December 28th, 2013, 19:46
Posts: 2,423
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2012
Hi guys.
Now that the game is rolling along nicely (good turn pace everyone!), I just want to confirm the diplomacy rules. We're going straight AI diplomacy right? I know there was some talk about chat-window messages, but I'm guessing we decided no? It would probably lead to Nonaggression pacts, which is always a bit lame.
December 28th, 2013, 20:24
Posts: 4,832
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2009
Yeah, we never did iron that out. Definitely no NAPs. I thought it would be nice to get some of the AI diplo options like "declare war on X" or "stop trading with Y," although such things wouldn't be binding in the same way.
December 28th, 2013, 20:44
Posts: 2,423
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2012
(December 28th, 2013, 20:24)Whosit Wrote: Yeah, we never did iron that out. Definitely no NAPs. I thought it would be nice to get some of the AI diplo options like "declare war on X" or "stop trading with Y," although such things wouldn't be binding in the same way.
Ok, I would be happy with that as long as things are not binding, and that NAPs just aren't discussed at all.
December 28th, 2013, 22:14
Posts: 10,093
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
(December 28th, 2013, 20:24)Whosit Wrote: Yeah, we never did iron that out. Definitely no NAPs. I thought it would be nice to get some of the AI diplo options like "declare war on X" or "stop trading with Y," although such things wouldn't be binding in the same way.
If we go with this, then any demands of this manner will need to be emailed, as the games screen is buggy in this regard.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
December 28th, 2013, 22:52
Posts: 5,633
Threads: 55
Joined: Oct 2010
I would prefer straight AI diplo, but don't mind the declare war/stop trading messages if you think they add something to the game. If you want to do them, I quite like the Civ5 option "Declare war in 10 turns" - maybe allow that too
December 29th, 2013, 07:56
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
You may be thinking about PBEM37 Gazglum. I had fun with that system, although it probably did go too far (allowing border agreements and NAPs had a huge impact on the game). "Close borders with X" is a very useful option, lets you bribe other players into boycotting your enemy or can help players coordinate a boycott against a leader. "Declare war with X" was not very useful and was never used in the game to my knowledge. All it can be used for is signalling to a potential ally when you're going to strike. If it was somehow binding and you bribed someone into doing it, there's no reasonable interpretation that wouldn't let him offer peace instantly anyway.
Another option that I liked was the ability to trade units. Sorry for butting in, just wanted to comment on one of my favourite topics 
December 29th, 2013, 10:41
Posts: 4,832
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2009
I didn't know that the in-game diplo screen was buggy. E-mailing diplo messages is less than ideal for me, but if that's what has to be done, it's how it has to work. I think that being able to communicate some basic things would add to the game, although players would have to be careful with the non-binding nature (I could see someone getting burned by offering a bribe for "close borders with X" and the bribe is taken but borders remain open.... though I suppose that cuts both ways).
December 29th, 2013, 12:13
Posts: 3,390
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2009
I went into this game assuming minimal diplo, so I hope I don't have to spend valuable time being voluble.
December 29th, 2013, 13:30
Posts: 4,832
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2009
I don't really want to see diplo e-mails flying around, either. Maybe for simplicity's sake we should just do straight AI diplo? I'm not sure if the value in trying to prod someone into going to war is worth the extra hassle.
December 29th, 2013, 13:31
Posts: 5,633
Threads: 55
Joined: Oct 2010
As I said, straight AI diplo is my preference
|
