C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[SerBeardian]

Yadda Yadda Yadda, look two up

Hi Ser, first of all: BIG FAN!

Thanks! It means a lot!

Now, it's true that I may be misreading it, so would love a clarification from Steve, but the way I read this bit:

If diplomatic relations are above the hostile level (-100), then even a single point of damage through combat will reduce relations to that point.

This seems to me that ANY point of damage is enough to bring relations from +whatever to -100 instantly. This means that a fully maxed out alliance would instantly turn into total war if a single shot is exchanged between the two of you.
Since -100 is Total War, this means instant hostilities, which means mines trigger on that empire. Mines means uncontrolled damage to any civilian shipping in the area. Which means more negative diplo rep. Now you have to start digging, but the AI is at war. It wants to start attacking you. So you now have to fight off attacks, dealing more damage, causing further diplo losses.

However a period of mutual non-interaction following a small clash will probably return the diplomatic status to neutral.

HOW, exactly, are we supposed to not engage in hostilities if the AI is sending attacks at out colonies? How are we supposed to dig our way out of -200 or -300 diplo points before the AI sends another attack, especially if they're right next door?

That's why I suggested having ship damage not reduce diplo rep if you're already at war - to give you a chance to dig your way out of it, without self-defense heaping more negative rep onto you.

1) even if you drop a colony it will not be enough for the AI to bails out and it will take for you several years before reaching a level where the AI is leaving the place and good luck with your commercial and or logistic effort in getting that colony going with all the AI sparrows around.
2) this is the most likely scenario you are going to face and honestly, I believe is quite accurate. You are pretty much trying to form Israel in Palestine. We all know how this ends.
3) it will not work as per the first mechanic and also for the one discussed at the beginning.

1) Entirely true, but something you have to deal with and hope you have enough positive diplo coming in to counteract the refused demands in the meantime. Also beyond what I'm talking about because the ideal outcome is no war at all.
2) we agree with.
3) This not working is exactly what I'm talking about - You can't shoot any of their ships without triggering total, empire-wide war.

Steve and you mentioned "Small Clash" and "Small Skirmish". There IS no "small" anything when any damage causes war, which causes the AI to send ships at you from everywhere that you then have to blow up. Every dip below -100 that doesn't IMMEDIATELY get back above -100 and out of hostilities will snowball, especially if there's trade and minefields.

I'm willing to give C# a shot as Steve has it and see if I'm misunderstanding the post, or if there are other mechanics that he hasn't mentioned that already deal with this issue, but this is a serious concern for me - that any damage between ships, no matter how small or insignificant in the grand scheme of things, between even the longest and strongest of allies, is going to ultimately descend into total annihilation of one of the two parties, and no way for the player to resolve this.

I mean... it won't stop me from playing it and purging them anyway if I have to, long-time allies or not... but it's still something I'd like to see with a proper solution and I think my local/global + NPR target rep is a good mechanism to fix that problem if Steve doesn't have something better in mind.

[alaysian]

An alternative to this would be a small preliminary diplomatic hit followed by a diplomatic inquiry from that empire into why you shot their ship, with the results of that inquiry potentially bringing more diplomatic loss and/or bringing war.

[Steve Walmsley]

What may happen quite often is that you see a lone alien survey ship and it won't leave. You damage it (perhaps a single missile) and it runs away. Unless the NPR has forces waiting very close by, relations will move above the hostile threshold within a few days or weeks.

If you actually destroy the ship, that would take a lot longer to resolve.

[Barkhorn]

What may happen quite often is that you see a lone alien survey ship and it won't leave. You damage it (perhaps a single missile) and it runs away. Unless the NPR has forces waiting very close by, relations will move above the hostile threshold within a few days or weeks.

If you actually destroy the ship, that would take a lot longer to resolve.

This is assuming the two races haven't been allied a long time with trade intermingling everywhere.  You hit a survey ship once and only do shield damage, and now all the mines and JP pickets on both sides obliterate every merchant ship, and you go from -101 to -10,000.

I think a border skirmish spiraling into total war should be possible, the Seven Years War happened like that after all, but not all border skirmishes should do so.  The US didn't obliterate Israel in retribution for the attack on the USS Liberty.

