DIPLOMACY (ver1.1): Hosted by Jeje2

[Jeje2]

Hello again,

I've read your postings and now I will tell what I think you want in DIPLOMACY of Civ III. If I have misunderstood of forgotten something feel free to correct my mistake.

I have tried to make a systematical way of representing things, but everything is so mixed that it's difficult. So please have patience and if you know a better way tell it to me.

(This is over six pages on my MS word, so hope you have the strength to read it )

1 Levels of meetings
In several postings it has been suggested that we need a three-level meeting system for discussions between players.

1.1 Meeting between A and B
This is the normal meeting were things can bee discussed freely. Here should exist most freedom. Something like SMAC, but more options. (I will come to options later)

1.2 A pact meeting
Something likes NATO and EU meetings. Discussion is still quite free.

1.2.1 Forms of pacts

I like Midlance's idea of three types of pacts, military, economic and research. (Have I forgotten something?)
Can there be combinations of these?

1.2.2 How to form a pact?
This is still a little open. So I give one solution now. Players A and B meet and decide to form a pact. This can then grow later. (Like it?)

1.2.2.1 How can a pact grow?
- C summons the pact and requests membership
- C asks A to join the pact and A summons the pact for approval of C
- The pact decides to ask C to join

1.2.2.2 How can one leave a pact?
Should it just as simple as leaving?
Or should there be somethig?

1.2.2.3 Can a member of a pact be expelled?
This has happened in real life, ex. South Africa was expelled from British Commonwealth. For what reasons can one be expelled from a pact? Can it be temporarily?

1.2.3 Who can form a pact?
Can a pact exist between different political/economic/religious systems?

1.2.3.1 What happens if a player changes his system?
- Automatically rejected
- A voting is conducted
- Nothing happens until someone summons a meeting about it. (I like this one. Less micromanagment)

1.2.4 Can players form pacts from the beginning?

1.2.5 Agendas for a pact
1.2.5.1 Declaring war as a pact
(My suggestion) Many small countries can make a good response to a big aggressive country if working together.

1.2.5.2 Having a common foreign policy
A pact can decide that Ex. They are against pollution/pollutioners.

1.2.5.3 What is there that a pact shall not be able to talk about?
(My opinion) To make these three systems balanced, I think there should be something that can only be discussed in "privacy".
What is your opinion?

1.3 UN-meeting
A summoning of all players to vote for an agenda, like in SMAC. Here only one thing can be suggested and voted for.

1.3.1 Veto

It has been suggested that UN is to be a wonder of the world (WoW), with builder having the veto-right. So no meetings with all players are to exist before UN is built.

(I personally don't like the idea of builder being only with veto. Currently there are five countries with veto right in UN, so why should there be only one in the game? I suggest that builder is a permanent member and then there is an election for another player to have veto for XX turns. Election every XX turn or sooner if player dies. This way we get closer to real life.)

1.3.2 Agendas

At least same as in SMAC, any more?
Suggested so far:
- Peacekeeping forces
- Ultimatums for peace
- Penalizing a player for something he did

1.3.3 Shall the membership cost?
There has been this idea, but I am confused about this. This requires more discussion.


2. War
There has been discussion about what happens if a democratic land attacks another player who is democratic. OK this is good, but what about the rest? We need more discussion here.

2.1 Declaring war
We seem to believe that the regime must influence on a player's ability to declare war.

2.1.1 Demanding for patience
And computer always knows how much money I've got. Gimme a shotgun, I hate it.
More modifiers here are needed.
- If the demander is poor, he should satisfy with less.
- There should be an uncertainty in his knowing about my fundings.
- The ability to demand for multiple things would also be good. (Goes for response too)

2.1.2 Giving an reason for war
One could try to settle the own people and/or other countries by giving a reason for declaring war. (Ex. Religious war, Defending own race)

2.1.3 Earlier happenings
Should this influence the reaction of people?
I say yea. Ex. In late 1939 Russia attacked Finland. War ended next spring in peace, but many Finns were angry. Finland lost a lot of its land. So Finland joined Germany and attacked Russia. Rest is history. But there weren't too much complaints about joining the second war in Finland at that time.

2.2 Wartime
One thing is clear, in war there shall be no co-operation between countries.

2.2.1 Asking for help
It happens to often in Civ II and SMAC that when you join a war, the asking side makes peace and leaves you with an unwanted war.
Some ideas have been suggested:
- When A and B make a peace treaty, it affects you too.
- You can become a supporter of some form. (Money, units etc.)
- If you join A, he agrees to wage war for a certain time.

