Ideas about strategical diplomacy

[Ralf]

There have been many suggestions about what options to add, when negotiating with foreign AI-civs. In short: Diplomacy on a tactical level. Thats all god and well.

But, what about strategic diplomacy? What im aiming at here is some kind of text-file based power-balance thumb-rules.

1: In Civ-2/SMAC you could grow much stronger in each and every area, then the strongest AI-civ next in line - and still these AI-civs wasted much fruitless time and energy fighting amongst themselves.

In Civ-3 they should unanimously recognize such looming danger; make peace with each other and instead concentrate their efforts on trying to contain the human player. Some of your closest neighbors may choose military means, while other AI-civs on other continents concentrates on building cities, city-improvements and improving city-areas; thus making them better capable in competing with you in civil areas.
As a principal rule: AI-civs should only want you as an ally, if you neither too weak or too strong. On the other hand; as long as you fits into that category, theres should be much less of AI-backstabbing - and more of mutual help. Forming alliances must become more important in Civ-3.

To conquer another AI-Civ completely should have much more severe consequences then in Civ-2 and SMAC, both in terms of diplomacy and economy. You disturbing the power-balance.

2: Also, if your lead in each area starts to become impossible for any single AI-civ to catch up with, they should automatically join pacts: leading to...

- Parallell research, then switch techs with each other. Never switch with you.
- Strangle/terminate trade-routes with you, and instead establish trade-routes with each other (you can combat the latter somewhat, by establishing monopoly-situations in advance, with vital trade-goods).

3: Then you are equally/more powerful in each area then all the remaining AI-civs put together, they should go into "survival-mode". By that i mean that they should all unanimously join one last ditch universal AI-pact, there they all share everything; they dont just switch techs - they duplicate those techs automatically amongst themselves.
New trades-routes are established (replacing those with your cities), and all AI-units can now move freely together as brothers-in-arms. All with one single-minded purpose: To contain and supress your empire.

The more they manage to do that succesfully however, the more that universal AI-pact starts to crack and crumble, and one by one each AI-civ starts to follow their own agendas again.

4: Its important that AI-civs in Civ-3 should respond (almost) just as much against human player military build-ups, as against factual AI-empire conquerings from your part. Secret gigantic human military build-ups, like in Civ-2, should be much harder to achieve unnoticed.

5: Implementing A third state between anarchy and order is important to further contain the world-conquering human player.

Everything above should, in princip, be tweakable by the Civer, through "strategic diplomacy text-files", including how big part of the pact should deal with you with mostly military means, and how big part should do that with civil-improving means.
In short: Giving the player some means of tweak AI-thumbrules, in how he wants the AI-civs to behave, at certain points, then the player becomes too powerful:

Below is three examples of those critical AI power-balancing points:

- How shall remaining AI-civs react if you are just about number one.
- How shall remaining AI-civs react if you are stronger then the next two AI-civs, put together?
- How shall remaining AI-civs react if you are stronger then ALL remaing AI-civs, put together?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 16, 2001).]

[Cannes]

I do see how your ideas would make for a more challenging game, but if you try to look at how the real world works you will find that there is no real basis for that sort of AI behavious (in the real world at least). All the small nations don't gang up trying to work against superpowers, it is much more profitable for the small nations to trade and work together with their big neighbours. You have too see each civ as a nation and each leader as someone trying to do what is best for his people (I know tyrants don't). Even tyrants wouldn't join in a war that he knows will eradicate his nation.
I reckon that much more emphasis should be put on making the AI competitive without cheating or ganging up on the player.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Cannes on 01-14-2001 02:16 PM I do see how your ideas would make for a more challenging game

But, it must be done...

quote: without.... ganging up on the player.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Cannes on 01-14-2001 02:16 PM I reckon that much more emphasis should be put on making the AI competitive without cheating or ganging up on the player.

Ok, lets take this one from an different angle:

Lets say we are playing a multiplayer game with six human contenders. No AI involved.

How shall the remaining multi-players react if the leading player is stronger then the next two players, put together?

Isnt it likely that they start to form alliances and try to "contain" the leading player?

How shall the remaining multi-players react if the leader is stronger then ALL of them, put together?

Isnt it likely that these loosing civers unanimously join one last ditch player-pact, there they duplicate techs amongst themselves?
Isnt it likely that they cancel trade-routes with the leader, and establish new ones amongst themselves?
Isnt it likely that their armies now works coordinated as brothers-in-arms - as least for the time being?

And with one single-minded purpose: To contain and supress the leading dominating multi-playing civer on the map.

What if the leading multiplaying civer now complains and says:
"Hey, you guys shouldnt share techs and gang up on me like that! Thats unfair..."

My point is:
If "gang up" behaviour is OK in a multiplayer games, why is it suddenly not OK then playing against AI-civs?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 14, 2001).]

[Maxxes]

I'm really suprised that there are so few answers to this subject. It's one of the things I'd love to see in Civ3: strategic diplomacie by the AI. And I think it's a way of making the AI more of a opponent (top priority of course) and probably implementable still yet.

