[0.95][Idea] Spice up diplomacy

In the first case, I kind of like it.  I'd expect differently flavored comments from the other leaders, and that's what you get.  Wouldn't mind totally unique music for each faction, but I know that isn't something Stardock has done, so I don't expect it.  I don't mind the lack of genuine interaction at this point, since I expect there to be choices that are meaningful (to use Brad's phrase) before the game goes retail.

I do agree about the ruffians, though.  This is out of WoM, and I never thought much of it in that game.  It means nothing if the ruffians (or other threats) are of comparable level, and doesn't add any atmosphere (in my opinion).  And when you get this and your team is Medium, Strong or Deadly, it's positively hilarious.

Always having more then one option on diplomatic screens would certainly make them more interesting. Even if the other option is just a insult or closing your borders. I find if there is only one option I just rush through it because it doesn't matter. Besides it would be fun to be able to insult and bait the AI.

Also for the first option: I hope it changes stance from the AI nation, If I tell them to stick to they're own borders they should be prepared for war if they start marching into my borders, would be a meaningful way to tell the AI how YOU are feeling towards them, and also be way more interesting.

I hope it wont be useless conversation, I didn't like CIV 5's useless 3 options to answer people, and the AI didn't care whatever you chose anyways.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

If I recall, dialogue flavor was something that evolved over time with Gal Civ 2. The alien factions became much more entertaining with each expansion.  So you probably have that to look forward to.

I like the conversation options idea in concept, and that potential is certain already in the game, although I'm not sure if some of the examples you mocked up are completely valid.

This is just nitpicking, mind you, but wouldn't the outcome for "Please don't hurt me", and "taste Steel" with the bandit be the same (combat)? I mean, unless we really expect the Elemental bandits to have a sympathetic heart of gold.  Likewise, I'm not certain if I can think of a truly compelling gameplay reason why I'd want a faction I just met to have a more negative opinion of me than they had to.  In the theoretical future when the AI factions become dangerous and war with them is to be avoided until we are absolutely ready for it, I cant think of a reason why I'd want to move that opinion Slider father into the negative than I had to. Now, in Gal Civ 2 there were diplomatic reasons that sometimes made it beneficial  to have a civ declare war on you rather than vice versa, so maybe if diplomatic relations in EFE ever get that developed, that's something to think about.

But like I said, I was just nitpicking your specific examples. The general concept is appealing, but I wouldn't want to see dialogue options for no reason other than fluff. They should all have meaningful gameplay impact, and sometimes the game options are pretty binary by design. (war, or no war, tribute: yes or no).

I agree, the option you choose should have consequences.  The AI should react differently depending on what you say.  I was thinking that for new faction meetings, your response would determine the AI's initial feelings towards you (positive, neutral, hostile, etc).  If your power rating is vastly greater than the AI's and you give a threatening response, perhaps the AI would offer you tribute or a technology or something to stay in your good graces.

You're probably right.  I just wanted to give an idea of what typical responses might be like, I wasn't thinking too much about whether these exact ones would work in practice.  For the bandit, maybe the "Please don't hurt me" response should be changed to "Why steal from me when I'll pay you 1 gildar per season to join me?"  Each conversation choice should have a very clear and separate outcome.  But maybe an element of randomness in the outcomes would be good too.  For example, if you try to hire the bandit, maybe there's a 70% chance he'll just attack you anyway, and a 30% chance he'll think you are offering a good deal and join your cause.

How about this: let's say you're a turtle and have strong defenses at all your cities, but you don't have many troops left over for offense.  So you want to goad the AI into attacking you because you know they would just be wasting their resources hammering away at your cities.  And while their forces are on the offensive, you can sneak a few units into their lightly defended rear and steal a couple cities ripe for the plucking.  Or while you have their forces tied up, you could convince one of your allies to declare war on them and do some damage before they can get their armies back home again.

Or maybe you're just an evil prick (Magnar anyone?) and enjoy pissing off everyone you meet.  More conversation options mean more role-playing possibilities and that helps increase immersion in the game world.

 

Absolutely.  Choosing a particular reply should mean something within the context of that situation.  If I'm in the mood for fluff I'll just go read some random entries in the hiergamethingy. 

I don't think diplomacy just needs spicing up, it needs to be completely re-imagined.  It stinks in it's current form - the UI, the options.  If there's going to be any 'political drama role-playing' in this game then diplomacy is where it's going to happen.  Either make it really, really good, or axe it and make this a war game.

I like this thread.  A Lot.  I agree.

YES, PLEASE.

These are some great ideas, I agree we need more options when talking with the AI, at the moment this is the weakest part of the game. I really hope Stardock add some options here before release!

Awesome

Agreed.  I'd like to see flavorful messaging from the AI developed according to situation and individual AI "personality," so that Kraxis looking favorably on you would offer a different comment than Tarth at a similar moment.  And I'd like to see more diplomatic options that could in turn be used by the AI for roleplaying capabilities.  Kraxis again might try to set up an alliance against an enemy (if the option were available) more than several other players, and a first message simply suggesting the idea might be followed if refused with repeated offers meant to sweeten the deal.  Pariden wouldn't phrase anything the way Magnar would, even if what they said amounted to the same thing, in the end.  This is the kind of stuff I thought Stardock did very well in the GC series, if a bit too humorously, though I can certainly see a few of the AI personalities engaging in third party needling and rumor-mongering when contacting you.

Will this get done?  Even if it's on the agenda, I don't think we'll see it by release time.  Perhaps in the future.  Or if it's possible, it would be fun to add it as a mod.

This is much better than what happens now.