A number of 4X and TBS games put a lot of emphasis on Diplomacy. They create systems, UI, etc that dictate what these stances are and how they operate. In my opinion, this does not emphasize player input in a multi-player environment.

My "ever-referenced" game of choice, VGA Planets, had a different approach.

It allowed to transfer content of a ship to another ship and back using friendly codes. The systems that allowed to move goods and ships were so permissive that you could be at war with someone at one position and be friendly at another. This allowed players to deal however they wanted, regardless of stance. This also allowed them to "lie" on a stance and get away with it, which is a big part of real life.

A good diplomacy system will inevitably result in "real life behaviors" sinking in (as was witnessed during the Big Heist in E.V.E.).

I'm currently trying to build a 4X game following the same concepts, and I need help defining / validating my approach.

So far, here is how I envision diplomacy:

"Declared Diplomacy State"

Each empire has an official state declared with each other. These are:

- War (Ships will engage when they come across one another unless specifically declined by ship's orders, static defenses trigger)

- Neutral (Ships won't engage when they come across one another unless specifically engaged by ship's orders, static defenses trigger) *Default stance which prevents other players from entering your territory.

- Non-Aggression (Ships won't engage when they come across one another unless specifically engaged by ship's orders, static defenses do not trigger) *Improved relationship that grants access to your territory (for trades namely, or safe passage of troops through your borders)

- Alliance (No engagement is possible unless overridden. Any such engagement automatically breaks the alliance and requires some form of prompt).

"Individual Actions"

- Ships can transfer cargo from their ship to any other ship at location if they both engage in a "non-belligerent docking" procedure

-- Also applies to bases / planets

-- Troops / Crew transfered in a non-belligerent docking procedure are handed over as crew or prisoner, willingly.

-- If either ship makes a belligerent docking procedure instead, troops will fight one another for control of the ships, cargo may get stolen, etc.

--- This can be particularly dangerous if this results in a base invasion as it could be taken down by ground forces without benefiting from its orbital defenses. Could give players reason enough to bring a ship for these trades instead.

- Ships cannot "ask" for anything. A trade becomes an act of good faith: if you give what you've advertised but the other player does not, you've been cheated! sulk it up and deal with it!

- Removing all crew from a ship (voluntarily) leaves it open for the taking. If a ship at the same location makes a belligerent docking procedure, they will take control of the ship (though perceived as a hostile boarding, can also be used when you want to give a ship to another player). Cargo remains onboard unless removed by original owner.

- Ships, Planets, Bases and Static Defenses' "orders" can choose to engage in combat regardless of declared diplomacy state. This requires player prompt, especially in an alliance state.

With these, I believe I cover a few "default" stances:

- Alliance (military)

- Trading (goods or ships, one-time or ongoing)

- Non-White peace treaties accompanied by tribute (vassalage for ongoing relationships)

- Sufficient support for traitorous factions (negotiate safe passage, and engage ships and planets or perform belligerent docking procedures).

Am I missing anything?

What other diplomatic stances might players seek?

Player vs Player or Player vs AI? Because it changes everything :)

n my opinion, this does not emphasize player input in a multi-player environment.

Multi-player ;)

OK. I assume you mean linke local multiplayer with few players and not MMO and that they are all assumed adults (all are trying to win - no degenerated cases like some losing on purpose to let some other win and the like)? So we are talking here about pure diplomacy without any degenerated behaviours?

Next point then, what is the overall importance of the diplomacy is? Do you want the underdog to win because of diplomacy alone? How about kingmaking effect? I recall reading that among Stars! players some were complaining about the diplomacy "deciding on everything", what's your stance on this?

What are victory conditions (in terms who wins only, no technicalities)? Can one player only win? Is there a second place? Is there a team victory option?

Can players "gift" stuff to others (the most troublesome and potentially degenerated mechanic)? If yes, are there any limits?

Overall, I suggest you step back (you listed a lot of technicalities which are not that important in the end) and look what's the place of diplomacy in your game (tip: more power to diplomacy means less power to strategy - means smooth talk more important than brains :)).

OK. I assume you mean linke local multiplayer with few players and not MMO

Correct. Multiplayer sessions would last a few months, and had about 5-10 players on average.

and that they are all assumed adults (all are trying to win - no degenerated cases like some losing on purpose to let some other win and the like)?

