000, with 0 being neutral and the level of relations at contact. Numbers could, of course go beyond these limits, but they don't have any effect other than absorbing drops (or increases) in relations. There should, of course, be no level at which war is automatic, but relations should play a significant role in treaty-making and the decision to go to war.

	16-02-2005 23:10									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by alms66 I don't like it. I want to have equal knowledge regardless of whether I just made contact with them or have known them for 1000 years.[/quote[Aren't we greedy? ^_^ Seriously i don;t think you should know on first contact what they are like. Your not omnipitant, as much as you might think so. ^_- [QUOTE] Originally posted by alms66 I want to second this. Relations should not tend towards neutral, they should always be dropping instead. If you put enough money & time into relations you can reach a balance or even a positive flow. If your relations have hit rock-bottom with another civ, you should have to work hard to regain a neutral level. One way I could imagine this working is that there is always a -5 to relations per turn after contact is established. Trade deals might add a +.1 per turn for the length of the treaty, other deals might add anything from +.01-+1 for the length of the treaty. An abstracted 'Foreign Ministry - Relations' entry in the budget would put cash into improving relations and might net as much as +3 per turn (though that amount should be very rare). I imagine this running on a scale of -1000 to +1000, with 0 being neutral and the level of relations at contact. Numbers could, of course go beyond these limits, but they don't have any effect other than absorbing drops (or increases) in relations. There should, of course, be no level at which war is automatic, but relations should play a significant role in treaty-making and the decision to go to war.

I haveto disagree slightly with this. Only in that lack of any contact would tend to bring it to a more neutral manner, simply because they might likely have forgotten you even exist!

	17-02-2005 01:26									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Aren't we greedy? Seriously i don't think you should know on first contact what they are like. Your not omnipitant, as much as you might think so.

It's the simple matter of having needed information at hand to make worthwhile deals in an uncertain environment. By using the system I outlined above, the player can't be certain of what the outcome will be, therefore we don't want to add to that by not giving adequete information to make an educated guess as to what the outcome will be.

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai I haveto disagree slightly with this. Only in that lack of any contact would tend to bring it to a more neutral manner, simply because they might likely have forgotten you even exist!

Of course, there would be some change in relations if contact was 'lost', but there are so few situations which would constitute a complete loss of contact that discussing this one particular issue is probably a waste of time at the moment. If I had to eyeball it right now though, I'd grant a +.01 or so per turn (in addition to a +5 to negate the constant loss), so that civs can't just go into isolation in order to improve relations with the world.

	17-02-2005 02:15									#65
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by alms66 Of course, there would be some change in relations if contact was 'lost', but there are so few situations which would constitute a complete loss of contact that discussing this one particular issue is probably a waste of time at the moment. If I had to eyeball it right now though, I'd grant a +.01 or so per turn (in addition to a +5 to negate the constant loss), so that civs can't just go into isolation in order to improve relations with the world.

I agree that just going isolationist shouldn't be an easy way to raise relations. What i was talking about would usually not be intentional...although it could be. Generally though loss of contact means something not good for atleast one of the two parties has happened.

	17-02-2005 02:43									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai I agree that just going isolationist shouldn't be an easy way to raise relations. What i was talking about would usually not be intentional...although it could be. Generally though loss of contact means something not good for atleast one of the two parties has happened.

What specifically were you referring to? The destruction of the civ? In that case, I think it would be best to treat the new version of the civ as a completely new civ (at relations 0) rather than retain the old relations level, as obviously things have changed at that point.

	17-02-2005 04:45									#67
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by alms66 What specifically were you referring to? The destruction of the civ? In that case, I think it would be best to treat the new version of the civ as a completely new civ (at relations 0) rather than retain the old relations level, as obviously things have changed at that point.

Doesn't haveto be destroyed.

It could be locally destroyed, but move elsewhere, outside your known area.

Or over time, even if we don't lose knowledge of discovered areas in geographical terms, not interacting with a certain region would tend to have each nation forget much about each other. This wouldn't be an isolationist policy, but could be caused by multiple factors.

	17-02-2005 18:30									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I think that players will either reload the game after knowing the deal or try making 25 different deals until they get the good one if we don't provide a tool that lets know the result. I would do the latter. Since it's not fun, we'd have to provide an incentive not to retry, like in civ/civ2, but that proved unfun too imo.

