FreeOrion

Goodmorning all,

I know it's a bit early to be discussing diplomacy models, being a 0.5 topic, rather then a 0.4 topic, but I've been wondering about how to make a multi empire governing body and wanted to post my ideas.

Motivation:

IMO 4x multi government models tend to suck. SMAC's annual council wasn't powerful enough *I've played full games of SMAC without caring about a single council outcome*. MOO2 had a council only to enable Diplomatic victory. GC's 'United planets', although occasionally meaningful, is far too random. . . . . and many other examples.

Vision:

A two tiered full diplomacy model allowing for non game ending surrenders, Post/Pre war neutral zones, an intergalactic court, mutual defense armies, arms races/smuggling, karmic polarizing galactic wars, less probable states of never ending war, and greater emphasis on 'alternative' victory methods(alternative to blow everybody to smithereens).

General methodology;

In this model two semi-disconnected tiers of diplomacy would exist.

The primary diplomacy would be two races/governments making trades, establishing trade routes, exchanging information and doing most of the things which most every 4x game has to a greater or lesser extent.

The secondary level would become active when two or more races sign non aggression pacts -> mutual protection pacts-> shared attack plans -> alliances -> ect, or after one or more groups surrender to another group or groups.

Since I tend to be wordy, and since the first level is mostly self explanatory I'll not explain it any more then to say most anything two races do diplomatically, which doesn't directly involve any other race would be done at the first level.

The second level would be a UN-esqu governing body, but critically this body would not include all races, and there might (probably will) be more then one of these active at any given time.

The task of the second level would depend on agreement signed,

non aggression pact -> establish neutral zones, and establish a court for punishing infractions (the guilty could then chose to accept or reject the courts decision, with obvious consequences) [meetings would discuss/move boundaries or change infraction penalties].

Mutual protection pact -> With the mutual protection pact, comes big departures from other 4x games. The second level diplomatic entity would be an ARMED force with space vessels of it's own used for patrol of high risk borders.
This level would establish a diplomatic council, with members from races in the agreement. Votes would determined by how much money/resources each group puts in. #votes = total_investment(money, pp's, ect)*(% of total available income money/pp's) [On a slider you would invest a number of pp's and an amount of money, and it would tell you how many votes you earn that turn. Both the % of total income, and the absolute amount of resources donated would be used to calculate votes].
The diplomatic council would be concerned with such questions as 'which boarders to patrol the most', any 'collective spy' efforts, 'additional trade pacts between the governing body and other entities', and start to have questions similar to those seen in other 4x games see 'http://galciv.wikia.com/wiki/United_Planets_issues' for a list of possible examples. This level of council would meet periodically, but the questions would not be random, instead every second meeting would be a vote on which question to discuss, conclude on next meeting. (meeting one, what question for meeting 2, vote for favorite from a list of possible questions, pause of several turns[try to 'win' other races to your desired outcome in the first level diplomacy screen], pose question and vote, receive list of what questions will be for meeting 3, try to 'win' other races to voting to discus your preferred question).

Ships for this governing body would be constructed at idle space docs of races in the agreement, using the money, pp's(from vote buys), and best available techs from each race.
If ships from this governing body engage enemies ships would be temporally assigned under the control of constituent members for the duration of the battle [how to allocate??]

shared attack plans -> The council would need a leading figure, or leading race, votes for which race to chair the council would be added to regular routine of questions. [Benefits for being leader? spy bonus? veto? occasionally able to choose question without consulting rest of members?] Question list would be expanded to include war plans(simplified to attack along this boarder, or from this star lane), and mutual research efforts.

alliances -> Might be just more questions . .. might not be needed, just move all of shared attack plans to alliances and call it done.


