Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Borders

["Claus Leth Gregersen" <leth@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

hm, i think i was too tired when i wrote my previous message.

Well first of all diplomacy has to be finished.
Every race has to have a reputation score, which will decrease everytime
they
declare war, break treaties.
Whenever you want to declare a war or break a treaty
You'll have to first get allowance from your goverment, this is granted
automatically
except when playing republic or democracy (finally some way to degrade both
in power).
The vote of the goverment should be based on your opponents reputation, the
higher the harder.
Under Republic you have a better base chance of  breaking the treaty.
When an AI go to war, the AI should send a request to all it's alliance
members to join it, and maybe try to convince those it's having peace with
to join aswell.

Now for the borders.

In the client We'll need a list of choices for each of the races of what
should happend if this race try to cross your border (and you're not in war
or alliance):

1) Ask trespasser to retreat unit to nearest city, if trespasser refuses
declare war. (you can declare war in this case without any goverment check)
2)  Ask trespasser to retreat unit to nearest city, if trespasser refuses,
he has to declare war. (he has to do a goverment check first, or his
offending unit will be teleported to his nearest city.)
3) allow it without any questions

This upfront answer system is needed, as we can't wait for modal dialogs in
the client.

Goverment votes should last for some rounds in the future, so you can't just
try to cross with one
unit, get a no, then try again and have a chance of getting an ok.

> Jules Bean wrote:
> >
> > Claus Leth Gregersen wrote:
> > >
> > > What i think would be nice to do was:
> > > add 5 diplomatic states:
> > > war, siege fire, neutral,  peace, alliance
> > >
> > > In war and Alliance borders means nothing.
> > >
> > > Hmm, in neutral you'll automatically go to war? (it's your initial
state) if
> > > you cross the border.
> >
> > I think the client should warn you ('are you sure you want to do that?
> > It may be interpreted as aggressive').  But you should still be able to
> > do it, without going to war.  You cannot, however, make a directly
> > offensive move - attack or pillage - without first going to war.
> >
> > Merely crossing the border would make an AI trust you less (but that's a
> > second level effect).
>
>
> I don't think thats a good idea.  You are essentially allowing a
> hostile force to move at least one offensive unit into your
> territory before war is declared.  Imagine moving a tank unit
> across a border, getting close to a city, and starting war on the
> next turn.  This applies to AIs more so than human players.  A
> human could see the threat and immediately declare war to attack
> the above mentioned tank before it gets a chance to use its
> offensive strength.
> The AI especially should consider a state of war the moment a
> unit crosses its border.  This will prevent the AI from being
> taken advantage of.  Only in alliance status, should the AI allow
> humans to move forces over its borders.
> Also, the AI should be taught to garrison its borders, so that a
> move like the one above couldn't happen anyway.
>
If war breaks out, maybe the attacked should be allowed to attack this round
and the attacker can't until next round?
>
> >
> > >
> > > In siege fire, you'll get a huge reputation drop if you cross the
border.
> > > (Reputation should be used by the AI when they decide if they want to
make a
> > > siege fire/peace treaty with you).
> >
> > You mean cease fire, I think.
> >
hehe yes.
> > >
> > > You can't cross it if you're in peace with the nation. But you can
declare
> > > war on the enemy nation
> > > And cross it next round without a slight reputation drop, or this
round with
> > > a major reputation drop.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether reputation is intrinsic to you, or whether it's
> > better implemented just by the AIs each maintaining their personal
> > opinion of you (as the humans will anyway).
>
No for everyone, as  it should be a real pain for Republic and Democratic
human rulers to declare war on a good guy!

>
> For the benefit of the AI, your reputation value should be
> maintained/shared by all AIs, so that they all mistrust you if
> you've 'mistreated' one AI harshly.
>
There should only be 1 reputation score which is used in relations with all
races, otherwise
you'll be able to take out players one by one without taking any reputation
hits against the remaining players.
>
> >
> > Jules
>
> --
> Ed C.
>
>