Ideally, there'd also be some kind of way for the reverse to happen, in which a total war winds down to an uneasy peace.  The player may be able to do that if they're winning, but it seems like the AI will never stop before total annihilation if they're winning.

[Steve Walmsley]

What may happen quite often is that you see a lone alien survey ship and it won't leave. You damage it (perhaps a single missile) and it runs away. Unless the NPR has forces waiting very close by, relations will move above the hostile threshold within a few days or weeks.

If you actually destroy the ship, that would take a lot longer to resolve.

This is assuming the two races haven't been allied a long time with trade intermingling everywhere.  You hit a survey ship once and only do shield damage, and now all the mines and JP pickets on both sides obliterate every merchant ship, and you go from -101 to -10,000.

I think a border skirmish spiraling into total war should be possible, the Seven Years War happened like that after all, but not all border skirmishes should do so.  The US didn't obliterate Israel in retribution for the attack on the USS Liberty.

Ideally, there'd also be some kind of way for the reverse to happen, in which a total war winds down to an uneasy peace.  The player may be able to do that if they're winning, but it seems like the AI will never stop before total annihilation if they're winning.

Yes, I've said I will add a variety of additional diplomacy options post-launch, including peace treaties of some sort. I'm just pointing out what is possible at launch.

I guess what you are asking though is that in some situations (depending on NPR characteristics and current relations), there would be a protest rather than immediate combat

[alex_brunius]

Yes, I've said I will add a variety of additional diplomacy options post-launch, including peace treaties of some sort. I'm just pointing out what is possible at launch.

I guess what you are asking though is that in some situations (depending on NPR characteristics and current relations), there would be a protest rather than immediate combat

I think what people are asking for is a more gradual degradation of relations to be the norm, rather than it being possible to go from close allies to war overnight.


Basically if a point of contention appears between two allied empires relations could degrade over some months or even some years with civilian trade getting cut off at a fairly early point and possibility of border skirmishes only towards the end.


A game that captures this excellent is Rule the Waves where you never know exactly what will bring you over the brink of war but you can see it coming miles away and make preparations. Being able to react to the development isn't just good for a feeling of plausibility, it also opens up strategic choices like the player being able to either move forces into place, dig in and prepare for operations in enemy territory... or redouble diplomatic efforts and compromise to try and avoid conflict.

[Dawa1147]

On the topic of mines, unless I missed it and its being fixed in C# Friendly and Allied NPRs will still trigger the players mines.  This happens with all three sensor types.

[Froggiest1982]

Thanks! It means a lot!

Now, it's true that I may be misreading it, so would love a clarification from Steve, but the way I read this bit:

If diplomatic relations are above the hostile level (-100), then even a single point of damage through combat will reduce relations to that point.

This seems to me that ANY point of damage is enough to bring relations from +whatever to -100 instantly. This means that a fully maxed out alliance would instantly turn into total war if a single shot is exchanged between the two of you.
Since -100 is Total War, this means instant hostilities, which means mines trigger on that empire. Mines means uncontrolled damage to any civilian shipping in the area. Which means more negative diplo rep. Now you have to start digging, but the AI is at war. It wants to start attacking you. So you now have to fight off attacks, dealing more damage, causing further diplo losses.

Hi again Ser.

I understand what you mean and I will tell you the way I see it based on what Steve said.

If diplomatic relations are above the hostile level (-100), then even a single point of damage through combat will reduce relations to that point.

Let's analyze it:
If diplomatic relations are above the hostile level (-100): it means to me you are already passed that point (so let's say -101) due to multiple skirmishes.
And therein, as the Bard would tell us, lies the rub. If you mean above as higher numerical weight (let's say +100) or above as higher numerical figure (-101). I believe it's the latter.

then even a single point of damage through combat will reduce relations to that point: it seems to me that this is kind of restoring the relations to -100 (he is using the words "reducing to"). This should avoid the escalation of the -10000 relations which will trigger if after the hostile status the AI decides to declare war. I believe though at this stage Declaration of War and Peace Treaties are not implemented as per 1.0 and we can expect more done to it after launch and have tested base mechanics.

