The Vorta discussion:

The Vorta are similiar to what the Remans are to the romulans or the Vulcans/Anticans/etc.. are to the Federation, in some way.

The Federation in BOTF2 are actually the Humans, who were able to expand. Some time ago i said that as an option this might be ok: that an member planet already has joined you at the start of the game. But only as an option. You don;t want people to be forced to have a minor.

Personally i would put the Vorta as an minor race really favored to the Dominion.

Because if you give the Dominion the Vorta in such a way. Why not give the Federation the Vulcans and the Romulans the Remans? You can do the same with the Klingons in form of the tribbles.. eh i mean Chalnoth or something. Just my 2 cents but please remember this game needs to stay balanced.

A random galaxy is exactly what a random galaxy is. Races are placed on random locations. Now the Dominion might ally with the Vulcans and the Federation with the Vorta. What is the suprise if the Dominion always has the Vorta?

Obviously a StarTrek map will be made so this will be more true in that map. I will make one this month or something. In that the Dominion will be a bit closer to the others. Because making a >90% realistic one will ruïn gameplay for the Dominion. You would be sitting there 200-500 turns doing nothing but expanding and grabbing minors here and there...the horror.

Wormholes:

What if you won't be able to see these things quick? I mean only when you are standing on them and have enough scanners? A secret wormhole might be cool, the enemy don;t know where you came from, still he knows that it couldn't be done by warpengines . Also that you might get messages that reports came in about a wormhole somewhere in those sectors, if you have inspected the sectors in that area a few times.

Might be stupid this idea and not good for the game, but it was just a suggestion.[/b]

Well it might be ok having the Vorta, Vulcans, Remans, and...Tribbles...always be found close to their respective Empire on canon and semi-canon maps.

We could set it that on canon maps, these races are with a eg. 5 square radius of the Empires homesystem.

Then on semi-canon maps, that limit could be increased to perhaps 10 squares.

We'll have to think of a race that would go with the Cardassians though. What about the Breen?

...

As for Wormholes, I thought this was how we were doing it anyway?

I thought that to be able to discover Wormholes - ALL Wormholes - you would first have to set a sufficiently advanced Science vessel to perform a detailed scan of the sector?

You will already gain a small amount of reseach points from scanning sectors, and finding Wormholes and other anomalys would be an additional bonus to this.

First the simple things:

1) The issue of giving minor races to the empires has already been discussed and rejected in the forums, though off the top of my head I can't remember where. Granted, this is a separate game being developed by someone else, but I was under the impression that the same decisions would be used. If minor races were to be given to majors in the beginning, some very careful thought would have to be given to how this would be balanced out--should it be historical, random, or perhaps simply for gameplay?

2) Surrender is very well a choice that does not need to automatically lead to subjugation. Your analogy of gunpoint is rather inaccurate for a nation. I've already detailed numerous alternatives a government would have, all of which go outside of your "Submit or Die" dichotomy, so I see no need to repeat them. Even in your "gun to the head" scenario, though, we can come up with alternatives to "Submit or Die," such as attempting to knock the gun away, pretend to submit until I can kick you in the balls and take the gun, attempt to dodge out of the path of the bullet which you theoretically will fire, bide my time in hopes that another sniper will shoot you in the head...

Instead of pursuing these options, the victim chooses to cut their losses and simply give up. Historically, numerous wars have exchanged land with little to no military occupying force suddenly moving in, especially when smaller, less advanced regions are involved--such as the colonial era or World War I. Surrender does not by definition equal subjugation, especially when you take into consideration the myriad of different cultures involved. You're making the same necessary vs. sufficient logical error.


Now, as for the equation, this need not be complicated at all. Granted, your idea of limited diplomatic options may be simpler on paper, but it is too simplified and would require too many exceptions. Computers can handle equations rather easily compared to humans. Also, consider how difficult it could be to add in new minors/majors should future developments allow that. With your proposed system, you'd have to write in or possibly rewrite the various exceptions to diplomacy for all affected races, whereas a dynamic equation makes the process of adding races diplomatically exceptionally easy. All you need to do is program a new sub-AI with weights to apply, which itself can be very easy. Think of this:

1) You yourself have proposed using various alternate incentives in negotiation, meaning that they will need to be coded to have certain values. (Peace has a value of say 10 whereas 100 deuterium has a "point value" of 1 perhaps.) The exact variables to be included could be discussed and decided upon with the help of the community, and already each variable will have a "Point Value." There's your basic equation set up already.