Hmmm, about the repeated-reloading-till-you-like-the-result thing (I admit, I often did it too): Would you like it if the game counted how often you reload a certain game and decrease your highscore one point everytime you reloaded? Thus, we could see at all highscores how "honestly earned" they are.

	18-02-2005 14:23									#69
	Tired of ads?

Its feasable and wouldn't really hurt reloaders in any way, except their ego.

Also there could be an "iron man" mode where it saves only when the game exits and you can't reload during the game, except by exiting.

	19-02-2005 02:16									#70
	Get a bigger avatar today!

One thing I thought about that would make me buy into not known results of diplomatic actions: You make the offer on your turn and get it accepted/rejected on the next turn. This could even be a counter offer and you could make a good deal over 10 turns but in a hurry you would have to let go more in order to make sure you get what you want now. I'm still unsure I'd like a diplomacy where I don't know the result for sure, but allowing it to drag even though you know you can get the deal could be interesting.
As for relations lowering over time, I think yes, relations woth beighbours should slowly deteriorate unless actively trading with them/pumping money into maintaining good relations. With far away civs, there is little reason why relations should change unless both civs have something they want and can't share.

	23-02-2005 18:11									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I don't like it. I want to have equal knowledge regardless of whether I just made contact with them or have known them for 1000 years.

I get the sense that most of this discussion is imagining a gameworld in a more modern era.

I don't think you can apply the same rules to pre-industrial scenarios.

Equal knowledge equals boredom and predictability; more to the point: it's not realistic.

Imagine a scenario, say in Ancient China - and one in Modern East Asia, e.g.: a "Three Kingdoms" scenario, and a "WW2/Japanese invasion" scenario.
Right away you've got tech. differences which affect the extent to which powers can know stuff about each other, (not to mention tech limits on how they can fight wars and manage resources); there are also tech limits (or should be) on the sophistication of their systems (economic, political, bureaucratic...) and knowledge (science, geography, philosophy): all being things I presume are researched as in CIV.

You can be as isolationist as you want to until long-range ocean-going ships and aircraft are invented... Japan, Korea, Bhutan, New Zealand...

-----------

Moods are nothing new as an idea - when I first brought my designs for characters faces, they were collections of categorised face "objects"; end of the day, some ****'s got to draw all the bits of face (in the system there were 6 types of each 6 of bits in 4 "race" categories - 144 bits), so they can't be a priority, really.
Just do it with text for now.

-----------

You can afford to ignore reloaders' interests.

	24-02-2005 05:01									#72
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare One thing I thought about that would make me buy into not known results of diplomatic actions: You make the offer on your turn and get it accepted/rejected on the next turn. This could even be a counter offer and you could make a good deal over 10 turns but in a hurry you would have to let go more in order to make sure you get what you want now. I'm still unsure I'd like a diplomacy where I don't know the result for sure, but allowing it to drag even though you know you can get the deal could be interesting.

Why does it have to be accepted/rejected on the following turn? Why not simply allow a counter proposal on the same turn? There could be a limit to the number of counter proposals, as I suggested before, and when that is reached, then the status of the treaty is saved until next turn, when the "talks" can continue (in other words, the counter proposal limit is reset, and talks can be held off for an infinite number of turns in this way, until the deal is accepted or rejected).

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare As for relations lowering over time, I think yes, relations woth beighbours should slowly deteriorate unless actively trading with them/pumping money into maintaining good relations. With far away civs, there is little reason why relations should change unless both civs have something they want and can't share.

As for active trading/pumping with money, that's what the 'abstracted' budget entry, "relations" is for. Regarding 'far away' civs, I think the distinction of 'far away' is relative to technological progress and should not be used at all. The better approach would be to divide the 'relations' budget across all civs equally, unless the player specifies a higher priority with certain civs, and disregard the concept of distance all together.

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy I get the sense that most of this discussion is imagining a gameworld in a more modern era.

Certainly not, by me.

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy Equal knowledge equals boredom and predictability; more to the point: it's not realistic.

