Treaty Editor

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:30 am

Again, guys, don't get into these specifics yet, first we need to settle the basic equations.

EDIT: Keep your points in mind though for when we are done.

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:41 pm

Okay from looking throughout this thread I'm seeing the original issue of mis-communications. Now an idea came up of using the tech tree with this. Using the tech to develop a type of multi-lingual system. Where you manage to make your species research the other species language and eventually adopt it as a secondary, third, etc language.

Now as for the coding, math and such. I'm dead there. Heh

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:45 pm

Interesting idea G-Man, but again, this is the last warning, please keep this thread only for discussing the algorithm for calculating the effect of influence, and then we can open it up to conceptual stuff later. Any more OT posts will be deleted. I will say specifically when we can start going to the conceptual discussion.

Newcomer Posts : 24 Reputation : 3 Join date : 2012-09-23

Nick,

I just noticed where my equation diverged from yours.
I'm considering the influence to be a rating of the relationship between two civilizations. The model you're looking for (from what I can tell) has influence as an individual parameter of each civilization.

I think that in order to get better behavior, we're going to have to find a way to use the best of both, that also address some of the issues of using each individually.

Pros and Cons of each method:

So new variables:
R_ik: quantification of relationship between two civilizations i and k. Initially always should start at 0. Increases with friendly action, decreases with hostile ones.

I_i: A measure of the potential influence of civilization i. This would probably be based on technology or the tech tree progression. (always positive)

D: Numerical representation of the demands of each treaty. Calculated using the method Daniferrito mentioned.

Sigma: Threshold value for AI accepting a treaty.

Expression: (R_ik + (I_ i -I_ k ))-D > sigma.

My Thought process for developing that expression:

On determining how to calculate all the parameters:

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:40 pm

It all sounds good to me. It looks like exactly what I envisioned but with different variables.

So, like you said, we need to assign weights to all the possible offers. Influence is based off of things like the percentage of your population that are Aristocrats, Buildings, Cultural Arts, and Stability (aka distress like you mentioned), Technologies, and the strength of your military and economy.

Relations are altered whenever an event takes place between two nations that would cause a change in relations. Relations also gradually move towards zero as time passes by. Some examples of cases that would decrease relations are:

Moving units into their land without permission
Sending them an insult
Attacking their friend

Relations go up in cases like:

You both accept some beneficial diplomatic terms, such as trade, open borders, map sharing
You ally together
You send them a gift

Relations can also be affected by the traits of your leaders, and the traits of religions in your countries.

All these situations need to be identified and quantified, something I'm working on.

Newcomer Posts : 24 Reputation : 3 Join date : 2012-09-23

NickTheNick wrote:: It all sounds good to me. It looks like exactly what I envisioned but with different variables.

Yay!

NickTheNick wrote:

So, like you said, we need to assign weights to all the possible offers. Influence is based off of things like the percentage of your population that are Aristocrats, Buildings, Cultural Arts, and Stability (aka distress like you mentioned), Technologies, and the strength of your military and economy.

Relations are altered whenever an event takes place between two nations that would cause a change in relations. Relations also gradually move towards zero as time passes by. Some examples of cases that would decrease relations are:

Moving units into their land without permission
Sending them an insult
Attacking their friend

Relations go up in cases like:

You both accept some beneficial diplomatic terms, such as trade, open borders, map sharing
You ally together
You send them a gift

Relations can also be affected by the traits of your leaders, and the traits of religions in your countries.

All these situations need to be identified and quantified, something I'm working on.

Ok from what I can think of, actions that cause changes in relations can be brought about by three main categories

"Verbal" Contact I.E. sending gifts, declaring war, creating an alliance, trading, etc. Basically things that don't need to be "detected" by the computer. (Basically change can be associated at the click of "send insult", or "trade", or <insert action here>
Physical Contact. Invading their space, attacking them, attacking their allies, attacking their enemies.
Intention Response. Responding to their actions in a positive manner. I.E. you might "accidentally" invade their lands, they go hostile, you retreat without harming them. They might "forgive" you're unintentional transgression.

Those are basically listed in easiest to deal with, to difficult, but I don't think any of them should be to bad. What are you thinking of so far for identifying and quantifying interactions?

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:39 pm

The whole list of possible terms in the OP is basically the same as the list of possible diplomatic interactions, with maybe a few cut out for the sake of less strategy-oriented players.

As for the physical contacts, I wouldnt imagine there would be too many of them, and so we should try to list them all here now. I'll do negative effects.

Actions marked with "--" means greater reduction of relations than just "-".
- Moving non-military units into their territory without Open Borders
-- Moving military units into their territory without Military Access
-- Building in their territory without Construction Rights
- Adopting a state religion different then theirs
- Adopting a government different then theirs
-- Killing their units or destroying their buildings
-- Killing units or destroying buildings of their ally

That's all I can think of right now.

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:17 am

NickTheNick wrote:: etc.
Actions marked with "--" means greater reduction of relations than just "-".
- Adopting a state religion different then theirs but if their religion is relativly friendly to other religions?, if you know what I mean,
- Adopting a government different then theirs kinda same as above,
etc.

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:30 am

It doesnt matter. That creation of a common difference is still there. Plus, the pacifism and aggressiveness of religions affect relations separately.

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:41 pm

I have a few suggestions for additional offers/demands that can be added to the treaty editor:

Tolerate religion: asks them to tolerate a religious group
End toleration of religion
Persecute religion: like the above but more extreme
Raise tariff with third party: asks them to erect a tariff barrier with another country
Embargo third party
Structural adjustment: changes domestic economic policies
Limit on [unit name]: places a limit on a type of military unit that a nation can build
Non-aggression treaty
Non-aggression against a third party
Grant independence: releases a country
Guarantee independence
Guarantee independence of third party
Demilitarise region: places a limit/outright bans military units from entering a region, even if the country owns it (possibly include exceptions for uprisings).

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:08 pm

Tolerating/Not tolerating religion feels a bit odd to me? Like having it on a treaty doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because it would be asking a government to change their outlook. Like if you have someone who hates a specific religion with a burning passion, offering them something, no matter how nice it is probably won't actually change their outlook.

Something like ban/unban/convert might work a little better because it sounds more like it deals with laws then the specific views of an individual.

Subject: Re: Treaty Editor Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:28 am

In terms of toleration, I mean tolerate in a legal sense, as in not actively persecute. I was kind of going on Europa Universalis 3 which has a system where different religions are more or less tolerated than others.

I was actually basing that one on historical precedence. During the Wars of Religion between Protestants and Catholics in Europe the principle of legal toleration began to develop as a compromise when rulers lacked the ability to completely eliminate what they considered heresy within their borders. Sometimes peace treaties included demands that the parties tolerate the other religion. An example of this is the Peace of Augsburg, which established the mutual toleration of Catholicism and Lutheranism across the Holy Roman Empire as a whole (although individual states within it could be less tolerant). Something similar would be the Ottoman Capitulations which were agreements that guaranteed legal protections for the subjects of certain European kingdoms within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, including religious freedoms.

» Miscellaneous Bugs And Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread
» The Direction Editor
» Miscellaneous Bugs And Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread
» Editor Advice
» The Nation Editor: What we've got and what we need.