As I see it:

small civs should avoid war with a bigger opponent (may be except when they are horribly wronged and frustrated they will sometimes start a kamikaze war) and looking for alliances with other civs.

medium civs should be looking for alliances with other medium civs or the big ones.

In most games there will emerge two leading civs, I guess, one of them probably human, those civs should try to make the biggest alliance with medium or even small civs.

If there is war, alliances should really fight those wars together. May be the toughest part for the AI programmer, but not impossible I think.

The general idea: AI civs looking whom they should declare war or with whom they should form an alliance in a more intelligent way isn't such a CPU load. (Checking knowledge, income, # cities etc (and a little more difficult depending on location)).

Of course the behavior of the AI's will also depend on their aggressiveness and earlier behavior of the other civs.

Well, not really thought out, but my general thoughts about this subject.

btw: Ralf you're doing an excellent job expressing opinions that are mine also. Keep up the good work!

[- Groucho -]

I think Ralf has a good point. Real countries don't act as Ralf describes because there is no end game in real life. The world just keeps on rolling along, and civs generally have to keep in mind that forever is a long time. If the US sends a colony to Alpha Centauri, the world isn't going to end, there is still a tomorrow to deal with.

So, should the other Civs act like civs in real life, or should they act like they are playing the game? I vote for the latter. I want the other civs to try to win. So if I'm way out ahead and the only chance they have to win is to gang up on me, then they should do it.

However, I don't want to see the situation where suddenly its me against one super-empire made up of all the civs controlled by a single set of AI rules. That isn't what playing the game should be like. Instead, if they gang up, the rules should force them to keep at least one eye on their backyard because the AI rules should allow one of the AI civs to stab another AI civ in the back if the situation calls for it (i.e. a 9 to 1 ratio of military units along a common border should make the AI civ with the upper hand start sharpening its knife. After all, once the player is beaten into submission, there is still a game to play.)

Of course, this all assumes that only one victor is possible. I read another thread where the idea of multiple victors was floated. That would require a rethink of the above.

------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you ... will likely try harder the next time."
[This message has been edited by Echinda (edited January 24, 2001).]

[MrFun]

Here are what I believe to be essentials for a diplomacy interface:

1) give AI opponents the ability to forge peace treaties and alliances with other AI civs

2) allow for human players and AI civs to use counter-proposals

3) give AI civs the ability to determine their diplomatic actions by actually calculating the strength of other AI civs and the human player

[Henrik]

Actually real countries does do these things:
During the 17th century most countries ganged up against Spain since they where in "the lead" this resulted in France (who lead the contamination of Spain) becoming the most powerfull nation. Later on (in the 19th century) the recipe of brittish politics was to keep the countries on the continent fighting eachother since they would otherwise gang up against the English.
This sort of things happens all the time in history, and when it is avoided it's becouse it failed for some reason or becouse the leading country was able to play out its opponents against each other instead (this was to some extent acheived by the brittish).
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited January 25, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 01-25-2001 10:10 AM Here are what I believe to be essentials for a diplomacy interface: 1) give AI opponents the ability to forge peace treaties and alliances with other AI civs 2) allow for human players and AI civs to use counter-proposals 3) give AI civs the ability to determine their diplomatic actions by actually calculating the strength of other AI civs and the human player

Well, MrFUN - if you have played Civ-2, SMAC, CTP and/or CTP-2, you should know that the notoric abscense of a really strong AI-diplomacy is one of these repeated Civ-AI problem-areas, that civers most often rants/complaines about. The fact is, however, that it is really hard to achieve anything "really clever" in games with so many varables and rules, as in TBS Civ-games.

This is why I want to backup any advanced "tactic diplomacy" (= negotiating and counter-proposing) with some overall strategic diplomacy (= rigid, but clever thumb-rules and templates, in how AI-civs should cooperate in certain human/AI empire power-balancing key-situations).

Again:

- What diplomatic/economic thumb-rule counter-actions should the remaining AI-civs make, if the human player is stronger then number 2 and 3, put together?
- What diplomatic/economic thumb-rule counter-actions should the remaining AI-civs make, if the human player is equal/stronger then ALL the remaing AI-civs, put together?

My bottom-line is this:

Maybe diplomacy on an tactical level, will be better in Civ-3, then in SMAC. But, it will under no circumstances pass somekind of Turing-test. So, coming up with ideas how to backup the AI-diplomacy, with wise thumb-rules & templates as much as (reasonably) possible, is really an important issue.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 26, 2001).]

[The diplomat]

I agree that strategic diplomacy is very important. However, I do not want civs to automatically gang up on me just because I am super powerful. It does not make sense for civs who can't possibly beat me to suddenly attack me! Neither does it make sense for a civ who is my long time ally to suddenly hate me because I am much more powerful. Does England hate the US just because we are much more powerful than they? Of course not, because we are close allies. There are many small countries to hate the USA but they do not outright declare war on us since they know that they can't possibly win. Furthermore, many nations depend on trade with the USA so they stay friendly with us because they need us.