Diplomacy is one area you really can't measure well with the reality stick. In reality, diplomacy is far more nuanced than any computer this century will ever be able to handle - modern diplomacy moreso than ancient diplomacy, obviously. It would be far more frustating than anything, IMO, to give the player certain information in the modern age and not give it to him in the ancient age. By information, I simply mean what is put at the baragaining table and knowledge of the AI's response.

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy Moods are nothing new as an idea - when I first brought my designs for characters faces, they were collections of categorised face "objects"; end of the day, some ****'s got to draw all the bits of face (in the system there were 6 types of each 6 of bits in 4 "race" categories - 144 bits), so they can't be a priority, really. Just do it with text for now.

I'll say this once again. By 'moods' I meant using an emoticon-like depiction to show the player what sort of change in relations he can expect with this AI, if it accepts the deal. For example, if the player has beaten the AI badly, and demands half of the remaining land the AI controls, puts limitations on his army and economy, and demands per turn payments, obviously the AI's "mood" would change for the worse (thus a disgusted/hatred face would show), whereas if the player gave the AI all it's land back, gave per turn payments to rebuild the country and other such generous acts, relations with the AI would improve drastically (thus a happy face would show).

	24-02-2005 13:33									#73
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Why does it have to be accepted/rejected on the following turn?

Because it doesn't feel, to me, as artificial as a limited number of times you can contact the other civ. A limited number of times, like in civ1/2, means you must remember how many times you saw the other civ this turn. It would have to be shown in the user interface because when you load a game, you don't remember if you contacted that civ before saving or not. It feels more artificial to me than anyhting else, and I found it extremely annoying in civ2 (and civ3 but the model there is different) when the ai refused to hear you. In general, it doesn't feel to me like a tbs when there are things you can no longer do in a turn, while the turn is actually only a planning phase (as for movements).
Giving an answer on the following turn lets discussions drag and take time. If you are desperate for finding an alliance in 1 turn, you will have only 1 turn of diplomacy to get your deal so you will be inclined to give more in order to make sure you get it. If you have more time, you can get better deals. In order to achieve this, you have to make, at some point, diplomacy take more than one turn.

	24-02-2005 17:59									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Because it doesn't feel, to me, as artificial as a limited number of times you can contact the other civ. A limited number of times, like in civ1/2, means you must remember how many times you saw the other civ this turn. It would have to be shown in the user interface because when you load a game, you don't remember if you contacted that civ before saving or not. It feels more artificial to me than anyhting else, and I found it extremely annoying in civ2 (and civ3 but the model there is different) when the ai refused to hear you. In general, it doesn't feel to me like a tbs when there are things you can no longer do in a turn, while the turn is actually only a planning phase (as for movements). Giving an answer on the following turn lets discussions drag and take time. If you are desperate for finding an alliance in 1 turn, you will have only 1 turn of diplomacy to get your deal so you will be inclined to give more in order to make sure you get it. If you have more time, you can get better deals. In order to achieve this, you have to make, at some point, diplomacy take more than one turn.

I wasn't suggesting a limit on the number of times you can contact a civ in a turn, but on the number of counter-proposals that each side has regarding a specific deal. You'll notice that although I suggest 3 per side above, I only do 3 counters total in the example below - this was merely to save time and not have the proposal take up too much space.

Lets say we have Rome and Greece as the only civs in the world to make this example simple. Let's also say that this is turn 1 and they already have contact with embassies and all that. Let's also say that Rome is roughly 5 times as powerful in military and economy as Greece.

Now, on turn 1 Rome calls up the diplomacy GUI and clicks on "Greece" to enter talks with them. Rome drops a demand for 5/gold per turn for 20 turns, and puts nothing in return. Let's label this as Treaty A. Well, the trade bar shows that this is a completely one-sided deal, where Rome gets everything and Greece gets nothing. The relations ('mood') indicater shows annoyance/angry tones, letting Rome know if they make this proposal that the Greeks' relations with them will deteriorate because of it (in other words a -1 to relations for some length of time- just an example number). The Roman advisor also says, "I would not be so generous with the Greek dogs, sire. You are a most wise and compassionate ruler.", indicating that the Greeks will most likely accept the deal. So, the Roman player proposes the deal, but the Greeks don't accept, they decide to try and bargain some favor with Rome. They adjust Treaty A (counter 1) to be an island known as 'Sicily' on their side and to 75/gold per turn for 30 turns on the Roman side, and a pact of non-agression. The Roman player, seeing that this deal favors the Greeks more than the Romans on his trade bar, immediately lowers the payments to 50/gold per turn for 30 turns and hits propose again(counter 2). The Greeks feel they are unable to accept anything less than 60/gold per turn for 30 turns, adjust the treaty to suit, and counter the Roman offer (counter 3). At this point the Romans could accept just to get the treaty concluded, but the Roman player doesn't do this. Instead he adds a trade treaty to the deal, and lowers the payments to 50/ gold per turn for 25 turns (counter 4). Now counter 4 causes a save of the state of Treaty A, and a message is displayed saying that the treaty can be continued next turn. If the Roman player wishes to call up the Greeks again and propose another treaty, he can, but Treaty A is on hold until the following turn (talks regarding this treaty have 'broken down').

