{The List} - Diplomacy

[Lorizael]

In Civ terms, the civilizations present in America would be considered Barbarians and huts. I'd like to see some sort of Minor Civilizations concept to model that sort of thing.

[DarkCloud]

No... look at the conquest of America

ah touché.

[Kuciwalker]

thanks

[Paddy]

A lot has been said here already...

I would like to see more option for dealing with the AI civs.

And a new format for displaying the meeting room.
Only seeing 6 civs is useless when more then 7 civs in game.
Option would be to have a box per civ, on which it shows the status they have with other civs in basic symbol form...

There are a lot of very intelligent people around here, I sure that the diplomatic representation table could be made to look very classy, and still be hightly practicle for usage.

must go down the pub and think further on this over some brews...

[DarkCloud]

Well, on the subject of the meeting room- I would like to suggest a non-graphics intensive room that doesn't take the player out of the game... I don't really care about seeing the enemy leaderheads- or if I do, then I would rather seem them in a CTPI-like way... on an info-tab... There is no need for Civ IV to be graphic-intensive... it should be streamlined, smooth and simple.

[Paddy]

Well said

[Fosse]

to Darkcloud.

[Kuciwalker]

[BulMaster]

Damn I had so many ideas and they are all said by other people. Still happy that i'm not the only uhappy person about diplomacy. Certainly one thing has to be fixed and that is the mentioning of your history 1000 years ago when as everybody you betrayed somebody by breaking a right of passage and such. All those ideas are good but we miss something and that is for example the un exist only for 57 or 58 years in two days so the concept of having a UN in civ as in smac is kind hard since the game ends a couple of turns after you build it. Also the concept of trading tech in the early ages is a complete nonsence, when somebody discovered something it usualy was brought to the rest of the known world, it is only in late years that we tend to conceal our research and this mostly for military projects. One last thing that I liked from Europa Universallis is that when you take over a province, in our case a city, you should get to be yours directly I mean you could use it to build units and use it's baracks and such but in order for it to become part of your empire you should negotiate during the peace talks unless ofcourse you conquer the entire thing. I think somebody mentioned boreds trading? I find the border concept rather stupid with this culture idea, I mean culture is good but use it to define borders? When something new was to be claimed people just went with armies and took it, most of the times after receiveing it in a peace netiation. Some other things need to be repaired in the agreements, which is more of a bug than an issue but It's not my fault that when I trade with somebody the country between us goes to war with the one i'm trading with, why should I get the blame for breaking the trade treaty? You know things like that. Well I trew more than mere bones here. Still it will great sadness that I have to tell you that most of those things will never get in game as they require loads of programming and we all know that the gready doesn't like to work much.


Oh before I forget perhaps like in smac talk with the AI what to research? And for Christ sake I know is not here I should say this but add events to this game :@ I'm in the 680AD and entered the industrious age :S can give a screen but not here lol got carried away again damn!

[ThePlagueRat]

I read some of your suggestions, and I have seen them implemented well in other games like EU2 and Victoria, those are good inspiration sources even though they are real-time games, and SMAC also got a decent diplo system. The civ3 diplo system really sucks...

[Spiffor]

UNIT TRADING

[ThePlagueRat]

Yeah, It was mentioned...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Yeah, It was mentioned...

Yes, butI felt I had to insist
And to add an interesting link in the mix

[BulMaster]

Victoria what's that?

[ThePlagueRat]

It's a quite new stategy game... based on Europa Universalis concept. It's very different from civ games, but it got a tremendous diplomatic system!

You can find out more here:
http://www.paradoxplaza.com

[Trifna]

This includes many interwined aspects of Civ, all about exterior policy. It's about diplomacy in war, imposing your conditions to conquered territories (and risking revolts), forcing others to do what you want (economically, politically, perhaps even socially (militarization, constructions...) but I doubt it would get in Civ4).

Three things could change everything if they were included in Civ4:
- Conquered territories conditions (different states of "conquered")
- Peace conditions with others (expanded version)
- Demands, requests and ultimatums


All this isn't in Civ4 or is pretty shallow: in Civ4, exterior policy is limited. These elements can truly bring the "exterior policy" factor, like it is for any country/nation/civilization. It would permit any civilization to bring a different relationship with everyone, sometimes with little difference between "conquered under few conditions" and "in peace, but with many conditions".


