Page 1 of 1

Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:45 am
by milsu
Conquering of all other nations seems kind of a lame and destructive goal. I mean, you have built that many cities, and technologies, and everything, and the game must end. Why to bother then? Wouldn't it be more amusing if the game could never end, and also there is no limited number of turns? Why not to make it a diplomatic game, building different kinds of interactions among nations? Currently, diplomacy looks like it's in the Stone Age. Once you get into war with a nation, the war can't ever end. It is so lame.

Re: Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:08 am
by mir3x
Game can end at 5000 if u set that in options I think.
Its enough.
AI doesn't want to make peace with u bc u have no units.

AI is crappy, but in fact its as crappy as in civ5( but there it pretends its more clever, but the fact is is the same stupid).
As I wrote somewhere freeciv AI allows u to win if u go to anarchy in first turn and conquer all AI with warriors only and stolen techs.
Try this. No need research ( but on decent small map with 4-6 ai)
I'm pretty sure winning with only 1 city ( but not going anarchy) would be even easier.

I was playing some game lately, and every AI loved me so much, all of them except 1 made allianze with me ( that last one loved me too, but we had only peace). In the end all those AI killed that last one and game ended as allied victory :D. I wasnt fighting at all.

Re: Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:13 pm
by Lachu
There's could exist some diplomacy victory similar to Civilization V diplomacy victory.
On some age each player can vote onto victory player, but cannot vote to self. Also vote could been bought, etc.

Re: Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:22 pm
by mir3x
Those civ5 victory types are so lame, only to keep players as long as possible at game.
In civ5 - shortest game - clicking only end turn and win at end via culture or diplomacy - nothing more
- takes about 2 hours ( with 3-5 AI). U just click end turn, automated workers and shoot with cities.
It should take like 5 mins to end in that style.
And in civ6 there wont be automated worekrs.

About culture/diplomacy victory I will quote Stalin:
The Pope? How many divisions has he got?

Re: Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:49 pm
by GriffonSpade
I rather agree. You're essentially saying that instead of killing everyone and ending the game, you have an eternal nation-building game? (As 'winning by diplomacy' would be covered by Allied Victory)

First, make the default diplomatic mode 'Neutral', not 'War'.
Wars are declared like Cease-Fires, however either side can declare war unilaterally, and a war always lasts 10 turns.
While neutral, you cannot build bases or cities in the other nation's territory, or within 2x+1 their city's work range. You can also not attack units in their territory, bases, or cities, and cannot conquer their cities.
Make all AI love decay, say X% of total plus Y% of maximum per turn (Where X and Y are declared in the ruleset. Something like 20% X and 2% Y should work well; would take 11 turns to go from max to nothing with absolutely no contact), and that goes for positive AND negative values, both decay towards 0. There would also be a cap on how much you can be liked or disliked.
How an AI feels about you would be determined by two main factors: AI love and AI fear.
AI fear being a measure of your military strength compared to theirs modified by your government type and a leader's submissiveness/dominance trait score.
(ie communists would be feared more than republics, who are feared more than monarchies, who are feared more than democracies, who are feared more than despotisms; dominant leaders would largely ignore positive values and inflate negative ones while submissive ones would inflate positive values and largely ignore positive values)
Each interaction with a nation can provide AI love bonuses or penalties.
Some are instant penalties: killing a unit, getting caught in a spy action, breaking a treaty, declaring war, breaking trade routes, receiving a map/shared vision, receiving gold, receiving techs, refusing to sign a treaty, refusing to give a map/shared vision, refusing to give gold, refusing to give techs
Some are instant bonuses: giving a map/shared vision, giving gold, giving techs, signing a treaty, establishing trade routes
Some are end/beginning of turn penalties: having military/settler units in their territory, having military units in their city work radius, being at war, receiving shared vision
Some are end/beginning of turn bonuses: having a treaty, having trade routes, giving shared vision
These bonuses/penalties scale with their values (ie, the more trade your treaty generates, the more they like you. The more units you have on their land the more they hate you)

Which treaty/demands a nation accepts with/from you depends on the sum of their love and fear for/of you and their leader's warmongering/peace-loving trait level in general.

Re: Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:44 pm
by uncivilizedplayer
"Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?"

In at least experimental ruleset you can have an Allied victory, when your alliance owns all cities.

Re: Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:45 pm
by milsu
GriffonSpade wrote:I rather agree. You're essentially saying that instead of killing everyone and ending the game, you have an eternal nation-building game? (As 'winning by diplomacy' would be covered by Allied Victory)

Yes, a game of an eternal nation-building. There is no need for forcing the game to an end, everyone can end their game at any point if they get bored, or if they think they are far more superior than others. And you have made some great points.

I had my neighbor AI nation hating me from the very start for no reason whatsoever, and wanting only war with me. So I conquered one of their cities. And nothing, everything's the same. I conquered another city. No changes in their attitude. Basically, I have destroyed them completely, but they have still wanted a war against me. Isn't it just stupid? AI behaves like a headless insect - it keeps attacking and attacking no matter of the situation. Even the original Civilization 1 had better diplomacy, with paying a tribute to one's patience, or offering a tribute for ending the war. If the AI sees they are losing, why don't they offer a cease-fire, and some gold or technology as a tribute?

Re: Game goals? Why not diplomacy over conquering?

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:20 pm
by uncivilizedplayer
milsu wrote:
GriffonSpade wrote:AI behaves like a headless insect - it keeps attacking and attacking no matter of the situation. Even the original Civilization 1 had better diplomacy, with paying a tribute to one's patience, or offering a tribute for ending the war. If the AI
sees they are losing, why don't they offer a cease-fire, and some gold or technology as a tribute?


In reality this happens too where a nation/people fights to the death, especially if the difference in sophistication (techtree) is too big.
You can only quiet them by complete destruction. In experimental ruleset you get cities with alot of unhappy people if they are originally from the subdued people though. Once you have a world empire and you have alot of gold 300 000+ you can use it as a gauge of how mad they are, I've had nations refuse 100 000 gold for a cease fire.
It's a pitty there are not more diplomacy options available, I would love to;
- give weapons (without giving cities)
- be able to facilitate a peace deal between 2 other nations (to strengthen coalitions)
- offer technology to grades of friendship below alliance