2) Each AI race will need its own weights. On the surface, this may seem problematic, but keep in mind that you have a few hundred races to program and getting close to 2,000 community members. Once a basic weighting system is conceived (say a multiplier of .5 for relations with other races and 1 for Technological advancement of the other power or whatever), the grunt work of typing the values in for weights could easily be delegated to the community members, especially if someone were to go through the process of writing down what the values should be (or the range of variables) for the different races. An Excel spreadsheet, perhaps, could be used to allow the community to type in these variables--not even one race per community member--and then the data could be pulled from the spreadsheet into the actual program, either via a simple copy and paste or a macro if anyone is able to program one quickly. All you'd need to do is tell the program where to put the info, or where to look for the info if you're importing. Trained monkeys can type numbers into a spreadsheet, and I think that we have people here with at least that level of intelligence.

This could be further simplified by putting one spreadsheet on the website, something that members can pull up and type into, with each race listed. If necessary, perhaps a basic set of instructions could also be available. You could also then have the community checking to be sure that information is typed in correctly, as I'm sure at least some community members would be happy to do. It might have to be "locked" each time someone is actively typing info into it to prevent confusion, but this can be done as well. If absolutely necessary, you could also simply have a general spreadsheet set up, the races not yet done, and people could sign up to enter the information, then send the product to whomever is collecting the data. Suddenly, the "massive job" can be done quite easily within perhaps a few days, and the only real work the programmer(s) will need to do is set up the means of community participation and import the final data.

Some trial and error may be required to determine the appropriate variables and weights, but with a dynamic equation these modifications can be made easily. You also wouldn't have to worry about having people whining about how they don't think this particular race is realistic or right because they could simply fix it themselves. Never underestimate the value of saving yourself the headache of dealing with upset/irritated people.

If you wish to quote definitions, then so be it:

Surrender (both definitions according to Merriam-Webster) - to give (oneself) over to something (as an influence)

Subjugate - : to bring under control and governance as a subject : CONQUER
2 : to make submissive : SUBDUE


Obviously, these are two very different definitions and will never be equal, though they can be complimentary to each other. Note, however, that surrender is simply giving in, it need not mean you have been beaten to the point of death and simply unable to do anything else. Perhaps it could be, but it does not HAVE to be.

-->What you described here is someone or some people who are under subjugation and are revolting against the higher "authority" that is present.

You are simply incorrect. You assume that the moment a threat appears, the threatened must instantaneously choose to give up and hence become "subjugated." You neglect the fact that, by definition of surrender, the surrendering party must make a conscious choice to allow themselves to be under someone else's control. Subjugation does not need involve the victim to consciously choose to give in. You jump from Threat->Aftermath without leaving room for the possibility of Threat->Response->Aftermath.

Your analogy of a bank robbery is again insufficient to relate to a struggle between nations. You neglect the fact that the people in the bank would have to see the gunmen coming to compare to a national struggle, and on a national level would have the option to leave or seek additional, unaffiliated gunmen to attack the base of the gunmen. You also neglect the fact that controlling one part of a bank (or empire) with military force does not constitute whole subjugation--I may control your capital, but that doesn't mean I run your entire nation, especially if the leaders manage to flee the city/world before my armies take it. Also, surrendering and offering the gunmen to take control of one part of the bank for the rest of eternity is simply preposterous. Surrender is an agreement between leaders, except individual soldiers on the battlefield, which we are not discussing at the moment. A bank robbery, at least as you put it forth, is simply not analogous and drastically threatens to oversimplify the situation. You also again jump from point A to C without examining B and neglecting the possibility of reaching D, the process of how we move from a military threat to possession of land. You assume simply that threat equals military domination, and this is incorrect.

-->The American Revolutionary War itself is a perfect example to be used.

I am uncertain why you chose to use this, but I do thank you for doing so. You've provided a perfectly explained example of precisely what I'm saying. All I need do is ask the simple question of, when the British forces surrendered their territorial possessions to the Revolutionaries, did these territories become subjugated? Remember, John Adams himself said that at least a third of the total colonists were Loyalists to the British Crown, another third neutral, leaving only one third of the colonists actively striving to "claim independence." In many instances, particularly in the southern colonies, Loyalist factions actively engaged in warfare against the Revolutionary forces. Given this, we can hardly conclude that the Revolutionary War was simply a "just struggle for independence" orchestrated by a "united people" against a "tyrannical government." The people were far from united, many did not want independence, and the territory did actually belong to Great Britain prior to the conflict. After the British surrender, however, the colonies were transferred to the United States and did not fall under military subjugation. Your example only lends further support to my point that surrender does not automatically HAVE to equal subjugation.

-->I must admit that I do not recall any land being transfered at the end of WWI.

Read the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, particularly those pertaining to border establishment.