2.3 Peace negations
Classical A and B make peace.
UN or a third can negotiate

2.3.1 Surrender
- Definite surrendering, ending the game for loosing side
- Making peace by giving one or more cities/tech's or buying peace
- Making peace by giving shield and/or research points

We need more discussion on war, so please help me.


3. Interaction
There shall be several possible interactions between players. They can be working together on military, commercial and/or research. The possibilities depends on the relations between countries. Please read the posting by midlace.

3.1 Military interaction
3.1.1 Lending units

Player A can loan some units to B for some time.
Questions for discussion:
a) If A lends a unit with technology that B doesn't own, what happens?
b) How many units can be loaned and for how long?
c) If B uses units against C, is it considered as a declaration of war between A and C?
d) If B uses units against C, can C declare war on A with no penalties. (Penalties discussed later)

3.1.2 Using others ground
Players A and B can allow units to move in others territory.
Questions for discussion:
a) Will A:s units defend B:s cities automatically when C attacks? If yes, does it lead to war between A and C. Will C suffer from penalties by doing this?

3.1.3 Combining forces
Players can combine forces for a common goal

3.2 Commercial
There are to be several layers of commercial between countries.

- Embargo
No trade between players. (War means always embargo.)

- Protectionism
Limited trade

- Normal trade
Some limits exist

- Free trade
No limits between players

I like this idea. Embargo is embargo, but the rest I wonder?
So how shall this be?
- One needs a certain tech for normal trade and another for free.
- Between different economic systems there can only be some forms

3.3 Research
Same as previous, but I have one more idea.

3.3.1 A common goal
How about the possibility to combine forces for a common goal.
Ex. Player A has nuclear technology. Players B, who can begin the research on nuclear technology, asks C and D, who may or may not have the possibility to research nuclear tech now, to join him. Then B, C and D research is summoned together (maybe a small penalty is subtracted or there is a gain [< 1] for summoned research points) making research much faster and they all get that tech.
Questions for discussion:
- Shall this be possible?
- If player C is missing a tech in between, does he get it for free?
- Do C and D join at once or after they have finished there previous one?


4 Trade
Multiple trades.
I give tech A and 150 gold for tech B, etc.


5. Way of talking
Personnel responses according to nation and used government.


6 Domestic politics
Ok, this is important too.
One should be able to affect own people. (I have to ask for more suggestions here. You can give more money to luxury already, what more?)


7 Reputation
One is to have a reputation with all players. This could be used as the modifier for people's response when declaring war on somebody.

7.1 Atrocities (THX Ecce Homo)
Some kinds of acts should reduce a civ's reputation. As before, we have sneak attacks, diplomatic scandals and diplomatic betrayal (when you declare war against the Greeks because the English tell you to).
In a more complicated game, more acts should be declared Atrocities, for instance usage of ABC weapons, genocide or refusing to aid a minor civ in an emergency.
In the ancient age however, a feared leader was also a respected leader. Throughout history, the world has turned more critical to violent acts. So, concentration camps might not be an atrocity until the Geneva Convention Wonder, for instance.

7.2 Repairing reputation (THX Ecce Homo)
In contrary to Civ 2, reputation should heal through time, though slowly. Certain Wonders would also improve it. (Not the Eiffel Tower - Hitler wasn't more respected after the capture of Paris!)

(My idea) How about improving your reputation, by giving/lending units for UN, to be used in peacekeeping operations.


8 Size does matter don't it?
Well not in earlier games. A one-city nation declares war on you, when I have tens of cities. Argh!


9 Others
- Possibility to use a third party to make connection
- Possibility to buy a single country out. (In SMAC one can only buy all at once.)


If you read this, you made it!
Now it is your time to give me more response.

---------------------------------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2


[This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited May 22, 1999).]

[Ecce Homo]

Jeje2, thank you for summarizing this. I had almost quit participating in this forum because the threads were too long.

7.1 ATROCITIES
Some kinds of acts should reduce a civ's reputation. As before, we have sneak attacks, diplomatic scandals and diplomatic betrayal (when you declare war against the Greeks because the English tell you to).

In a more complicated game, more acts should be declared Atrocities, for instance usage of ABC weapons, genocide or refusing to aid a minor civ in an emergency.

In the ancient age however, a feared leader was also a respected leader. Throughout history, the world has turned more critical to violent acts. So, concentration camps might not be an atrocity until the Geneva Convention Wonder, for instance.

7.2 REPAIRING REPUTATION
In contrary to Civ 2, reputation should heal through time, though slowly. Certain Wonders would also improve it. (Not the Eiffel Tower - Hitler wasn't more respected after the capture of Paris!)

