Diplomacy Model v1.1

[Mark_Everson]

Darren:

The interface in general looks good, and LOL on the governor. I think the settings you have in your example are more typical of a whole-Civ control panel rather than diplomatic stuff. If I just misunderstood feel free to ignore me

[Lord God Jinnai]

Is there any way to deal with occupied territory, disputed territory and also claimed but unregonized territory via other nations (antarica is the best example now days). Also what about new civs that pop up from ur civ? Does it take reconition from ur civ or can it be from others?

[Henrique Duarte]

Mark

I know it will sound like I am trying to push the war theaters idea (well to be honest I am :-).
I think that the 1st step in evaluating the military situation of the civ in relation to other civs could be made so much easier if you had reasonable "blocks" to deal with. reasonable in military terms.
If for each civ the AI has war theaters established for friendly and enemy territory, the risk opportunity assement can be easely made according to force disposition, terrain factors, strategic gains (in resource/population center/productuin objective) in each war theatre. Note that based on the factors that each war theater is built with, the forces of each war theater are able to support/reinforce friendly neighbouring war theaters as well as invade enemy neighbouring war theaters (because they are all attainable objectives in 1 turn - in theory :-))

Of course added variability will be added with naval and air intervention - but still the risk assesment of a naval invasion is much easier with war theaters.
ex. a TF, militia strength in a war theater is able to rush to the defense of any square within that war theatre and within the time frame considered - 1 turn(it all boils down to how you build war theaters, please read again my post on that)
So the AI can easely asses risk of seaborne invasion according to the garrison forces he has available in that war theatre versus naval capability of the foe to deploy an amphibious operation against that war theatre (remember the sneak attack that is so easy to do in most strategy games :-), well the AI can defend against them and can, as well, decide to do them :-))))

[Mark_Everson]

Henrique:

As far as I can figure, your post doesn't have anything to do with diplomacy? Did you accidentally posted in the wrong thread? It would be appropriate in AI, or perhaps a military thread many get one back...

LGJ:

Krenske just made a good post on this topic in the borders thread. I asked it could switch it over to hear, but I'm not sure he has seen it yet. Well, on the point of diplomatic recognition for splinter civs... anyone can diplomatically recognize anybody as far as I know. However, although recognition in the world won't make a bit of difference if you don't want them to leave and can militarily impose your will.

[Darren_McGuicken]

Mark: No, that's a fair point, the current governor sliders exist purely as place-holders! So, since you brought it up ( )... what would you like to see in the Governor panel? My mind's a blank.

This also brings up an important point - what setters & values would be needed for the AI? It's fine my putting together a frontend for this, but how will I do the handover to the AI? Can I also assume it would be too big a hassle for you to concentrate on for this demo?

[Henrique Duarte]

Mark

Sooorry
Open the AI and the Diplomatic threads at the same time and as the last post on the diplomatic thread discussed AI issues I rushed in thinking it was the AI thread.

[Mark_Everson]

Darren:

I gave a basic overview of what I think we need in my post of Dec. 27th 11:18 and the following post. Obviously you can't make everything perfect in the first shot. We also need some way for the player to provide overall diplomatic objectives on the overall screen. My take on the big picture is for you to put together some semblance of the overall diplomatic interface, and have a single second-level interface for negotiating deals. I'd say at this point we should limit the deals to changes of diplomatic status. The diplomatic status negotiations should include the ability to give or take money either in a single amount, or a continuous stream.

I would say we need to just stumble along with the current diplomatic AI, and simple modifications thereof for this pass at it. I think we can include reputation, and the money changing hands I talked about above in a fairly simple way. We will need to address the diplomatic AI in much more detail fairly soon, but I don't think this is the time...

[Krenske]

Mark,
I just saw your post.

Here is a cut version of my points.

We could split territroy status into the following, we could have claimed territory, treaty territory, settled territory and defended territory.

Claimed territory is what your explorers basically do, they run around planting a few flags. These have no real effect except that they can lead to treaty territory, where two civs can decide on a mutual border within shared claimed territory.

Treaty teeritory and borders is a border between two civs, but there is nothing there exploitation or settlement wise. This is still not a very "strong" border. It would be possible to have border disputes over these treaty borders. (IE demand a resurveying of the border in diplomacy and If you have become more powerful the other civ may look the otherway when the border changes slightly in your favour. Not accepting a change could be a war excuse that circumvents parliament or the senate in pathetic democracies etc.)

Settled territory forms a more firm border as the populated area has feelings of belonging to the Civ and do not share resources. Borders can not be adjusted through settled territory.

Defended territory is where you have actually stationed defences/guards on a border that is or is not settled. This sort of border can only be changed by military action. Note we could have a border post as a improvement that costs a gold a turn to maintain. You could eventually allow your border posts to just be abandoned but this would be an invitation for someone else to come and make a claim on your territory.

Just a few ideas. (To help a thread needing some action)

[Kull]

Kreske: There's a few problems with your ideas.

1) Claimed Territory: All the tiles in the Clash world are populated, not empty ala Civ2. So planting flags isn't going to be enough to subdue the local culture. You have to either conquer them or ally with them.

2) Treaty Territory: I suspect you're talking about something like the Treaty of Tordesillas which basically gave Brazil to Portugal and the rest of the New World to Spain. I think this would be very difficult to model in Clash. How would the AI know which tiles NOT to claim? Or what's to stop them from "claiming" the whole world? And what about the cultures and civs occupying the "claimed" tiles? It may be realistic, but it sure sounds messy.

3) Defended Territory: This pretty much sounds like "Clash-as-we-know-it". Either you own the province or you don't. And if your garrison is too weak to defend it, look out!

[Krenske]

With regards to claimed territory. Current native population has historically been safely ignored by large civs. They just rock up and say you are now part of *****. If the natives rise up thats just a barbarian rebellion.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Also there was nothing in ur model that from what I saw could show "occupied terriroty" such as with Isreal or disputed territory such as with most of the arab courtries surrounding southern Saudi Arabia FE.

[Richard Bruns]

What is the current state of this system? Are we still planning on putting it in Demo 5?

[Mark_Everson]

Still in demo 5, but nothing beyond demo 4 ever got coded. No solid plan for what goes in and what doesn't. Opinions for a minimal model's characterstics would be useful. But preferably from someone who has time to both read the whole discussion and formulate a plan.

[Richard Bruns]

I read all of the discussion. If everything outlined is coded it should be very nice. I didn't get to play Demo 4 so I don't know what was in there.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited September 22, 2000).]

[roquijad]

I re-read the model and went through the discussion in some detail. To be honest, the model looks very good but it lacks the specifics of it. IMO, there're too many good ideas but they're mostly all "in the air" with too few precise methods to have them implemented.

As far as I can see, this model can't make it to demo5 in its present state.

That's unless all the equations and formulas are somewhere else I couldn't find...