-->However, I do very much recall the occupation of Germany between the Allies and the USSR at the end of WWII.

This point is superfluous. The entire point of this example seems to be only to lend support to the idea of a potential outcome which we have already agreed is a potential outcome. The issue here is not whether surrender CAN become subjugation, but whether surrender MUST become subjugation. This entire part of your argument is redundant.

-->Also, with such a lengthy equation, each part of the equation weighs MUCH less to the overall whole.

Do you know what weights are? I admit that some discussion must be put into determining the "correct" values, and more than a touch of trial and error will probably be involved, but you'll have an entire community testing it out routinely to handle the fine-tuning. This system will also take out the need for "perfection" of programming as anyone who thinks it is off can fix it themselves. The method you propose would require the entire burden to fall on those developing the program, whereas this way the burden of determining the values would have a host of over 1700 people to make the determinations. Your method is simply too static and limiting.

-->For example, if you are much more advanced, then the reactions you get from other races should be much different than if you someone who is less advanced, as you described.

So you have switched your position on this? ("The only way empire strength should play a roll in diplomatic decisions is if there is HUGELYGIANT difference in strengths.") You seem to be trying to argue that my system wouldn't work because this would not be represented well enough (though obviously that is what weights are for, and equations can easily be manipulated if you feel that it must be put somewhere else, perhaps even turning this particular value into a weight itself to multiply everything against).

-->Sure, people like things to be realistic. But diplomacy is definitely not realistically simple.

Then you have abandoned your prior statement?

-->my ideas are to provide as much realism as possible

While it is certainly possible that your system of limiting treaty progression could turn out to be simpler than writing an equation (which I find rather hard to believe, but for the sake of argument I'll simply let that go), especially if no additional races are allowed to be added once the game is put forth, I feel that the limitation would severely damage the gameplay. Your treaty solution would also only solve one aspect of the AI--whether it would accept/possibly propose treaties--whereas a formula could be much more easily adapted to make other decisions as well, such as resource investment, military actions, and possibly even research. Your limitations on treaties simply relegates the gameplay to an even more unrealistic style than that of the original game's AI, and may very well make the diplomatic side completely lackluster and archaic in a time of increasing innovation. Granted, this is not a game seeking to be sold to the public for millions of dollars, but I assume that the developers would still like their game to be at least SOMEWHAT respected. If you're going to do something, do it right or don't waste the time.

Though I am pleased to see you abandoning the staunch defense previously based on an error in overstating a sufficiency qualifier, I'm seeing the same basic flaw in your logic showing up again. You note one potentiality--that a surrendered system could need to be subjugated via military force--and turn it into the sole possibility. Your own examples have undermined this.

Hi guys,

Just a question, but when this discussion is over, would someone be so kind as to give me (and undoubtedly a lot of others) a detailed summary of what's been said and agreed upon. I've read quite some posts here and there, but I realy can't be bothered to spend an entire day to read the whole thread.

Thnx!

Greetings! I'm new to this postings so bear with me here! I have read this whole thing and it seems one thing is mising a bit... why not have a type of "engagement" directly with whatever ambassador from whatever empire is on your homeworld or that you have made contact with. A bit more personal that way. ( but could be a pain for programing) But here is an example.

You have encountered the klingons in sector ****. **** They have dispatched an ambassador to discuss details for surrender ___ or for offical diplomatic relations__ or to estlablish trade routes... ect..

during your first meeting, you make a serious blunder and insult the ambassador causing him to storm out screaming in klingon about reprisals.

something kinda like Matress layed out for blackholes ect....

Could catch all of us off guard as the responces would be generated by the AI (unless your in a multiplayer game).

Just a thought!

[ EDIT Nov 08 2006]

Went back through and reread this whole thing except for the last half of page 4 and page 5. then any long statements made afterwards.

I Am a simple thinker. I could be as complex but it would make me insane trying to type with two fingers everything that was in my mind. so here is my simple suggestion:


A LONG Discussion was done about the AI and dealing with treaties and such. Concider this! While your busy yak yak yaking to whatever major through your ambassador, you Intel is busy doing other things.

No one has mentioned the fact that Intel works seperately from the rest and does not "share" it's information to it's diplomats to often. Therefor while you are busy trying to make a deal of whatever kind your Intel finds out that the major/ whoever, is actually planing against you. Such as the Cardiassions do as soon as you respond to a first meeting with them. (in old botf anyway).

