Posts: 10,485
Threads: 395
Joined: Aug 2015
(August 22nd, 2016, 16:34)Nelphine Wrote: Just played a game where both my remaining opponents spent the whole game (latest CoM) offering a wizards pact, 2 turns getting mad at the 2 guys sitting next to their city defending a node, 3rd turn break pact, 2-5 turns later, re-offer the wizards pact.
I don't know if anything could be done about that (MAYBE have troops in a node cause slightly less hostility, but that would be abusable; maybe not have them offer a pact while troops are adjacent to their city, but that would suck in other situations.)
Mostly just stating it happened, and it was a lot of pop ups, that eventually became (very slightly) annoying. Don't think it needs to change, just wanted to mention it.
Since this part of diplomacy is fortunately identical in 1.5 I might as well answer here (but yes, CoM issues belong to the CoM subforum), basically, you either refuse your wizard's pact offers if you do not plan to leave their territory, or accept and leave. You do not have the option to maintain a wizard pact and break the rules for one at the same time, if you try your pact will break, and every time it happens you suffer a diplomatic penalty.
Unfortunately, if your military is considerably stronger than theirs, they will offer it again, even if you accumulated a large amount of those penalties. I believe it would make more sense if they checked Relation+penalties>-50 instead of just relation to prevent this although it will still take several times before it drops so low that they'll stop trying.
Posts: 5,010
Threads: 17
Joined: Aug 2016
Sorry, your last post (before your very recent ones on the relations status) about diplomacy referenced this thread, since the diplomacy was the same. My bad on that!
I think checking penalties each time would help avoid this kind of thing as well.
Posts: 308
Threads: 44
Joined: Aug 2016
I've had similar issues with the Wizard Packs. I wish that #1 it took longer for them to get upset about the troops, because many times it's just a scouting Magic Spirit passing through causing the problems, or a passing boat. And #2 that there was some kind of actual "scout" unit (in CoM) that wouldn't cause violation of the Wizard Pack.
Posts: 10,485
Threads: 395
Joined: Aug 2015
(August 23rd, 2016, 08:53)rgp151 Wrote: I've had similar issues with the Wizard Packs. I wish that #1 it took longer for them to get upset about the troops, because many times it's just a scouting Magic Spirit passing through causing the problems, or a passing boat. And #2 that there was some kind of actual "scout" unit (in CoM) that wouldn't cause violation of the Wizard Pack.
Settlers and engineers are ignored. use those.
Posts: 488
Threads: 51
Joined: Apr 2012
A Wizard's Pact is an agreement that your units will NOT come within two squares of their cities. If you're moving your units within two squares, you're violating the agreement.
A better question would be why do computer player units ignore WPs. They freely trespass and don't seem to observe the Pact at all.
Posts: 308
Threads: 44
Joined: Aug 2016
Yeah, and the pacts are strange, because in Master of Orion they kind of work the opposite way. In MoO the pacts allow you to be in their space without causing alarm. Alliances let you actually move distances based on allied planetary positions, but with a non-aggression pack they would sit on your planets and could colonize planets that you had guarding ships on, which made those pacts a bad idea early on. Seems they work the opposite way in MoM.
Posts: 10,485
Threads: 395
Joined: Aug 2015
In MoM, a wizard's pact is a quite asymmetrical thing.
-The human player guarantees not to move within 2 tiles of AI cities. This is the only restriction on them.
-The AI guarantees not to surprise attack your cities, and not to cast hostile spells against you or your things. However they do not guarantee not moving in your city area (unlike in MoO, in MoM there are continents and stuff so avoiding territory is pretty much too complex for an AI system to handle)
So the root of the problem is, the human player is free to violate the treaty, while the AI is unable to. To balance this out, the 2 tile restriction exists (and it's still way more beneficial to the human player even with that).
Alliances come with even more benefits for the human player (including access to their territory), but unlike the pact, it also comes with more responsibility (you might get asked to either declare war or someone, or to break the alliance, and saying no to either will give you a diplomatic penalty)
If I may ask this question, what does the AI gain from a pact in Master of Orion? I assume the human player can still break it and attack the same turn like in MoM so not protection from attacks...and there are no hostile spells in that game so not that either.
It's pretty hard to make a balanced treaty system where one party is bound by their promises (AI), and the other is not (human player). However this seems to be a core concept behind this game's diplomacy, true for all treaty types and even other choices, the AI is bound by personality and relation stats, the human player is free to do anything.
Posts: 5,010
Threads: 17
Joined: Aug 2016
For me, I think the diplomacy system you have outlined is a good one - its one of the things that drew me to try CoM, because I agreed with your 1.5 changes including diplomacy.
I'm looking forward to the new relation changes, and I'm hoping they might help get rid of some of the constant pop ups caused when I'm right at the edge of a particular relation level.
Posts: 488
Threads: 51
Joined: Apr 2012
Quote:the AI is bound by personality and relation stats, the human player is free to do anything.
How is this a bad thing? This is what a computer player *does*. I should be free to do anything, I'm a human and this is a single player game. I'm the only one playing.
Posts: 10,485
Threads: 395
Joined: Aug 2015
(August 24th, 2016, 05:00)Tiltowait Wrote: Quote:the AI is bound by personality and relation stats, the human player is free to do anything.
How is this a bad thing? This is what a computer player *does*. I should be free to do anything, I'm a human and this is a single player game. I'm the only one playing.
It's a good thing, but it means the AI has an inherent disadvantage in diplomacy which has to be considered when designing the system.
|