4X games tend to have dedicated crowd if only because of the amount of time spent playing them for any meaningful result, but I see your point. Let's assume we make the game for those that will actually enjoy it. :)

So we are talking here about pure diplomacy without any degenerated behaviours?

That is correct, though it should replicate real world politics if it brings something interesting to the table. Vassalage, for example, would be an interesting outcome once it has been made clear that a player will lose.

Next point then, what is the overall importance of the diplomacy is? Do you want the underdog to win because of diplomacy alone?

No. Diplomacy is but a tool. It can however sway other players into avoiding to invade you when used well, or weaken two enemies against one another. I've already included means of subterfuge to 'make believe' that an attack was performed by another player.

How about kingmaking effect?

The Kingmaker scenario is probably inevitable. Assuming a weaker player survives to the end-game without fully committing to a specific side, they'd get to choose who wins by helping them. I think there's more to it however, as a kingmaker might play his cards well enough that, assuming he's not in a very distant 3rd position, he could play both opponents against one another and receive tribute for 'helping' and end up backstabbing them.

I recall reading that among Stars! players some were complaining about the diplomacy "deciding on everything", what's your stance on this?

I was not aware of that.

My particular fear is when a game reaches a point where there are exactly 3 players. Despite what I've said regarding the kingmaker scenario, I'm not too fond of the '2v1 is the only way to go'.

What are victory conditions (in terms who wins only, no technicalities)? Can one player only win? Is there a second place? Is there a team victory option?

There are many 'places' when a game ends. Typically, each player is ranked by position based on their score. The winner obviously takes 1st position. Any 'allied victory' player gets the 2nd position (I probably won't support alliances of 3+ players).

There's a metagame where players receive rewards based on their score in a given game, which in turn allows them to unlock in-game content. I won't go into the details, but actual score in a game matters a lot, and some players are likely to try fancy stuff to get a single player win at the end just to get the extra points.

Can players "gift" stuff to others (the most troublesome and potentially degenerated mechanic)? If yes, are there any limits?

There's no 'gift interface' per se, but players are allowed to trade according to my specifications listed in the original post. They can give away ships, or goods, or trade them. The system is not restrictive, so that it allows emergent gameplay.

Overall, I suggest you step back (you listed a lot of technicalities which are not that important in the end) and look what's the place of diplomacy in your game (tip: more power to diplomacy means less power to strategy - means smooth talk more important than brains ).

I understand your point, and I tend to agree. However, what I'm truly after is means to implement systems that provide grounds for emergent gameplay by not restricting the player. For example, I don't want to build a 'gift' and / or a 'trade' feature. Rather, I want to make a single means of transporting cargo that allows for both without labeling them. That way, double-crossing can occur, and players need to establish trust between themselves progressively.

The score system sounds OK.

--- This can be particularly dangerous if this results in a base invasion as it could be taken down by ground forces without benefiting from its orbital defenses. Could give players reason enough to bring a ship for these trades instead.

- Ships cannot "ask" for anything. A trade becomes an act of good faith: if you give what you've advertised but the other player does not, you've been cheated! sulk it up and deal with it!

What for? I sense here a lot of useless metagame. Couldn't you make it somehow simplier? Dangers of dropping stuff does not sounds thrilling :)

I mean, don't turn it into VGA planets where you need to know useless and unfun technical things like "units shooting from the right part of the screen have an advantage" or "if you put a code X7D on the ship then..." or totally nerdy features like superspy that messes enemy base/ship codes.

Make the player draw "brain tests" from things like tech tree, fleet composition, planet buildup. Not these strange obscure little rules they need to learn for no reason.

Overall, diplomacy should allow you to set one player as a foe and another as a friend (OK, maybe with more ranges like neutral, ally, slighly hostile but no open war, etc). Do you really need this "transfer cargo" thing? I simply don't see how it adds to the game experience... Also, do you really need trade in the first place in a war game?

What for? I sense here a lot of useless metagame. Couldn't you make it somehow simplier?

Of course, we would disagree on this :P

Dangers of dropping stuff does not sounds thrilling

I think it mimics something from the lore quite well while keeping it very simple. Double-crossing capabilities make everything you do that much more meaningful. The risk of being double-crossed makes you think twice before granting safe passage to an "ally" to help fend off an enemy. What if they've allied and take this opportunity to go deep in your territory instead?

Also, it gives meaning to honor and reputation. The player that never double-crosses' word has value and meaning.