On turn 2, the Romans either get an automatic message asking if they want to continue the talks, or they must enter the diplomacy GUI, select "Continue Talks" and seltect Treaty A, at which point they are on "counter 4" from above, as though the treaty had just been proposed by the Romans. The counter is reset (to 3 counter proposals). Negotiations continue as above, until one side accepts the bargain, or outright refuses the treaty, at which point "Treaty A" ceases to exist and talks are finished on that particular treaty.

One important thing I want to point out here is the relations indicator. You'll notice my exact words were, "letting Rome know if they make this proposal that the Greeks' relations with them will deteriorate because of it", not, "letting Rome know if they make this proposal and the Greeks accept it that the Greeks' relations with them will deteriorate because of it". This is the key to keeping from 'pissing off' the AI in negotiations. If you want to avoid that, you won't continuously propose deals which clearly indicate a drop in relations. If you feel you can bully the AI, propose what you want, just don't be surprised when the AI refuses the treaty and declares war on you. If you want 'perfect' diplomacy, you simply have to ignore the effects of the relations indicator - or better yet, have it apply only when the treaty is accepted rather than at each proposal.

-edit-
An ultimatum clause would be a good thing to include in this sort of diplomacy, so that they player or AI can effectively say, “Take the deal as-is, or else!”

	24-02-2005 21:18									#75
	Suffering from ads?

I don't see the difference between how many counter proposals you make and how many times you contact. Nothing prevents me from making a treaty with 2 counter proposals, then stopping and proposing another treaty of the same kind, essentially nullufying the limit of 3 counter proposals.
Reading your exampe, I still prefer predictible diplomatic bargains in the turn we do the bargaining. Lowering relations through a faux-pas and bullying would still happen the way you describe, and stating things like "so it or else" could very well cause an immediate declaration of war.

	24-02-2005 23:09									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think it would be too complicated if it was possible to stretch a negotiation over many turns. If there are n Civs in a game, you have n˛ possible negotiations. They all must be saved in RAM. And what makes things worse: Treaties might depend from each other. Ex.: Germany negotiates with both France and Russia for a peace. They both demand the city of Hamburg. What happens now?

I really don't mind if you have to accept / decline offers within one turn.

	24-02-2005 23:38									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I don't see the difference between how many counter proposals you make and how many times you contact. Nothing prevents me from making a treaty with 2 counter proposals, then stopping and proposing another treaty of the same kind, essentially nullufying the limit of 3 counter proposals.

You're right. I hadn't thought about that, however it's the equivilant of saving and reloading if you don't get the deal you want in my book, which means it's cheating in my book, and I wouldn't do it personally - therefore just as with those who save and reload when they don't like a result, I wouldn't worry about those that do choose to do it. If they want to, let them.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Reading your exampe, I still prefer predictible diplomatic bargains in the turn we do the bargaining. Lowering relations through a faux-pas and bullying would still happen the way you describe, and stating things like "so it or else" could very well cause an immediate declaration of war.

I didn't mean to imply that lowering relations by mistake or bullying wouldn't happen, in fact, I want it to (that's a difference between you and I). The example was meant as an example of non-perfect diplomacy (the way I want it), whereas the note about only applying the relations indicator's modifier when a deal is signed was meant for perfect diplomacy (the way you want it). I should have also noted, though I felt it was implied, that under perfect diplomacy, the advisor would say things like, "That is an acceptable deal," "That is unaceptable, sire," and such, so that the player knows for certain whether a deal is going to be taken or not (basically your MoO system, using words instead of colors), though the deal itself still has an effect on relations.