Now the part Steve should intervene is: Is my assumption correct? Or Ser's assumption is correct? Or is even that passed the -100 point every shot counts as -100 relationship penalty, therefore, escalating the situation into unrecoverable s**t in a second?

I've found this: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8497.msg118384#msg118384 but again it's misleading as it doesn't clarify if it triggers at one hit after the -100 threshold and how that trigger is handled.

EDIT AFTER STEVE'S REPLY: I hear you Ser, I am afraid I am now sharing your concerns. All we can do is to try and see how it goes and wait for the peace mechanics to be in place as well.

[Steve Walmsley]

Yes, I've said I will add a variety of additional diplomacy options post-launch, including peace treaties of some sort. I'm just pointing out what is possible at launch.

I guess what you are asking though is that in some situations (depending on NPR characteristics and current relations), there would be a protest rather than immediate combat

I think what people are asking for is a more gradual degradation of relations to be the norm, rather than it being possible to go from close allies to war overnight.

Basically if a point of contention appears between two allied empires relations could degrade over some months or even some years with civilian trade getting cut off at a fairly early point and possibility of border skirmishes only towards the end.

A game that captures this excellent is Rule the Waves where you never know exactly what will bring you over the brink of war but you can see it coming miles away and make preparations. Being able to react to the development isn't just good for a feeling of plausibility, it also opens up strategic choices like the player being able to either move forces into place, dig in and prepare for operations in enemy territory... or redouble diplomatic efforts and compromise to try and avoid conflict.

The degradation happens due to tensions over territory. I am playing through that exact situation now in the test game. The powers are threatening each over Alpha Centauri and the situation is escalating. It is obvious that war is coming if someone doesn't back down.

However, tensions increasing is different than destroying a ship. Even on Earth, if a one power started sinking ships of a second, friendly power, relationships wouldn't gradually decrease. In the game, an allied NPR isn't going to suddenly open fire on you without warning. Conversely, if you start destroying ships from friendly NPRs then it is reasonable that they retaliate.

[Steve Walmsley]

>> If diplomatic relations are above the hostile level (-100), then even a single point of damage through combat will reduce relations to that point.

This means if relations are +100, they will move to -100.

[space dwarf]

Yes, I've said I will add a variety of additional diplomacy options post-launch, including peace treaties of some sort. I'm just pointing out what is possible at launch.

I guess what you are asking though is that in some situations (depending on NPR characteristics and current relations), there would be a protest rather than immediate combat

I think what people are asking for is a more gradual degradation of relations to be the norm, rather than it being possible to go from close allies to war overnight.

Basically if a point of contention appears between two allied empires relations could degrade over some months or even some years with civilian trade getting cut off at a fairly early point and possibility of border skirmishes only towards the end.

A game that captures this excellent is Rule the Waves where you never know exactly what will bring you over the brink of war but you can see it coming miles away and make preparations. Being able to react to the development isn't just good for a feeling of plausibility, it also opens up strategic choices like the player being able to either move forces into place, dig in and prepare for operations in enemy territory... or redouble diplomatic efforts and compromise to try and avoid conflict.

The degradation happens due to tensions over territory. I am playing through that exact situation now in the test game. The powers are threatening each over Alpha Centauri and the situation is escalating. It is obvious that war is coming if someone doesn't back down.

However, tensions increasing is different than destroying a ship. Even on Earth, if a one power started sinking ships of a second, friendly power, relationships wouldn't gradually decrease. In the game, an allied NPR isn't going to suddenly open fire on you without warning. Conversely, if you start destroying ships from friendly NPRs then it is reasonable that they retaliate.

Yes, but if for some reason the UK torpedoed a US frigate in the English Channel then it could certainly lead to the immediate end of friendship and maybe even further battle/war, but what *wouldn't* happen is that the US navy immediately opens fire on and sinks every british-flagged ship on the eastern seaboard, immediately turning a single outrageous incident into a total war of annihilation.

