Improve the way diplomacy work

[mimo]

It would be nice if diplomacy was improved. One point which disturb me is that, with the present logic, we could have player A ennemy of player B, while player B is ally of player A. That does not make much sense, and may lead to problems when the ally status is used (for gate opening for example). What I do not understand also is that, looking at #7 where diplomacy was discussed, the changes made in r12810 (comment 17) looked to me the right way to go, but these changes were removed in r12828 (comment 19) : adding new arrays to signal that players want to improve relations, while keeping the ally-neutral-ennemy status mutual was to my mind a best approach. What was the reason to remove these changes ?

Another point which does not look natural is that we could have A ally of B and C, while B and C are ennemies. In such situation, I think A should be switched to neutral to both B and C. My understanding of allies is that it should be seen as having a defensive pact, and all enemies of one ally should also become ennemy of the other ally. An other example of such weird behaviour is that if A and B are allies and both enemies of C, then if A makes peace with C, it stays allied with B while I would have expected its alliance with B would be broken, and turned to neutral.

A last point, if a neutral player attacks you, i expected it to be downgraded as ennemy. I don't think this is the case presently (at least I've not found such code).

All these points look like an interesting piece to code, and I may try to provide a patch for them, but I'd like to know what was foreseen for diplomacy, and if these would fit in.

[zoot]

Replying to mimo:

My understanding of allies is that it should be seen as having a defensive pact, and all enemies of one ally should also become ennemy of the other ally.

I believe that is a pretty limited view of alliances. Alliances are a practical instrument, not an ideological one - if having a "peace agreement" with two warring parties is of benefit to me, why should I not be allowed to have that?

For historical examples, see e.g. ​Sweden in World War II. (Undoubtedly, there are examples from Ancient times too.)

(BTW: For gameplay changes and other controversial topics, I think the recommended approach is to discuss it on the forums first.)

[mimo]

Replying to zoot:

Replying to mimo:

My understanding of allies is that it should be seen as having a defensive pact, and all enemies of one ally should also become ennemy of the other ally.

I believe that is a pretty limited view of alliances. Alliances are a practical instrument, not an ideological one - if having a "peace agreement" with two warring parties is of benefit to me, why should I not be allowed to have that?

Of course you are allowed. But What you describe is the "neutral" case. I think "alliance" should be stronger than that.

[zoot]

Replying to mimo:

Of course you are allowed. But What you describe is the "neutral" case. I think "alliance" should be stronger than that.

But aren't we just down to semantics then? It's what someone reads into the word 'alliance'. The current system allows for 'neutral' (allied with two warring parties) and 'weak' alliances (allied with one party, but having the option to 'backstab' said party). 'Strong', NATO-style ​defense pacts have their place in history too, but they complement, rather than supplant, the 'weaker' alliances.

I personally think the current 'weak' alliance is the more fitting type, because realistically, not even NATO members can be certain that the 'mutual defense pact' will be observed when push comes to shove - a treaty is just words on a paper, after all.

[mimo]

Strong alliances add more to the gameplay because you have to think twice before having such an alliance : you may gain something if you are attacked by being defended by your ally, but you may also be put in an unwanted war. And in fact, I think I don't understand what means the alliance you propose as I don't see in what it differs from the no alliance state (the neutral case) if there are no duty implied by the alliance.

But anyway, that's just a secondary point in this ticket. The main problem is described in the first part : with the present implementation, A may be ennemy of B while B is allied with A. That was the reason of this ticket. The rest is just what I thought could be an improvment, but I agree may need more discussions. Let's remove it from this ticket.

Replying to zoot:

Replying to mimo:

Of course you are allowed. But What you describe is the "neutral" case. I think "alliance" should be stronger than that.

But aren't we just down to semantics then? It's what someone reads into the word 'alliance'. The current system allows for 'neutral' (allied with two warring parties) and 'weak' alliances (allied with one party, but having the option to 'backstab' said party). 'Strong', NATO-style ​defense pacts have their place in history too, but they complement, rather than supplant, the 'weaker' alliances.

I personally think the current 'weak' alliance is the more fitting type, because realistically, not even NATO members can be certain that the 'mutual defense pact' will be observed when push comes to shove - a treaty is just words on a paper, after all.

[zoot]

Replying to mimo:

And in fact, I think I don't understand what means the alliance you propose as I don't see in what it differs from the no alliance state (the neutral case) if there are no duty implied by the alliance.

The duty of the weak alliance is just that your units won't attack the ally's units. As in a real war, the ally can choose to reciprocate that duty, or betray it and attack you anyway. Unlike the neutral case, allies also have shared LOS (and possibly other advantages I don't know of).

[leper]

trac is not the place for design discussions. Please keep this to the forums.

You can read the discussion that lead to the partial revert of the first here (check the dates between the commits) (#0ad-dev): ​http://irclogs.wildfiregames.com/