Diplomacy: Whats the best attempt you have seen?

[Didz]

I think the best attempt I have seen at handling diplomacy was the rather simplistic but enjoyable approach used in Lord of the Realms.

It basically kept a running score on what the other faction leaders thought of you and you were able to directly influence that score by your actions. So, sending a lot if insulting comments to the Countess resulted in her opinion of you dropping rapidly, whilst flattering the bishop and sending him gifts saw your credit in his eyes rise appropriately.

I think the transparency of this system was its greatest asset. You knew more or less exactly what the other faction leaders thought of you and could pretty much predict their reactions and try and influence them.

What was lacking was the multi-faction aspect which would have allowed you to snitch and pass false allegations to faction leaders about other faction leaders. So, you couldn't send the Countess a copy of the letter from the Bishop which called her a 'horse-faced old crow', that would have added another whole aspect to the game.

Something like that would certainly raise the profile and importance of diplomats in MTW2, particularly if spies and assassins were able to intercept these notes and allow them to be re-routed via your own diplomats.

"Excuse me your Holiness but I thought you might be interested in seeing what the King of France has just written about you to the Holy Roman Emperor. Oh! and I think that new hat your wearing really does you justice by the way."

[FunkyDexter]

For me Paradox games have always had the best diplomacy handling. They've changed the model substantially in various games but they always seem to come up with something that a) is transparent and b) has plenty of scope. HOI2 in particular, had an excellent model.

To be honest, for deep grand strategy games they're pretty much the undisputed masters in my book but they definitely fall down on the 'light entertainment' stakes. You can't sit down and 'fire up a quick bash' with a paradox game.

[Odin]

For me Paradox games have always had the best diplomacy handling. They've changed the model substantially in various games but they always seem to come up with something that a) is transparent and b) has plenty of scope. HOI2 in particular, had an excellent model.

To be honest, for deep grand strategy games they're pretty much the undisputed masters in my book but they definitely fall down on the 'light entertainment' stakes. You can't sit down and 'fire up a quick bash' with a paradox game.

Paradox games are great, but sadly as a company they have alienated a lot of gamers by there release and patch strategies of thier games. From what i have read that changed with HOI2, some call it support, some call it necessary fixes of a released beta.

As far as the diplomacy model in HOI2, yes it was pretty good, superior to MTW2 imho as well. However the resources in HOI2 play a big role as you needed them to run your economy, and trades helped diplomatic relations.

Additionally There were several political orientations in HOI2, and MTW2 is religous based (appropriately) so its a tough comparisson.

I have been a vocal critic of Paradox for many moons, but i will never deny the breadth of thier games and the depth. Johan makes a fine game, but the comparative diplomatic models is a hard comparisson based on the time frames of the games.

[FactionHeir]

I think this really should go to an off-topic forum.

[TinCow]

Moved to the Arena.

I'm having trouble thinking of many games with a decent diplomatic side to them. The only one that's coming to mind is Civ IV, which finally has a rational and predictable diplomatic interface that works in all situations. You know exactly what will please and anger people, you can tell specifically how they feel about you at all times, and you can repair relationships that you've damaged.

From reading this thread, it seems like transparency is the thing that people really want in diplomacy. As long as we understand why the AI makes the decisions that it does, people seem to be happy.

[ElectricEel]

Like TinCow, I am having trouble recalling many games that have a strong diplomatic system. In general, those systems in games tend to be rather simplistic. Diplomacy in Civilization IV seems to work pretty well. I'm not really too fond of the diplomacy system used in the games developed by Paradox, but it is amongst the better ones.

I agree that transparency is important. You really need to have the means to see the AI's motives, or it will just seem illogical, which is frustrating.

[Didz]

Yes! I think thats the most important need. It does not have to be 100% accurate but most diplomatic agencies would keep a running assessment of what other governments and rulers thought of your country and how likely they were to be hostile or co-operative.

[econ21]

From reading this thread, it seems like transparency is the thing that people really want in diplomacy. As long as we understand why the AI makes the decisions that it does, people seem to be happy.

Transparency is important, it's true. But the other thing I like is personality. One of the things I've always liked about Civ is that the Mongols behave like Mongols should (or at least how I imagine they should). And Ghandhi behaves like I think Ghandhi should etc. When you first encounter Mongols in a Civ game, you start to sweat; when you first encounter Ghandhi, you relax. Some of the Civ4 personalities are quite maddening, they are so well realised (Catherine, Isabella, Louis...). It's partly a matter of differentiating AI stances and priorities; but also a matter of writing and chrome.

TW has made strides in improving the player generals, but the AI generals and factions still feel bland and generic. People used to say Takeda were more treacherous and Shimazu more trustworthy, but that aspect was not pronounced and has not been developed.

[screwtype]

I think the best attempt I have seen at handling diplomacy was the rather simplistic but enjoyable approach used in Lord of the Realms.

Ha, that's funny, LOTR2 is one of my favourite games of all time, but I never even bothered to look at the diplomacy system in it I guess that says something about the depth of that game.

Possibly the best diplomacy model I have come across is in Imperialism II. In that game, you have access to a chart which gives you not only an exact measure of your standing with every major power in the game, but with all the minor powers including the native American tribes. The chart also shows you the exact relationship every other major or minor power has with each other! This means you can get an exact picture of the world diplomatic situation in a matter of seconds.

You can influence your diplomatic standing in that game by (extensive) trade with other nations, by giving them money, by making alliances and pacts and by declaring war on countries they are at war with.

The diplomatic AI is also quite sensible. If you fall too far behind other powers in army, navy or tech they are likely to declare war on you. On the other hand, if you beat another nation down, the other AI powers will join in, and be just as likely to pinch the spoils from you at the last moment! The AI is never silly enough to declare war on you when it has no hope of victory either, so it behaves very sensibly in that respect too.

One of the features I like best in ImpII is the courting of minors. You basically have to compete to get ahead of the other majors in popularity. Then if another power declares war on that minor, the minor will come to you and ask for help, which means effectively that that minor nation along with its entire army is added straight to your empire. But other majors can do the same thing to you.

One often has a sense of a real intelligence behind the diplomacy in ImpII. That's pretty rare in games, most of them do really stupid stuff when it comes to diplomacy.