I really like the Right of Passage Treaty, but I don't think a speed limit is the way to go. Why can't this be dealt with purely diplomatically?

For example:

If the Drengin, who I don't have a treaty with, see any of my ships within their borders, our relationship takes a hit and the Drengin demand I pull them out.

How big an impact on relations would depend on how many ships they see, what kind they are, how heavily armed they are, etc. etc. The impact to relations is calculated for every turn my ships remain in sight. This means that the deeper into enemy space my fleet is, the longer it will take for me to pull them out and therefore the more my relations with the Drengin will suffer. Especially if the Drengins send some units to "escort" my ships out, as they probably should.

In general, I think it would be ideal if we could make sneak attacks more difficult but not necessarily impossible. Barring any AI limitations I may have overlooked, I think the above would work pretty well in this respect.

Another idea. Let's say war breaks out between me and the Altarians. I have a few large invasion fleets in Altarian space, yet they only have a couple ships in mine. As soon as war breaks out, I take a big hit to my overall reputation (relations with every race), proportional to the amount of firepower I have in Drengin space. The Altarians don't receive a big reputation penalty; there might even be an outpouring of support from the other factions. So even if my sneak attack succeeds against the Altarians, I may have the rest of the galaxy to answer to.

There are some more apparent problems with this second idea. Firstly, it won't make much of a difference in a 1 vs 1 galaxy. The more races there are to contend with, the riskier a sneak attack would be.

If both ideas were implemented, things get a little complicated. For example, what happens if you have a passage treaty with someone, and then for some reason they declare war on you?

I'm going to ponder on it a bit more, but in the meantime does anyone else have thoughts on this?

I wonder if some people found suicidal easy by not allowing max CPU for the AI. At suicidal level, the AI should have all available bonuses and CPU power is one. After all, there isn't any time limit for the human player . Maybe suicidal level game should always turn on max CPU for the AI, without being possible to uncheck it.

The Right of Passage treaty should be a bidimensionnal treaty (like alliance, if you have a RoP with a race, that race has a RoP with you) that allows military ships to travel into another race space without triggerring build up warning from the AI. That way, you could help an ally in another part of the galaxy without annoying a neutral race by having your fleet passing near its planets. In short, a race which whom you have a RoP treaty shouldn't declare war against you for military build up concern.

The cancelling of a RoP treaty should be treated for ships like a declaration of war with the UP issue that enforce relocation of ship. The cancellation could be made in the diplomatic screen by specifically cancelling it. And naturally, you can't have/maintain a RoP treaty with a race if you are at war with that race

An alliance should automatically give the RoP treaty. But ending an alliance wouldn't mean ending the RoP treaty.

And for the AI, RoP treaty means that they shouldn't really worry (ie less CPU processing devoted to that task) about the possible intentions of the fleets owned by the race which whom it has a RoP treaty

BTW,  I wonder is the problem is really sneak attack or unability to defend a planet with a fleet without the proper planetary improvement (Orbital Fleet Manager). I understand that coordonating defense around a planet is more tricky than battling into empty space, but instead of being unable to use fleet to defend a planet, why not using fleet build with the half of the logistic capability when there is no OFM on the planet?

Any comments?

 

I really like two of the ideas presented:

(1) Hide or obscure the values of enemy ships, tied to espionage and a little random factor

How am I supposed to know that alien ships move x parsecs and have an attack rating of y right away? I might get this information for a given ship type over time due to experience, espionage, luck or a sophisticated guess, but at the start an alien ship should be, well, pretty alien.
(By the way, I think this would be a nice feature for the different races: They could have advantages and disadvantages in reconnaissance - think about the Krynn not-so-super-ability for a second.)


(2) Make it easier to prevent invasions.

E.g. the attacker could have to kill all nearby ships and starbases (the latter was suggested every now and then already) before starting an invasion or suffer penalties. As of now it often is too easy to kill small to medium sized fleets in orbit, sometimes even one after the other because the "fleet defenders" building isn't there.

