|
As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer |
|
Expanded AI Diplomacy: Good or Bad?
|
|
Oh it's definitely possible. I don't know whether or not it would require dll work, though. It might even be so simple as changing a flag to take it from working in SP to working in MP, tbh.
If someone else implements it, than I would roll it into EitB.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Oh, that would be an interesting way to tackle that. The only other idea I had for enforcing was for there to be a game mod but I think that would be a... poor solution. I am not sure what statements would be necessary besides Go to War and Stop Trading. I'm sure there are other phrases that would be useful but I'm having trouble thinking of them. I doubt in MP anyone would care about "Change Religion" or "Change Civics." Oh, perhaps "Stop War with Civ_X," though in an MP game, I imagine it would be a tough sell.
I'm just doing my best out here.
Theoretically, would including 'suboptimal' choices like those be a bad thing? It might not be quite as practical but still allows more choices within the framework.
Someone mentioned before a system where you can communicate by gifting someone a unit and you can use the unit name to write a message. I wouldn't mind trying that. Maybe have the player delete the unit after reading the message.
It sounds doable with DLL work. There's a block of code that iterates through all the possible diplo options to decide what to add to the window. I would assume any checks for whether a civ is AI-controlled could be patched out. I'm not particularly inclined to take on the project myself, particularly considering the testing you'd want to do to make sure all the options actually work for human-human dealings.
I've always felt like AI diplo really does take an important part of the game away. Even having a few more options would, I think, add a lot of enjoyment to the game for those players like me who aren't as "skillful" as others and who wish we could do more diplo.
Bit tangential, but it's still diplomacy: What do people think about tying map trading to barbs? For example, in a no barbs game, map trading is not possible, normal and raging barbs have map trading at Writing. I've been trying to figure out different versions of map trading but I think tying it to barb levels also helps to manage some of hte issues.
That would mean map trading is available for everyone at the same time, some number of turns after the average player researches Writing? Is it perfectly understood how barb tech works? I thought I read that they get something like 3% of a tech everyone knows, per turn, weighted down for how many know it. But I don't know if that explains why barb archers essentially don't exist in a multiplayer game.
I've never understood why you think Paper isn't the right place for it, since nobody ever plays with tech trading.
No I mean if the no barbs option exists there is no map trading whatsoever and normal barbs mean same map trading as normal.
(May 2nd, 2015, 11:38)Krill Wrote: No I mean if the no barbs option exists there is no map trading whatsoever and normal barbs mean same map trading as normal. I'm not sure I follow this ... is this a continuation of a conversation that started in another thread? Is the purpose of this to allow the choice on a game-by-game basis whether or not map trading is allowed? If that is the case, I think it would be better tied to an option that does not affect gameplay (like "Random Personalities" since there are no AI in a MP game). |
