DESIGN: New Diplomanager

[Martin Gühmann]

Let's take a look on the current Diplomanager. We have on the left side some options like different diplomacy tones or different proposal types. On the right side we have the civ parchment of the sender, the year the recipient and now also a little thumbnail of the recipient.

You could handle in two ways diplomacy, on the one side you can exchange letters between the two parties, that is how the current Diplomanager models it. But on the other hand the leaders could meet each other, that is the way how it is handled in Civ1 and IIRC and so far what I have seen in Civ3. In Civ2 you had messenger or legates.

To summarise it in my opinion to use the meeting model diplomacy has more atmosphere than the letter model.

Therefore I would like to see a diplomanager with a big leader picture in the middle of a size like those of CTP1 or at that place some annimated leaders. Under the picture there should be the threaty text or the conversation. Also there should be the treaty options not on one side for symmetry maybe also under the picture, but year and recipient can be placed over the picture.

-Martin

[Solver]

Definitely go for a Civ 3 model with the bargaining table, where anything you and the other civ have, and treaties, can be proposed in any combination. It's obviously superior to the current model.

[Martin Gühmann]

So something like puuting the offers on the left side and the demands on the right side. In that style we should but then the mutual treaties on both sides. It should also be a tree like structure that can be reduced to top points or can be enlarged to fully details something like a file manager like structure, but you have now categories like gold, cities, techs etc... That way we could also fix the too many city bug, so that we put scrollbars on the sides.

-Martin

[The Big Mc]

the kind of thing in ctp one where you changed the ambassadors head to the best looking woman in the pictures (never did find a good one)

could this not stifle mod making

but if we find a way to make it so negotiations can see a person or more likely a ambassador. Which allows us to make mods like kill the ambassador or force them to go home for more “FUN”



We could possibly make it possible to do with letters for mods of un included civs

[Solver]

Martin, in your second post you described the Civ3 bargaining table very well . As far as I can see, it's the best way we can do that - and any Civ game, at that.

[child of Thor]

There are flaws with the Civ3 approach, or there was, doesnt it sometimes agree to really bad treaties? We'd need a very good AI routine to avoid unbalanced deals......dont want to give the player more advantages in the game?

[Solver]

The flaws in Civ 3 were those related to gameplay. The interface is what I'm mentioning as (near) perfect.

[child of Thor]

ok. I've not played it yet so i wasn't sure on all the details, but i guess the kind of 'offer anything for anything else' approach would require you had a balance cost to 'all' items that could be used in the diplomacy - some hidden(or not) value that everything adheres too? eg:

"i will give you a non-trespass treaty(value=30x)+our knowledge of trade(value=50x) in exchange for your Maps(value=10x),300 gold(value=??x),your knowledge of Iron working(value=70x), and a non-aggresion pact(value=50x)"

the x value could be gold i guess or something hidden? but the AI would need this to get an idea of the deal you want to work out with it, and wether or not it was a reasonable thing to ask for.

So for CTP2 i would guess this would be a whole new addition to the way it does its diplomacy ?

[Solver]

Yes, it would be a new system, but Civ 3, generally, seems to handle it pretty well, except for maybe a few ridicilous deals it accepts. The AI's value system is OK - Soren did a great job there.

After all, it should be obvious that the "anything for anything" approach is much more fun for the end player.

On an unrelated notice. I believe there should be no "no trespass treaty" - rather, trespassing shouldn't be allowed, unless a Right of Passage agreement is signed. One of the things I like about Civ 3 - AI gets angry if you wander in its land.

[The Big Mc]

child of Thor

problem is that your idea is bad I say

I give you advanced infantry(+80 ) + gold500(+10) etc(99) etc()

For all you cities

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Solver
The flaws in Civ 3 were those related to gameplay. The interface is what I'm mentioning as (near) perfect.

And the interface is the topic of this thread in the first place.

Originally posted by Solver
After all, it should be obvious that the "anything for anything" approach is much more fun for the end player.

Yes and I think this is also the intention behind the CTP2 system. But is missing is a value system, of course you have the regard system, but there is no cost function for the single offers, requests and treaties. For instance if Civ A gives to Civ B gives a city than this treaty should have a high prize for Civ A of course for Civ B it is a very high gain. So if the Ai gives that city it needs something in return maybe a better located city. Well this has to be worked out more.

Originally posted by Solver
On an unrelated notice. I believe there should be no "no trespass treaty" - rather, trespassing shouldn't be allowed, unless a Right of Passage agreement is signed. One of the things I like about Civ 3 - AI gets angry if you wander in its land.

In the default game the first diplomatic proposal you get from an AI civ is a no trespass request. Is needed because before contact is made you have no idea where there teritory is needed, but it needs a fixed length and if there are needs again and again for such requests than the AI should get mad. But by default I think the AI gets mad if you are trespassing, espeacilly with treaty but it is not very obvious. So such a right of passage should be granted. Maybe a right for seapassage only should be cheaper than the same treaty for right of land passage.

And another remark about diplomacy itsself but more interface related. In the current model we have three types of proposals treaties, offers and requests. Of course a civ can offer a treaty or can demand it, but in the end it appears on both sides of the leader image. We can put the offers and demands on differnt sides but then why the difference between request give map and offer give map, we need just one of these proposals, and who gives whom should be clear from the screen side.