I think an important part of the problem is that annihilating a race is too easy and goes too fast. All species can extinct or be subdued completely, but not within a week.

To be honest I've never heard of a single *player* that has complained that suicidal is too easy. At least not in the last year and probably even longer than that.

I have seen many folks playing at lower levels express a desire for the AI to wage war more efficiently. This same desire has perhaps been expressed by the occasional suicidal player as well, however this by no means automatically translates into "please make suicidal more difficult".

Anyway, I suppose anything is possible, but for someone to play suicidal and then explicitly attempt to hamper the AI by disabling max cpu is rather ludicrous.

I'm far from an "authority" on this "issue," but it has been my experience that an AI, even one with whom I have relatively good relations, will declar war on me if I start building up significant forces inside its territory anywhere close to its planets. I just had it happen by accident in a game where I mistakenly let a single transport stray into enemy territory and it got too close to a planet. It seems to me that upping the AI's sensitivity to having another player military assetts within its territory (unless their an ally of course) would help with the perceived sneak attack issue. The Sensitivity would be highter to having military ships simply parking in one's territory, which is usually an obvious prelude to an attack. There could be a reduced level of sensitivity to having ships parked within 1 grid square of a border. Although I'm not sure what the "nerfed engine" issue is referring to, I believe it is the fact that in DA engines are far more expensive and space consuming. I liked that-it seems to me that interstellar engines would be a very expensive and space consuming piece of hardware. As far as the reduction in speed issues, I have to say that I've never noticed that the Yor's Super Ability even worked. My ships seem to move just fine through the Yor's territory, but I admit I've never closely observed them to confirm that. Anyway, regardless of whether it works or not, I believe that making that ability a universal rule in the game subject to a Right of Passage Treaty would be better served by making it optional and a UP enforced issue. If the player refuses to obey the Right of Passage treaty requirement by slowing down its ships in another's space (by clicking a button saying he will not) and speed through enemy territory at full speeds, then all members of the UP, including allies, declar war on that player and attack him. Another penalty might be the automatic restriction of all trade with that player or at least a substantial diplomatic penalty. This would give a player incentive to not disobey, but leave in the option of launching sneak attacks (albeit at risk he will be caught before he can do so by the AI's heightened sensitivity as described above). Now obviously, if the advantages of a sneak outweighs these penalties, the player is still going to launch sneak attacks, but that would usually be towards the end of the game where the UP's importance has declined and the player is on its way to victory anyway. Just my two cents-it may or may not even be implementable.

Personally, I like the engines as they are in DA. Further nerfage would be lousy, though, but they shouldn't be TOO powerful either. A twin-engine or triple-engine design should be a big deal.

How about cutting the Range of a ship in foreign territory to the square-root of it's normal value, measured in parsecs, with non-perfect squares being rounded down just like defenses? This way, you simply wouldn't be able to go that far into enemy territory without bringing in Constructors to form 'supply lines' of starbases. Making Constructor Modules slightly larger and more expensive will make sure these supply-lines aren't too cheap.

If the enemy cuts these supply-lines by destroying those starbases, then your ships which are farther into it's territory must make a beeline to the nearest supportable range. If those ships get engaged in combat, their weapons and defense ratings are halved since they must conserve supplies and energy.

This wouldn't apply for unclaimed space, however, and it wouldn't be a problem for unarmed cargo ships like Freighters since they don't have to carry weapons and thus have more space for installing Life Support modules. A Right-of-Passage treaty or an Alliance will remove the square-root penalty to life support range.

Hi!

IMO the "right of passage" is just an overkill-cure to warfightig problems AI can't handle, sneak attack being one of the hardest. To handle war properly, AI neds lots of additional algorithms and time to organize defense.

