i saw Cari's post on the previous forum and neglected to check on whether there was a new dev journal, so beg pardon for jumping in late in the discussion. also beg pardon if something i say has been said (and dismissed) already. finally beg pardon if i offer advice on improving the game for suicidal players not being one myself: the AI, however, isn't from what i understand any smarter on suicidal than on tough - it only gets lots more resources.

i think looking at this in a new way could help. the idea of moving 1 parsec/turn is ludicrous, esepcially with many players (me at least) looking forward to immense galaxy sizes.

the "declare war" option as you describe it, Cari, isn't totally horrible, but it's also far from ideal. it does sacrifice game realism, but truth be told, there are already a number of ways that the game is far from realistic. i do not believe realism should be a deciding factor in game design, but it should always remain a central guiding principle.

i think focusing a bit more on sensors could be an interesting alternative. as it stands, the AI doesn't seem to ever invest much in sensors. now, if i were playing against a human opponent who could use the "sneak attack" tactic, i'd be inclinded build massive networks of starbases and sensor drones. if i noticed more ships than i felt comfortable with approaching my planets, i'd contact said player demanding to know what was going on. if the player was "too busy" to speak with me, i'd assemble as much a battle force as i could muster and bear my teeth, so to speak. i'd have my ships contact their offending ships also demanding explanations.

the idea here is, i don't want a war, and i don't want to get caught with my pants down either. i'd also be investing heavily in espionage in an attempt to learn what i could from the inner rings of government - current plans, stresses that empire was facing, abnormal shifts in behavior. none of these options are simulated in GC. while i realize adding such a level of detail would be a massive undertaking, perhaps there is a better middle ground possible.

for one thing, the AI could focus more on being aware of what's going on in its own backyard. this could be facilitated by making SBs easier to contruct and upgrade - perhaps not by moving completely away from the "constructor gets consumed" model, but maybe by making it possible for a single constructor to add multiple modules (for example by including upgrades in the constructor ship part itself, and/or by being able to deconstruct SBs back into constructors).

i think the second step could be by adding a stronger emphasis to dipolmacy, in the game generally and subsequently in the AI's use of it. back in DL players would frequently call for the ability to send threats to the AIs, such as "move your starbase or die" (the way the AI used to do). what's wrong with having the ability to 'leave messages'? it makes sense that two leaders of interstellar empires wouldn't have time on a weekly basis to sit down and chat, but i'd assume their secretaries would still be willing to take messages (like "we know you're planning to invade us and we've taken steps to thwart you").

it also seems the AI doesn't keep much of a 'track record' for other players' personalities. the diplomatic relations, the system of pluses and minuses that determine how close two players are, is rather simplistic. it determines both what a player is willing to do for/with you, and how likely that player is to declare war on you. in my opinion, the game could be improved by separating these two functions. there could be a "trust/distrust" dimension and a "love/hate" dimension. so a massively powerful drengin empire would likely hate almost all the other players, because they're weak and snivelling and, let's face it, "sub-drengin species." but if the drengin were sufficiently powerful, they'd have no reason to distrust those other players - what're they gonna do? now, if those players formed a network of alliances and might collectively be able to take on the drengin, it'd make much more sense for distrust to shoot up considerably on part of how the dregin feel about those other players. so perhaps instead of love/hate, a better second dimension would be dismiss/fear, though now my idea starts to get a little fuzzy because it's not totally developed or anything (i'm mostly musing here).

this is the kind of stuff i have in mind when i request better diplomacy - not "more treaties" but rather "more realistic communication." thoughts, anyone?

The obvious solution to this is to allow ships without an attack rating to cross without a war declaration. After all, its the possibility of attacking that is the key issue. I would also think blocking off any truly sizable amount of space would be ridiculously expensive in both of time and starports.

This is easier said than done. I'll leave it at that...

Ships without an attack rating

Build Hulls, Build Constructor, get influence, upgrade all ships, sneak attack.

Profit.

did SD hire a new developer? building unique tech trees and adding a 'willingness to trade' tag to techs is easier said than done, i'm fairly sure, but they're still doing it.

i'm not paying for an easy fix; i'm paying for a quality expansion. in the past, SD has always delivered on that. i don't expect a total overhaul, and i made that clear. but it seems they're already doing some major changes so i thought i'd add a bit of intelligent and holistic feedback. shooting down ideas and bickering endlessly is easy; thinking about the system as a whole and player behavior within that system takes a bit more thoughtfulness.

i'll leave it at that.