The only remaining thing is Non game ending surrenders. In most 4x games, surrender means game loss for surrendering empire. Essentially surrender is only there to sometimes prevent the need to individually concur every colonized planet.
IMO surrendering should be a valid tactical move. You can still win the game having surrendered during the course of it. Surrender would be a diplomatic trade option during wartimes, where both sides would 'barter' over the definition of neutral zones, and compensation fees. Since the only reason to not accept a surrender from an opponent is because you want to concur the whole map eventually . . . not reaching a mutually acceptable surrender agreement would 'Significantly' hurt relations with all other races.
Note; War's have reasons (even if they are fake) those 'reasons' 'may' include the 'need' to expand borders. But since expanding is politically dangerous [makes you look much more aggressive, therefor a bigger threat to all] it should not be unusual for the surrendering empire to actually re-claim planets lost to the aggressor during the war. Say Empire A destroys 60% of Empire B's standing army and captures a long string of planets to Empire B's capital + some border planets, then Empire B surrenders. The model should in most cases would build a neutral zone out of 'most' of the border territories 'with usual political unrest in neutral zones, rebels freedom fighters, terrorists on both sides, small interplanetary military [and unofficial] skirmishes (which both sides can illegally aid with arms smuggling)'. The long string of planets leading to Empire B's capital would be returned to Empire B, and only a few of the planets/systems nearest to Empire A would be permanently included in Empire A. This would significantly reduce the emphasis on military victory since anything short of one race against the combined forces of the rest of the universe would result in minimal territory expansions.

Ok, once against, I've written way too much . . . My apologies to your tired eyes.

I'd love to hear any ideas on this model or similar models, + how to flesh out / better define some of the components.

Best wishes all

Robbie Price.

Well one thought on 'votes' in a MGB

I've come to the conclusion that the most sensible way to get 'votes' is to vote for them.

The 5 Permanent members of the Security council have that position because everyone else agreed to give it to them (in the initial treaty) if anyone else gains similar positions, or loses them it will be because there is an agreement to do so.

So I would say that your number of votes upon joining a MGB would be based on what the MGB agreed on. The Orion Senate agrees to let you in with one vote, but the Orion Council (because you have threatened all their members with war unless they vote otherwise) votes to let you in with 20 votes and veto power.

You might have an option for MGBs to have a particular 'Voting Mechanism' but it would be chosen... Population/Contributions/Planets/1 for each


I could see MGBs organized in the following way
1. There is a list of 'things' Any MGB can do
2. The list of 'things' a particular MGB can do are defined in the initial Formation (it is done as a Treaty formation) AND can be changed through some type of a voting procedure.


I DO like the idea of a fundamental 'balance of power' (ie any empire that is attacking and conquering too many other empires makes ALL empires nervous that they might be next)

Also I think that a 'diplomatic' victory should merely be a form of 'conquest' victory. in either case, the game ends when the galaxy is unified, through whatever combination of the pen and the sword works. (and whether or not YOUR empire wins depends on how much you contributed to this state, or if you resisted it... so it is possible for multiple players to Win)


In terms of contributions to a MGB, I'd say that MGBs can only receive 'Finished goods' ie ships, techs and 'Stockpilable/Tradable goods' ie Food, Minerals, or Money

Goodmorning Krikkitone, and others,

Regarding,


My vision of MGBs would exclude this particular possibility, Visa Vie, MGBs being peacetime, treaty based/trust based/ or Absolute Necessity based(Two races which don't like each other very much agreeing to work together until a certain predefined goal is achieved[repel Race C from both sides space/ repel invading semi-sentient space beasts running rampant, cure multi race plague]). It would be highly unlikely, in my vision, that two races close enough to war to be threatening each other with it would work together. [working together with an opponent you don't trust is just asking for some form of political assassination,ambush, or double cross].

My vision of MGB is to transform them into Functional elements of the political arena.

