negotiations

[G.S. boy]

I think you should be able to negotiate terms of surrender. For example, you declared war on a rival empire, destroyed there army and there ability to collect resources (lumbermills, mines, etc.). You've killed many of their peasants, and have there cities surrounded. You can then demand resources land and resources without capturing their capital city. This would give the game more depth and provide the player with an option besides capturing the enemies capital city.

[One_Dead_Villy]

ya but why would the surrendered player bother to continue.

[Q Classic]

well, if it's a comp, it wouldn't care.

[One_Dead_Villy]

sure but you could easily by then take over their cities and gain their production anyways so why bother letting them exist as a vassel state. when even historically, these either become fully incorporated into ones empire or they break away.

[One_Dead_Villy]

not bad idea...but i think it would be tough to program properly in terms of making the AI think intelligently about the negotiation, in multiplayer live humans obviously wouldnt let the other guy live, nor would they surrender and play on.

[Graham@BHG]

You will be able to negotiate alliances, peace treaties, etc etc. and exchange resources in the process. The AI will be able to have a hand in this as well if you are playing single-player. Here's a quote from Brian that Rohag found:

Brian Reynolds on Apolyton, 31 May 02: "We have both treaties and alliances, and a "quid pro quo" diplomacy system where you can put a deal on the table and both agree to it. A peace treaty has a stronger game effect than a classic RTS style "neutral" setting; for instance you must declare war (and expend the requisite resources) in order to have your units be able to attack someone you were previously at peace with)."

Thanks Rohag!

[tniem]

How do these negotiations work in the context of RTS? Do you go into a pause mode? Is it fast?

I am just wondering how exactly this works. In most RTS, you can do all of this, there just isnt a bargaining table other than typing messages. It sounds like this is different. How is it being implemented? Any ideas since I don't think Graham is at liberty to say.

[Starspangled]

How "smart" are the computer players when you're making deals?

If they are stupid like they are in SWGB & AoK than you should fix them.

Here's a list of things AI should be able to do:

-Make good deals
-Accept good deals
-Know when to make deals (if they are almost dead that would be a good time to make a deal)
-Combine efforts with players they are alied with to provide coordinated attacks


One good thing a player could do in a treaty is give tribute (resources) that would otherwise be lost, while they could strain to make one final army.

Also the winning player would not need to keep tabs on the new city/buildings