About sneak attacks and Declaration of War:

I favor a graduated ZOC ruleset. For instance, at the "border" there would be a grey area, where there is a ZOC of none. If there are two ZOC in the area, then the area would have to be at least 2/3 influenced, or be grey. 3/4 for 3 ZOCs, etc.

This would factor into the DOW as allowing a neutral zone or no man's land, depending on the state of war between the ships' owners. Attacks within the grey area would be an act of war, where an attack within the attacker's ZOC could be allowed by treaty. (But this would be a SERIOUS diplomatic issue.) Intrusions into the defender's ZOC would be considered provocation, if the relations are bad enough. Trade routes should allow waypoints (automatically adjusted?) to avoid enemy ZOCs.

Any "sneak" attack (such as attacking when not provoked) would imply a DOW, HOWEVER, this would be a diplomatic hit with ALL AI, unless allied with the attacker or already at war with the attacked. Even evil races, while they might admire your style, would have to become more wary of you. This would be in proportion to your standing WITH THE ATTACKED race.

Oh, and as to ships caught behind the lines in the war, they make best possible speed out of the territory, unless they are armed, then the player/AI has the option to attack with them. There is a one-turn protection for non-combat vessels to clear the area or be destroyed, unless it is a sneak attack, in which case, we all know how you are ...

Warships and starbases are allowed to mutiny, depending on loyalty and how deep into enemy territory they are. Bwa-ha-ha-ha. Better make those commando raids quick and dirty.

Bad bad idea.

1. As someone said, too many fakey limits. Sneak attacks are a valid strategy, they happen. Making them impossible due to a broken game mechanic is not fun.

2. Suspension of disbelief is crucial to games. Most people don't want to be constantly slapped in the face with "this is only a game" reminders. There is absolutely no reason why suddenly wormholes would appear and teleport all your ships hundreds of parsecs, and this ruins any kind of immersion you have going...

I think the UP rule against sneak attack is a nice thing. And occasionally vote for it, but how it SHOULD happen is that all ships would be force to fly in the straightest line OUT of enemy territory without the ability to enter back until all ships of both players are out or 5 turns have passed. Then you are allowed to reenter the enemy territory. Fights in contested/free zones are valid until then... This would be enforced by the UP.

And if there is no up rule in place... sneak attacking someone should simply tag a "sneak attacker" flag on you so that the AI of other species would be highly hostile towards having your ships in their territory.

Casually watching this thread has reinforced my sense that the best "fix" for the idea is to ditch ship movement effects for diplomatic effects. This would avoid the Yor problem, the map scale issues, and the need to add adequate back story to support massive teleportations.

That said, some of the tone I've noticed makes me want to join the cheerleader crowd again to praise the Stardock dev crew for their nigh-radical openness to customer input. I never forget that you folks are working to combine making a successful business with your love of the game. The time you spend here is very valuable, even if some of us usually appear to take it for granted.

You got me. Damn upgradeability. Though this would still make it more expensive than is currently the case.

Let's add another rules change, then..the inability to upgrade a ship without an attack rating?

Actually, your points were obvious and boiled down to 'make the tactical/operational a.i. better!'. Name a game of this type with good tactical a.i., and I'll give it to you, but even civ 4, whose conquering mechanics for the a.i. to hold its own, is not competitive on the attack or defense. It does have additional mechanics to raise the pricetag on conquest though, and that's the direction this game should go in.

Sneak attacks would be a valid strategy if they there were other, equally valid tactics, but there are not, and sneak attacks are not particularly difficult to pull off in the game as is.

And though i somewhat value 'realism', i would trade a pound of it for an ounce of good gameplay.

I should add, though, that I'm not for making any ZOC mechanic mandatory. I would be satisfied for to have it as an optional mechanic.

outside of your controlled space.

It's a different thread, but I disagree with the concept of upgrading ships outside of a shipyard. Repairing them: no problem wherever they are. Upgrading them: not when they're not in a shipyard.