[Freeciv-Dev] Re: War/Peace

[Arkadiusz Danilecki <szopen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:52:14PM +0100, Arkadiusz Danilecki wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 02:29:21PM +0100, Arkadiusz Danilecki wrote:
> > [cut]
> > > > 
> > > > 1) score. Additional pts for peace periods? Sometimes we forgot that in
> > > > civ should be three ways of winning: wipe all civilisations, reach alpha
> > > > centauri, _or_ having bigger score at the end of game.
> > > 
> > > Don't do it. Score should be only about *present*state*of*the*world*,
> > > and have nothing to do with civ's history.
> > 
> > What about - current peace period?
> 
> What about ( one or more of, scaled ):
> - pop per military unit
> - minus pop killed in martial actions per pop actually living

        Maybe in future :) but it is good idea. so you could win not only
via ,,build destroyers and kill everything that moves''.

> > > 12)
> > > make ai breaks treaties as often as necesary
> > 
> > > 13)
> > > Do not make `buy city (x2)' option.
> > > If someone wants to buy your city, he can do it by negotiation
> > ? 
> 
> Buy city was option in payciv that you paid twice as much for city, but
>   you didn't break treaty.
> You can negotiate with players about gold/cities/techs/maps exchange.
> This mechanism should be used instead of buy_city, because :
> - ai have to be smart, not fooled by
> - NO ONE will use buy_city against human player, guess why

bue, you right. buy city x2 is sick idea.

> > > 14)
> > > Do not make any reputation mechanism
> > > This fools ai only
> > reputation mechanism could be only for decision if senate would allow
> > war/force peace etc. It has to be reputation of some kind to implement
> > this, or it will do it randomly which i don;t like.
> 
> senate should (choose one) :
> - *never* allow any warfare
> - allow warfare according to *clean*algorithm*with*all*data*in*public*

        That what i am going to do. Clean alorightm based on data which
can be accessed by player - attitude of your nation to enemy, reputation
of enemy and pacifism level - some of them or all (i hope before weekend
we will agree on how this algorithm should look.

first try could be:
if pacifism_level + attitude + reputation > government_level 
        we are allowed to start war

of course it could be different - much simpler or complicated. 

> > > 15)
> > > Make diplomacy optional.
> > > Ai is *always* stupid about diplomacy in every game I know,
> > > because it needs medium and long-term planing, and
> > > it plans only next movement
> > > And diplomacy between players is best solved w/o any
> > > state-of-the-world support.
> > 
> > well, ai should know at least about war/peace state. I saw civilized flag
> > in player_ai, i could use it that if civilised==1 ai won't break peace
> > (very often) and if civilised=0 it will. In republic and democracy it will
> > break peace on the same rules as will do senate.
> 
> ai should always do what is the best for it.
> Remember that player will *always* break peace if he thinks
> that this will give him major advantagement.
        Well, only if he had democracy or republic sometimes only way will
be revolt to another government, or revolt, declare war, go back to
democracy and avoid any diplomats (which can sometimes be difficult).

> The main reason our ai is so good is that it *don't*trust*anyone*.
        And it should be that way :-> I think just civilized ai (btw it is
flag in nation not player_ai) won't declare war easily. 

> 16)
> If we will make peace system too strong, there will be only
> 1 way to win - expand like crazy.
> Now, with killcitizen=0 + a few other options, you can win by
> world-wide-war (www) since the begining.

with strong peace system you could win via:
government different from democracy and republic and winning military
government republic and democracy and winning ecomomically - by building
spaceship or bigger score.

greetings

A.D.Danilecki "szopen"