Diplomatic GUI

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Vovan! Thanks for the update.

Sounds like you're pretty close to having something we can use in the next demo Good luck on your juggling activities, especially the job hunt!

[vovan]

Well, I have thrown together a quick layout of the contact window today. It is not hooked up to the diplomacy model yet, and is pretty much static - you can expand and collapse the tree, but that comes for free with the built in JTree class I used. (Also, never mind the icons on the tree - it won't be too hard to change them.)

The Image Placeholder will contain the image of the leader with whom you are currently in contact.

Like I said, it's not working yet, but I wanted to throw this out there to see if you all like the design.

Discuss.

[LDiCesare]

I don't get why there are two trees showing more or less the same thing on t=right and left. Which one does what?
Also, I don't get where the current status with the target is. If on top of the tree lists we could have a "we propose/they propose" or "we give/they give" or such, it would make it clearer what the left is and what the right is.
I am not sure I get the distinction between the current status and the proposals made. Could you explain if the example can map to a situation what actions can be done or if it is just a layout presentation?

[Mark_Everson]

Hi All:

In analogy with Civ3 I was expecting some sort of bargaining table, where you would pick choices from the left and right and assemble them into a deal to be ratified or rejected. Since that was what was presented a while ago I think that is the direction the GUI is going in. Is that what you have in mind Vovan? If so it looks like you are a fair amount of the way to an alpha version .

[vovan]

Laurent,

I know, I didn't label what goes where yet, sorry about that. One half of the table is what you propose, and one what you want back. In the trees, are the available clauses, and in the middle of the table, is the proposed deal. The trees do llok the same, almost, but they won't be in the game, since the players will have different technologies to exchange, different goods to share, and trade, etc..

Mark,

Yes, that's what I have in mind - a civ3-like bargain table. But there is a slight problem with that approach... (Which is partly why I posted this without actually having anything working to show, so that we could discuss...) You see, this approach is very good (IMO) for two nations. But we want to have the ability to create treaties for several nations at the same time. I want to come with a plan on how to implement that graphically. That functionality is a bit off, but I want to take it into consideration beforehand, so that when I get to it, I don't have to revamp everything.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Vovan:

Originally posted by vovansim
Yes, that's what I have in mind - a civ3-like bargain table. But there is a slight problem with that approach... (Which is partly why I posted this without actually having anything working to show, so that we could discuss...) You see, this approach is very good (IMO) for two nations. But we want to have the ability to create treaties for several nations at the same time. I want to come with a plan on how to implement that graphically. That functionality is a bit off, but I want to take it into consideration beforehand, so that when I get to it, I don't have to revamp everything.

Wow, that is a tough one! Obviously the case where everyone puts in the same identical items is trivial. FE a mutual defense pact similar to NATO. Past that it gets Very complicated IMO. I think the center table area where a deal is constructed could be good for up to four parties or so. A deal could be constructed using color coding for arbitrarily complex deals between four civs using that approach.

The player could select in turn what each civ is supposed to give each other civ. FE right-click on Civ A Money and designate Civ B as the recipient. When everything Civ A is supposed to give to each other party is done then you could switch the "I want" tree to Civ B. The code would only need a few mods to make this work. For more than four civs we could just require that the deals always be symmetrical, or go to a bargaining table that could show up to nine civs at a time or something.

Anyway, those are my admittedly-unsophisticated thoughts for the moment. . .

[Simon Loverix]

It seems we only need bilateral treaties, and universal treaties, that anyone can join if fulfilling the right conditions. In that case, universal treaties are a bit limited in complexity, which is a good thing for the AI it seems.

[Martin the Dane]

Just a little note: I don't se on the GUI image how to not send a proposal once I have entered the screen. I'm aware that sending an empty proposal could have this effect, but I might want to go into the screen to se if the other side has something to offer, and then only "talk" to my own advisors, and not call the abassador.

[vovan]

Originally posted by Martin the Dane
Just a little note: I don't se on the GUI image how to not send a proposal once I have entered the screen.

The button with the working label of "Good-bye" is mean to accomplish this.

