Diplomacy

Although PA at its core is a war game where victor is achieved through the elimination of other players, I think that in large games where there are numerous teams and players I think a serious of diplomatic options for speaking with other players could make these large games much more interesting. In both SupCom and TA diplomatic options were minimal, This worked because at most games contained only a few players and at but in PA player counts and the amount of fronts each player will need total with will be much great or. below are some of the diplomatic options I think PA would benefit from.

Cease Fire: both players agree not to attack one another for an unspecified period of time. Can be broken at any time.
Why:It is impotent for players to be able to chose not to kill each other with out all Intel about each other everything

Alliance: Both players can not attack each other and share all Intel and Relationship history, as well as being able to win the game as a team(although there should be a limit to how large alliances can be so that allying with someone could potentially mean breaking an alliance with someone else). Can be broken at any time(think carefully about your next alliance).

Share Resources: bribery should be a viable strategy

Share Intel: Ideally players would be able to share some or all there current intelligence with other players regardless of there current relationship with that player. players would have the choice to share the locations of enemy and/or friendly structures and units.
Why: This would allow players to more easily communicate with each other about other players in the game(I'm not the enemy he is the enemy). would also add an increased level of risk when giving other players Intel because they can give it to whomever they want.

Share Relationships: In long games players will develop a history of players they have allied with and went to war with. This option would share that history with other players.
Why:This would add risk to backstabbing another player make it more difficult to get alliances later.

The goal is here is to make it easier for players to control the myriad of fronts they are dealing with making it easier to negotiate with other players in the game. This way players can be aggressive on the fronts they do want to be aggressive on as opposed to being forced to play overly defensively as you try and manage all of your fronts militarily(turtle and hope no one notices you).

I dont like the idea of you can win the game as a team I really like the idea Allies and temp allies tho

Sound fun, something like Defcon's diplomacy mode could be fun also.

I like this idea! Although, it might be worth setting it up so that you can have fixed alliances at the beginning, and have alliances be fixed throughout the game, for yet another dimension.

This sounds like SoaSE, and I certainly liked that mechanic. On a galaxy wide map, this could prove to be very, very interesting.

I really hope they add something like the Age of Empires 2 system, where you could have 2 allies, yet have those two allies opposed to each other (well, you could do that in the scenario editor). Personally, I think that would be awesome for normal games vs other players (if you are playing with temporary teams).

I'm curious about the cease-fire idea, but I don't really get it. Can you rephrase the why part?

In a cease fire both players agree not to kill at each other(there units will not attack one another) but they are not sharing intelligence

It allows players to communicate to each other that they do not see the other as a threat as well as offer something to prove it without risking a full alliance(without risking the positions of all of there units and defences). Alliance may form more often as longstanding ceasefires will force teams to form and ones it is realized which players are helping each other looking for ones own allies becomes more impotent.

However there is an inherent risk as players can walk there armies right past defences and then terminate the cease fire once they are in the heart of the base. Some games include a set time as well where the cease fire will either automatically terminate if it has evolved into an alliance or if both parties agree to add additional time to the clock by then. note the cease fire could still be broken early it just looks bad to other players who may have previously trusted that player.

I've been advocating something like this too, so this seems like a great idea! After all, we're not dealing with your standard three other players here.

I'd say that the person you are in cease fire with won't get into the middle of your base if you are paying attention. You would just disable it before that happens. In my opinion, it would be more annoying if they send in scouts to look at your base without risk of losing those units. Sure you can disable the cease fire, but if they send a bunch of planes to check out your place, they can probably get in and get out before you have time to disable that.

I don't wanna be able to win the game as a team (maybe if you have a pre made 2v2 game) but If you're ingame ffa with 6-10 people it could be funny to become allies with someone, having a game mecanic that makes so you're not shooting the people from that front and that you can give them material and energy, and then when everybody else is dead you go for each other.

Yes, you should separate Alliance and Team (names can change). The main difference is that Teams can win together, but not Alliances. So in a FFA where Teams are forbidden, you have to attack your old allies to win. Preferably before they attack you.

This could be particularly interesting in a Galactic War FFA.

I always disliked alliances that inevitably lead to backstabs because there can be only one winner. I'd like per-player "do not attack", "shared intel", "shared resources", "shared victory" options.

In game diplomacy leads to some pretty intense games. I used to host Empire Earth 'Indy Diplo No Siege' games, they would last for hours. Super powers would emerge, desperate to take smaller players under their wing to help protect their vast empire to defeat the other super power. You just never knew how the game was going to play out.

I'd love to see this as a feature. As people say, in the older RTS games there could only be one winner, so have an option to send a 'peace deal' with your opponent or ally to either draw of win together.

It would actually be very useful to have an option to attack / not attack each player even without there being an agreement. In a large melee with many armies, it might be to your advantage to have your units focus on those of the strongest player, even if the others are still shooting at you.

As an afterthought, it's fair to say that most players will probably be using VOIP, maybe all that's needed is control of which players your units will fire on, which players will see what you can see, and which players will be able to use your surplus resources. Everything else can probably be worked out on the fly between players. Hopefully that will make for a very simple tool that can produce very complicated situations and increase player interaction.

I like the idea of teams that are set before the game starts. But once the bullets start flying I don't think there should be any diplomacy. PA is about kill bots, kill bots do not play nicely with other kill bots. Leave the diplomacy to Sins of a Solar Empire.

Cease fire = select units -> hold fire

it's that simple

An interesting mechanic I've seen in other games is that anyone you defeat or conquer automatically joins you.

In practice when you kill someone's commander all their units could switch to shared control with you (alla StarCraft 2 shared control). Your commander could either be destroyed, letting you control what remains of your base - or your commander could respawn where he died - meaning you could switch sides during a game multiple times and be really important even if you got eliminated early on.

What would happen if the guy who conquered you gets conquered? I think it'd be interesting if he switches sides but the rest of his vassals do not, until they themselves are conquered. A vassal player who finds themselves without a master anymore could fight for themselves again or usurp the leadership of a group of vassal players.

Essentially big FFA games would turn into team games over time, and the game ends when all players are in the same alliance. The game would always end in victory but you could differentiate being on the winning team from being the leader of the winning team. I think it could be really epic.


As far as OP is concerned, it's all well thought out +1

I think it would be interesting if all the units just continued on with their last orders. Perhaps becoming hostile to everyone?

I think in a game which is aiming at high number of players, having advanced options for temporary alliances, joined win conditions etc would be quite useful.
Also having alliances on inter-team level would be interesting, for example in a game with 5-6 starting teams (which may be in itself fixed from start to end).

Hmmm... Give people an option to talk to each other and they will create informal groups left and right, give them the option to talk to each other in private, they will create nets of alliances and betrayals just waiting to happen.

Play like real men play Risk, and exploit the emotions and greed of your competition until you can obliterate them.

That's my solution. Which... Isn't much a solution of "give people avenues to conduct diplomacy over" and more, let people be the natural diplomats that they are and screw with each other directly.

Major problem: Idiots, assholes, and people who aren't there to have fun.

So yeah, your mileage may vary on how good an idea this is.