All these ideas come from another recent game (give a look, it seems worth it):
http://www.paxromanagame.com/DiplomacyUk.htm


EDIT: Basically, it's all about the different forms of occupation and influence. If a system such as Galactic Civilization's influence would be instaured, it would even have an impact on influence and by this on civs' official international stance. GREAT!

[Fosse]

I would like to create a new state of land owndership, occupation.

If France and England go to war, and England captures Leeds, then Leeds and all territory that the capture turns over to France, is considered English territory, occupied by France. France exploits all resources, but it is still recognized by the world as English.

If France has an MPP with the Celts, and England takes back Leeds, then the MPP isn't activated because the French are the clear aggresors. If England pushes on and attaks the English on some land that was French at the war's opening, the MPP is activated.

At the end of the war occupied territory can be put on the bargaining table. Whoever keeps it at the peace treaty official gains control. So if England is willing to give up Leeds to sign peace, it becomes a real French city.


This will make MPPs stronger and less unpredictable... so you can sign one and not worry about your pact mate waging a purely aggresive war that activates thier "protection." Perhaps England would be able to offer the occupied land to another country, on the condition that the other country can take it from France. So at the end of the war, the Romans might get Leeds if they enter an alliance with England.

[Kuciwalker]

There's an easier way to do that - just make it so that if the majority of a city's citizens are of the same nationality as the conqueror of a city, the MPP isn't activated. Also, make MPP's only activate when a city is conquered (or stuff is pillaged).

[Fosse]

I don't know why that would be easier. Certainly less intuitive, as checking for number of citizens for each city seems a bit silly.

But also... imagine I fight one war against Rome and take Pompeii. Now, Pompeii is surrendered to me at the end of the war, and is by all rights mine.

All of the citizens are Roman, when a few turns later Cesar violates the treaty and out of the blue comes in and takes Pompeii.

Well, since the majority (all) of the citizens in Pompeii are not mine, I guess my MPPs don't activate. If 100 years go by and 51% of the citizens are Roman the situation is even more absurd. Or if the city is traded...


Creating "occupied" territory as a new type also has other advantages besides the MPP thing. Police units could do double duty in such cities (which would be prone to higher unrest anyhow), production could be greatly reduced, or restricted from military units (Step one: Conquer city. Step two: buy guard unit. Step three: Move entire original army on to next city. Step four: Rinse).

Occupied territory is a sensible distinction, has several potential game heightening consequences, and I think would be an overall improvement. The MPP enhancement is not my main goal, just a very nice side effect.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Fosse
I would like to create a new state of land owndership, occupation.

If France and England go to war, and England captures Leeds, then Leeds and all territory that the capture turns over to France, is considered English territory, occupied by France. France exploits all resources, but it is still recognized by the world as English.

If France has an MPP with the Celts, and England takes back Leeds, then the MPP isn't activated because the French are the clear aggresors. If England pushes on and attaks the English on some land that was French at the war's opening, the MPP is activated.

At the end of the war occupied territory can be put on the bargaining table. Whoever keeps it at the peace treaty official gains control. So if England is willing to give up Leeds to sign peace, it becomes a real French city.


This will make MPPs stronger and less unpredictable... so you can sign one and not worry about your pact mate waging a purely aggresive war that activates thier "protection." Perhaps England would be able to offer the occupied land to another country, on the condition that the other country can take it from France. So at the end of the war, the Romans might get Leeds if they enter an alliance with England.

I like this idea, that crap in Civ3 is annoying.

[Trifna]

Why create all a bunch of types of occupation/colonization/half-occupation/etc when we can simply have ONE scale with a few subdivisions representing "part of your territory", "almost under your orders", "protectorate", "strongly knit to you", etc like the Roman (and many before them) were doing?

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Fosse
I would like to create a new state of land owndership, occupation....

Great Idea!
I quoted it in the {The List} Borders thread as the concept of occupied territory implies the existence of disputed borders.

