[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Diplomacy problems and ideas (PR#8394)

["Per Inge Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8394 >

On Thu, 20 May 2004, Jason Short wrote:
> I like it, for the most part.
>
> I do not think a "diplomacy phase" is helpful or necessary.

It is the only way I can see it can be implemented at the present. What is
your alternative?

> This discussion is along the same lines as the alternating-movement
> discussion. Note that with alternating movement there is plenty of time
> for diplomacy in your off-turn (if there are 6 players with 10 seconds
> per player...).

No, as I noted in my follow-up, a general timeout for diplomacy will not
do. There may be any number of players queued up to present their
ultimatums to you, and you must be given a chance to deal with each.

> In single-player mode and off-turn is quite illogical (but then such
> games don't have timeouts).

In single-player, this would be indistinguishable timeline-wise from the
way it is now. The AI already presents its demands and offers in the
beginning of the turn.

> You could have a period when it was nobody's "turn": this might even
> make things more fair since everyone could set up gotos during this
> time.

Well, this is a possibility: If you do not have any diplomacy going on,
you can do non-movement-related activities like handling cities and
setting up gotos while you are in the diplomacy phase.

However, if you are required to 'meet' with another player, for example if
one player is queued up to meet with another person first, then you, then
you should immediately be snatched back to the diplomacy dialog/screen
when he is done with the other person - otherwise diplomacy would take way
too much time. So I am not sure if this is a good idea.

> Will a diplomacy phase solve the problem that some ultimatums must be
> decided immediately? When love-love-hate breaks out, typically the
> love-love player must pick one of his allies to break alliance with.
> But this must be done immediately: certainly before any of the love-hate
> players gets a chance to move their units (this movement gives
> inconsistencies since a tile may be both allied and enemy).

It will not solve this for ordinary alliances, no.

> The idea of an ultimatum is good, but the ultimatums you're talking
> about don't have to be time-based.

What do you mean by 'time-based'?

> My question is, what should the client interface for an ultimatum be?
> Does the user press a different button to start the diplomacy? Or if
> the other player rejects a "reasonable" request (declare war, remove
> troops from borders) does has_reason_to_cancel get set?

I do not understand what you are talking about here. What has
has_reason_to_cancel got to do with the client interface?

  - Per