And here something from the Apolyton Directory so that we all know how the screen looks in Civ3:



-Martin

[The Big Mc]

this section is fuzzy

for example a packed to reduce nukes to lets say 100 a civ is beneficial to a civ with 10 to your 1000. but on the over hand it could easily be reversed

[Peter Triggs]

"i will give you a non-trespass treaty(value=30x)+our knowledge of trade(value=50x) in exchange for your Maps(value=10x),300 gold(value=??x),your knowledge of Iron working(value=70x), and a non-aggresion pact(value=50x)"

the x value could be gold i guess or something hidden? but the AI would need this to get an idea of the deal you want to work out with it, and wether or not it was a reasonable thing to ask for.

So for CTP2 i would guess this would be a whole new addition to the way it does its diplomacy ?

Yes and no. The CTP2 AI does employ a system sort of like you describe above. Here's part of the printout from a debug log with some comments added:

Diplomat.cpp@3349: Player 1 sets New Proposal for player 4: first = REQUEST_GIVE_ADVANCE .
Diplomat.cpp@3351: second = OFFER_GIVE_ADVANCE.
Diplomat.cpp@2502: Player 1 set Response: INVALID for player 4.//initialize
Diplomat.cpp@2502: Player 4 set Response: INVALID for player 1.
Diplomat.cpp@690 : Player 4 has initiative.
Diplomat.cpp@3374: Player 1 executes New Proposal for player 4: first = REQUEST_GIVE_ADVANCE .
Diplomat.cpp@3376: second = OFFER_GIVE_ADVANCE.
Diplomat.cpp@2418: Player 4 considers Response: REJECT for player 1.

// first check if we want to swap

ProposalRespons@549 : Executing AdvanceExchange_ProposalResponseEvent: C:\Activision\Ctp2\ctp2_code\ai\diplomacy\Proposal ResponseEvent.cpp@517

// a whole bunch of stuff that you can't see has happened at this point

ProposalAnalysi@88 : Evaluated NEW PROPOSAL [sender = 1, receiver = 4]
ProposalAnalysi@89 : first = REQUEST_GIVE_ADVANCE
ProposalAnalysi@90 : second = OFFER_GIVE_ADVANCE
ProposalAnalysi@95 :
ProposalAnalysi@96 : Sender Result:
ProposalAnalysi@97 : science = -6563
ProposalAnalysi@98 : gold = 0
ProposalAnalysi@99 : production = 0
ProposalAnalysi@100 : regard = 45
ProposalAnalysi@101 :
ProposalAnalysi@102 : Receiver Result:
ProposalAnalysi@103 : science = 6563
ProposalAnalysi@104 : gold = 0
ProposalAnalysi@105 : production = 0
ProposalAnalysi@106 : regard = 96

// next check if we want to sell it

ProposalRespons@370 : Executing PayForAdvance_ProposalResponseEvent: C:\Activision\Ctp2\ctp2_code\ai\diplomacy\Proposal ResponseEvent.cpp@338

// more unseen stuff

ProposalAnalysi@88 : Evaluated NEW PROPOSAL [sender = 1, receiver = 4]
ProposalAnalysi@89 : first = REQUEST_GIVE_ADVANCE
ProposalAnalysi@90 : second = OFFER_GIVE_ADVANCE
ProposalAnalysi@95 :
ProposalAnalysi@96 : Sender Result:
ProposalAnalysi@97 : science = -6563
ProposalAnalysi@98 : gold = 0
ProposalAnalysi@99 : production = 0
ProposalAnalysi@100 : regard = 45
ProposalAnalysi@101 :
ProposalAnalysi@102 : Receiver Result:
ProposalAnalysi@103 : science = 6563
ProposalAnalysi@104 : gold = 0
ProposalAnalysi@105 : production = 0
ProposalAnalysi@106 : regard = 96

Diplomat.cpp@2418: Player 4 considers Response: REJECT for player 1.
Diplomat.cpp@2418: Player 4 considers Response: ACCEPT for player 1.
Diplomat.cpp@693 : Player 1 has initiative.
Diplomat.cpp@2418: Player 1 considers Response: REJECT for player 4.
Diplomat.cpp@2418: Player 1 considers Response: REJECT for player 4.
Diplomat.cpp@2502: Player 1 set Response: REJECT for player 4.
Diplomat.cpp@2602:
Diplomat.cpp@2604: >>> Agreement REJECTED by player 1. //'by player 2 for player 1' would read better

You can see what factors it takes into account: science, gold, production and regard. But this isn't done uniformly: the way it takes them into account depends on the Proposal and many other things. Even though I (player 1) was offering player 4 a good deal, they rejected it (I think) because they didn't like me.

[The Big Mc]

the big mc nodes is head not understanding a word of the code

I had to threaten an ai to take hold of a tech ones it was funny they were in the renascence age to my diamond

[Solver]

Just for the record - the actual Civ 3 interface is a bit cleaner, Martin's shot comes from the beta.

Of course, the code posted above would have to be changed quite a bit...