One-sided ROP - bad idea?

peterfharris · May 20, 2003, 22:26

The suggestion of a one sided ROP has been put forward but I am not comfortable with that idea.

I think the early demands by the AI would include a demand for one sided ROP (given they can only demand something you can give). At this stage one may be too weak to fight, particularly at higher difficulty levels so you may have to either give them license to speed their settlers into your territory or fight before you are capable of fighting. That is not too bad.

Even worse, if you are losing a war and a one sided ROP is required as tribute you could be fairly sure that a ROP rape would come soon. The AI would tend to send units into your territory and is then prone to opportunistic attacks. In other you could not accept such a term effectively meaning a human must never negotiate peace if he is losing.

It would probably turn into an "exploit" for human players too.

One-sided ROP could work if there was judicious and subtle programming but this seems difficult and costly and subject to error.

Fosse · May 21, 2003, 00:34

I don't know if I agree... your points are very valid if they are not addresed if such a feature is added, but it seems to me that the problems could be easily avoided.

As far as the AI demanding things... I don't really see this as a problem... assuming that they would demand such a thing you'll have the same choice you always do whether they want a war or not. If you cave and give it to them... well it isn't that much different from the way it is now, where they are going to walk across your land anyway. If you don't wan them using roads, keep a few units on them to block the path.

ROP at the peace table is almost impossible to get the AI to agree to... they seem to value it too highly when the person they are talking to is a current enemy (as well they should!). I imagine securing passage through thier land would be even less likely.

Though if you did I don't see it as a problem... for one thing, ROP rape would carry the same penalty it currently does, and for another fighting a war to secure passage through another's land seems like a viable option. And kind of a neat one.

If, however, the AI isn't able to handle such things and as a result the "feature" would do more to harm the game than help it, well, you would be correct, Peter, and I would side with you.

peterfharris · May 21, 2003, 01:00

The nub of the matter probably is "can the AI handle it?". I think not if you just "throw in" onesided ROPs. If more programming was done so the AI could handle it then could be a worthwhile addition to the game.

Bear in mind that the AI seems to have no penalties for ROP rape. If it were given a ROP rape penalty that would cripple the AI (unless a huge amount of further programming were done).

All in all, it seems the inclusion of workable onesided ROPs would involve very considerable programming and expense to the games developers without assurance that the result would be satisfying. Perhaps better to forget about it?

dexters · May 21, 2003, 02:21

One sided ROP is redundant IMO.

iF YOU tie it in to your relative power, then it means AI civs will only accept these deals when they are beat. Or conversely, AI civs will only ask these deals when they have your nuts in a vice.

In anycase, I don't feel strongly about this. If they put it in, they better make it work. Otherwise, there are other diplomatic options I'm more interested in outside of this.

statusperfect · May 21, 2003, 04:41

ROP rape rocks

anything that makes the game nastier and more backstabbing is fun

put it in

cheers

TheArsenal · May 21, 2003, 12:43

I don't like it. Even when I am stronger than the AI, I like that mutual ROPs are often a case of 'taking the good with the bad". A decision that may hold consequences. An example being: I need an ROP with a nation between me and one that I am at war with to keep the war off of my land. If I get this ROP I can be certain the buffer nation's settler teams (the same ones I spent the last 6 turns demanding off of my soil) will come pouring across and filling the gaps in my land. Either decision I make may have long term implications.

Fosse · May 21, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

If I get this ROP I can be certain the buffer nation's settler teams (the same ones I spent the last 6 turns demanding off of my soil) will come pouring across and filling the gaps in my land.

How is this different than if you don't get the ROP?

ChrisiusMaximus · May 21, 2003, 13:42

I like the idea and would like to see it implemented but there are many more important diplomacy features that are higher on my wishlist.

As for being worried about ROP rape! well no that does not bother me. I very rarely commit this myself and in my experience the AI usually does. One sided ROP would be a great demand during peace negotiations and would allow a sort of play on peace keeping troops.

Boris Godunov · May 21, 2003, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters
One sided ROP is redundant IMO.

iF YOU tie it in to your relative power, then it means AI civs will only accept these deals when they are beat. Or conversely, AI civs will only ask these deals when they have your nuts in a vice.

In anycase, I don't feel strongly about this. If they put it in, they better make it work. Otherwise, there are other diplomatic options I'm more interested in outside of this.

Tend to agree, but I still like the idea. It's sort of like creating a "vassalage." In that sense, it should only be implemented as part of a peace deal in which one civ clearly beat the snot out of the other. So the AI should only be willing to accept it if they've been totally demolished, and it should only demand it if they've won an overwhelming victory over you.

It would be realistic, however. If I my empire had stomped another one, you can bet I'd demand a one-sided RoP as part of a peace package.