That being said, I really like your idea about mutual agreements on how to acquire votes. . . . I only proposed the one i did because it was the one i could think of which provided both incentive to 'donate' to mutual causes, as well as balancing power between stronger and weaker members (which may not actually be desirable for super strong empires) {I just find that in many of the 4X games with MGBs by half way through one race always uber dominates, 40-50+%, and eventually the MGBs isn't an MGB but a dictatorship.(which I find strategically dull.)}

re conquest Vrs Poli, I would generally agree with you that weather you concur by Poli or by Con, the end result is the same. I would prefer thought that the political victories, where two or more races 'unite', be visioned separately [possibly multiple political style victories].


Best wishes all,

Thank you for the comments and ideas.

Well I think that MGBs don't necessarily have to be Trust based... they can also be Threat Based... ie Everyone cooperates with me or I blow them up.. A treaty with someone doesn't mean you like them.
[after all part of surrendering might mean forcibly becoming part of an MGB... you keep your empire, but you must join our Mutual defense pact {we may even give you votes in it}.]

I do agree that different rules are needed for "Political conquest" so that a number of different Empires could get Merged into one (I would see MGBs as halfway to this... ie the Articles of Confederation would be an MGB, but the Constitution would be forming a single new Government)

The rules I would propose for "Mergers" has to do with two levels, the 'people' of your empire and you the 'player'

for the 'people' the allegiance to the new 'merged empire' would be the lower of their allegiances to the constituent empires.

for the 'player'... well human players would have to decide which one took over the new empire.

for the end of the game... If a 'merged empire' won the game, then all of those player's who got their empire to 'go peacefully' count as winners.. and they divide the number of points the 'merged empire' gets based on how many points they contributed when they merged the empires.

So if two equal empires merge both players have 50% of the new empire
If that merged empire combines with something 1/4 the size the players now have
50, 50, 25 -> 40%, 40%, 20% of the final score this empire gets.
If that empire then beats someone into submission, then the player whose empire was forced to join (ie their people hated the new empire) gets 0% of the merged empire and is not counted as winning.

So if you want to join your empire to another, you need to make sure your people have a high allegiance to that empire (and yours) and that you are as strong as possible compared to them when you join.

I like the idea of players being able to make their own MGB's. Here'smy thoughts:

The players involved could negotiate the terms and conditions for becoming and remaining a member. This could include anything from being a member/not being a member of a different MGB to giving all current members 20 units of minerals and a cruiser. There might be galactic pressure to join, or it might be blacklisted by an even more powerful organization.

Example: Player one is an elite spying race. He wants to make an MGB to share intelligence as a counter to a similar MGB already in existence called the Free Intelligence Association (FIA). His friends are all proficient spying races. He goes to the diplomacy screen, opens the MGB sub-panel and selects "Create MGB".

He sets function to "total sharing of intelligence with member empires." He sets conditions for remaining a member to "total retention of intelligence from non-member empires, cannot join MGB FIA." (members could theoretically violate the retention of intelligence rule in secret.) He sets conditions for joining to "discuss with initial members." He names it the Elite Espionage Enterprise (EEE), maybe adds a personal message, and sends invites to his friends' empires.

Next turn, his friends receive the message and join. At the start of next turn, a council takes place amongst the members to decide upon the conditions for joining. Since they are all exceptional spies and may have considerable political weight against the FIA, they decide that each new member must provide an advanced technology for the EEE (all members will then have knowledge of that technology) and present a powerful warship to each of the members (perhaps an opportunity for a Trojan Horse type strategy against them?).

Player five is currently a member of the FIA, but wants to become a member of the EEE. He goes to the diplomacy screen, opens the MGB sub-panel, and selects "Join MGB". Out of the list of MGBs, he clicks on the EEE. He reads the conditions for joining and continued membership. He chooses the technology he will give them, selects a few ships from his warfleet, and submits his application.

At the start of the next turn, a council takes place between the members of the EEE. They examine his ships and technology and take a vote on whether or not they are sufficient. They then take a vote on whether or not player five is a desirable addition to the organization. All members deem the ships and technology to be sufficient. The result of the second vote is two for, two against. (I think each empire should have 1 vote regardless of galactic power to make it more fun. If you don't like the puny guy changing the vote, you can go blow him up) Because the founder voted in favor of player five joining, the vote was settled in his favour. (maybe that vote should happen first?)

