Diplomatic Capital

This sounds like a really cool idea on paper... But I think it would be near impossible to implement this well. And in any case it would only really work with AI players and would be a tad cheesy and gimmiky IMHO...

You could do it is a sort of lose relationship for doing one sided deals biased to you, gain relationship for fair deals, and even more for deal where they benifit. Then you don't need an new 'currency' to keep track of, but get the same features. So maybe when you make the deal it will have a little warning saying this deal is agressive and will harm your relationship, or visa versa. I think this would be the best of both worlds.

Great idea!

I always felt that the AI not remembering past actions kinda pulled me out of the gaming experience.

A system such as the above, if implemented well, could extend the 'suspension of disbelief' a little longer by making the AI seem a bit more real.

Megajames75's comment appeals to me as well, keeping the numbers(amount of diplomatic currency) internal would further prolong the 'suspension of disbelief' I covet.

It's a fascinating idea....and a good one, I think.  It would be quite literally a case of calling in favors, which is something I've always wanted to see in a grand strategy game. 

Of course, there would (and should) be inherent risks involved in "spending" your political/diplomatic capital:  Since doing so would only improve the odds of another faction accepting your offers/demands -- as opposed to guaranteeing it -- and the other faction were to still refuse, then you've essentially wasted that capital for nothing. 

Of course, the other faction would suffer negative consequences -- I particularly like the lower internal stability and/or lower commerce rates such as what Demiansky suggested -- from refusing to accept your diplomatic overture(s).  In the meantime, however, you'd still have spent that political capital for no gain....which is only appropriate.

Personally, I honestly don't think that would be the case, at least not as much as you probably think.  Since there would be penalties incurred for factions who reject a diplomatic demand/offer from another faction who spent some of their political capital to "sweeten the deal", even human players would have a vested interest in honoring another faction's diplomatic overtures (in addition to the usual reasons, that is).  That would apply in MP games as well (between/among multiple human players), so I don't see it as a feature that would affect the AI only. 

The one caveat -- which I suspect is at least partially what you were really getting at -- is that it strikes me as being likely that, on average, human players would tend to accumulate more political capital than their AI counterparts.  I still don't think that would be a bad thing, though, as any feature which gets the AI to behave a little more "human-like" would be a positive in most players' eyes. 

I don't see how a little number next to each opponent's portrait would be that daunting, but I guess one extra number is one number more than what you'd have otherwise.  If you didn't like having numbers, you could stick with the usual slider bar and simply apply varying degrees of forcefulness to your negotiations which would strain relations, but nonetheless improve the odds of getting what you wanted.

I guess the reason why I'd like to see diplomatic capital connected too, but distinct and separate from your formal relationship, is because a relationship with an opponent can increase in a broad range of ways independant of what your deeds to one another may have been (historic peace, mutual interest, like-mindedness, etc.)

Also, like Mortok stated, you could play in a game of exclusively human players and this system would still be meaningful.  In a game with primarily AI, though, you could even add a penalty that involves hurting your diplomatic relationship with opponents other than the one that you've turned away.  Should you refuse a deal with a lot of political capital stacked behind even sovereigns whom you do not deal with regularly would eye you with caution before getting too close (after all, who wants to be friends with someone who has proven that he quickly forgets the favors that you've done for them.)

I really like this idea! As long as this was done well (and knowing SD I'm willing to bet that it would be), it would really help close the player-AI gap, and add an actual reason not to exploit poor ArIIa at every opportunity.

I like this idea as well, although I worry that it could be a little too complicated to be worth programming.  As I'm not a coder, however, it's probably best to take my concerns with a grain of salt.

Yeah, that would always be a cause for concern.  I would think the easiest way to program it would be to assign everything that enters on to the negotiating table a numerical value.  Things like gold, diplomatic capital, etc. would be easy to assign values.  The tricky things would be how much declaring war on another opponents actually costs, but I imagine it would be a function of wizard power + military units. 

But yeah, I'm not a programmer either, so I'm basically talking out my ass   It would be up to SD to find a clever way to make it work.

This could be cool. However, the amount of favor, or diplomatic currency, whatever you want to call it, would have to be proportional to the magnitude of your generosity and the desperation of whoever is requesting help. The more dire the need, regardless of how small the request, the more grateful they should be.