[This message has been edited by Ecce Homo (edited May 22, 1999).]

[yin26]

**Jeje, just to be consistent, can you close your threads at around 50 posts? I know the load time will be a little long by then, but, anyway, that's our system. If you'd like to make it 35 posts, can you please suggest that in the WAR ROOM? Let's see what people think. Maybe it's a good idea since the summaries are becoming longer...Thanks! *Yin*

------------------
CIV3 DEVELOPMENT LIST COORDINATOR

**(un)Officially Making Lists for Firaxis Since SMAC Enhancement 3!**

[NotLikeTea]

I saw mention of a UN "wonder" and a geneva convention "wonder"

Wonder? Why not? But I don't like the idea of a physical structure in a city for either. If the UN HQ were destroyed, would the UN cease to exist? No.. they'd just build a new HQ.

These should be immaterial wonders, that can only be built through diplomatic cooperation. It should have no bearing on resources, gold, etc, only on political goodwill among civs.

[Mo]

UN
What was mentioned befor concerning the UN is that it takes effect once a certain number probably one half of the civs have discovered a certain tech. This would eliminate the material wonder part of it.
The UN should be able to impose military restrictions on a country who started a large war and lost it. The restrictions should be like this, you may have only # of military units and they all must be inside your city radiuses at the end of the turn. This would continue for about 10 years.

Veto
I think this should depend on how many civs there are, because if there are 30 then it would be a lot harder to get a vote to override a veto, but if there are only 7 then it would be easier since there are less countries to bride.

Other
I don't think you would have to buy a country out, but that two smaller countries can merge if they face a common enemy who will kill them both if they don't or if they have had a longstanding pact.

Lending units
Either there should be some penalty for losing a unit which was borrowed, or the borrower would have to state what he wants to use the unit for ex defense attacking player C, or patroling the border. The price would certanly go up if the player wants to use it to attack rather than to defend.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't forget about the Democratic Peace! The closest thing in international relations to a law!

------------------
Imran Siddiqui
Moderator SG Forums - www.sidgames.com/forums/ ,

"Sir, I would rather be right than be President."

-Henry Clay

[Jeje2]

Imran Siddiqui:
Could you please be more specific.
To be honest I'm not quite sure what you mean. I have an idea, but more information wouldn't hurt me.

THX: Jeje2

[NotLikeTea]

I think that democratic peace is the fact that democracies don't go to war. (Also.. no two countries with McDonald's restraunts have ever gone to war)

This is a good idea, but I don't want it strictly enforced. If I want to make my democracy fight another democracy, I should be able to. However, it should be difficult to do. Difficult, but not impossible.

[Mo]

Doesn't Belgrade have a McDonnald's?

[Mo]

Doesn't Belgrade have a McDonnald's

[Harel]

The main problem with peace treaties and the like, is that they don't give any real defence against attacks.
A human player can always suddenly cast war unto you.
So those are the steps i suggests ( I have a very new, and nice idea in the end, check out Unity ):

War: War is a full fledge war. In war, you get a +25% to morale against the enemy, and combat units cost 25% less. However, economy drops by 25%. This effect lasts even after the war ends ( only the minus ). It will drop 5% every turn ( -25% war, -20% end of war, -15%, -10%, -5% )
Strike: A strike is a limited form of war. No minuses or bonuses are included. However, strikes can only go so far. The senate and the public will push against a strike gone to far. You can't kill off someone in strike.
No-aggeresion: No diplomacy, no treaties but no war. The status remains hostile. by entering the enemy terriory you automaticly declare war.
Peace: You may sign treaties. A limited form of connecion. You may not attack the enemy until war delcares, war takes one turn to declare ( so he has one turn to act. You can only attack the enemy units after you are in war, the second turn ). Delcaring war when in peace cause un-rest and small trade sanctions.
Alliance: A full treaty. You may sign even mutal defence treaties. You share all information ( map and army placemtn with the ally, and like wise ). You may not declare war, only revert to peace ( takes one turn ). This also cause un-rest and sanctions ( if without reason. You can revert with spied upon or like wise ).
Unity: The unity is a new mode. You must attack every enemy your union member has, you must sign unity with every other unity member he has. Total sharing, even tech. May only revert to alliance ( one turn ).
Cause MAJOR un-rest and sanctions.
( so if you want to turn from unity to war, it will take 3 FULL TURNS ).
The special thing about unity:
Unity is also "shared victory conditions".
You may attack all enemies toghter, or build a space-ship toghter, and YOU BOTH WIN.
This means, all the unity members ( no more then 25% of all the players ), will win toghter.