Maybe there could be a "system-level conflict" where retaliation is immediate for attacks on a ship but conflict outside that immediate battle doesn't automatically start right away - some kind of official declaration of war from them (if sufficiently outraged and you insufficiently apologetic) or you (if you're genuinely turning on them and launching a surprise attack)? Its a very complex subject in either case

[Desdinova]

Yes, I've said I will add a variety of additional diplomacy options post-launch, including peace treaties of some sort. I'm just pointing out what is possible at launch.

I guess what you are asking though is that in some situations (depending on NPR characteristics and current relations), there would be a protest rather than immediate combat

I think what people are asking for is a more gradual degradation of relations to be the norm, rather than it being possible to go from close allies to war overnight.

Basically if a point of contention appears between two allied empires relations could degrade over some months or even some years with civilian trade getting cut off at a fairly early point and possibility of border skirmishes only towards the end.

A game that captures this excellent is Rule the Waves where you never know exactly what will bring you over the brink of war but you can see it coming miles away and make preparations. Being able to react to the development isn't just good for a feeling of plausibility, it also opens up strategic choices like the player being able to either move forces into place, dig in and prepare for operations in enemy territory... or redouble diplomatic efforts and compromise to try and avoid conflict.

The degradation happens due to tensions over territory. I am playing through that exact situation now in the test game. The powers are threatening each over Alpha Centauri and the situation is escalating. It is obvious that war is coming if someone doesn't back down.

However, tensions increasing is different than destroying a ship. Even on Earth, if a one power started sinking ships of a second, friendly power, relationships wouldn't gradually decrease. In the game, an allied NPR isn't going to suddenly open fire on you without warning. Conversely, if you start destroying ships from friendly NPRs then it is reasonable that they retaliate.

I look forward to seeing the escalation. Are you playing the obfuscated release version?

[Steve Walmsley]

Yes, but if for some reason the UK torpedoed a US frigate in the English Channel then it could certainly lead to the immediate end of friendship and maybe even further battle/war, but what *wouldn't* happen is that the US navy immediately opens fire on and sinks every british-flagged ship on the eastern seaboard, immediately turning a single outrageous incident into a total war of annihilation.

Maybe there could be a "system-level conflict" where retaliation is immediate for attacks on a ship but conflict outside that immediate battle doesn't automatically start right away - some kind of official declaration of war from them (if sufficiently outraged and you insufficiently apologetic) or you (if you're genuinely turning on them and launching a surprise attack)? Its a very complex subject in either case

I agree with that in principle. The problem is that in the scenario above, you have two countries with an equal ability to understand this could be an accident or it could be negotiated away. Assume the US is an NPR. Should the British be able to get away with sinking a US ship occasionally without long-term relationship problems? Or should the British be able to sink a US ship and know the US will only retaliate in the same area and can therefore make preparations accordingly - like luring the US fleet into an ambush? Also in this scenario, the US has to follow rules and isn't allowed to do the same to the British without lots of warnings first.

When you are dealing with an AI, you need to make rules that do not allow the player to manipulate those rules in unrealistic ways. Even with the rules on launch, you have the option to lightly damage an NPR ship and, without immediate further contact, relations will return to non-hostile quickly. If you are lined up face to face with an NPR ready for war, then don't shoot at its ships.

Longer term, there may be other options. If the damage isn't too bad and relations are good, then maybe a warning and a relationship hit for the first incident only.  I need to see the diplomacy in action a lot more though before I start adding more options or detail. It is already far more complex than VB6.

[TinkerPox]

There actually is a historical precedent.  .  .   See the USS Liberty Incident https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

[Steve Walmsley]

I look forward to seeing the escalation. Are you playing the obfuscated release version?

No, I'm still making changes in the debug version. One NPR is about to open fire on another, so I am going to play that out as I've been adding some more AI intelligence around targeting populations. Assuming that goes well (as this will be the first NPR on NPR conflict), then I will compile the exe, add the obfuscation and go through the create game process in the installed version (minimal background). If I can play the first year or two of a basic campaign without issues, then I will be happy to release. The main constraint is that I am very busy with my day job at the moment so my time on the game is limited. Fortunately, the four-day weekend is coming up.