Diplomacy Preliminary

This is for directed discussions on immediate questions of game design. Only moderators can create new threads.
Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#31 Post by eleazar »

Bigjoe5 wrote:
MikkoM wrote:... (This information probably shouldn`t always be correct so that the out come of the negotiations would usually be a small mystery.)
IMO, that would be the kind of thing that would make diplomacy frustrating and hard to understand. Regardless of realism, I think that the players should know EXACTLY what a treaty is going to do before they sign it.
I agree.

Implementing inaccurate intelligence is a extra work to bring some on the non-fun aspects of reality to dampen the game. In some circumstances there may be a place for incomplete, or out-of-date information, but lying to the player is generally a bad idea.
Tortanick wrote:What exactly is the priority? make something that works great when playing against humans, then try to make the AI understand it, or is easy on AI's more imporant than multilayer?
The priority is to make a fun and challenging game for people. But since the vast majority of games will include (at least some) AI opponents, planning things to AI and human can compete on (as much as possible) a level playing field is necessary to make it fun and challenging.

Most games have lousy AIs. Do you think good ones just automatically occur whenever developers have a pure heart and design their games with only the human player in mind?

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#32 Post by utilae »

MikkoM wrote:Now what comes to the endless reshaping problem we would probably need some indication text or a meter that would tell the player roughly what are the changes that the treaty that he/she is proposing is accepted by the other empire.
eleazar wrote: The priority is to make a fun and challenging game for people. But since the vast majority of games will include (at least some) AI opponents, planning things to AI and human can compete on (as much as possible) a level playing field is necessary to make it fun and challenging.
Solves all our problems:
utilae wrote:I brought this up in a thread a while ago:

AI Diplomats
============
There exists the problem that racial diplomacy bonuses only work for single player, ie only 'makes AI Players like you more'.

The solution, is for each race to have an AI Diplomatic Ambassador. It will still be under your control, ie you decided what techs to swap or how much money to give, whether to declare war or whether to attempt a trade treaty.

The AI Ambassador (yours and theirs) will together work as a success chance to whatever diplomatic action your are attempting. So your AI Ambassador may have a diplomacy bonus. Theirs may have a penalty. They may have stats and character, ie be like Moo2 leaders. It wouldn't be an AI in the sense of decisions being made, rather just a success mechanism for the diplomatic actions you are trying to achieve. You would decide all diplomatic actions.

Regardless of whether it is human vs AIs or human vs human, a player with an AI Ambassador that has a diplomacy penalty will get less out of a trade deal for example, cause the other player whoose AI Ambassador has a diplomacy bonus talked circles around your AI Ambassador.
eg
Trade Treaty.
If you have bad ambassador you get 50bc per turn while other race gets 100bc, it is the reverse if they have a worse ambassador then you.
Bigjoe5 wrote:
MikkoM wrote: (This information probably shouldn`t always be correct so that the out come of the negotiations would usually be a small mystery.)
We will of course leave this out of the diplomacy model, since that is the same problem as Master Of Orion 2, where you wondered why they suddenly declared war on you. So, the player needs to know why, and there must be a good reason that an AI makes a diplomatic decision. That way the player can measure, and decide, well ok, I won't exterminate your planets anymore.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#33 Post by eleazar »

utilae wrote: Solves all our problems:
utilae wrote:I brought this up in a thread a while ago:

AI Diplomats
...Have nothing to do with the the issues you quote above.

Nor does the idea seem to add anything beneficial to the game. Better to drop the idea of "racial diplomacy bonuses" than to turn over diplomacy to virtual incompetent bureaucrats.

