Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

New Relations System

More control...

The relations system in GalCiv 1 was dynamic but hard to understand. The AI would look at where it currently was in terms of how it felt about you, go through a load of calculations, and then adjust its relations. The problem was that it was often hard to understand.

So this time, I've started making it so that the AI calculates its relations with you from scratch each turn rather than adjusting up and down.

Different situations given different points for and against you. Ironically, a system similar to this is in Civ IV so at least there's others that feel a system like this makes more sense. Here's what I've got so far:

1	You are militarily more powerful
2 to 3	You are significantly more powerful.
4 to 5	You are massively more powerful militarily
1	You are trading with them
2	Trade with you represents a substantial part of their economy
3	Trade with you represents a major part of their economy
1	You are ethically evil and so are they
2	You are ethically neutral and so are they
3	You are ethically good and so are they
1	You have helped them in the past.
2 to 3	You have provided significant help to them.
1	You have recently paid tribute
1	You are natural friends (humans & Altarians)
1 to 3	You are diplomatically more sophisticated
1	They have planets in your influence sphere
1 to 2	They are pacifistic
1 to 4	You are a historic friend (after 2228 + galaxy size) players friendly players become friendlier with 1 point per year)
-2	You are evil and they are neutral
-4	You are evil and they are good
-3	You are good and they are evil
-2	You are good and they are neutral
-1	You are neutral and they are evil
-2	You are neutral and they are good
-1	They are more powerful than you are.
-2 to -3	They are significantly more powerful than you are.
-4 to -5	They are massively more powerful than you are.
-1 to -2	They are militaristic
-1	You are natural enemies (Drengin and Torians)
-1	You are the Yor (or you’re not the Yor)
-1 to -4	You are a historic adversary
-1 to -3	You are diplomatically less sophisticated
-1 to -4	“Unlucky” event affects you (assassination for instance)

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

how about...

enemy could be anyone they really dont like...

trading routes with their enemy
trading tech and other things with enemy
You are allied(have diplo deals) with their enemy

Successfully updated karma reason!

Looks very good, Brad!

However, I think Mike C's suggestions are very good. I think they should be considered as well. If I'm a big (significant) trade partner of their enemy that should count against me in their evaluation, just as if I am a big trade partner of theirs that should aid our relations.

Also, being allied with their enemies should be a bad thing for your relations, just as being allied with them should be a good thing for your relations.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sounds promising, I think Mike C and Star PIlot have good points there too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Id also like to add:

You broke a treaty , should be a negative

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, Id like for the AI races to hold a grudge against those who 'go back on their word' to them in one fashion or another...

Agreeing to attack a common foe, but all you do is sit back and never actually go on the offensive.. (this could be hard to code, though)...

Making foolish demands through diplomacy.... demanding they give up ships/money/influence, whatever, whether or not they actually agree to it, should give you a fairly large negative... this should also include allies... If you just backhanded my best friend with a demand they pay tribute to you, Im sure not going to like ya very much...

Also, though this part isnt in the game yet, but voting on UP events in ways that benefit an AI race, should give you a positive....

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think it should also include your distance from them. its pointless them declaring war on you if you are outside there relative sphere of range. Ive had this happen a couple of times. I end up having to fit a few of the largest hulls with 2-3 of the advanced rangte extenders(cant remember the name of the component atm lol) and then quite a few engines. and I almost always ruin there economy/ship production.

It should also take into account your research. if they are doing espionage on you. and they can see you have weapons/armor which counters there primary weapons/defencive armourments, then they shouldnt declare war until they have rectified it.

And then it comes to the more advanced AI part. They should use ships with a large quantity of Scanners. so they can scout your systems before they declare war. and they can then plan accordingly so they take as many of your systems in the initial declaration as possible. I.e there ships are already in position to take as many of your undefended worlds.

Ive used this tactic several times. 1 Massive hull with range extenders, engines and then the rest with scanners. I managed to be able to see a radious of 7-8 Sectors with a speed nothing could catch. And because the ship was unarmed. they didnt count it as a threat to them really.

So if you have ships with a High sensor signature, then maybe this should count against you? or for you if you have significantly more then them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This has me extremely interested in although one aspect of it though is: Opposing party agendas thus if you were to recieve several negatives you infact are minused only one. But because the opposing party is conducting a plan or campaign? Complex but if he is involved with another Civilization intensely, either by trade or militarily, you breaking a treaty with him shouldnt be a problem or little at all though dialoque should be stated as he is cleverly faking it as he is upset over your actions, be really interesting.

