What 4X Games Actually DO Have Acceptable Diplomacy Systems?

[steveg700]

In reading about Humankind, I keep reading how diplomacy in Amplitudes games is lacking. So, this begs the question of where we can find a reliable bellwether.

What game do you think represents the best-in-class (if any), and what pushes it ahead of the pack?

[Marfig]

@cadfan17 I've tried and immediately quit. You probably should to. I recognise a word salad when it is being thrown on my face and have no patience for it.

[hurleybird]

Първоначално публикувано от cadfan17:

“By definition there is no meta-strategic-layer in any single player 4X game.”

This is one of those galaxy brain takes that dissolves when you think about it.

Me- “This game has a meta layer and the AI can’t handle it at all. That’s why the AI seems terrible. It can’t do what a human would do in this context but it’s playing a human’s role and that’s why it fails.”

You- “Technically, if all the AIs cannot engage in the meta layer, then there is no meta layer. So, they’re not failing at it.”

Me, sputtering- “But, like, no. See, the game is structured to create a meta layer, and the AI is taking on the role of a computerized human player, so it should engage in the meta layer but can’t, so we get frustrated when it does things that are stupid in the context of engaging with a meta layer it can’t handle.”

There is no "context of engaging in a meta layer it can't handle." That's a non-sequitur. If you have multiple human players they can exploit the game on a meta-social level to the detriment of AIs. If you only have a single human, there is no meta layer to engage in, and thus there is no context for the AI looking stupid at engaging in something that does not exist.

I think the root issue here is that you are conflating strategic decisions inside the game rules that involve certain interactions between actors as being "meta-social" where this is not the case. Forming an alliance within the game rules is not meta-social. Even asking an AI to declare war on a third party is not meta-social. Nothing inside the game rules is meta-social. "Meta" exists outside of the game rules. The extent to which an AI is poor at making a decision in either listed scenario is based on the relative difficulty of making basic strategic decisions, not on the near-impossibility of performing social interactions.

For example, take a group of AIs in a game with a single human. The game rules expose the ability for players to request each other to go to war with a third party. You might think "Well, as a player I can trick the AI into going to war with another AI that I don't actually intend to fight," and think this is an example of "doing things that are stupid in the context of engaging with a meta layer it can’t handle," but it's not. It's an example of a merely strategic decision where there's no fundamental difficulty for AIs except for the fact that strategic decisions are intrinsically deeper than non-strategic ones. Yes, it's a relatively difficult problem because it's novel, but the gulf between it and tic-tac-toe is immeasurably smaller than the gulf between it and any kind of meta-social layer. As an AI programmer I can attempt to teach the AI in which situations declaring war on a third party might benefit it, rather than being compelled by another player with a high enough relationship value. I can teach the AI to recognise when a requester didn't contribute much against the third party, and see them as less trustworthy in the future, and I can even persist this knowledge between games if I want to. I can teach the AI itself be deceitful and try to trick others into going into a war it doesn't intend to be entangled in. None of these things are fundamentally difficult problems, just practically difficult.

On the other hand, I can't teach the AI to make a convincing argument to everyone else who is playing to the effect that one opponent is deceitful. Nor can the player make such an argument to the AI. Neither can I teach the AI to make a gentleman's agreements outside of the game rules. Nor can the player make such an agreement with the AI. That's the difference between merely strategic decisions, which are hard, and social ones, which are close to impossible.

Първоначално публикувано от cadfan17:

If you think that the position I’ve explained in detail with specific examples is reducible to AI that makes no pretense about being anything other than an automaton, I guess I have no other choice than to curtly instruct you to reread what you plainly have not.

That's the end result. X-COM is a false analogy because it's a tactical combat simulator with a sprinkle of other stuff, and not a strategy game in the sense that a 4X is. Nonetheless, yes, in that example the aliens are constrained to automaton roles. That doesn't change the fact that X-COM is one of my favourite games.