If i decide to declare war on X, in what way can an AI Ambassador be a "success mechanism"? Either A) war is declared, or B) war isn't declared, and i get really frustrated with the game. If i decide i'm willing to trade "advanced laser widgets", i should decide if what my trading partner offers is acceptable, not leave it up to an AI to "negotiate" what i receive. The only circumstance where it wouldn't be a fatal hinderance is the aforementioned trade treaty, which a number of people have commented is something they don't see the need for in FO.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#34 Post by utilae »

eleazar wrote: If i decide to declare war on X, in what way can an AI Ambassador be a "success mechanism"? Either A) war is declared, or B) war isn't declared, and i get really frustrated with the game. If i decide i'm willing to trade "advanced laser widgets", i should decide if what my trading partner offers is acceptable, not leave it up to an AI to "negotiate" what i receive. The only circumstance where it wouldn't be a fatal hinderance is the aforementioned trade treaty, which a number of people have commented is something they don't see the need for in FO.
Well yes, it still needs development. Something I was throwing out there anyway.


Maybe to tackle the human issue, how to have a diplomacy meter and have it work on humans too, we need penalities. So a player with less diplomacy who decides to break a peace treaty gets greater penalties from other races. Whether they the other races are AI or human, automatic penalties are applied to those who do not honour treaties, and such.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#35 Post by Krikkitone »

Well the easiest way to have the meter work is to have it apply to populations not human or AI

so I Never know why another player declared war on me... what I DO know is why their people aren't throwing that bum out (or why my people welcome his advancing troops)

After all, why do I declare war? .. I'm not going to bother telling the AI, so the AI shouldn't bother to tell me. However my People can tell the AI they don't like its moral depraved culture, its alliances with our enemies, the unfair trade treaties it has given us, and the propaganda that I have told them to make them hate the AI. (and the AI's people can tell me that to)

I think Trade Treaties are Very important though... there needs to be some benefit to working together. (besides just trading Research.)

The way I would do this is have a "Level of Relationship... a Long term thing, not just War/Peace... but it demonstrates how much you understand each other, etc. [so England +Germany still had a good 'level'.. although it would slowly deteriorate as war continued]

The "Level of Relationship" would be important for things like how MUCH you could trade... I want to give Lasers and get Fusion Drives (you have the Opposite)
Only if our Level was at 100% could we trade Tech for tech. At lower levels, I would be able to "help" you with Lasers and you could "help" me with Fusion Dives (some bonus to Research invested)
If I was giving you a planet... only at 100% would it transfer with no penalties, at lower levels it would have additional penalties (it would start out in a more "occupied" state)
If I wanted a Peace Treaty or Alliance, then the "Strength" of that Alliance/Peace Treaty (ie Penalty for Breaking it) would be dependent on the "Level" of Relationship.

Finally Trade Treaties
I would like to see a "General Research" treaty where a fraction of the RP that I put into a project are put into those projects for you (I put 100 RP into Lasers you get 60 RP in Lasers... probably with a 1 turn delay) (effectively like agreeing to trade techs).
I would also Like to see this with "Money" a "General Trade" treaty where a fraction of the Money you make I get.

Of course I would Charge money to maintain these Treaties (as well as to maintain the Overall "Level of relationship" or rather Treaties that you paid money to keep would help to rise and maintain the level of relationship)

This would be a good way to model things like first contact (you start out with a relationship level of 0 (or 1% or something) and improve from there)

So Diplomacy Meters I'd have

My people like you
Your people like me
Our Relationship Level
My Power Level as perceived by you
Your Power Level as percieved by me
My people Trust you?
Your people Trust me?


Our Treaties (Wars, Peace, X Food/turn for Y Food/turn) and
Our Actions (, individual trade deals, etc.)
to each other, and to Third Parties*, and to our own people
would affect this

*This is Very important for using diplomacy to balance the game

Of course the AI would have a different set of algorithms altogether for deciding what to do diplomatically.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#36 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:The way I would do this is have a "Level of Relationship... a Long term thing, not just War/Peace... but it demonstrates how much you understand each other, etc.
To cover this area, i've proposed the concept of Allegience, which measures "does planet X like empire X?" It's really the only way you can have comprehensible revolts, and PR wars, and sullen colonists longing for their old empire. Of course, generally you would want to look at an a meter that averages the numbers for all of your colonies.

