Diplomacy : breaking an agreement one turn after it's done

I think this really opens up a VERY insteresting debate as to how diplomancy could operate succesfully.

I've always considered the fact that you are 'locked' into an agreement to be very frustrating. However at the same time, I most certainly never wanted to be on the receiving end of a deal break either.

If, depending on the type of treaty/pact/alliance broken, and also depending on the time remaining to said treaty/pact/alliance, the AI or player were to receive a severe penalty in some form of monitary fee or diplomatic disposition with other factions or perhaps even unrest within your own borders. There would be definate incentive to keeping your word (and feeling safe that the AI would do the same) yet have the ... oppertunity ... to take advantage of situations that would otherwise be unavailable to you. Likewise, the AI would then be given the ability to sometimes make your day a living @#%#.

I thought that the expired message was a glitch, that the treaty still existed.  {shrug}

Treaties still exist is a glitch for some reason.

Had those messages popping next turn after forging alliances. Yet all info (kingdom overview ---> foreign relations and the basic power meter with faces) shows that we are still allies (and have the treaties in effect).

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 4

Quoting GFireflyE,
reply 1


I think this really opens up a VERY insteresting debate as to how diplomancy could operate succesfully.

 


 

 
 

End of Kamamura_CZ's quote

LOLZ

This is an old, old issue, one of many with diplomacy. It simply hasn't received the TLC that's gone into many other areas of the game, and that one-turn-agreement-then-broken deal is a longstanding result. There are several others. Not to mention, a very limited number of diplomatic options to begin with.

Brad, oh Brad: where are ye when we need ye? 

Speaking of which, can you find a strategy game where diplomacy does not suck? Europa universalis series, maybe, but Civ games have and had horrible diplomacy, Total War games too, and every other mainstream strategy game I can think of. It's probably hard to do it without being exploitable. 

Don't forget GCII. Brad to an excellent job on the diplomatic AI in it. Which is why he's really needed for this.

I'd also add to EU, Crusader Kings II. And several excellent, late 80's-early 90's Chris Crawford titles.

What diplomatic AI? In Brad's very own words: "One part of the "AI" isn't really AI. A lot of people think of the trade screen in the game as being "AI". But it's not. It's basically just a dialog full of weighted values."

This is an engine glitch. It is not going to be fixed.

Stardock had to removed turn restriction on raze the city because AI simply ignores the restriction for this same glitch behaviour

I think you're confusing "dialog full of weighted values" with weighted values by themselves, which are after all the core of AI rules sets. And Brad himself wrote with justifiable pride of what he'd achieved in his GalCiv II AI. I was impressed with the  way it would consider a variety of factors before seeking you out for a trade treaty, or an alliance, and just when it would toss a few ships your way if you took someone they didn't like, but wasn't currently at war with. I've yet to receive any assistance from the AI when I go to war with an enemy of theirs. I've seen them turn down very beneficial offers of treaties when they looked on my rulers with favor, and go from alliance to war in a single turn, without any events causing this.

I'm afraid I don't see your point, then. Weighted values are rules-based AIs. Right now, the diplomatic AI is very buggy in many respects, and lacks the wide variety of options available in GalCiv II. So what are you saying is wrong with my remarks? If nothing, then, since I didn't discuss the trade screens, we have no areas of disagreement.

This is when you have made an alliance. However, treaties do break when you're not yet allied.