Relations question: Fear Factor and Gratitude represented?

[BMN]

I feel that all too often in strategy games the AI makes stupid moves, (like suicidally challenging the player by themselves because of badboy) which could be prevented if fear were represented.

Meaning, say an empire with huge border frictions, possibly completely surrounded, would not want to make enemies with their neighbor due to fear, unless there already was a powerful coalition that would ensure their safety.

Furthermore, I find acts of generosity or mercy go unnoticed by the AI, such as not taking everything you could have taken in a deal or peace-treaty, or giving things in trades without asking for much in return.

I just want to hear more in-dept about relations between empires and how it and AI behavior is determined.

 

[KonradKurze202]

Furthermore, I find acts of generosity or mercy go unnoticed by the AI, such as not taking everything you could have taken in a deal or peace-treaty, or giving things in trades without asking for much in return.

I think your definition of mercy could use some refinement

 

[Satyratron]

Im curious about this too. Hopefully, there will be a relationship mechanic like trust from EU4. IIRC, you gain trust by being at peace and honoring calls to war etc.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

Well respective fleet strength does seem to be taken into account, so I guess that sort of covers the fear factor. There doesn't seem to be any "generous trades" bonus, which is a pity, but could also be because it would make it too easy to buy super-best-friends status with everyone.

 

[EmperorZelos]

I'd be happy if they just left this modable, like a trigger for when a peacedeal/trade is made, triggered one of course, and then have it so you can check the peacedeal value vs what the computer would be willing to accept.

 

[Andrzej2]

Also I would like AI to form alliances against you not only based on threat from your conquests. If you are peacefull like Ghandi but also have very strong empire that could be threat for neightbours they should make some moves even if you don't have threat/agressive expansion points accumulated.

 

[Slyvena]

Also I would like AI to form alliances against you not only based on threat from your conquests. If you are peacefull like Ghandi but also have very strong empire that could be threat for neightbours they should make some moves even if you don't have threat/agressive expansion points accumulated.

A way that could be integrated is economy is considered in threat generation as much as militancy.



Honestly I think it would be better if 'threat' was treated slightly differently as something more akin to 'polarization'. That is to say, empires would be more likely both to ally with you (jump on the band wagon and hope to rise up on your shoulders) and contest you. Ethos modifiers aside, each empire would choose whether to ally with or against you based on what was best for them. So if you have never broken an alliance and always accept calls to war than other empires would be more likely to want to bunch up with you because you are great for your allies. But if your a backstabing bastard expect everyone to form a coalition against you because they know there is no point trying to buddy up with you.

Some with your economy, if it gets to strong other empires will either try to cut you down to size or try to integrate their economy with yours so they can get stronger with you.


Inevitably when groups of alliances outdid their competition then polarization would represent divisions starting to form in the monopoly.


EDIT: I'm still going to have tons of fun with the game either way

 

[BMN]

Honestly I think it would be better if 'threat' was treated slightly differently as something more akin to 'polarization'. That is to say, empires would be more likely both to ally with you (jump on the band wagon and hope to rise up on your shoulders) and contest you. Ethos modifiers aside, each empire would choose whether to ally with or against you based on what was best for them. So if you have never broken an alliance and always accept calls to war than other empires would be more likely to want to bunch up with you because you are great for your allies. But if your a backstabing bastard expect everyone to form a coalition against you because they know there is no point trying to buddy up with you.

This! This is exactly the kind of thing I mean.

 

[LastLeviathan]

Here are some informational quotes from Wiz that might answer some questions.

The AI will only threaten/insult you if they think they can take you. Or you insult them first.

The AI won't turn on you due to size alone, but rather will react to conquest by forming alliances and federations to counter the expanding empire's power.

I really like The Last Federation. It has its flaws and it certainly isn't a 4x, but it has some really interesting mechanics in the way the game reacts to the player trying to win. I feel strongly that the AI should avoid 'gamey' diplomatic reasoning as much as possible, everyone turning on you because you're winning just shatters your immersion.

In Stellaris there's actually a 'talk back' weight, so if you insult an AI they're more likely to insult you back.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

So if you have never broken an alliance and always accept calls to war than other empires would be more likely to want to bunch up with you because you are great for your allies.

Just one minor nitpick with this, but there is no such thing as accepting or refusing a call to arms in Stellaris, it's not like CK2 was before the changes with alliances in it. When you are in an alliance, every member must sign off their agreement before an offensive war can be declared, this means a satisfactory division of spoils for the participants (although an ally who is nowhere near any enemy worlds will not desire any). Defensive wars automatically include all members of an alliance, with no option to refuse to defend your allies, other than just leaving your fleets at home while they get wrecked.
Just wanted to clarify that because I've seen a fair bit of misunderstanding on this point in the forums, but I completely agree with you on all the rest!