If empire Ao & Bly are allies, and Ao provides Bly with some very nice tech, the citizens of Bly will have their allegiance adjusted higher towards Ao.

But it really needs to be measured on a planet-by-planet basis to do interesting things like this:
Before Ao & Bly were allies, they were at war. Ao had attacked planet Yod (belonging to Bly) and in the course of the attack destroyed 80% of the population and infrastructure. Yod has an extremely negative allegiance to Ao, and thus will be very unhappy by the alliance with Ao. It will take a lot of tech to change that.

If Ao does a series of things that the citizens of Bly don't like eventually there will be riots or rebellion (if Bly maintains the alliance). However the riot and rebellion doesn't occur on a randomly chosen planet... they will happen on Yod first, because Yod has an additional reasons to hate Ao.


So we need to keep track of which empire each planet hates and likes, so that rebellions and riots can be rational and exploitable rather than random.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12799
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#37 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Krikkitone wrote:The "Level of Relationship" would be important for things like how MUCH you could trade... I want to give Lasers and get Fusion Drives (you have the Opposite)
Only if our Level was at 100% could we trade Tech for tech. At lower levels, I would be able to "help" you with Lasers and you could "help" me with Fusion Dives (some bonus to Research invested)
I'm not sure this type of limit is really necessary... We can allow players to make any deal they want, and they'll have to deal with the consequences of their population disliking the deal that was made.

I don't think we should ever allow instant tech transfers; it should always require multiple turns to teach or steal, just as it takes multiple turns to research originally... But, if we did want to impose additional reststrictions on tech transfer rates due to population relationships, then it could be done by accounting for how much the source empire's planet's that produce research points like or dislike the destination empire. If all high-research output planets of the source disliked the destination empire, then there would be no knowledgable researchers in the source empire who can relate to the destination empire's researchers well enough to effectively transfer the knowledge.
If I was giving you a planet... only at 100% would it transfer with no penalties, at lower levels it would have additional penalties (it would start out in a more "occupied" state)
We don't need to do anything special for this. Transferred, conquered or rebellious planets would naturally have an opinion of the new (and old) empire. If an empire receives a planet that greatly dislikes it, then it will be very difficult to control the planet and get anything useful out of it.
If I wanted a Peace Treaty or Alliance, then the "Strength" of that Alliance/Peace Treaty (ie Penalty for Breaking it) would be dependent on the "Level" of Relationship.
This is too vaguely phrased. We need to be clear that we won't have built-in opinions of players for eachother; only populations have opinions of other empires. If an empire had a peace treaty with another empire, and the first empire had a planet that disliked the second empire, then that planet would be unhappy. If the planet liked the second empire, then breaking the treaty would make the planet unhappy. But we shouldn't prevent players from making whatever treaty they want... It should be possible to sign any available "level" of treaty with any other player, as the internal unrest consequences will provide enough motivation about when to do or not do so.
I would like to see a "General Research" treaty where a fraction of the RP that I put into a project are put into those projects for you (I put 100 RP into Lasers you get 60 RP in Lasers... probably with a 1 turn delay) (effectively like agreeing to trade techs).
I would also Like to see this with "Money" a "General Trade" treaty where a fraction of the Money you make I get.
I see no need for this. If you want to trade techs, you can trade those techs directly.
Of course I would Charge money to maintain these Treaties (as well as to maintain the Overall "Level of relationship" or rather Treaties that you paid money to keep would help to rise and maintain the level of relationship)
Charge money from whom? Where does this money go? Why would money be charged if an empire makes a treat that the populace likes? Why would we automatically charge money if a populace dislikes a treaty, but the player who made it is willing to deal with that unrest and wants to spend available money (influence) on something else?