[ashbery76]

Civ6 with the last expansion.You have alliances which add benefits.The gameplay resources mean trade has meaning.There are Emergencies,World Congress and diplomactic favour.,Easliy the best in 4x.

[melkathi]

Alpha Centauri had a good diplomacy because it had specific leaders and therefor could tailor a lot to their character. It also gave a lot of options as to what to request.

Endless Space / ES2 have rather good diplomacy, again due to the variety of options, though it is hampered by those galaxy wide quests were alliances can be split across two factions, blocking the quest from completing.

AoW:Planetfall is not good yet. But it is moving in the right direction.

I LOATH Crusader Kings. My experience with it's diplomacy was that it was utter garbage, with my king sending assassins after me when I sided with him against the usurper. After beating the usurper, instead of being rewarded, the king freed the usurper from the dungeon, gave amnesty to every lord who had rebelled, and alongside them declared war on me. Uninstalled and filed it away as a game I'll roll my eyes when people praise it.

[Anguille]

For me, it's not so much about the amount of options available. I want to feel the presence of the other nations and interact a lot. Diplomacy has to be something i can use on a very regular basis.

[ESonix]

Първоначално публикувано от Anguille:

For me, it's not so much about the amount of options available. I want to feel the presence of the other nations and interact a lot. Diplomacy has to be something i can use on a very regular basis.

Would certainly agree that it's more about quality of interaction rather than quantity. As ashbery76 has noted above, Civ6 diplomacy and inter-faction interactivity has gotten very good post-expansions and patches.

Throughout the game you're dealing with leaders who all have their own particular personalities/behavioral tendencies, and as the game proceeds you have ways to gain deeper insight, visibility and influence with them. These leaders may request you to engage in trades, joint wars, various types of alliances (with benefits), or may express their pleasure/displeasure with your actions, and so on. There are also worldwide crises that arise where you may end up assisting or attacking other factions. Or you, yourself, may become a target of such a crisis, with sufficient provocation (like nuclear attacks, for example).

If you haven't tried Civ6 lately, you may be surprised to see how much it has improved. Is it the absolute best system out there? I don't know, but it's pretty good now.

[Anguille]

Първоначално публикувано от ESonix:

Първоначално публикувано от Anguille:

For me, it's not so much about the amount of options available. I want to feel the presence of the other nations and interact a lot. Diplomacy has to be something i can use on a very regular basis.

Would certainly agree that it's more about quality of interaction rather than quantity. As ashbery76 has noted above, Civ6 diplomacy and inter-faction interactivity has gotten very good post-expansions and patches.

Throughout the game you're dealing with leaders who all have their own particular personalities/behavioral tendencies, and as the game proceeds you have ways to gain deeper insight, visibility and influence with them. These leaders may request you to engage in trades, joint wars, various types of alliances (with benefits), or may express their pleasure/displeasure with your actions, and so on. There are also worldwide crises that arise where you may end up assisting or attacking other factions. Or you, yourself, may become a target of such a crisis, with sufficient provocation (like nuclear attacks, for example).

If you haven't tried Civ6 lately, you may be surprised to see how much it has improved. Is it the absolute best system out there? I don't know, but it's pretty good now.

I still need to buy the last addon but i am waiting until it gets a little cheaper. Thanks for sharing your experience.

My expectations come from the board game Diplomacy which i used to play a long time ago.

[Gregorovitch]

Първоначално публикувано от Anguille:

My expectations come from the board game Diplomacy which i used to play a long time ago.

We used to organise weekend house parties to play that. We found it wise to serve drinks in plastic cups and lock away the kitchen knives. Nevertheless a fully stocked first aid kit was still essential.

[Emperator Orionii]

For all people praising Civ 6 diplomacy, here is the Spiffing Brit destroying it through diplomacy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aPwkXaw5z0

Turns out AI's ability (or lack of) to cope with the game mechanics is important. And there was one video with older game version where you could trade negative amounts.