Here is an example of what I mean...
-----------
I am Major (Rom) and I am talking with Major {AI operated} or Major {player operated} They are offering me a treaty of any kind.... while I am being diplomatic and loving what they tell me, My intel finds out that they are actually planning a major attack as soon as my guard is down. My Intel passes this to me... Would I be stupid and not listen to them? Would I also just stop the talks? NO and NO... I as a player would not wish to alert my opponent to what is on my mind.. BUT I could take this information to the table without tipping my hand. It would be to my advantage to do so as I could end up with a better deal.. Or not.. Or vice versa..

NOW.. The same Intel persons may have been given FALSE information as a test to see if I was spying ect ect.... So adding something that sounded natural might tip off my opponent that I have an idea of his plans or that I did in fact recieve the fake information, which in due course Could be used against me!

Does this make sence?... It does to me.... and I didn't even have to write an entire 10 book novel set to convey it! lol

My point is that when you write anything dealing with treaties ect. Intel must be concidered into the big picture....

I only know this to be true due to being a military man for a number of years and having friends who really were diplomats and aides in Washington D.C. and at a few Embassys...

Remember the OLD RULE.. "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer"

Winter..

The original BotF kept diplomacy and intelligence fairly separate, and I plan to deviate from that model quite a bit. I envision a multifaceted model of inter-species relations that includes diplomacy (direct interaction), intelligence, and politics (internal and external affairs). It makes sense that these facets should all draw from a common information network in addition to tracking and utilizing specialized data. The details of your relationships with other civilizations should be shared between "departments" in your empire. It absolutely makes sense that your intelligence division would keep your diplomats apprised of its findings. Likewise, internal and external affairs would want to be aware of what the other empires are up to both inside and outside your borders so that they can respond accodingly.

Question:
How do you determine what the other player is thinking? By that, how does the game know that so your "intel" can inform you of it?

I guess some simple code for the AI could be possible. Essentially, once the AI decides to attack, perhaps delay it for 3-5 turns to give player intel a chance to be warned of it before the order is executed. I find that somewhat lame, though as it could handicap the computer. Essentially, the computer would be assigning orders 3-5 turns later than the AI wanted to, essentially making the computer 5 turns behind the rest of the human players in the game. As such, I'm not too thrilled about the idea.

But the even better question is how does the game know that a human player is about to attack you? Short of computers suddenly having pshycic abilities and spontaneously developing automatically super-advanced AI that doesn't exist anywhere in the world, this is an impossibility.

At best you could have your intelligence report where their fleets are positioned relative to your territory and/or ships. The computer can do that. And I think that's as much advanced warning as you'd be able to get.

It could perhaps even be capable of reporting to you the destination of an enemy fleet that would cross into your territory. For example, if a player assigns a group of Warbirds to travel to the Sol system, with a high enough intel the Fed player could be informed of "X number of Romulan starships have plotted a course for Sol" or some type deal. But again, you don't find out until the invasion is essentially underway. But depending on how computer movement is programmed, this could be an issue. If the computer evaluates what it can see every turn and assigns brand new movement orders every turn, even if it happens to be a straight line, then this type of "intel" is impossible to program as the computer won't know Sol is a destination until the turn the computer fleet arives.

Not to mention that a human player could simply assign ship movement one turn at a time to counter-act this type of intel report from ever being generated.

So... I think we're left with "Hey player, our intel has detected X Warbirds and Y Battle Cruisers in sector Z, which is about W sectors away from the Zomgwhatever System." That's about as much reliable warning as you'll be able to get, I think.

The game will never be able to tell you the intentions of an empire because those intentions don't usually exist until orders are being assigned and the turn is processed.

Having said all that, I too would like to see a closer relationship between diplomacy and intelligence. The perfect example is that submarine movie with Sean Connery (Hunt for Red October?) and observe the American ambassador when he speaks with his Russian counterpart during the "crisis" that the Russians have. Granted it's just a movie, but this is what should be occuring as it'd be silly to not inform the ambassador of events if they can provide a diplomatic edge.

I tend to think that implementing mediators would be more trouble than it's worth. It would require a lot of special considerations (changes in relationships, dropped players, etc), and since it's outside the norm, there would be relatively little payoff.

I'd be interested to see what techniques are or maybe employed for the artificial intellignece part of the game, whether trivial AI, such as, opponent has several warbirds on grid XY move Several ships to protect nearest system/strategic point etc.

Or more formal AI techniques, Nueral networks, fuzzy systems, learning classifiers etc. though they may be code heavy and i wouldn't geuss at how long it would take for the computer to compute each turn.

Would be nice to be able to MOD it afterwards though.

Did you do Computer Science Mstrobel??

i've just gone and skipped through this... so sorry if its already been mentioned...

but hows about having Trade Embargo's on other races? bit like on Civ?

How would embargos work? What would their effects be, and what would be required to impose them? I'm open to the idea, but you've gotta propose a concept first .