Unreasonable AI Diplomacy

[Wylding]

I am sure this has been brought up well before my post, but I am curious as to when an AI diplomacy is coming. A prime example is the war with the AI. I am close to max war score, pressure is very high (sometimes maxed), and the AI offers me a truce. "We feel you have been taught a lesson," and the losing AI offers a truce if I give them 90% (across the board) of my resources. And this is when they are losing!

Furthermore, I am hoping to see a notice about fixing the busted Alliance truce system. A system that leaves the game currently unplayable with AI allies. Seeing as the AI ally will just capitulate to an offered truce and derail your war.

[prokolyo]

Just posted to a similar topic on the G2G forum, and someone commented that the alliance mechanic is not expected to be updated in the near future...

https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forums/66-game-design/threads/30279-alliance-voting?page=1#post-272449

Same thing happened to me. I'm just playing my first game and this was one of the things that was blatantly sticking out. I have 20ish systems, the enemy AI is left with 1-2, loosing badly, and offering truce if I give them all my cash :)) Are you serious ?!? Also, trying to trade for like 20-30 luxres, and they (friends and allies mind you) are asking for 2-3 tier 3 techs... Absolutely stupid.

[HTL9000]

Regarding diplomacy, yes the AI offers are generally pretty unreasonable, although recently I had a coupleof situations where they actually offered me something of value. On the other hand, when I am winning a war and offer a truce because I'm interested in focusing on someone else at that moment, frequently they will just accept. So try a counter-offer (if you are actually interested in a truce at that point) and see what happens.

Regarding the AI truce issue, it is indeed disruptive, but all you have to do is use your influence to immediately re-declare the war. I see my AI allies refuse truce offers all the time, by the way -- I think it has more to do with whether they have enough influence to turn down the offer than it does with them being natural wimps. Admittedly the mechanic looks a bit awkward, in that there is a truce and then you have to re-declare the war, but netting it all out all you are doing is using your influence to force your alliance to keep fighting. I try to always keep a healthy influence reserve during a war for just this purpose. If the devs would simply give you the opportunity to use your influence to continue the war instead of announcing the truce first, it would be a cleaner approach.

This is one reason, by the way, that I generally wait for a siege to reduce the defenders to zero before invading, instead of launching an invasion and fighting it out over multiple turns. With an immediate re-declaration of war the siege continues uninterrupted, while with an invasion your troops pull back, there is no siege damage for that turn, and you have to wait until the next turn to re-invade.

[prokolyo]

Originally posted by HTL9000:

Admittedly the mechanic looks a bit awkward, in that there is a truce and then you have to re-declare the war, but netting it all out all you are doing is using your influence to force your alliance to keep fighting.

This is a very good point. Question: if your ally truces, and you re-declare, or vice versa, does the ally get pissed at you for overriding them?

Originally posted by HTL9000:

With an immediate re-declaration of war the siege continues uninterrupted

And this is very good to know!

Edit: PxxIxxSxxSxxExxD gets censored??

[HTL9000]

Originally posted by prokolyo:

Question: if your ally truces, and you re-declare, or vice versa, does the ally get pissed at you for overriding them?

Not that I have noticed. My relations with allies have never changed immediately after a re-declaration, anyway. The thing that really irks them is when you don't pay attention to their attack/defend flags; if you take care of those they seem to stay reasonably happy with you no matter what else happens. Well, watch out for intermingling systems, too...border friction and "systems covered by influence" can be a big negative if you don't pay attention to that.

[prokolyo]

Another thing I just noticed. There are two alliances in my current game, I am in one. However the AIs in the other really like me I guess and keep saying that we should form an alliance. However they are 3 AIs in that alliance and as far as I know the max factions per alliance is 3 :) So why are they asking me?

[Groo the one]

Originally posted by prokolyo:

Another thing I just noticed. There are two alliances in my current game, I am in one. However the AIs in the other really like me I guess and keep saying that we should form an alliance. However they are 3 AIs in that alliance and as far as I know the max factions per alliance is 3 :) So why are they asking me?

Maximum number of alliance members is:

Total player/2 (round off)

Examples:

3 players/2 = 1,5 = max. 1 player in one alliance = no allinace possible
4 players/2 = 2 = max. 2 players in one alliance
5 players/2 = 2,5 = max. 2 players in one alliance
6 players/2 = 3 = max. 3 players in one alliance
7 players/2 = 3,5 = max. 3 players in one alliance
8 players/2 = 4 = max. 4 players in one alliance

and so on...

[fjordan]

I have noticed these unreasonable proposals too. But only since the latest patch. So it is probably a bug. Looks like something that happened in the old days with integers cycling after the maximum value is reached. But that cannot happen in modern day programming .. right?

[prokolyo]

So the Vodyani comes to my system and starts sucking on my people. I go and destroy their leecher ships. The Vodyani goes, "Please stop attacking us!" WTF ?! :)