No option for peace? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  No option for peace?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   No option for peace?

anoona posted 03-09-99 06:21 AM ET
Why develop a game of diplomacy with no option for peace ? Shouldn't this game be an experiment in the evolution of humankind on another planet. ? So, why does it perpetuate our war-monging history? Brian Reynolds seems to equate new technological inventions with human progress. Did he know what he was doing when he designed this game. It seems like a complete waste. It offers no real alternatives to experiment with a different form of civility. Or, is that all we want,.. just to get our rocks off shooting down the other faction? How primitive and what a waste. I think Sxean Lee~David's game design is much better.
Comments ?
mic posted 03-09-99 06:49 AM ET
I think there are options for peace. Check your options when you talk with another faction (pledge truce?)
But, as in real life, it isn't simple. You have to make the politically correct moves to obtain it. You can't just walk up to a faction that you nuked yesterday and say, hey, let's be pals.
Also, enemies mostly hate you for your ideals. If you change from Wealth to Simple, you'll see that Yang gets easier on you.
Agreed, it would be nice to have the option 'force truce', but that always has to come from two ways. You can force it, though: just let it RIP
Rigil_Kentaurus posted 03-09-99 11:56 AM ET
But it's impossible to satisfy everyone and it's ridiculous for Morgan to attack me simply because of my green politics. It doesn't make sense (even for humans). A war is a very serious thing and you don't rush into a pointless war because of a small disagreement on such an unimportant thing.
Khan Singh posted 03-09-99 12:46 PM ET
I think the real problem with diplomacy is that the other factions get annoyed with you just because you have a truce with another faction that they are at war with.
This doesn't seem realistic. I can understand that a leader would be offended if you had an actual Pact with their enemy, but would real (ie historical) leaders get angry at other nations that are at peace with their enemies. Not really. We didn't get angry at Switzerland or Sweden for not declaring war on Germany in WW2, did we?
On the contrary, I think a faction wanting you join their war would be more likely to try to woo you than threaten you. The AI does try to bribe you occaisionally, but not enough. Most of the time they don't have anything to offer you, I guess.
This "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" mentality seems to be what really makes the AI unrealistically hostile. But it might be a too easy to get a Transcendence victory if
you could just make friends with everyone.
And why should the AI let you peacefully cruise to victory when it has a perfectly good army capable of stopping you?

Imran Siddiqui posted 03-09-99 02:17 PM ET
"but would real (ie historical) leaders get angry at other nations that are at peace with their enemies."
Actually yes! Before WW1, Germany made a peace agreement with Austria-Hungary, which made Russia so mad, that it joined with Germany's rival, France.
Imran Siddiqui
Khan Singh posted 03-09-99 06:27 PM ET
If I recall correctly the German-Austrian treaty amounted to an alliance and was clearly a combination against Russia. In SMAC terms that would be a pact.
And as a counter example, the Anglo-French Entente, a partial alliance, didn't really harm relations between Germany and Britain.
Of course, diplomatic relations, like any human interactions, are complex. Simple computer algorithms can't really represent them accurately.
Khan Singh posted 03-09-99 06:27 PM ET
If I recall correctly the German-Austrian treaty amounted to an alliance and was clearly a combination against Russia. In SMAC terms that would be a pact.
And as a counter example, the Anglo-French Entente, a partial alliance, didn't really harm relations between Germany and Britain.
Of course, diplomatic relations, like any human interactions, are complex. Simple computer algorithms can't really represent them accurately.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: No option for peace?
anoona	posted 03-09-99 06:21 AM ET Why develop a game of diplomacy with no option for peace ? Shouldn't this game be an experiment in the evolution of humankind on another planet. ? So, why does it perpetuate our war-monging history? Brian Reynolds seems to equate new technological inventions with human progress. Did he know what he was doing when he designed this game. It seems like a complete waste. It offers no real alternatives to experiment with a different form of civility. Or, is that all we want,.. just to get our rocks off shooting down the other faction? How primitive and what a waste. I think Sxean Lee~David's game design is much better. Comments ?
mic	posted 03-09-99 06:49 AM ET I think there are options for peace. Check your options when you talk with another faction (pledge truce?) But, as in real life, it isn't simple. You have to make the politically correct moves to obtain it. You can't just walk up to a faction that you nuked yesterday and say, hey, let's be pals. Also, enemies mostly hate you for your ideals. If you change from Wealth to Simple, you'll see that Yang gets easier on you. Agreed, it would be nice to have the option 'force truce', but that always has to come from two ways. You can force it, though: just let it RIP
Rigil_Kentaurus	posted 03-09-99 11:56 AM ET But it's impossible to satisfy everyone and it's ridiculous for Morgan to attack me simply because of my green politics. It doesn't make sense (even for humans). A war is a very serious thing and you don't rush into a pointless war because of a small disagreement on such an unimportant thing.
Khan Singh	posted 03-09-99 12:46 PM ET I think the real problem with diplomacy is that the other factions get annoyed with you just because you have a truce with another faction that they are at war with. This doesn't seem realistic. I can understand that a leader would be offended if you had an actual Pact with their enemy, but would real (ie historical) leaders get angry at other nations that are at peace with their enemies. Not really. We didn't get angry at Switzerland or Sweden for not declaring war on Germany in WW2, did we? On the contrary, I think a faction wanting you join their war would be more likely to try to woo you than threaten you. The AI does try to bribe you occaisionally, but not enough. Most of the time they don't have anything to offer you, I guess. This "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" mentality seems to be what really makes the AI unrealistically hostile. But it might be a too easy to get a Transcendence victory if you could just make friends with everyone. And why should the AI let you peacefully cruise to victory when it has a perfectly good army capable of stopping you?
Imran Siddiqui	posted 03-09-99 02:17 PM ET "but would real (ie historical) leaders get angry at other nations that are at peace with their enemies." Actually yes! Before WW1, Germany made a peace agreement with Austria-Hungary, which made Russia so mad, that it joined with Germany's rival, France. Imran Siddiqui
Khan Singh	posted 03-09-99 06:27 PM ET If I recall correctly the German-Austrian treaty amounted to an alliance and was clearly a combination against Russia. In SMAC terms that would be a pact. And as a counter example, the Anglo-French Entente, a partial alliance, didn't really harm relations between Germany and Britain. Of course, diplomatic relations, like any human interactions, are complex. Simple computer algorithms can't really represent them accurately.
Khan Singh	posted 03-09-99 06:27 PM ET If I recall correctly the German-Austrian treaty amounted to an alliance and was clearly a combination against Russia. In SMAC terms that would be a pact. And as a counter example, the Anglo-French Entente, a partial alliance, didn't really harm relations between Germany and Britain. Of course, diplomatic relations, like any human interactions, are complex. Simple computer algorithms can't really represent them accurately.