Diplomacy: Bullying and threats

Well imagine that in multiplayer, cause it should be made to be some kinda use in mutliplayer too

Player A(massive diplomacy tree) :"Surrender planet #1 or else ill wipe your fleet"

Player B(military tech tree focus) :"Bring it on my fleet is bigger than you anyways"

I like the idea of Bullying/ or threat, since that is part of diplomacy, But it needs to be done in a different way.

Can we have infiltrator frigates?

Subterfuge, sabotage, and spying might be best reserved for another expansion, but I can see it augmenting the 'darker' sides of diplomacy very nicely.

I just feel there needs to be some kind of way, diplomatically, to pressure other players into compliance. Persuasion and threats are different means to the same end, but have different effects upon relations between factions. We have persuasion through rewards and bounties (positive), but we don't have any way of threats through military pressure (negative). Bullying other players with threats of destruction or (eventual) sabotage is the other way to get them to do what they want.

One point that motivated me to post the suggestion is when other players snag a planet you want. Currently the only way to take it is to go to war with them and seize it, then hope to repair your relationship. But what if you threaten them, "Give me the planet or I'll take it from you"? How about offering to purchase the planet from them? Mediation in this way is one component that should be in Diplomacy but isn't supported currently. Not directly related to Threats and such, but something worth pointing out.

Edit: Another thing occured to me just now. Why isn't there the ability to demand all ships withdraw from a player's planets? When presented the player threatened would have the option of moving ships from the demanding player's worlds to the closest friendly planet.

I would willingly give you a plannet at the heart of my empire so I could farm it with drain plannet.  I'd never have to worry about metal or crystal again.

I think your right, Norse. I got the impression before I played Diplomacy that this was in fact the very POINT of it. I was disappointed that it only seems to be about one half of Diplomacy.

Negative Diplomacy sounds to me like it would best be served with a Negative percentage as well, or something to that effect. While trading, offering missions, and sharing will increase the 'friendly' tree making them more likely to help me out, while them knowing I have a strong military, and threatening them into missions * will also increase the chance of them complying, but might be more likely to backstab me once I'm weak.

Think of it this way:

25% 'friendly' Diplomacy increases the chance of a CPU wanting to trade with me by 50%, except missions 25%, and help me fight 25%.

25% 'fear' Diplomacy increases the chance of that same CPU wanting to trade with me by 25%, meanwhile 50% for the remaining two options.

Let me pose one question open to all: Are the two forms of Diplomacy supposed to be benevolent/enslaving(or you might say good/evil), or friendly/strong(or fear, like I used in the example)? I think this is VERY important, for a number of reasons.

First, which one Stardock picks, should they do so has an effect on if it's better to be possible to have BOTH forms of Diplomacy with the same person. The Diplomatic frigates would increase the 'friendly' percentage, whereas military units would increase the 'fear' percentage...? Personally, I'm banking of having both at the same time. It IS possible to have a good relationship with a civilization you have bound to you, but it would probably be harder, which would make the ultimate relationship with a weaker civilization- one who trusts the stronger player for protection, and will gladly surrender anything he needs much harder to achieve.

Here's another one of my stylish examples:

100% 'friendly' Diplomacy with a CPU 1 makes them happy to trade and share vision. They doubt I'm going to backstab them. (I like this one for this very reason)

0% 'fear' Diplomacy with CPU 1 makes them euthusiastic to backstab me and would never dream of surrendering anything to me.

The opposite situation has the opposite effect. While 100% 'friendly' Diplomacy leaves them open to me backstabing them, sharing vision,  and trade mutually without a second thought, 100% 'fear' Diplomacy makes them afraid of me, so they are unlikely to backstab me, are less likely to trust me with their vision and trading, but are more likely to be "willing" to surrender something to me.

*Regarding my footnote: Should there be an option to demand controll of the planet or force them to uncolonize it? How about the option to demand controll of ships? I think, in this case, the owner would be refunded a percentage of the cost(the crew returning to the player) and the one demanding controll would have to pay that cost. (Buying a new crew, as enemy crews should NOT be trusted like this, and it wouldn't make sence for the crews to be in the service of an enemy, as they might end up fighting their former owner, which they would most likely not conform to)

To me it seems the easiest way to implement threats at their most basic level would be to add another box to the offer missions menu.