The ultimatum was meant to cause an immediate declaration of war if the treaty isn't accepted - or at least an immediate end to the talks and a large drop in relations by the other party if they don't want a war with you.

quote: Originally posted by Max Sinister I think it would be too complicated if it was possible to stretch a negotiation over many turns. If there are n Civs in a game, you have n˛ possible negotiations. They all must be saved in RAM. And what makes things worse: Treaties might depend from each other. Ex.: Germany negotiates with both France and Russia for a peace. They both demand the city of Hamburg. What happens now?

Actually, you could have many more than n˛ treaties being discussed at any given turn. One civ could have 3 treaties under negotiation with another civ in a single turn. However, unless I'm mistaken, it's always been a part of Clash design to have multi-turn negotiations. The memory used will be very limited and not worth worrying over.

Regarding your example, it depends. If Germany, France and Russia are sitting at the same table, obviously that deal won't work. If Germany has seperate discussions with France and Russia, then whichever deal gets done first wins out, and that clause is no longer valid (has a value of 0 for the AI pretty much), therefore it won't work in the second deal, when those talks resume. This is really more of an issue of multi-party diplomacy than anything to do with what's been discussed here lately though.

quote: Originally posted by Max Sinister I really don't mind if you have to accept / decline offers within one turn.

I don't mind having it done in a single turn either, but I do like the possibility of having a treaty in negotiation for several turns. It could even be the goal of a scenario, in the future, to sign a specific treaty with a specific nation. If all negotiations took place in a single turn, that wouldn't be possible.

	25-02-2005 00:02									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: I didn't mean to imply that lowering relations by mistake or bullying wouldn't happen, in fact, I want it to (that's a difference between you and I).

No, I don't mind having blunders. It's ok for me that bullying should lower relations.
I just want to have an advisor who tells me "The result of this offer is likely to be XXX" and go for it. If the likely result is "They'll feel insulted" and they declare war, then so be it, but it's on purpose.
If you keep asking for tribute, relations should lower, even if the results are predictible.

	25-02-2005 00:36									#79
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare No, I don't mind having blunders. It's ok for me that bullying should lower relations. I just want to have an advisor who tells me "The result of this offer is likely to be XXX" and go for it. If the likely result is "They'll feel insulted" and they declare war, then so be it, but it's on purpose. If you keep asking for tribute, relations should lower, even if the results are predictible.

It sounds to me then, that you actually like what I want to see in diplomacy, you just don't like the information being divided over 3 areas (trade bar, relations indicator & advisor). You want the advisor alone to say, "Yes" or "No" to the treaty's acceptance, whereas I'd prefer to leave that decision up to the player, based on the information provided - correct? If that is correct, I'd suggest at least giving it a try as-is first, then if you don't like it, putting in an option at startup for an additional indicator to show (a green/yellow/red light or just additional text from the advisor saying whether or not the treaty will be accepted). You can use this additional indicator as a trainer for people to get used to the diplomacy system as well as for those who don't like the chance of failure in diplomacy.

I think your fear is that it will be too difficult to decide if the deal is acceptable or not. Personally, I don't think anyone will have that problem. The relations indicator doesn't have anything to do with acceptance - it just shows what the state of relations will be after the proposal, either going up fast, going up, holding steady, going down or going down fast (I think 5 icons should be enough here). You'll have to watch that if you are worried about your relations with the civ, otherwise you'll tend to ignore it. The trade bar should generally be kept fairly equal, if you want deals to succed quickly and without incidents of lowered relations (though incidents are relatively rare, unless you make plainly one-sided deals). The advisor basically tells you his thoughts on the treaty (again 5 options), very good for us, good for us, good for both, bad for us, very bad for us. That's basically what you want out of the advisor, it's just not a certain "yes it's going to be accepted exactly as is" in the way that civ3 did it, it's a "yes that will be accepted or slightly altered by a counter-proposal".

The thing I really like about the system (other than it feels like you're negotiating with someone - that whole interaction thing), is there is no concrete break-point where it passes or doesn't. At least, not visually, like in civ 3. There is certainly a breakpoint in any negotiation system, it's just that finding it in this one would drive someone mad, which is enough of a discouragement to keep people from trying it too much, IMO.

