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.

I'm thinking of is where you have two players who are not at war but not really allies and one decides to try and probe a bit into the other player's borders. Or perhaps a player wants to implement some sort of blockade. A chat system alone could work but if you have two players who aren't officially at war and they have a fair number of ships to watch over it might be something worth automating somewhat.

In Alpha Centauri you could send a unit into some other players territory, who then gets the option to ask you for retreat for violating his territory, and then you get the option to accept and get the unit teleported back or have a vendetta started. I think thats a good mechanism to prevent "peaceful" invasions blocking someones territory with the only options of staying eternally annoyed at it or having the role of agressor attached to you, when the other party actually started this and then possibly the senate denying you even that when your state was a republic in Civilization.

I prefer the casus belli approach.

Attacking a ship doesn't necessarily mean war: by default 'neutrals' ARE enemies, just not openly. If you strike down a ship, others might frown upon it, depending on the circumstances, but if you can explain your position (violated my borders, etc.) then it's a non-event.

Conversely, if you want to attack another player without casus belli, it might be very hard to do so without facing off against self-righteous moralistic players. Of course, every game will be different based on how players approach diplomacy as a whole.

If it is gonna be just players vs players, why have any defined diplomatic states at all. Let players make mouth to mouth arrangements through private chat. Also give them a global chat to make announcements.

If two players make an alliance and one side is afraid that the other won't keep to promises, the worried one can ask the other to announce their alliance on global chat. But if it was unannounced alliance that was broken, it is harder to blame the breaker, since that player can say that the accuser is telling lies since there was no proof of it and anything one can copy from chat, can just be faked. And in unannounced alliance it is not to benefictial to announce that secret alliance was broken, since it makes that player look like a sniveling fox, dealing in secrecy. But then again, secret alliance is better, since others have no way of knowing about that secret alliance and this can lead to a just defensive war where you lure a larger opponent to attack you and then you and your secret ally will band up to turn tide of war into a total conquest of the attacker with the casus belli "well, he attacked ME!!". But at the same time your secret ally masses his forces near your rear just out of your radar range and attacks your industrial systems and laments in private chat: "Hahaa, this secret alliance was just a ploy to draw your forces away from your core systems, that are now ripe for taking." But then you ansver: "The joke's on you, I have prepared for this, get ready to meet my fleets as you enter my space. Oh and also, say hi to my other secret ally, who is just entering your systems on the other side of your empire." But then the backstabber ansvers: "Haha, but, no. That ally of yours was actually a secret ally of mine, to whom I told to make a secret alliance with you, and falsely promise that he will attack me, when I attack you." Then you say "Are you sure about that? :trollface:"

Damn, I want to play some Neptune's Pride now.

If it is gonna be just players vs players, why have any defined diplomatic states at all. Let players make mouth to mouth arrangements through private chat. Also give them a global chat to make announcements.

I'd be tempted to agree, but given ships could accidentally be pooled in the same fight they might end up attacking one another. Same goes with passive defensive systems: without proper guidance, they would engage "anything" (not particularly useful if you wanted to pool your forces with an ally).

But I agree, its not as much to disclose this information as to handle in-game behaviors (rules of engagement) that are processed backend-side.

There is the possibility of making the military stances into internal military policies. You could set a military stance for each player and then the ships would act according to their stances. This should, of course be invisible to others. It could be specific to each fleet, but if you want to reduce micro, you could make it into a global policy, affecting all ships at the same time.

There is the possibility of making the military stances into internal military policies. You could set a military stance for each player and then the ships would act according to their stances. This should, of course be invisible to others. It could be specific to each fleet, but if you want to reduce micro, you could make it into a global policy, affecting all ships at the same time.

Now that's an interesting idea... let me mess around with it a bit more!

Thanks!