[Trifna]

A relation between two countries can be colder or warmer. This brings a few consequences:
- Better/worst Casus Belli
- Stronger alliances are permitted (or not)
- Customs may be more/less important (so more/less trading, and/or +/- money)


I think that all this could be represented into Civ 4. This would mean that relationships and diplomacy would FINALLY have a serious importance. It would bring Casus Belli (which impacts on your population's moral when you attack or not), different degrees of alliances (like MOO3, but perhaps better...) and the true existence of inter-national commerce.

Also, it would mean that you can make different things having an impact on this relationship such as:
- gift/ask tribute
- send embassy with money
- express public support or opposite
- lower custom/custom exemption
- expel/accept political refugees
- recognize ruler
- etc.

Of course, these exemples do not all suit Civ perfectly, but you get the point (these examples come from a game named Pax Romana: has to do with EU I think).

[Plotinus]

Why are people so keen on unit trading? Would it really make much difference? Why not just give the other civ a pile of cash to build the unit?

I would like it if the adviser on the negotiation screen warned you of an extremely unwise offer ("They'd be insulted by that" or "You're giving away an enormous amound!") - but he wasn't sure in the middling range ("They might go for that. Why not give it a try?"). Then you might have a conversation with the foreign leader rather than with your own adviser.

[Trifna]

Well I know that Galactic Civilizations DOES have unit trading. I don't really know if it brings GalCiv trouble.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Trifna
Why create all a bunch of types of occupation/colonization/half-occupation/etc when we can simply have ONE scale with a few subdivisions representing "part of your territory", "almost under your orders", "protectorate", "strongly knit to you", etc like the Roman (and many before them) were doing?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I think the only difference between my suggestion and what you're saying here is the way we are phrasing things.

I am saying I want a new diplomatic designation for territory, and that it should be Occupied. Occupied territory means that it has been taken in a war that is not yet over.

You are saying that rather than having different types of ownership, we should have different degrees, correct? How is that functionally different than what I've suggested?

What I'm hoping here is that we're actually in a good deal of agreement, and that we can flesh out what the impacts of our ideas might be able to have.

[Trifna]

Does your idea look like http://www.paxromanagame.com/DiplomacyUk.htm with different degree of relationships (peace, friendship, alliance, subject nation, annexed nation, romanised nation...)?

For me, it's about deciding to which extent you wish your conquest to submit to you. Making it a part of your territory is not like a protectorate. There are different levels, from "part of your territory" to "completely free from you".

Of course, if some city is more under your control this means:
- Its citizen will like your control less if they are form another civ (happiness, revolts...)
- You get more control on the city
- You get more production/money on the city
- It gets assimilated faster (or slower if you can't make yourself loved: the conflicts gets worst)
- Others.


Look at Canada under Great Britain, Algeria under France, Philippines under USA, France under nazi Germany, Vietnam under USA, Iraq under USA, some countries under "protectorate", and so on. You'll see that there are strenghts of links between conquerer and conquest. It's simply a matter of being more or less attached to the civ/nation.

[Plotinus]

A small matter. I've noticed that the foreign adviser often says something like "Remember that the X have attacked us before. Don't trust them!" He says this even if the reason that X attacked us was that *I* attacked *them* first, despite a long history of peaceful co-existence and helpfulness on their part. It would be a lot more helpful if the foreign adviser slagged off only those nations that actually deserve it...

[Fosse]

Trifna, I'm not super familiar with Pax Romana, but I'm certain that you and I are thinking along the same terms here.

Even if we'd implement the idea differently, and possibly to different degrees, it's clear that we both want it.

How do the rest of you weigh in on more and varied degrees of territory control?

Would you like to see a scale with more gradations, like Trifna has proposed, or simply an additional land ownership type, "occupatied," as I have?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Fosse
Would you like to see a scale with more gradations, like Trifna has proposed, or simply an additional land ownership type, "occupatied," as I have?

I would rather not have a slider as such. Instead I would like a limited number of specific states that are each differentiable in terms of game play. Such as:
Occupied
Vassal State
Puppet State
Protectorate