FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:00 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 161
That's the sort of use for a D-mil zone that I'm thinking of, of course for me that would be more of a neutral zone, in size, a demilitarized zone would probably include some of the planets. (and any shipyards in that area would be rendered temporarily in-operable Hence the D.)

the boarders of the Zone would never be negotiable, they would either be determined by one or two static functions or automatically by the post war proceedings, or similarly un-directly-controllable.

Best wishes all,

Robbie price


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:47 am 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 93
There are few problems with your proposal Robbie imho.

1. I think supplylines lenght will be affected by researched "fuel" noone has discussed it yet but it would be logical. So researcher race would benefit greatly from such influence.

2. what if you want to ally yourself to some civilization but this border treaty would be in someway very unbeneficial. For example would allow hostile 3rd empire freely move in neutral zone.

So i think demilitarised zones should be negotiable. Good would be if signing treaty would take you to starmap and you can there assign planets there then you press send proposal, and other party then selects on your marked systems that he doesnt agree on and those what he wants in proposal too and sends then proposal back and you can then watch it if it suits you.

And as for AI, i am amateur but if ai only considers systems 2 systems between and checks afterwards with pathfinding algorithms if it still has access to hostile, allied empires and that neutral zones wouldnt form "road" to hostile empire then exploiting shouldnt happen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:57 am 
Offline
Space Squid
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 10:15 am
Posts: 60
If you allied yourself with the race you would clearly not be at war/in conflict with them, which is the purpose of a DMZ. Letting other races affect the area would be one of the consequences of gaining the benefits of an enforced peace between two opposed empires.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:04 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 161
Yeeha wrote:
There are few problems with your proposal Robbie imho.

1. I think supplylines lenght will be affected by researched "fuel" noone has discussed it yet but it would be logical. So researcher race would benefit greatly from such influence.

2. what if you want to ally yourself to some civilization but this border treaty would be in someway very unbeneficial. For example would allow hostile 3rd empire freely move in neutral zone.


For 1. Yes, there is a slight problem there, the longer your fuel research the wider your zone of exclusion if you have a neutral zone. I don't however see this as critical, one can either correct for it, or balance it; neither would be too difficult.

For2. Again your are correct, but this problem is much more general then just as applied to my system, both suggested systems would suffer from this problem. Both (all) systems will need to provide a method of handling what to do when your ally allies your enemy. It is a good point, I shall think about it, and hopefully provide a solution.

Yeeha wrote:
So i think demilitarised zones should be negotiable. Good would be if signing treaty would take you to starmap and you can there assign planets there then you press send proposal, and other party then selects on your marked systems that he doesnt agree on and those what he wants in proposal too and sends then proposal back and you can then watch it if it suits you.

And as for AI, i am amateur but if ai only considers systems 2 systems between and checks afterwards with pathfinding algorithms if it still has access to hostile, allied empires and that neutral zones wouldn't form "road" to hostile empire then exploiting shouldnt happen?


I am against having the demilitarized zones directly negotiable. . . one because the threat of having far too many back and forth exchanges over the precise boundaries is far too tempting . . . and two because as long as there are 2, or 3, or even a very rough negotiation in terms of star jump lengths, that should be more then enough to find a 'comfortable' neutral zone. Any more control then that, and i fear it would exceed the FO micromanagement quota, but if somebody can hash out a easy to use system in which negotiations with human opponents 'feel' similar to AI (because the AI is good enough, the system is simple enough, or because the level of control is reduced enough, or other), I'd be all for it.

I'm not sure i understand you with the AI point, could you re-phrase?

Thank you for your ideas, you've given me much to think about.

Best wishes all.

Robbie Price


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:00 am 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 93
Tsenzouken wrote:
If you allied yourself with the race you would clearly not be at war/in conflict with them, which is the purpose of a DMZ. Letting other races affect the area would be one of the consequences of gaining the benefits of an enforced peace between two opposed empires.


DMZ is needed so that you can get your ships to defense on that border if alliance would end shiftly so in another words not doing DMZ means you trust other empire enough that you wont defend borders with it. How many empires during history you know who have trusted other empires so that they arent prepared for war at all? I know none.

As for trouble with renegotiating DMZ all the time if DMZ negotiating is done realtime with both seeing wanted places and denied places immediately and DMZ treaty couldnt be redone again and again but would have somekind of turn limiter then micromanagment can be avoided i think... Ofcourse i dont know how hard it would be to code it...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:26 am 
Offline
Space Floater
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:58 pm
Posts: 31
Location: UK
This is an interesting topic. Is the idea of supply lines still being defined? I thought I read somewhere (Re: 'stockpiling') that the issue hadn't really been cleared up satisfactorily. I have some ideas on it, tho' I think I should read more carefully what's been put down in the thread above. However, it is getting late and I'd like to get something down before I forget. I'll come back tomorrow and tidy up the arguments, if that's ok :)

Supply of resource for one planet to another can be (I suppose these ideas can be applied to fleet supply as well):

:!: Between two points in one system : The supply is affected by the combined infrastructure of all the planets in the system and also relevant tech & buildings. If there are hostile forces in the area you might also have a negative effect on supply efficacy, perhaps even a blockade! If you have friendly forces of another empire, you might get relief from negative modifiers.

:!: Between two points in different systems : The supply is affected by the combined infrastructure of all the planets in the systems at each end of the supply chain, and also relevant tech & buildings. However, the length of the supply chain is significant. Also, if the chain is of more than one starlane then you'll have systems at nodes which may negatively affect the supply. The efficacy of the supply chain might dwindle to nothing if passing through too many semi-hostile systems :twisted:

:!: Between two objects belonging to different empires : This is inter-empire trade! The same notions as above apply here! The inter-empire trade can then be a source of important resources; especially if some systems are remote from the rest of your empire.

OK - so you might have followed that. :) That's not all I was musing about. I'll save the rest of my post in a notepad and post it tomorrow! I think what the rest of you have been discussing sounds interesting and relevant, so I'll read that and be able to comment after.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group