[LDiCesare]

Quoting yin26 from a Galciv post he made:

* If Civ A and B are in contact with each other and I sell Techs X,Y,Z to CivA, when I click over to sell to CivB, either CivA and I should have to try to low-bid each other or CivB will prefer to buy from either one of us depending on our alignment, etc. As it is now, you can just roll down the civs and get full price over and over for whatever tech you happen to have at the moment.

I think that is a bright idea for diplomacy. It's not really gui-related, but I couldn't fing the diplo model thread... Though showing a "Civ BB proposes the same for less" would provide some bargaining interest, particularly if your trading partner is lying...

[Fosse]

Can there be a secrecy clause that is possible to add to any shared technology? If I want to give fission to one civ, but not have to fear that civ trading it to everyone else, then I want some kind of assurance for that.

This could be expanded so that if two of us independently discover something, we could agree to keep it secret from everyone else after the fact. A one tech embargo, if you will.

Violating this agreement would have a chance of being found out attached to it, with appropriate diplomatic penalties.

[yellowdaddy]

does anyone remember Captain Blood on the Amiga?

you went around space capturing aliens, and it had a unique communication interface rather like what they use to take to Bonobo Chimpanzees with.

it's so good - in fact, the reason i stopped playing that gmae was because i had a really moving conversation with an alien, i captured it and liquidated it as you had to to help yourself as captain blood stay alive - but i felt disgustingly racked with guilt afterwards, and had poignant thoughts all night... kids eh!

anyway, i think something like this - symbol based, would be ace.

as a linguist, i can try and imagine what it must be like to try and communicate with a new foreigner with a new language for the first time. and how you use body language and symbols for communication.

learnign a new language should be like a research thing, and translator/interpreters a resource unit.

diplomats too, should have a skill level!

------------------------------------------------

i want to be able to claim, dipute, set, and negotiate borders, on a map, with a mouse, holding down the button, and dragging it from point a to point b.

------------------------------------------------

i have thoughts on multi-treaty

this is an important idea - so that three or more nations, like the UK, USA, and AUStralia for example, can agree actions with another party or group of parties - like in a post world wartype situation.

as for graphics.

a room, a table in the middle. a figure, representing the foreign minister, for each state on each side of the table, with flags for each side on each side - or a round table at a slightly more overhead angle, the more nations, the more you cramm them up together along the table. you click on the face, and a little menu appears - depending on whcih of the icons along the bottom you've clicked.

really - i'd like to see, a set of vocab - not sentences, but words which can be selected as you go, to build up a sentence, e.g.@

NATION X, WANTS TO SURRENDER COMPLETELY
WILL TO ANNEX PROVINCE Q
WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE A NEW TREATY

a bit like that, hard to do with out drawing it, but i hope you catch my drift.

----------------------------------------------------

PS. as mentioned to Mark

I have a full set of face parts, divided into 4 races,
enough for loads and loads and loads of unique faces, all ready... from my football game !

[yellowdaddy]

About Vovan's gif.

first thought - why does everything have to be in American (i.e.: bad ) english?!

DefenCe!

but more importantly
- there's no bit for negotiating territory or borders
- no tribute/reparations bit on the tree
- no special trade alliance
- no cultural trade aspect
- no amend treaty buttons
- no view treaty history
- not really much data on the civs
- is there going to be any way of indicating how likely a proposal is to succeed? a couple of adviser's heads with bubbles, or a changing facial expression?
- any quick links to data which might be relevant to any treaties you make - trade page, political page, events box...

having said that, i can think of some (what i think are) pretty effective ways of showing multilateral treaties - a table at an angled view, with however many flags as tabs to each nation involved in negotiations. click on the flags, and the boxes are filled with each nation's details, with a flag or crest at the top, and perhaps some room made for the ruler's face. even if you are making a multilateral treaty, you're probably best off doing it bilaterally, pair by pair, and clicking a button with says "offer to all" or something, or "repeat offer", and have another button for "secrecy" if you want to do a bit of secret shuffling and make a deal which is better for some than others.

not repeating myself, but refining my thoughts on it.

[Gary Thomas]

Since we intend to have multiple language versions, one of the first foreign languages we should accommodate is American.

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

as long as it's on the list of foreign languages and dialects, and commonwealth english is the standard!