I mean, don't turn it into VGA planets where you need to know useless and unfun technical things like "units shooting from the right part of the screen have an advantage" or "if you put a code X7D on the ship then..." or totally nerdy features like superspy that messes enemy base/ship codes.

I'm pretty much onboard with you on the above. All of these are fairly boring to an outsider, and I believe they aren't a very "clean" approach to solving design problems. The VCR inequity for side is a big issue, the friendly code is a rather botched-up idea and the superspy power was a nice inclusion that leveraged the friendly code, but given that the friendly code isn't a very thought of feature, it's like putting putting icing sugar on a shoe. It still tastes horrible.

Make the player draw "brain tests" from things like tech tree, fleet composition, planet buildup. Not these strange obscure little rules they need to learn for no reason.

Once again, I agree, hence why I need a better system, but the objective remains the same: a simple, yet abstract way to handle very complex situation where a player might leverage diplomatic gesture as a means to double-cross them to gain an immediate advantage.

Overall, diplomacy should allow you to set one player as a foe and another as a friend (OK, maybe with more ranges like neutral, ally, slighly hostile but no open war, etc). Do you really need this "transfer cargo" thing? I simply don't see how it adds to the game experience...

As the game is not a 1v1 strategy game, and rather, it has a much more hollistic approach, diplomacy will undoubtely happen based on players' wishes alone. UX dictates that one shouldn't try to prevent it from happening, but rather, support it. As a dying player will most than probably cling to life by offering a bigger player to be their vassal, the game should provide players with tools to handle these situations at least minimally (not dictate how they work). Transfering cargo, in this case, would allow for vassal tributes for example.

Also, do you really need trade in the first place in a war game?

As the game will be played with more than 5 players, I believe so. Most 4X games have trading setup as well. It is part of living in a complex world with several opponents. There are the ones that are your enemies by choice, and those you'll ultimately need to kill to win, but which you kinda like. Naturally, you will feel inclined to help them when they're in trouble fighting off one of your mortal enemies elsewhere. Yet, sometimes, you might actually feigning to be the good samaritan, and will just come from the rear and claim resources for your own after patting their back sufficiently so there are no defenses to prevent you from going through with your plan.

Would it add anything to be able to warn, turn, or otherwise escort ships away from your territory rather than fighting them? Say that you're not at war with a player but for whatever reason (probably trade related) you don't want his ships in your territory. Turning a ship away asserts your control of your territory without the escalating effects that would come with destroying or capturing the ship.

Of course, we would disagree on this

Oh, it's one of these things :D

Oh well, at least you eradicated the friendly codes (which are "root of half the evil" in VGA Planets :)).

Another note, you can approach diplomacy from the interface side. For example while sending resources is tedious in your scenario, you could make an interface that helps doing the (maybe even automarticly?), so you could keep the traditional features you described and work on an interface which would give it a twist/promote certain behaviours.

Most 4X games have trading setup as well.

Really?? I might be out of the loop but at this moment I can't recall even one... Unless you count the "trade agreement" in the MOO2 style or "exchanging research" or "giving cities", but I would hardly call it a real trade (more like extrotion, at least that how it looked in game I played :D)

Would it add anything to be able to warn, turn, or otherwise escort ships away from your territory rather than fighting them? Say that you're not at war with a player but for whatever reason (probably trade related) you don't want his ships in your territory. Turning a ship away asserts your control of your territory without the escalating effects that would come with destroying or capturing the ship.

Intriguing.

Do you mean, an actual forcefield or tow-lock of some kind? Or a political sanction? I feel that a mere chat system would allow for these types of warnings, would they not? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point here though.

Another note, you can approach diplomacy from the interface side. For example while sending resources is tedious in your scenario, you could make an interface that helps doing the (maybe even automarticly?), so you could keep the traditional features you described and work on an interface which would give it a twist/promote certain behaviours.

I feel that UI support also means controlling how players should behave. My intent is to provide them with tools, but not dictate how the game should be played. If I try too hard to support certain behaviors, I'll make it harder for emergent gameplay to emerge (eh).

Really?? I might be out of the loop but at this moment I can't recall even one... Unless you count the "trade agreement" in the MOO2 style or "exchanging research" or "giving cities", but I would hardly call it a real trade (more like extrotion, at least that how it looked in game I played )

Trading away techs makes sense for most 4X games because they are tech-centric. It's been there in civ as far as I can recall, and most mainstream 4X games. Given my game is more about resources, I'm only translating the concept to what is relevant to my game, but it is definitely already present.