The problem with this is in assessing how dire a player's need is when given aid from the AI... There really is no good way to code that in and would be a major stumbling block for making this a reciprocal system. 

I think this is basically a relationship system. The only difference is that relationship values cannot be traded or sold. Relationship values merely improve the odds or determine how demanding it is to close a deal with an AI.

Personally, i don't think it would be realistic. An example scenario is, we store up a lot of diplomatic currency. Then later we 'purcahse' the option for an AI to backstab his allies?That wouldn't be realistic unless the algorithm takes into account how much diplomatic currency the other AI allies has. In other words, why should Nation A accept 1000 diplomatic points from you to attack Nation B when Nation B has stored up 5000 diplomatic points with it? If Nation A persist in attacking Nation B who has 5000 points with it, then should Nation A be heavily penalized for such a heinous act of betrayal?

What about the other way? If an AI offers diplomatic currency to us in order to declare war on someone else? Do you think you would take it?Would you take your nation to war against a big empire just because the AI waved some diplomacy points in your direction? But what if i was evil and wanted to backstab my so called ally instead?

Trying to implement such a thing so that the end results in a 'realistic' diplomatic interaction would prove to be tricky. Real diplomacy is filled with all sorts of intrigue and additional considerations which if watered down to 'observable' values may lead to odd behaviors for the AI. Or it might lead to exploits that players could use against enemy AI as they could already 'pre calculate' all the possible diplomatic engagements.

Legitimate criticisms, but I think that most of your concerns are addressed in previous posts (I don't expect newcomers to the discussion to read the entire thread).  This diplomacy system is no different than any other.  There are already systems that are constructed to accomodate this feature.  In Galactic Civilizations, Civ, and plenty of others you can use actual money, planets, or technology to influence diplomacy.  How is this any different or complex?

All diplomatic currency does is give an additional commodity to the bargaining table that considers deeds and applies pressure to a diplomatic request or treaty to improve the probability of success--- it doesn't produce a definate outcome.  As for convincing an ally to backstab someone else whom they are even more closely allied to doesn't make sense, and I'm not sure what your point is or why diplomatic capital would necessitate this scenario.  This diplomacy system would work like any other.  There wouldn't be a set "price" for war.  The impact of diplomatic currency would scale in value depending on the magnitude of the request.  And with a system of counteroffers by the individual having war declared on them, any loopholes could be resolved fairly easily.  Let me illustrate:

Nation A speaks with Nation B and asks them to declare war on Nation C.  Nation A puts 1000 capital behind this request.  Nation B actually has a fairly good relationship with C, and the request only has a 10 percent chance of succeeding.  Nation C gets wind of the news, and spends 3000 capital to shame B for its lapse of memory, modifying the success percentage to 1 percent.  The bid fails, and everyone wonders what the hell B thinking? 

As for the player being subject to diplomatic capital, you would not suffer penalties for rejecting the proposition of going to war against a massive empire unless the AI spent mountains and mountains of capital, you had a poor relationship with said massive empire already, and the war was win-able.  What's more, penalties might not be incurred upon a player or AI unless the the proposition was considered at least having a "50 percent chance of success."

You keep talking about "chance of success." IMO, probabilistic diplomacy is a horrible way to go. A proposal should either be acceptable or not; in other words if I load the game and make the exact same proposal, I should get the exact same response, every time. Maybe a tiny random fluctuation in what it would take to convince the other party, but I don't really even see the point in that... The AI should look at your proposal, analyze the state of affairs, weigh the advantages and disadvantages of your proposal and then make an informed decision - whether to accept, outright refuse, or come up with a counterproposal. It should not consult the almighty RNG anywhere in this process...

Applying a sufficient amount of diplomatic capital should just make the other party accept a deal with less favorable terms than it would normally consider acceptable.

AI should also have unique personalities. Many hidden modifiers including historical events in their empire should modify the outcome.