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#38 Post by Krikkitone »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote: The "Level of Relationship" would be important for things like how MUCH you could trade... I want to give Lasers and get Fusion Drives (you have the Opposite)
Only if our Level was at 100% could we trade Tech for tech. At lower levels, I would be able to "help" you with Lasers and you could "help" me with Fusion Dives (some bonus to Research invested)
I'm not sure this type of limit is really necessary... We can allow players to make any deal they want, and they'll have to deal with the consequences of their population disliking the deal that was made.
This is Separate from the population liking the situation, this is the maintenance of all the Embassies and Cultural Exchanges that allow you to Effectively deal with each other, Knowledge of Language, Customs, Networking Protocols, Medical Codes, Engineering Standards, etc.
Geoff the Medio wrote: I don't think we should ever allow instant tech transfers; it should always require multiple turns to teach or steal, just as it takes multiple turns to research originally... But, if we did want to impose additional reststrictions on tech transfer rates due to population relationships, then it could be done by accounting for how much the source empire's planet's that produce research points like or dislike the destination empire. If all high-research output planets of the source disliked the destination empire, then there would be no knowledgable researchers in the source empire who can relate to the destination empire's researchers well enough to effectively transfer the knowledge.)
Again this is based on the Level of relationship between the empires (something the players work to build up through the actions of their empires) not how much the populations like the empires.

Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:If I was giving you a planet... only at 100% would it transfer with no penalties, at lower levels it would have additional penalties (it would start out in a more "occupied" state)
We don't need to do anything special for this. Transferred, conquered or rebellious planets would naturally have an opinion of the new (and old) empire. If an empire receives a planet that greatly dislikes it, then it will be very difficult to control the planet and get anything useful out of it.
Again this would be separate from (additional to) whether the planet liked the new owners, this would be how effectively the diplomats managed the transition.
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:If I wanted a Peace Treaty or Alliance, then the "Strength" of that Alliance/Peace Treaty (ie Penalty for Breaking it) would be dependent on the "Level" of Relationship.
This is too vaguely phrased. We need to be clear that we won't have built-in opinions of players for eachother; only populations have opinions of other empires. If an empire had a peace treaty with another empire, and the first empire had a planet that disliked the second empire, then that planet would be unhappy. If the planet liked the second empire, then breaking the treaty would make the planet unhappy. But we shouldn't prevent players from making whatever treaty they want... It should be possible to sign any available "level" of treaty with any other player, as the internal unrest consequences will provide enough motivation about when to do or not do so.
The Strength of the Treaty would Increase that Penalty/Bonus
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote: I would like to see a "General Research" treaty where a fraction of the RP that I put into a project are put into those projects for you (I put 100 RP into Lasers you get 60 RP in Lasers... probably with a 1 turn delay) (effectively like agreeing to trade techs).
I would also Like to see this with "Money" a "General Trade" treaty where a fraction of the Money you make I get.
I see no need for this. If you want to trade techs, you can trade those techs directly.
This would also allow you to "Work together" on techs (ie if I have a good friend and we want to maximize our Tech trading potential, then Normally we need to coordinate research on seperate Techs and then trade them... this allows us to work on the same Tech. [the total time is the same it is just cheaper for each of us])
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote: Of course I would Charge money to maintain these Treaties (as well as to maintain the Overall "Level of relationship" or rather Treaties that you paid money to keep would help to rise and maintain the level of relationship)
Charge money from whom? Where does this money go? Why would money be charged if an empire makes a treat that the populace likes? Why would we automatically charge money if a populace dislikes a treaty, but the player who made it is willing to deal with that unrest and wants to spend available money (influence) on something else?
The money would be charged from both parties to maintain the Treaty (not to 'keep the people happy' but to deal with the 'maintenance' of the treaty (ie monitoring/lawyers, etc.))

The money is Spent ie used up the same way Food points are when maintaining a population.

