Diplomacy and Cooperation

[Mythos_Ruler]

Today when playtesting, I noticed that I can assist my ally in constructing his buildings. This is a great idea that brings new levels of cooperation between allies. At the end of the day, I'd like to make such an ability "unlockable" through a technology. But for now, it exists as default for proof of concept. One bug I noticed is that when I help my ally build a Mill dropsite, my guys start to gather nearby resources. This is a problem because they cannot drop their resources at the allied Mill. I propose multiple levels here:

-- Research the "Cooperation Level 1" technology. This allows you to assist your ally in building their structures. This unlocks the "Cooperation Level 2" technology. (These technologies will be named something better later.) Helping construct an ally dropsite does not send your units off to gather... until you...

-- Research "Cooperation Level 2" allows you to use allied dropsites. Each time you drop resources at an ally's dropsite the ally gets a percentage as a "fee." Unlocks "Cooperation Level 3."

-- Researching "Cooperation Level 3" allows you to build your own structures (except Civic Centres) inside your ally's territory. Your buildings will add to your ally's border expansion, not your own, until time that your building becomes detached from your ally's territory.

I think things like this can really add a new dimension to diplomacy and team play. I don't think these abilities should come as default. I think you should have to pay for them.

Also, we'll have to prototype these ideas obviously. There may be some complications or unintended negative affects on gameplay. For now, 1 and 2 sound relatively benign. Level 3 is what I'd worry about.

[historic_bruno]

Hey, great ideas

-- Research "Cooperation Level 2" allows you to use allied dropsites. Each time you drop resources at an ally's dropsite the ally gets a percentage as a "fee." Unlocks "Cooperation Level 3."

I can see people not liking the "fee", and we haven't discussed a fee with other proposed features like trading (though I think we should).

-- Researching "Cooperation Level 3" allows you to build your own structures (except Civic Centres) inside your ally's territory. Your buildings will add to your ally's border expansion, not your own, until time that your building becomes detached from your ally's territory.

Hmm I was thinking we'd allow certain buildings to be constructed in allied territory by default, such as defensive structures, but we haven't made that change yet. Building too much in the ally's territory could be perceived as a threat, but they could always retaliate by dissolving the alliance, causing their former ally's buildings to experience health/loyalty drain. However, I don't believe we've fully defined the behavior of buildings in ally territory (some questions left unresolved in that topic).

How about revealing allied explorations and possibly their LOS? AOK had a "cartography" tech and it was quite useful.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I can see people not liking the "fee", and we haven't discussed a fee with other proposed features like trading (though I think we should).

In this instance, the "fee" doesn't evaporate into thin air, it's paid to the ally whose dropsite you are using. <br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); ">

How about revealing allied explorations and possibly their LOS? AOK had a "cartography" tech and it was quite useful.

"Cartography" would definitely be a universal technology that all factions have.

[Pureon]

I really like these ideas

I can see people not liking the "fee", and we haven't discussed a fee with other proposed features like trading (though I think we should).

If it's a small enough percentage - say 10-15% - the benefits from resources gathered would still be worthwhile.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I really like these ideas

If it's a small enough percentage - say 10-15% - the benefits from resources gathered would still be worthwhile.

Right, and can come in handy when your home base is getting slaughtered and you've run to your ally's base for sanctuary.

[hhyloc]

Talking about Diplomacy, will there be any diplomatic options for enemies? i.e. you can pay tribute to your enemy so he won't attack you for a while, or form an temporally alliance again a common foe?

If it's a small enough percentage - say 10-15% - the benefits from resources gathered would still be worthwhile.

And perhaps a technology to reduce these percentage?

[Mythos_Ruler]

I could see the bribe thing working well. Bribe the AI and there would be a cease fire for X minutes (maybe depending on how big the bribe is).There would be a 1 out of 5 chance they would not accept the bribe, depending upon the sitiuation (the AI plans to attack soon or has you on the ropes), and 1 in 5 chance they'll take the bribe and renege on the cease fire. For multiplayer, a player could offer a bribe to an enemy player and that player could accept or reject. If accepted, then there is a ceasefire for X minutes.

[gudo]

I agree with adding a fee for trading and using an allies drop site. So long as they are sufficiently small, there should be no problem.

I have to disagree with cooperation as a technology. It seems really rather silly. What would be better IMO is, as a diplomacy option, a variety of alliance/treaty options.