What should be taken into the calculations is distance and influence you have to the opposing party in the galaxy. You state massively more powerful military as 4-5. I would definitely if your opposing party recieved 5 if bordering or close-by; the second militarist but if the Civilization is on the otherside of the Galactic arm then it coherently should recieve 4 because it unlike the other Civilizations closer to that particular party has less to worry about the most powerful fleet on the otherside of the Galaxy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think that if you are militarily more powerful it should be at least 2 no 1. The same go with evil and good, if you both are evil or if you both are good, it should be the same amount of points, that is how you can create alliances. Also if a civilization pays you tribute, we may consider putting a different amount. Maybe even a negative amount. Natural friends should be at least a value between 1-3.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with C and Star Pilot's suggestions.
I disagree with others in the sense that breaking a treaty with them should be a negative. Breaking a treaty with their enemy should be either neutral or positive.
Distance should matter, though I think something less simple than civIV. It's actually about having access to resources held by others, rather than just being near, which spawns discontent. By resources I mean planets, trade goods and resources on which to put starbases.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If a good civ has military might, why should that mean its negative on relations, could very well be neutral? If an evil civ has military might, I agree it should have a negative effect.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I disagree with others in the sense that breaking a treaty with them should be a negative. Breaking a treaty with their enemy should be either neutral or positive.

I think we're on the same page on this one, then? Breaking a treaty with AI-1, whose at war with AI-2, should be a small positive boost between you and AI-2, and a small negative between you and AI-1...

If a good civ has military might, why should that mean its negative on relations, could very well be neutral? If an evil civ has military might, I agree it should have a negative effect.

Where are you reading that being Good + having a strong military = negative points?

Successfully updated karma reason!

i didn't read that... i read :

-2 to -3 They are significantly more powerful than you are.

if its a good civ, then maybe it shouldn't be a negative?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let's remember, this is a war game. And even if you are good and they are good, that doesn't mean that you two will refuse to go to war against each other. So your relative miltiary strength should independantly modify your relations, regardless of your morality.

It seems logical that "Evil to Evil" doesn't grant as large a positive bonus as it is a GC standard that Evil civs like other less then Good civs. Evil civs liking each other less means that they will more often turn on their own kind then Good civs.

I would consider "Out of Range" as being a lessening modifier in GC1, but in GC2 where you can more easily create craft capable of going further, I don't think range should matter. In GC1, if you were out of range, then your opponent would have to build a chain of starbases to reach you. Now, they only need to build 1 deep space (extended range) constructor or deep space raiders (extended range war ships). So it is much more difficult to truly be out of range. Maybe on the final version of Huge and Gigantic maps, but that is a special case, requiring a minority game condition rather then a common occurance across game conditions. Is it worth the trouble to our friends at Star Dock to try and calculate whether you are in easy striking distance, extended striking distance, or completely out of reach?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2415

Updated table"

“Unlucky” event affects you (assassination for instance)

Successfully updated karma reason!

So, none of the ideas in the thread make it in?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with the suggestions here in the thread, most notably Mke C's.

Successfully updated karma reason!

On the negative scale between evil and good, if both races are good or evil will there be a positive? Or will it balance out to 0? Oops, I was looking at the scale again and found it, must have missed it the first time.

On a slightly unrelated note, my son found an article from sometime back that said Stardock was in negotiation for the title Master of Orion. Having played that back in the college days, I was just wondering if there were any truth to it, or whether it had gone beyond the negotiation stage.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lies! Stardock and whoever had made the MoO series, were in negotation TO COOPERATE not to kill each other besides, Galciv1 survived because Stardock is a more *direct* company and their games have alot options (rather than having the ultimate military)

Successfully updated karma reason!

On a slightly unrelated note, my son found an article from sometime back that said Stardock was in negotiation for the title Master of Orion.

Are you sure it wasn't for Master of Magic instead?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let's remember, this is a war game.

One very minor nit. While I agree with your analysis, GC is a game of conquest, not exactly a war game. While MoO3 may have had Senate bills you could put forth, that's the only real area beyond the military I found it even close to the richness of most GC1 games when it comes to the higher levels of conquest.

In MoO2/MoO3/Civ3 most of my games ended with me as sole survivor. AC tended to be an even sole survivor or tech victory split. I'm almost never sole survivor in GC1 or GC2.

I bring this up because while most GC1 players are well aware of this, I've noticed that there are at least some people beta testing or just participating in the forums that don't seem aware of this dimension to the game.

And yes, I do belive it was Masters of Magic, not Master of Orion. I'd be interested in what Stardock would do with the MoO franchise, but I really don't think that would be an appropriate fit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I consider cultural conquest to be just as valid a form of gaining territory, resources and winning as war. Or a tech victory.

IIRC, it was both MoO and MoM. Brad had mentioned wanting to discuss buying the names/brands. But Atari wanted too much money for them, so that ended that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2415

I updated the table in my comment but for some reason it didn't show up. Essentially I added in the suggestions in this thread.

Successfully updated karma reason!

good to hear

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just being the Yor brings a negative penalty?

Does this have to do with the Yor being, uh...machines? Sort of an "organics don't completely trust inorganics, and vice versa" thing?

Successfully updated karma reason!

-1 You are the Yor (or you’re not the Yor)

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at this one. HAHAHA!

Successfully updated karma reason!