User avatar
pd
Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1924
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: 52°16'N 10°31'E

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#39 Post by pd »

Krikkitone wrote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote: I would like to see a "General Research" treaty where a fraction of the RP that I put into a project are put into those projects for you (I put 100 RP into Lasers you get 60 RP in Lasers... probably with a 1 turn delay) (effectively like agreeing to trade techs).
I would also Like to see this with "Money" a "General Trade" treaty where a fraction of the Money you make I get.
I see no need for this. If you want to trade techs, you can trade those techs directly.
This would also allow you to "Work together" on techs (ie if I have a good friend and we want to maximize our Tech trading potential, then Normally we need to coordinate research on seperate Techs and then trade them... this allows us to work on the same Tech. [the total time is the same it is just cheaper for each of us])
That's a good point. I would like such treaties, especially regarding research.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#40 Post by eleazar »

Krikkitone wrote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:If I wanted a Peace Treaty or Alliance, then the "Strength" of that Alliance/Peace Treaty (ie Penalty for Breaking it) would be dependent on the "Level" of Relationship.
This is too vaguely phrased. We need to be clear that we won't have built-in opinions of players for eachother; only populations have opinions of other empires. If an empire had a peace treaty with another empire, and the first empire had a planet that disliked the second empire, then that planet would be unhappy. If the planet liked the second empire, then breaking the treaty would make the planet unhappy. But we shouldn't prevent players from making whatever treaty they want... It should be possible to sign any available "level" of treaty with any other player, as the internal unrest consequences will provide enough motivation about when to do or not do so.
The Strength of the Treaty would Increase that Penalty/Bonus
Penalty/Bonus to what? The addition of that short, single sentence does nothing to solve, "This is too vaguely phrased".

User avatar
yaromir
Space Kraken
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#41 Post by yaromir »

Would there be other dispositions of the population?

Hateful is a very general term.

Hateful population might be
Revanchist (demanding war)
Fearful (wanting to avoid war/make strong alliances)
Xenophobic (wants to avoid all contact with Empire X)

This might be moving too much into sim territory, but it would make situations possible that you either go to war with Empire X or quell rebellions at home.
Staying awake and aware is perhaps the hardest thing to do.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#42 Post by eleazar »

Perhaps we need a topic to discuss the citizen "AI" since that seems to be the main obstacle to consensus/communication on this topic.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12799
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#43 Post by Geoff the Medio »

eleazar wrote:Perhaps we need a topic to discuss the citizen "AI" since that seems to be the main obstacle to consensus/communication on this topic.
If you could write up an intro / summary for such a topic, it would be fantabulous...

User avatar
Robbie.Price
Space Kraken
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#44 Post by Robbie.Price »

Goodmorning all;

Firstly, it seams i posted to the wrong place, on the 15th post of viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2005&hilit=

I suggested a trade / diplomacy model.

In brief,

Starting a new treaty:

Select treaty type, Trade, research, Peace ... select Who . . . one other, more.

Then the Diplomacy screen would pop up with a semi-standard semi-dynamic list of clauses for that type of treaty. and the specific list of desired/unwanted clauses by the other people your diplomacy-ing with.

You can then fiddle with the order of various clauses, moving them up or moving them down, increasing their values, strengths, durations (only if you want to fiddle), adding them and removing them. As you change the list of clauses your going to present as desirable/undesirable a list of all major races at the side auto-updates how they will feal about you if the exchange goes as you hope. (possibly with both leader values and populous values taking into account all the things previously mentioned in the 40 or so posts)

you would then click *send in Diplomats* and the various clauses would be compared, going rates, diplomacy skills, geographic locations, . . . and a result would emerge. (the result could of course be total complete failure(possibly due to populations not liking each other) blocking diplomacy for some turns). you would then accept this result or modify your original parameters (adding removing clauses [the system could help by having some kind of indication of which group(s) most strongly effected each clause being/not being included (which you ex/in-cluded) so that you can move other things they want up/down to get them to agree with you{perhaps some indication of weather this will be enough}]). This system would be Deterministic, and each resending of the diplomats would increase the chance of total failure. Also diplomatic failures would reflect poorly on involved empires to greater or lesser degrees depending on the situation.