For example, I could enter into an economic alliance which would let me trade with him and use his drop sites, and work on/repair his structures but not build in his territory. Furthermore, (assuming there's some technology or condition that gives troops a penalty for being in enemy territory) any of my troops that enter his territory suffer the relevant penalties for being in a enemy territory. Or we could enter a military alliance whereby I could construct defensive buildings in his territory, work on/repair his structures but not trade with him or build economic buildings. Furthermore, any of my troops that enter his territory gain the benefits of fighting on friendly land (assuming again that any are implemented.) Another option for a full alliance would give me the benefits of both.

This method gives me better control over what exactly my ally may do in my land. If he researches Cooperation 2, what's to stop him from taking my strategic resources? I may get a small fee, but what if I wanted that whole forest to myself? Suppose he's a troll, or plans on backstabbing me. If he researches Cooperation 3, what's to stop him from building towers and barracks in my territory even if I don't want him to? I understand the depth of gameplay that this sort of potential backstabbing adds, but it should only be possible if I decide to take that risk. What he can do in my territory should be up to me, not him. He can either respect the terms of the alliance, or he can break the alliance.

As far as diplomatic tech goes, I think the following would be better:

{civ} Language: Allows you to initiate diplomatic relations with the civ. Without this tech, the only diplomacy you can do is to either declare war or remain neutral. With this tech, you can enter into any of the three alliances above. Prerequisite to all other civ based technology.

Money Changing: Unlocks trading with other civs... Assuming you can speak their language. This might be a prerequisite to "Economic Alliance" as stated above.

{civ} Engineering: Allows you to repair or assist in the construction of building created by another civ. (Note: This wouldn't unlock any of the three alliance modes I've described, but it would make them more potent. Also, this is essentially "cooperation 1") Optional: Should you capture a building belonging to another civ, you couldn't repair it without this tech (so it's internally consistent and useful to players who avoid alliances)

{civ} Theology: Without understanding your allies spiritual needs, you cannot service them. Your priests may now attend to allied troops belonging to the civ. Furthermore, you may co-opt their religion to drain their loyalty faster (if you're opposed to the civ, not allied.)

Cartography: Removes Shroud of Darkness (FoW still applies) for your allies on territory that you've explored.

One thing that I think is very important with diplomatic techs is the possibility of dual use. Since some techs would have a use even for people who don't enter into alliances, it helps lower the "cost" of not entering into an alliance. Also, if diplomacy will have a "cost" in research, dual use technologies also prevent civs from suffering too badly in their place on the technology curve should their ally die or the alliance break.

I could see the bribe thing working well. Bribe the AI and there would be a cease fire for X minutes (maybe depending on how big the bribe is).There would be a 1 out of 5 chance they would not accept the bribe, depending upon the sitiuation (the AI plans to attack soon or has you on the ropes), and 1 in 5 chance they'll take the bribe and renege on the cease fire. For multiplayer, a player could offer a bribe to an enemy player and that player could accept or reject. If accepted, then there is a ceasefire for X minutes.

Hmmm... If the ceasefire is enforced by the game, then it's a bad idea. This would be terrible for backstabbing. Say I offer you a bribe, if you accept, I know I'm safe (since the game forces you to not attack.) If you decline, I know I'm not (since there'd be no reason to turn it down UNLESS you planned on attacking.) Permit the gifting of resources, but if you want a ceasefire, you need to make an agreement player to player.

Edited November 10, 2011 by gudo

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hmmm... If the ceasefire is enforced by the game, then it's a bad idea. This would be terrible for backstabbing. Say I offer you a bribe, if you accept, I know I'm safe (since the game forces you to not attack.) If you decline, I know I'm not (since there'd be no reason to turn it down UNLESS you planned on attacking.) Permit the gifting of resources, but if you want a ceasefire, you need to make an agreement player to player.

There would be no incentive not to back stab. So, of course you take the bribe. Why wouldn't you? You'd take the money and attack anyway. lol Know what I mean? Would need come up with some kind of incentive to honor the deal and only back stab when the benefits of backstabbing outweigh the incentive to keep the cease fire.

[gudo]

Just wanna be clear, I'm not against the idea of sending or gifting resources to other players. I'm just against the game forcing a ceasefire against the will of a player. There should never be a mechanic that takes control from a player.

There would be no incentive not to back stab. So, of course you take the bribe. Why wouldn't you? You'd take the money and attack anyway. lol Know what I mean?

That's part of the risks of engaging in diplomacy. Send bribes at your own peril. Very real world.

Would need come up with some kind of incentive to honor the deal and only back stab when the benefits of backstabbing outweigh the incentive to keep the cease fire.