Since additional algorithms are hard to made, you can give it more time by introducing PACTS. The main issue with pacts is forced gradual decrease in relations before one can actually start fighting, because nobody can attack other player if he's not at war with him. Pacts would represent the steps in "trust" between two players, going by following steps:

• war: full combat available in the next turn after it is declared.
  
• no pact/cease-fire: you're not trusted, every of your actions is treated as threat, AI very willing to go to war, and is preparing for it. If you attack AI, you suffer no penalities. No trade routes or trading possible.
  
• truce: you can declare war, but you can not attack in the same turn. You're not trusted, your actions are carefully monitored (present state of the AI), AI will go to war if it finds good reason (your warships and transports close). More friendly AIs will try to warn you before that. AI researches warfaring techs and searches for diplomatic support. If you attack AI, you suffer small penalities, form "they don't trust us" for some more sensitive AIs and small decrease in diplo relations with most. AIs with unfriendly ralations to the AI will however increase their relations.
  
• non
• aggression pact: you can not declare war, just break NAP. Declaration of war can follow only after 2 turns (weeks) after NAP termination. AI is not so sensible to your ships in its space, but will issue a friendly warning, if the presence is excessive. Your termination of NAP will be looked like unfriendly act, some AIs with friendly relations to AI will react with lowering diplo relations and trade relations and/or their NAPs with you. AIs with unfriendly ralations to the AI will however increase their relations. There will be small risk of some of your ships defecting to other AIs, mostly to the AI you canceled the NAP. That AI will start preparations for a war: obtaining warfaring tech, building ships, looking for diplomatic support.
  
• alliance: you're fully trusted. AI will not do any checks for your intentions. You can break alliance, but your relation goes only down to NAP. You are allowed another change only after 3 turns. AI will start checking for your intentions, and react properly. Breaking alliance causes severe penalities: other AIs will possibly cancel trade routes, trade relations and will lower their pacts with you. AIs with unfriendly ralations to the AI will however increase their relations. There will be moderate risk of some of your ships defecting to other AIs, mostly to the AI you canceled the NAP, and small risk of your planets defecting.

BR, Iztok

Well, I love the idea of some kind of passage treaty that can be ignored (by clicking a diplomacy box (like the one for an embargo).
But if you ignore this, you get a diplomacy malus of 1% per turn per race.

There should be sneak attacks (think of Hitler and Poland and Pearl harbour) but I think you should become villified by everyone for using them:
- either something like the Altarian superpower without the same ethics clause
- or a vote for each AI population to go to war with you/or for your people to attack an AI, just like an election
- or another penalty for diplomacy.

So if you go around sneaking up on people they will beome VERY distrustful until you end up fighting the USA, CCCP, Britain and God knows who else at once.

Btw Has anyone thought of the implications of a speed limit on the colony rush? You colonize one world in a system a few sectors away and everyone has to crawl her colony ships through your space - except you!

Hi!
Since thebutterfly has beaten me while I've been editing my previous post, here's what I tried to add:

The simpler variant of pacts could exclude penalities, either only defections, or also diplomatic ones, so the only effect would be the forced delay and starting of proper AI's analyzing routines when pact would change.

BR, Iztok

I find it astounding that the concept of a DIPLOMATIC Right of Passage treaty has been tossed out by a huge number of players, but I've yet to see Stardock respond to it. Mostly this is astounding because Stardock tends to be amazing when it comes to talking with their customers. I'd at least like to know if it's being discussed, and why not if not.

Later I'll try to post a big message about realism in games. IMO, its importance is severely underestimated. But for now...


Strongly agree with both. Both make a lot of sense, and not only on suicidal difficulty.

Player's knowledge of the exact stats feels like cheating. It could be controlled by a checkbox at the beginning of a game.

The fact that you can't put at least 1 fleet in orbit without a special building seems weird as well.

The reasons are

1) People see it as too artifical, even for a game
2) They think there are better solutions

Iztok's idea as good- but I'd add under cease-fire that AI's can attack ships in their own influence area without declaring war, at a steep diplo hit.

