Diplomacy in 0 A.D

[MAXDDARK]

Diplomacy is a GREAT aspect of any strategy game

I would like to know, how it's going to work in 0 A.D ?

would you be able to change your stances during the "level"/ "map" ?

would it be like in AOE ? (I didn't like the AOE diplomacy as you can be a friend of your enemies).

will there be given a specific amount of time before the war declaration is "on" ?

[Belisarivs]

Well, I think, that diplomacy will be like in AoK. There aren't more things to add IMHO.

But AI should be better and respond to your call for help and suggestions (I can't say orders, as they will be your ally). But I think, that it would be cool if AI could call for help you (in AoK it worked, to some extent).

But it could call you to certain places and also to ask you to send your cavalry to protect flanks and so.

[MAXDDARK]

but are the alliance are "fixed" in the start of each map, or can you change them ?

or let's say u are allied with comp1 and he is asking for help several times, and you refuse to help him, would he be smart enough to break the alliance ?

[Felix]

I think diplomacy was something lacking in AOK and AOE3, it has always been too solid, you went in a game and most of the time the person you went in the game allied to, you stayed allied with throughout the whole thing and you didnt really forge alliances mid-game. It isnt too big of an issue, but if the devs have something up their sleeve concerning this, that would be great. Realistically, diplomacy is a huge issues in conflicts and economical disputes, but in AOE3 and AOK it didnt really have a big impact.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Felix

[MAXDDARK]

Dev's any news on the diplomacy aspect ?

[Argalius]

The fact that diplomacy is hardly present in RTS games like Age of Empires and 0AD isn't very strange. There are only a limited amount of players on the map and getting stabbed in the back by your ally is far from enjoyable. In M2TW I hated it when I had just started a war against one of my foes and my (ex)ally would attack me aswell. Also sue for peace in M2TW is something I never understood and never got around it. Meaning I was constantly at war with everyone until I conquered them all.

Anyway, games like 0AD are too "small" to really include real life diplomacy. When there are 15 players on a map it'd be nice to create your own alliances etc. but with 4 (I think the standard game is 2v2) there's hardly any use. Not to mention that 3v1 would be very unfair where 4v3 is already more balanced. Games like Europa Universalis really offer good diplomacy (although probably still rather limited for the 'size' of the game) which is fun aswell. The advantage that a game like EU offers compared to 0AD is that it can also be fun to not do so much, playing with a small country can be very enjoyable too eventhough you cannot conquer your (larger) neighbours. Where 0AD is only fun when you conquer and not doing anything military is very boring in my opinion (although some surely disagree).

[Justinian]

The fact that diplomacy is hardly present in RTS games like Age of Empires and 0AD isn't very strange. There are only a limited amount of players on the map and getting stabbed in the back by your ally is far from enjoyable. In M2TW I hated it when I had just started a war against one of my foes and my (ex)ally would attack me aswell. Also sue for peace in M2TW is something I never understood and never got around it. Meaning I was constantly at war with everyone until I conquered them all.

I like having the option to build and create alliances, and for some reason I rarely get stabbed in the back by any ally on any game. I usually have to go on the warpath to my allies other allies to get my ally to attack me in RTW. Then Egypt comes in with it's chariots having subjugated most of the Middle East. I never stood a chance.

[Silver]

I like having the option to build and create alliances, and for some reason I rarely get stabbed in the back by any ally on any game. I usually have to go on the warpath to my allies other allies to get my ally to attack me in RTW. Then Egypt comes in with it's chariots having subjugated most of the Middle East. I never stood a chance.

Then you got lucky or you haven't played much, when something like rating comes on the line and you are free to switch teams it becomes very annoying.

Allowing creation of alliances would require either a huge slow down in game, a military that relies more heavily on economy, or super slow combat so that you can't just gang up on one person and destroy him.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Silver

[Mythos_Ruler]

Free flowing alliances are very fun in loooooong games... When I mean long games, I mean games that accrue over more than one session. There should also be an incentive to keep alliances once they are created (slow econ or something without alliances).

[MythicRuler]

The way to go is having an option that allows you to lock the teams or have them changeable, so players can have things suited to the way they play. Another option could be that you start the game as neutral, and once you set a player as ally or enemy, you cannot change your mind again(to prevent stabbing in the back). But this also poses this problem:

1. player 1 and 2 decide they want to ally eachother

2. player 1 allys player 2 and cannot go back on the change

3. player 2 know has the advantage over 1 for 1 cannot attack and sets 1 as an enemy.

So players should only be true allies if both select eachother as allies, but if one player sets one as an enemy first, other players dont have to set that player to be an enemy in order for the player to be able to attack them. I am going on and on arent I? Anyway, I am sure that as long as the ai is similar to aok it will be good enough for me.

[Argalius]

I think having the possibility to change teams is useless in 0AD. The point of this game is to eliminate your enemies where in other games, like EU2 (I don't really have another good example ), you fight your enemies for land or gold, which hardly is the case in 0AD. So depending on what land you're trying to conquer you switch alliance. In EU2 it even has quite some negative effects when you annex your enemies, which obviously isn't the case in 0AD either. The only use such an option could have is that the game continues even when your original enemies are off the battlefield. Which of course brings the problem with it that the cities of you and your allies are situated closely to another and probably one of the two (or more) will already have the upperhand because it came out better earlier in the game, or perhaps hardly partook in the conquering of your old enemies.

[Silver]

In EU2 it even has quite some negative effects when you annex your enemies, which obviously isn't the case in 0AD either. The only use such an option could have is that the game continues even when your original enemies are off the battlefield.

I like this idea, if there is any ability to switch teams there should be a penalty every time that does happen, and over the long run if you're switching sides almost every game, it can really affect in game play/economy/military. (One not all of them)

I also like that idea of the fighting for land with people who share a common goal, that could also decrease team switching.

[Mythos_Ruler]

A persistent "treachery" rating per player account would be cool.

[Silver]

A persistent "treachery" rating per player account would be cool.

That sounds good

[ZeZar]

There will be diplomacy right?

Breaking and making alliances is part of every RTS, even though its not used that often. And it happens that people play 4v4 and so on, with much drama and alliances, backstabbing and so on ... Its a part of the game. If you can't handle it, don't play it =p hehe

Anyway, don't make it complicated, but if anyone here has played Lord of the Realms 2 (yeah, there is a 3rd, but its RTS not turn-based, so I really didnt like it and dont know how the diplomacy works there), there you can send gifts to please your opponent, send letters of insult or compliment him, and also ask for alliances. It's very fun, at least in the single player. The opponent answer too =D

and btw, Lord of the Realms 2 is freeware now I think, graphics are not that good, but it's really fun to play AND units walk on walls!

cheers

[joshthewhistler]

I think the simple alliance system from AoK is adequate: Ally, Neutral or Enemy. What should be improved upon is the ai player responses. These can probably make this simple system seem much better than it actually is.

If more complicated diplomacy is needed then something like map zones would have to be introduced to make it worthwhile. You could only build on map zones controlled by yourself and your allies. More complicated resource trading systems would have to be implemented as well making the game more of a Anno game (sunflower studios).

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yeah, Diplo will be simple Ally/Neutral/Enemy. Its possible we could implement something a little more complex for Part 2. Ideas abound.