The players offering a bribe should be the one to come up with the incentive (there are already considerable benefits to calling a ceasefire even without bribes.) Weighing back-stab vs ceasefire is also a decision that should be made by the players. I see no role for coded ceasefire enforcement in this system.

I don't see how a forced ceasefire could possibly escape abuse. Not only is there the problem of players using it as a barometer, but it's easily exploitable. Say you and I are in an alliance and I decide to backstab you. I send you a bribe, you accept because why not? It means I can't attack you. (Or, you send me a bribe ironically to see if I'll decline and backstab.)I now use the forced ceasefire to march my army into your city where I can take my time positioning my troops. Once the ceasefire ends, I break alliance and attack. You might see this coming, and if it weren't for that forced ceasefire you could break alliance and intercept my troops. With a code enforced ceasefire, there's nothing you can do to stop me from simply strolling past your perimeter defenses and walls, reaching your city. Sure, you'll be able to position your troops too but you can't possibly stop me from setting up my attack. Say good bye to your civ center. Hope you like loosing loyalty.

Now suppose you and are on opponents and I've got you on the ropes. You offer a bribe to buy some breathing room. I accept. Now, I can scout your territory and troops to my hearts content and there's nothing you can do about it. I can march my troops right past your towers and fortresses and into the juicy economic heart of your empire. Again, you've handed me your civ center without a fight.

Don't forget, backstabbing isn't the only reason to break alliances.

Edited November 10, 2011 by gudo

[Mythos_Ruler]

Just wanna be clear, I'm not against the idea of sending or gifting resources to other players. I'm just against the game forcing a ceasefire against the will of a player. There should never be a mechanic that takes control from a player.

It's not against the will of the player, because they know ahead of time if they accept the bribe that there will be a ceasefire imposed.

That's part of the risks of engaging in diplomacy. Send bribes at your own peril. Very real world.

Understood. But there are things in real life that would help cement a ceasefire that aren't present in the game. Marrying off your daughter. Trade embargoes. Religious considerations (breaking oaths). All kinds of things.

The players offering a bribe should be the one to come up with the incentive (there are already considerable benefits to calling a ceasefire even without bribes.) Weighing back-stab vs ceasefire is also a decision that should be made by the players. I see no role for coded ceasefire enforcement in this system.

I could see a Ceasefire being put into place, but then there can be a negative consequence to a backstab. Something that the player has to weigh when making the decisions. As you propose, there is no incentive to maintaining the peace. Once you accept the bribe, there is absolutely no reason why you wouldn't backstab whenever possible.

I now use the forced ceasefire to march my army into your city where I can take my time positioning my troops.

Part of enforcing a "ceasefire" would be to close the borders or to add attrition. This is similar to the "no rush" option that's been planned for a long time.

[Shield Bearer]

How about charging the player who wants to 'backstab'? Maybe double the amount of what he was bribed with. This would then allow him to attack the briber(who thinks he's safe because of the ceasefire).

[quantumstate]

The diplomacy stuff sounds interesting but in my experience playing rts in multiplayer teams are always locked. I think this is desirable in most situations because teams are likely to make unbalanced combinations of players. It is bad enough when I have played with more than two teams which just ends up with some teams feeling picked on. The best experience is when everyone thinks they had a tough game which was fair. So for this model things like multiple tiers of alliance aren't useful.

The game enforced ceasefire sounds good and would work great with territories. I like the idea of needing to research technology for these things. I am in favor of cartography without research though.

[Mythos_Ruler]

The diplomacy stuff sounds interesting but in my experience playing rts in multiplayer teams are always locked.

Very true. Although in my AOK days I would sometimes host "diplo" games where everyone started as neutral and picked up allies throughout the game. This mode was fun, but there always seemed to be that one guy who got butthurt when he was ganged up on. Like you said...

It is bad enough when I have played with more than two teams which just ends up with some teams feeling picked on.

This happened often. Someone would always end up upset. However, with players such as myself who played this type of game often (not exclusively or even a majority of games, just often), it would be expected that teams would not always end up even or that someone would get ganged up on in every match. Those of us who understood this ahead of time just accepted it as part of the game.

The game enforced ceasefire sounds good and would work great with territories. I like the idea of needing to research technology for these things. I am in favor of cartography without research though.

Hmm, what if Cartography came automatically when phasing up to Town Level? I like the idea of a little bit of mystery and isolation at the beginning. Then of course in "Post-City" matches all of the techs and benefits would already be in affect.