	25-02-2005 02:40									#80
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: You want the advisor alone to say, "Yes" or "No" to the treaty's acceptance, whereas I'd prefer to leave that decision up to the player, based on the information provided - correct?

Yes.

	28-02-2005 01:52									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I dunno...except in extreme cases, such as you're demanding something for nothing or giving something for nothing i don't think you should have any fool-proof displomacy where you'll know they won't get upset or won't be happy.

Even in the latter though, ie giving something, its not guaranteed to do anything period, though you can usually bet if you demand something for nothing they aren't going to like that idea.

I do like the idea of multi-turn diplomacy though. Its really how it works IRL, though it would be nice to have partial agreements reached, such as trading Hamburg for Moscow, but leaving out the trade of weapons which still might be considered a major deal. Of course they could make it an all-or-nothing deal, but they might not.

But really i don't like the straight up or down answer. I don't think anything you advisor said should be taken as a guarantee, just a well-educated guess.

	28-02-2005 01:59									#82
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Also it would be nice if there was a way to measure overall politcal capital and ways to gain and spend it to help with negotiations.

	08-03-2005 16:10									#83
	mood Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm wondering about how the mood of the people as opposed to the mood of the leadership would come into play in negotiations.

do these emoticons express the mood of one of the two or both?

i.e.: the leadership might want to agree to something offered which might be against the will of the people.

particularly when were talking about putting territory on the negotiating table - a leader might want to be rid of a territory it views as not worth keeping for one reason or another, but the inhabitants might have a very different sentiment - regarding themselves as part of the state and the leader as the thing not worth keeping - would there be an emoticon to display the sentiment of the inhabitants (or stakeholders) as well as the leadership in such a case (or in every case for that matter)?

	12-03-2005 18:34									#84
	Remove this text

yellowdaddy, you're raising a very interesting point. People may agree/disagree with their leader's decisions. I am not sure how this should be modelled (we can show the mood if it has some effect). A popularity figure maybe?

	15-03-2005 00:19									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It must be connected with the riot model...

	15-03-2005 07:28									#86
	Re: mood Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy I'm wondering about how the mood of the people as opposed to the mood of the leadership would come into play in negotiations. do these emoticons express the mood of one of the two or both?

Once again, and for the last time...
When I said mood before, I merely referenced a familiar image (that of CTP's mood indicators), while the actual function of them (for Clash) has nothing to do with mood or feelings - they would reflect the change in relations should the deal go through. With that said, however, I would like to see the population's thoughts on diplomacy in some form - perhaps reusing the same thing as above (or the population's "mood" indicator would display the change in the population's attitude towards the ruler if the deal were to go through).

BTW, I think we should get away from using the term 'mood' and go with 'relations change indicator' and 'population change indicator' or something less difficult (hopefully). When I see the word mood, it indicates some sort of emotional involvement in the process (which in a computer game means randomness or some overly complex simulation of emotion), and the system really doesn't need that to function.

	15-03-2005 11:25									#87
	Put an end to popups!

Again though, i'd like to see some indication of political clout that you could spend to help push an unpopular measure, or perhaps speed some diplomacy up.

	09-04-2005 15:06									#88
	Support Apolyton

imagining a scenario where you are playing the UK and want to give up/get rid of Northern Ireland... or partition Ireland...

when you say "population" do you mean the whole population of the whole state before the partition or...
I mean I want to see a feature where such a partition would trigger a civil war/revolt in the partitioned territory, in this example, Ulster, rather than simply the leader's popularity taking a mathematically manageable dip.

E.g. if you were playing a Japan-China scenario where you as Japan want to take Manchuria from China as part of a peace treaty negotiation, the mood of the Chinese leadership might be very acquiescent, but the mood of the populace being exchanged might be quite different - you would not just get a dip in leadership popularity, but it would be a sudden civil strife triggerer; and domestic leadership popularity in Japan might rise.

So what I'm saying is that each "unit" of population - state, territory, province, county whatever should have a population smiley. Or is that going too far?

	11-04-2005 06:30									#89
	Remove this text

That's going a bit far, especially for the average negoatiations for pre-modern times.