Here is what I propose:
Each civ would have a "Threat-meter" for every other civ that they have relations with. The relative power between civs would affect the threat level. But other factors would play a big role as well. If the 2 civs have a friendly alliance, then the threat level would drop. If there is lots of trade between the 2 civs, the threat level would drop too. If the civ engaged in previous atrocities, then the threat level would go up etc... The comp would weight all the factors together to determine if the threat level goes up or down. If the threat level reaches a certain height, then the civ would increase its military, seek common alliances, engage in spying, and do the things to counter the threat. So, if the threat were high, then yes the civ would become more hostile militarily and try to contain the civ in question.

In summary the general rules should something like this:
A civ should not "gang up" on another civ if:
1- the 2 civs have a long time friendly relationship.
2-there is lots of trade.
3-they are both fighting a common enemy.
4- one civ is hopelessly outmatched.

In other situations the civ should take action to contain the superciv:
5-if the civ has performed atrocities or other hostile acts in the past.
6-if the civ is growing too powerful (and factors 1 through 4 are not met)
7-if the civ has allied with a mortal enemy ("the friend of my enemy is my enemy")


The bottom line is I want an intelligent strategic diplomacy as much as possible. I do not want a strategic diplomacy that is too 1 dimensional where a civ always attacks me becaus I am powerful. Finally, I do realize that these concepts are extremely dificult to implement in a civ game so a compromise will have to struck between simplicity and realism.


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[wittlich]

I agree there should be better rules for Diplomacy and on this thread I think the idea mentioned earlier about counter-proposals is a valid one...for instance, in CIV II when you contact an AI, it IMMEDIATELY demands and advance from you. Your opening choices are yes or no. Shouldn't there be a "maybe" (like, I will give you such advance if you give me advance/gold/map/unit/city) or having the option of giving the AI an "alternate advance." As it stands now in CIVII, the "alternate advance" choice only comes into play when the AI has already agreed to exchange knowledge with you.

[MrFun]

Wittlich - we can call it what CTP II designers called it - counter-proposals.

[Zeevico]

Great idea, but look at it this way (AI situation)You've been trading techs with other civs, giving them cash, establishing trade routes with them for eons and now they're breaking your alliance because you're the biggest and best? what about the perfectionist and civilized civs in the game? I think that if you keep an 'excellent at worst' reputation in the game and you haven't been at war with the civ for a long time, that civ should be nice to you and not break your alliance for no reason except you're most powerful (and since you've shown your peacefulness, they should trust you enough.). Of course, if you break a peace/ alliance treaty with that civ your rep. is irrevocably atrocious (unless the said AI civ has allied with an enemy civ).

[Biddles]

The diplomat has some good point. Earlier today I was playing SMAC. I was morgan, slightly more powerful than zak and dierdre. I was extremely pacifist, taking no part in vendetta's, having only defensive units and I wasn't the governor (lal and his empath guild ). Anyway, all of a sudden everyone up and decides they're going to attack me. That really ****ed me off.

The civ's should gang up on you but as the diplomat said, only if you pose a threat, i.e:
-You're extremely powerful (double anyone else)
-You're fairly powerful(leader, but only just), but aggressive
-You're average power (2nd or 3rd) but you go around stealing and commiting atrocities
-You simply occupy a piece of land that the other civ's decide to carve up between themselves :P

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 01-26-2001 08:06 AM The civ's should gang up on you but as the diplomat said, only if you pose a threat, i.e: -You're extremely powerful (double anyone else) -You're fairly powerful(leader, but only just), but aggressive -You're average power (2nd or 3rd) but you go around stealing and commiting atrocities -You simply occupy a piece of land that the other civ's decide to carve up between themselves :P

Above list contains really good trigger-examples!

If "You're extremely powerful (double anyone else)", you really are a potential threat to the AI-civs. Of course a peace-modifier could (and should) be added. For example: if you have gained that power-advantage gradually through peaceful city-foundings and city-area developments, with no/very few and limited city-conquerings. But even then, they should at least stop fighting amongst themselves. 1-2 can start wars with you, while the others concentrates on civil improvements - trying to reduce your advantage by non-military means.

But, IF your extrem power-advantage has instead been gained through military means, with constant wars and city-conquerings, they really should try to gang up military against you - and break up trade-deals with you, and so on.

Thats only make sence! They are fighting collectively for continued AI-independence, for crying out load.

And please, also try to remember that Civ-3 most likely will contain max 6-8 simultaneously playing AI-civs - and the ideal "strategic diplomacy AI-resistance" therefore must be trying to emulate a 6-8 multiplayer-game.
One just have to draw conclusions from release-dates (SMAC 1999 - Civ-3; early 2002, at the latest), and compare those dates with the law of "doubling chip-prestanda every 18:th month", to understand that any real-world like number of simultaneously playing AI-civs is just pure fantasies.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 26, 2001).]