Surprisingly, that exact same dialogue showed up for me last week (first time I had seen it), when I was playing MOO1 to ensure I got the flow of the Galactic Council voting down correctly
I didn't follow up on the request, so I don't know what would happen if I had. There's not currently a way for a player to make a proposal like that to an AI, so I am currently inclined not to include it in the game. Feature parity between the player and the AIs is something that I am trying to be very strict about.
About understanding diplomatic repercussions --
I understand the concern about making the AIs seem predictable, but my first order of business is to make them not dumb! Once I cross that bridge, I can worry about predictability. However, I want to be sure that "too predictable" isn't really code for "doesn't make an obvious mistake that I can exploit"
About tech trades --
In Java MOO, each race (including the player) retains a list of enemy ship designs that he has scanned. Although this is useful for the player, the real intent is to give the AI some sort of data to better assess the value of technologies.
In Java MOO, the AI ShipDesigner currently tracks the best shield level of his enemies when determining what the "best" weapon is when designing a new fighter ship. However, I am hoping to eventually go beyond that very simple example when evaluating techs.
For example, if any enemy ship is encountered with Subspace Teleporters, then the perceived value of Subspace Interdictors would go through the roof. Similarly, an enemy with spores would greatly increase the value of antidotes. Large planetary shields would increase the value of spores, as would being in a position to not care about diplomatic repercussions (i.e. just 2 races left).
I didn't follow up on the request, so I don't know what would happen if I had. There's not currently a way for a player to make a proposal like that to an AI, so I am currently inclined not to include it in the game. Feature parity between the player and the AIs is something that I am trying to be very strict about.
About understanding diplomatic repercussions --
I understand the concern about making the AIs seem predictable, but my first order of business is to make them not dumb! Once I cross that bridge, I can worry about predictability. However, I want to be sure that "too predictable" isn't really code for "doesn't make an obvious mistake that I can exploit"
About tech trades --
In Java MOO, each race (including the player) retains a list of enemy ship designs that he has scanned. Although this is useful for the player, the real intent is to give the AI some sort of data to better assess the value of technologies.
In Java MOO, the AI ShipDesigner currently tracks the best shield level of his enemies when determining what the "best" weapon is when designing a new fighter ship. However, I am hoping to eventually go beyond that very simple example when evaluating techs.
For example, if any enemy ship is encountered with Subspace Teleporters, then the perceived value of Subspace Interdictors would go through the roof. Similarly, an enemy with spores would greatly increase the value of antidotes. Large planetary shields would increase the value of spores, as would being in a position to not care about diplomatic repercussions (i.e. just 2 races left).