I'd get rid of truce as well.

NAP would be standard.

Also, I'd buff up the UP, and in cases of serious treaty breach, the UP can call for sanctions or punitive war. That's a fairer counter-balance then what's been suggested so far.

I think that a Right of Passage diplomacy option is an enhancement. I think a speed reduction based on the cultural ZOC is a bad idea, for the reasons already posted.

The most logical limiter on the human player is to restrict the knowledge about the enemy. This is a realistic application based on what we've seen in our current realities. We overstate and understate our enemies military strenghts and attributes with the most sophisticated satellites and spy operatives. And this is on one planet...let alone across galatic space. Sliding the information available along the lines of difficulty seems an easy implementation as well, along with making it an optional addition, like mega events.

Making it easier for the ai to align/ally against other ai's or specifically against the human player might be a tweak to improve on the strength of the ai. I know its quite easy to get the ai's to declare war on one another to allow myself to build up, so as a response, the ai's can ally easier.

I think its outstanding that the devs are asking these questions, and while not being particularly original, I feel compelled to offer up my opinion. Thanks to everyone that's contributed.

What about attacking within a turn of a DOW forcing you to leave the UP? Or going through someone else's influence without a right of passage treaty?

are you going to redo auto pilot so that those ships will go around.

Right of Passage Treaty:

With a Right of Passage Treaty, you have the Right to enter into the space of another civilization's influence(unless within a parsec of an owned thing, starbase or planet) without declaring war.

Should you wish to enter another civilization's influence, you must declare war or sign of Right of Passage Treaty, or barring that, leave the United Planets.

You cannot declare war with a Right of Passage Treaty in force. It must be broken diplomatically first. You cannot break a RoP treaty and declare war on the same turn.

If you break off the RoP treaty, you get a large diplo-relations hit with them.

Once out of the United Planets, you may enter the civilization's space at will. Also, anyone can enter YOUR space at will.

That's how I would do it.

I was unclear earlier. I was trying to say that the other civ's influence area does not make it so you cannot move within a parsec of any of your owned things, not that you can enter their space except next to their things.

Also, you may go through any alliance member's space during a war even without RoP.

Jythier- that's also a good idea, but I'd add one addendum.

If you own a planet in the sector, you can move anywhere freely in that sector.

To be quite honest, I am glad the "no sneak attack" proposal is dead. While the AI has trouble using it, it is still a valid tactic. Sudden, unexpected attacks are simply a fact of military strategy. While two massive fleets lining up on opposite sides and charging each other is certainly an option, it isn't the only one.

What this idea would do, I think is limit the options of players who don't build massive fleets. Asymmetric warfare is one of the things I like about Gal Civ 2; I can take a smaller and more mobile fleet into a race I want to go after, hit weak points without warning, and keep my fleet out of range of their heavy guns. Why would I declare this to my enemy, run outside their space, and run back in again for this style of warfare? It could still be done, naturally, but less effectively initially making other styles of warfare than "whoever builds the biggest fleet wins" less practical.

One thing, I think that is important to remember is right of passage treaties are wanted for more reasons than just one. Many people were asking for them not to prevent sneak attacks but for other uses. Personally, I want them because I find it ridiculously annoying that the enemy can move ships through my space at will, colonize planets in the heart of my territory because I missed a Class 1 in my gigantic map because they don't show up at the most zoomed out levels, or conduct a war with another race halfway across the galaxy through my backyard.

I'd like to see an option for open or closed borders and also right of passage treaties so that you may open them for races of your choosing. Closing your borders has the effect of cutting off trade except with those you have the treaties with, but, on the flip side, any ship of theirs in your space can be blown up without declaring war, thought it will cool relations with whoever's ship you just blew up. Naturally, closing your borders to them will make them close their borders to you. Hopefully the AI can learn from this and will attempt to avoid your space after losing some ships there or better arm the next group of ships. One of the things about this I like is you still can only control as much space as you can police. If you don't have enough ships to shoot down interlopers, or your ships are too weak, then the closed borders policy will hurt you rather than help.