On the next turn, player five receives the message that he is a proud new member of the EEE. He is now automatically removed from the FIA. Should player five choose to rejoin the FIA at any time in the future, a warning box will pop up telling him that it is a condition of his membership in the EEE that he not be a member of the FIA and that should he continue, his membership in the EEE will terminate upon his joining of the FIA.

If any members want to change anything about an MGB, they can propose changes much like the Orion Senate in MoO3, except everything would be settled in a council at the start of the next turn. Players are able to access all of their intelligence about other empires at any time during the meeting. The council would end when a vote is taken.

I think something like this could make MGB's fun and intriguing for the player without making them too micro and hard to understand.

As for "surrenders" I imagine them as basic trade agreements like no other. I give you systems A, B, and C, 70 units of minerals/turn for 10 turns, you give me nothing and we form a peace treaty. (You were owning me pretty badly)

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

I agree that the monolithic "UN"-like bodies of various 4X games are often not very interesting, or not very plausible. But what i'm hearing here seems a bit overcomplicated for whatever it accomplishes.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—

As far as over-complication is concerned, I think Robbie's model might be a bit "too much talk, not enough action" for the kind of MGB's we (I) want. I don't think my model is overcomplicated at all. I feel that diplomacy should be a major part of the game that intertwines with all the other parts. That being said, we don't want too much of the players time taken up by diplomacy. I think my model lets the player do the most with the least amount of time and effort. You'll notice that the overall effect is a fairly versatile system, but each players individual role is very simple.

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

I haven't though through all the implications of this, but here's a minimum-complexity version which still may provide most of the function.

Forming a MGB is a step up from alliance. The member empires simply merge their foreign policy. Optional elements are:

automatically shared technology
automatically shared intelligence
automatically shared vision

Any member can propose a foreign policy action before the "council", from the list of the same diplomatic options a single empire has. The member Empires vote, and with a majority, the action passes, and applies equally to all members.

From the outside of the MGB, for diplomatic purposes, they would be essentially one entity. The exception would be if you tried to bribe/threaten a member to leave the MGB.


So essentially a diplomatic victory would be that everyone (who survives) joins your MGB because such a partial win is their only hope for any kind of victory.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—

I'm all for people temporarily allying themselves with one another, but a merge in foreign policy, IMO, would be essentially like merging empires, thus providing a massive super empire that nobody can deal with without forming merges of their own. In that sense, these things would become an essential part of the game, rather than an option each time one is made. Some people might be members of many MGBs, others might be members of only a few or none. With your model though, the player would be virtually forced to be a member of one, and only one MGB.

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

I don't see how that is any more true than it is with normal alliances. With or without what i've suggested, three empires can band together and pound on a single neighbor.


Maybe i don't see the point. Maybe i'm too much of a minarchist.
If it's not to form a unity more close than an alliance, why go through all the MGB rigamarole just to form a "Elite Espionage Enterprise" when you can form a simply alliance which shares intelligence?

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—

I'm not really sure why you would want an MGB to just form a unity closer than an alliance. I think the point of MGBs would be to form groups more diverse than a treaty or an alliance in that they could have more people.

Because the whole point of MGBs is to provide a more diverse diplomatic landscape. A simple intelligence sharing alliance should be possible, but it would only be between two people. When you get more than two empires into one organization, the more interesting aspects of politics present themselves. You need to start thinking about how your actions with one empire will affect how other empires deal with you diplomatically.

But an alliance is considerably different than a "merging of foreign policy". What you suggest encourages a game-long unity providing a united front for the entire game. Basic alliances are usually temporary, and could be made even more so with the volatile political landscape that my MGB model can make.

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

A game-long unity is certainly not something i would want to be probable or easy. I agree there's not much point to diplomacy if it's something you do once.