Having an AI surrender would have to be something that doesn't happen to often or to easily. A good time for them to surrender would be when they only have 1 planet left, and your massive fleet is parked on the next planet over, that way they'd save you some time and not force you to fight it out to the bitter end, they could simply surrender, all their remaining ships and structures would be scuttled the planet would be transferred to you while preserving all its upgrades. That wouldn't ever happen though in multiplayer.

I also like the idea of a negative percentage level.

Another cool mechanic would sort of an arms race thing, you can sorta gloat and say "Oh by the way, I just built a novalith cannon." Which leads to a slightly off topic point. The AI in the games present state don't really give a crap about super weapons. They don't build  them, and they don't specifically target them. One really great way to make novaliths and the like more effective would be to have a timer for it that is visible to all players. In the command and conquer games, when your enemy builds a nuclear missile silo, it instantly becomes your top priority. It forces you to take action against an enemy. Though in command and conquer super weps are far more lethal, often decimating more than half your base. Where as in sins, there comes a point in larger maps where you have 30+ planets under your control, and having your planet nuked by a novalith is scarcely noticeable 

Sid Myer's Alpha Centauri had a lot of interplay between players and other AI factions based on what was done and what wasn't. The 'nuke' of the game, a planet-buster, had a lot of pull diplomatically. Using one basically made you enemy of the planet. Likewise, the Death Star in star wars: rebellion influenced the allegence of any planet it was orbiting in the Empire's favor... but drastically dropped it across the universe when it is actually used to blow up a planet.

Given that the Novalith is such a superweapon it should have an effect on the universe and interplay between factions. I'm not sure about huge fleets in enemy space, since either the populaiton is cowed into submission or is rallied to fight against the invaders. Maybe something to do with the ratio between friendly ships and hostile vessels that affect the allegience of the planet?

But I feel there needs to be an option in the diplomacy window for bullying and threatening your enemies. In Alpha Centauri, you could make a demand for resources and it negatively affects the relationship with the target player if the alliance is edgy. I feel that demands should be expanded to include planets as well, either by offering resources from it or changing the language to say "If you don't give it, I will take it. I'd rather do it peacefully."

Of course, to your enemies, it would be something like "I want this planet, in exchange for not attacking you.", or maybe even offering the planet to appease your enemies.

Personally, I would love to buly around the AI. But there should be a limit. Say, at the start of the game you have a cease fire with an AI, then your start bullying the heck out of him, give me this, give me that, eventually the AI war decs you. There should also be a 'friendly side' to this. example: Can i please have this? then if he refuses, threaten him for it. This could really give you that 'i'm in control' feeling. Ofcourse they would listen more to the threats the higher you empire ranks in military power.

--burnedbacon

And they should be more inclined to hear your friendly pleas if you actively help them out as well.

They certainly should react to me helping them out, if they don't already.

I think your right, burnedbacon. Diplomacy in your case seems to be more about milking the most of a player in a subordinate situation, which should certainly be an option. Personally, I think the shared buffs are nothing to be scoffed at. It gives a purpose to allying with someone, but the title "Diplomacy" is a bit missleading as it is. In effect, it's really just the addition of those said buffs and a remaking of the old Diplomacy system. I'm really hoping they expand on it before releasing.

I actually like that setting for the kind of No Nukes single player space battles I prefer.

While I agree that having 1 of your planets nova=ed does not mean anything if you have 30 planets,  I can assure you that have 4-5 planets nuked at the same time certainly does .  The fact is, on a large map if I can manage to get 3 or 4 of these bad boys up, I usually have them way behind my lines once they start firing you can almost see the clock ticking on the life expectancy of your fleet.  Unless you make a mad dash and take them out, you are going to be without resources and upgrades in very short order.  To me that is what makes a super weapon super.  In sins everything is about your planets, losing a couple of resources is nothing, but losing 1/4th of them in short order when your fleet cap is maxed, makes every ship you lose that much more fatal.  i love this game

I'm going to read about Machiavellian strategies again I really hope these suggestions could be included in a patch. Perhaps we should start a petition? Count = 1 (and counting)

i disagree. you can cajole all you want online. thats understood, you could do this before the diplomacy expansion. why complain because there arent buttons for cajoling a cpu? in order to make cajoling a viable thing for the developers the focus would have to be much more on the reactions of the cpu and much less on real time strategy. its like theyd have to create an entirely new game, the essence of which would not be sins of a solar empire.

just saying

however i do think the ability for envoys to sabotage would be an interesting if self defeating wrinkle. it doesnt really make sense to do that.