In real life, when you are negotiating with someone you don't know ahead of time whether someone will accept of deny a proposal--- especially if you ask someone to do something drammatic and especially if you are calling in some kind of prior favor that they are alleged to owe you.  That's the whole point of diplomatic capital--- you are pressuring someone to do something that is somewhat against their own interest but decisively in yours.  It's not absurd to suggest that you can't predict how another player will react in such a circumstance, and it may be that the AI has already made up its mind but the player is merely given a probability based on what the player knows.  The real appeal of the probability factor is that you can decide to invest extra capital in order to insure the outcome that you want.  If it was like Galactic Civilizations you would only invest the minimum amount of pressure necessary to "turn the text green."  

And Sarudak, I like the idea of hidden modifiers that influence outcome

Real life is irrelevant. I do not want a diplomacy system where whether or not my enemy, who is on its way to annihilating me, agrees to a cessation of hostilities is determined randomly. If that happens, I will invariable feel screwed by the RNG sometimes, and sometimes I'll feel like the RNG made my life too easy. I would much rather have the AI make informed decisions rather than leaving diplomacy up to a game of chance.

I'm not saying I want the diplomacy screen to tell me exactly whether or not my counterparty will accept an offer; I'd like to to give you a vague idea. If your offer is abysmal, it should flat-out tell you there's no chance in hell. If your offer isn't very good, it should tell you that. Likewise if your offer is fair, or generous. None of these would tell you for sure whether your offer would be accepted or rejected, only give you an idea. For example, you offer a very generous deal, but your counterparty refuses because they don't want to be too much in your debt and they won't suffer much without whatever it is you're offering them.

Behind the information given to the player in the diplomacy screen, the AI response should be completely determined. Loading and trying again shouldn't give you different results every time. Also, depending on how/if espionage of any form is included, you should be shown more information (and more accurate information) the better you have infiltrated your counterparty.

Right, this is exactly what I want out of diplomacy too--- to be able to offer and counter offer when dealing with treaties or negotiating ceasefires or peacetreaties until you get to a point where you have met a mutually acceptable agreement.  It was obnoxious in MOM and MOO2 when you had virtually no clue when an AI would accept an offer or demand.  But I think you are somehow convinced that I want every diplomatic exchange to be randomized, and that's not the case.  What I want to see something like diplomatic capital to be used for (and read this very carefully, because I don't feel like repeating it a 3rd time) is to apply pressure to get your way in an arrangement that is lopsided in your favor.  But the AI (or player) could ignore the things that you have done for them in the past, and that's where probability comes into effect.  If you want to add more pressure to get your way, you throw in more capital. 

Classically, if you did something generous for an AI in other games it would increase relations for both of you.  If the AI did something generous for you it did, well, nothing for your relations.  Diplomatic capital helps to make deeds between players more flavorful and relevant. 

And you are right about real life--- it is irrelivant when you are making a fantasy game, but I was illustrating a point with it.  If you know the outcome of every deal before try to make it, I think it damages the diplomatic element of the game and invariably invites excessive micromanagement because it rewards visiting every single sovereign at every single opportunity in attempt to gain optimal rewards through diplomatic arrangements. 

It seems like this was just a misunderstanding, then. I was responding solely to your frequent usage of the phrase "chance of success." My point was just that there should be no such thing as "chance of success" - the response to any given proposal should be absolutely determined - you just aren't given that information.

So no "chance of success." The deal will go through, be rejected, or be countered. There should be no luck, no random numbers involved - though there might be the illusion of randomness simply due to the fact that the player won't know ahead of time which it will be.

Goodmorning all

I think what Demiansky is going for, at least in part, is that you would see a % chance,  the computer would look at the situation, what 'you' know about the opponent, and what 'you' think the opponent knows about 'you'.  Useing that information it would say 'you've got an 76% chance of this been accepted',  You actually have a 100% or a 0% chance of it being accepted as is, but you don't know that, it gives you a %, by looking at the status,  but that % is made up for referance, and not rolled.

If you invest more social capital, Call in a favour,  that % would go up, (you may change the real chance from 0 to 100%, somewhere, but you will only see a continues change in the probability. [the fact that it's accepted is hidden from you till you send it.])


Personnally i don't want a system which you have to nitpik yes or no each step of the way.  As discussed under the diplomacy thread several weeks ago, But i think that clarifies what Demiansky was trying to say.


Did i get the right idea?

Take care all

Bingo to the both of you.  Yeah, sorry if I didn't express things clearly enough, Pidgeon.  I don't like complete random chaos in my games either