Therefore as proposed, people who want to tinker can, to get the best deal, but if you try to tinker too much you get nothing. (so it can't get micromanage abused), but if you don't like micromanaging dipomacy, clicking a "trade treaty, go, and accept" would yield 90%(hopefully more) of what you would hope for anyway (sell what you have excess of, get in exchange what you are lacking + perhaps some money).
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:
Of course I would Charge money to maintain these Treaties (as well as to maintain the Overall "Level of relationship" or rather Treaties that you paid money to keep would help to rise and maintain the level of relationship)
Charge money from whom? Where does this money go? Why would money be charged if an empire makes a treat that the populace likes? Why would we automatically charge money if a populace dislikes a treaty, but the player who made it is willing to deal with that unrest and wants to spend available money (influence) on something else?
I agree with Charging money/ recourse/pp's whatever when building treaties.

Primarily because I want to have these treaties have clauses for mutual protection with ships controlled by third party AIs who build ships using these resources.

Secondarily to provide another way of tilting treaties to your favour (if you've invested more when it comes time to review *Which i think should be included. Semi-automated review* {your going to start building a new colony soon, review comes up, choose to reduce the amount of food your going to supply so you can use it yourself sort of thing} then you have more clout when it comes to sending in the diplomats.{Makes investing somewhat more then they rest of the people a strategic option}).

Thirdly, these resources could be accumulated to invoke special events. *If you have enough money, a type of Review session comes up with a single new clause "Should we all invest in Mutual advertising for the next three year using our money and collected money by this body(-1000 money each empire this turn,4000 from pre-collected pot, +30% monetary profit from trade for next N years){each empire would be able to define the amounts they want for each + and - side of the proposal, and diplomats would hash out semi-final a clause in the same way as above}" and things like that (see almost any other 4x game with a multi government council for better/worse proposals)*

I think that about wraps it up for me. best wishes
Price

User avatar
MikkoM
Space Dragon
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Diplomacy Preliminary

#45 Post by MikkoM »

Bigjoe5 wrote:
MikkoM wrote:Now what comes to the endless reshaping problem we would probably need some indication text or a meter that would tell the player roughly what are the changes that the treaty that he/she is proposing is accepted by the other empire. (This information probably shouldn`t always be correct so that the out come of the negotiations would usually be a small mystery.)
IMO, that would be the kind of thing that would make diplomacy frustrating and hard to understand. Regardless of realism, I think that the players should know EXACTLY what a treaty is going to do before they sign it. Diplomacy is an important part of the game, and any vague descriptions of what you're getting into wouldn't be as helpful or fun, IMO, as getting the precise details.
I don`t know if you understood me right here. Now what I am suggesting is an indication text/meter that would tell the player roughly, what are the changes that the other (AI) empire will accept the treaty, which the player is proposing. So the player would know exactly what the treaty is about, since he/she is making the suggestion. This meter/text would only be a tool, which would hopefully help the player to make treaty suggestions to the AI, which the AI might accept and so hopefully there would be less frustrating treaty reshaping.

But like I already said, I would hope that this text/meter is only a rough estimate of the success change of the treaty, since this way you might occasionally succeed to make treaties that seemed impossible or fail to make a deal that seemed very likely. This way if the meter/text, which could be for example an official estimate from the empire’s diplomacy department, isn`t always reliable you couldn`t just check the meter every time that you have constructed a treaty that you are about to propose to the AI and always know before hand whether the treaty will be accepted or not. So hopefully this kind of a system would minimize the frustrating treaty reshaping problem, but could still offer the player the excitement of whether the AI empire will actually accept or reject your proposal, or even make a counter offer.

However one problem with this system is that it probably wouldn`t be very helpful in multiplayer games. Maybe the system could evaluate the other player`s empire, like it would evaluate an AI empire, and then tell you roughly whether the treaty that you are about to propose is also an acceptable one for the other player. But since human behaviour isn`t very easy to predict the system probably wouldn`t be very accurate.

Locked