You know those races in Star Trek, the cagey ones who close their borders, admit nobody into their territory, fiercely defending their space from any and all who try to enter it? I want to play that race and at present, it just isn't possible. In order to do it, you effectively have to declare war on everyone which tends to end badly. Further, this could be a mechanism to further differentiate the races in the game. The ever diplomatic Humans might maintain an open border policy with everyone to facilitate talks and trade. The less friendly Drengin might close their border to all except those they are allied with in a given moment. Consider, if you send an unescorted colony ship into a race of evil reptiles determined to enslave the entire universe, are they A.) going to let it continue on it's merry way to colonizing a world they can strip mine for resources or B.) going to scrap the ship for parts and dump the occupants into slave pits to build more ships? I think this option could be used to reflect that.

One note I will make though, is that those races who do choose the closed border policy should have some effective method of continuing on without trade. Perhaps salvage ships, which, when accompanied with fleets, get back some percentage of the value of the ship the fleet destroyed in credits. This could make for an interesting challenge to the player - do I close my borders and recycle the ships entering my space for that money or open them for the trade income?

Another implication of this is further expanded diplomacy - demands you close your borders to another race's enemy or to open your borders to their freighters lest they declare war and open them for you. UP resolutions could exist regarding open border policies, such as a resolution for the benefit of galactic commerce that all races open their borders. What does one do about planets in other territories? Unless you expand your influence to encompass them your enemy could take your entire planet without declaring war.

Other options for limiting the power of closed borders (if loss of trade and difficulty exploring other race's space aren't enough) could be things like lowering influence due to decreased contact, lowered diplomacy due to perceived distantness and coldness, lowered tourism income, inability to use special treaties like research due to the inability of other race's scientists to enter your space (except for those you have right of passage treaties with), or other things others may think of to add disadvantages to isolating yourself from the rest of the universe.

Anyhow, these are my rambling thoughts on the topic, but I would very much like to see some mechanism by which one can play an isolationist empire even if these ideas are rejected for whatever reason.

Edit: In retrospect, this actually would do something to limit sneak attacks as those you are attempting to attack can pick off anything you send into their space if you don't have a right of passage treaty with them. It won't end it like the original proposal would, but it would still give the AI a new recourse to fight back. You know that warning it gives you about it knowing what you are doing when you send too many ships into their space? What if they responded by closing their border to you and blowing up your ships? Or if you don't have open borders with them, just pick off your ships as you send them in.

That makes sense to me as well.
I think I like that idea the best out of all of them, and it sounds like something the AI could handle.

And it's basically what everyone is asking for, as well.

Sounds too complex. I'd say the simpler way is:
1) Every ship of an empire that does not have PT with you has to get out, or they are automatically go to war.
2) Either they stay out, or go to war.
3) If you click on an closed territory yourself, you get a warning like you do before attacking someone.
4) Autopilot/freighters try to find alternate routes to avoid closed territories. Even if you go to war with the empire and don't care.

IMO, #4 is the most difficult thing to implement.

Make it a separate bit for freighters...

I like this suggestion the best. It doesn't "limit" players, but provides real costs to the cheesy quick strike crap.

I don't really like this primarily because it would allow players to fence off massive amounts of space they can't realistically control. If that way was implemented, I would use colony ships and constructors to build a ring of influence around an area I want to control, then move from the outside in to colonize it. Even though I won't control the center, the space will be cut off from everyone else so nobody can reach it.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to be able to run the blockade, so to speak, if your ships are fast enough to get through their space before they can reach you or they just have too few ships to spot you or lack the firepower to stop you from going through their space. I think it important that right of passage type features not be implemented in such a way that an effective game tactic is to simply build starbases over the planets of other races and thus lock that planet down completely.

Honestly I think your suggestion makes it far too powerful.