But i don't see anything that would make any of the MGB ideas (including mine) less temporary than the "basic alliance". IMHO, any treaty you can get into, you should be able to get out of.


P.S. I'm just kicking around ideas here. I'm not convinced that the idea in any form could work.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—

Well I think ealeazar's idea is good, but I think I can simplify it further

Each MGB has
1. a name
2. a list of members
3. a list of Voting members (voting members have 1 member = one vote)
4. a list of which "Resolutions" the MGB has passed. (the Resolutions Available are ALL the same for every MGB)

Resolutions would Almost entirely consist of regulating the foreign policies of members (ie members must all share all tech or all Intelligence, or declare war on X, or be at peace with each other)

You Could have Resolutions which would affect the Domestic policies of members (ie must be democracy, must practice Xenocide of Race Y, exc.)

One of the Resolutions an MGB could pass would be unification (something that would only be likely if member populations really liked the other empires enough) which would make it One Empire.

Personally, I think that it's very hard to predict accurately the effects and implications of any diplomacy model. I think v.5 will require a minimum of planning, but a great deal of play-testing compared to other versions to ensure that the diplomacy is fun and balanced.

I don't know. maybe it's just me, but I want MGBs to be kind of "cooler" than regular diplomacy, with popular groups and banned groups and secret groups, you know?

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

Goodmorning all,

I've been thinking more about this, and have decided that my primary stab at defining a model was lacking.

So I've going to go for a shorter second stab.

Minimal goals:

Dynamic, highly political, MEANINGFUL MGBs.
Slowed Empire conquering.
suppression of the state-steady all-out war
Intuitive, Fun, incorporation of trade and inter empire relationships

Method:

diplomatic events, (opening trade, arranging a non-aggression pact, concluding a war, what have you. . .) would involve listing what clauses you want, in the order of most importance to you, and you receive a list of requested clauses from the other party, and you can chose to re-arrange or try to reject clauses by the other party. Each request as you add, or remove it updates a side table of how all the empires will react if the treaty happens exactly the way you hope. (Making peace with a friends enemy hurts your standing with them, and you need to know that when negotiating). Once you've arranged both sides clauses to your liking, send in the diplomats.

The diplomats would compare requests, going rates, order of preferances, weather or not the various populations will allow it/ weather or not the map allows it (trade between nearest neighbors only , intermediaries would need to be included in discussions if trade is forced to pass through another empires space) ,and Race diplomacy skills to 'construct' a final treaty/agreement. Which you could then accept, re-order the preferances *this process would be Deterministic, same orders of the same requests, same results*, or reject the resulting treaty.

This is scalable, directly, If you have three empires forming a treaty you have three lists of clauses to play with *these probably should be semi-auto filled, based on intelligent pre-set names and historical behavior* to save time. trade agreement would have trade elements pre-selected, a research agreement research elements pre-selected, but the starting name is only that a template, which doesn't effect outcome.


Clauses would include such things as Give X for N turns, get Y for M turns, (M and N may be preset to some maximum, where the agreement is Auto-re-negotiated 'same preferances, same level of possible user input but without necessity of user involvement '), share knowledge of __ race, __space sector, and also such things as no-fly zones, shared defensive agreements, and (to me very importantly) some level of investment(money/pp/other)/turn [either spent on ships or saved for special options{one time events which the MGB pays for}] for each involved empire yadda yadda yadda.

Later, during re-negotiations, all the previous elements would be taken into account but also investment since last review. {This makes it so that investing more then the other person is a valid stratagem.}



On All out War Suppression.

Previously I posted quite a bit about post war agreements, Most of which still stands(at the end of any war a diplomacy screen is presented with all the various parties). The only difference being that there would be significant penalties to all other empires trust/respect/liking of you if you keep planets after war which were not yours pre-war (re-capturing planets which were once yours less so, with your population even less so).

Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now.

Any thoughts, too complex still? disagreements RE goals?

best wishes all