[Mo]

You should be able to attack another civ if you are at peace. The result should be sanctions imposed and you reputation takes a steep dive.
Your military should have 3 stages peacetime, less maintaince costs, but also-25% combat modifier. Alert, normal maintaince and normal combat. War, 25% combat modifier and cheaper units, but more maintaince.
This would prevent that a civ far away from you declares war and you have to suffer the economy modifiers even if your not going to attack them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeje, look in Diplomacy 1.1, it was throughly discussed there. Yes, we said that it should be hard for democracies to never go to war. There should be severe penalties if you do it (like mass protests), but the computer should hardly ever do so.

------------------
Imran Siddiqui
Moderator SG Forums - www.sidgames.com/forums/ ,

"Sir, I would rather be right than be President."

-Henry Clay

[CormacMacArt]

So, we have:

cease-fire
Peace Treaty
Alliance

Now, where does, Pact, Unity and UN fit in this? May I propose:

Cease-fire - as in Civ II
Peace Treaty - as in Civ II, except borders (if Civ III has them) are decided in diplomatic screen.
Alliance - as in Civ II
Protectorate - a smaller civ is viewed as part of a larger empire, tech goals remain distinct, but a portion of revenues must be paid to more powerful nation.
Pact - Military - allies, but are viewed as a single military entity by outsiders.
- Economic - trade is increased, and trade is not disrupted during a revolution (a suggestion in Firaxis General forum)
- Research - ?? coordinate goal (research multiple prerequisites) or focus on a single tech?

[Mo]

Pacts can also be with more than 2 civs which would form a nato like alliance.
Unity would be having a military, economic, and research pact with other civs. This would also be the only way to achieve shared victory. Wonder affects should be shared with all allies in a unity. They should be able to make projects like spaceship together.

[Isle]

I mentioned this in the WONDER-thread.

If you have a city improvement like internet-backbone, that scaled according to the number of cities connected(like +10% research per city connected), but by default only was connected to your own cities. There could be a diplomatic option to link two nations nets together, this would be much more concrete than just a research treaty, but do exactly the same(And make research treaties obsolete). The Internet would then just be a number of countries nets interconnected, which coincidently is what it is in the real world.

Simple, fun and yet realistic.

[NotLikeTea]

What about evolving diplomacy?

In early days, civs would be at war, or in a ceasefire. True peace can't really occur till you have diplomacy. Pacts require even more sophistication, at the very least some kind of understanding of foreign languages. NATO/UN like allainces are a recent occurance...

[CormacMacArt]

I like it; it would also be a way to establish the "human" player qualities of whether or not you are MILITARISTIC or RATIONAL.

[NotLikeTea]

How to do this?

Obviously, we can't force the human player into making decisions.

Could we have an expanded reputation, then?

[CormacMacArt]

That's just the point, the AI players assume certain characteristics about the human player that we just read off the diplomacy screen for the AI players, but if my actions could be read and translated into the personality values of -1,-1,0, it would make my relationship with other civilizations a lot different.
-1 rational
-1 perfectionistic
0 research both civilized and militaristic advances

[Ecce Homo]

I think the AI characteristics system could be extended, for instance to these properties:
Liberal/Totalitarian (affecting preferred government)
Treacherous/Faithful
Cooperative/Isolationist

[NotLikeTea]

Just thinking about assigning Human players values based on their decisions.

I sometimes change my style of play. I may start a game as a millitaristic leader, but settle down into a peaceful state if I am having good relations with my neighbors.

On the otherhand, a millitaristic AI leader is always millitaristic.. perhaps this should be allowed to change over time, too? (Retaining an overall leaning, perhaps)

[Cartagia the Great]

Here are my opinions for diplomacy:

Protectorate: A status that could be forced upon another civilization after a war, or through peacful negotations. Under this agreement the other civilization remains independant, but gives the stronger nation aprt of it's gold, and any technologies it discovers hat the other has not. Forthermroe the main nation ould demand vertian forgien policies of the protectorate, such as to declare war, make peace, and many other things. Likewise they must ask permission to go to war and to carry on foreign relations. For the larger nation they would need to go to war to protect the protectorate if it was threatened, or suffer MAJOR diplomatic penalities. A protectorate is NOT a permenant thing, and they could decide to becoem the protectorate of another nation should they not be happy, or they could be bartered off to another nation as part of a peace treaty. Your civilization could become a protectorate for a time as well, and break out of it later.

Pact: More or less what everyone else has been saying. An allaince of 3 or more nations which would act together. If one nation is decalred war one, war would be declared by all other nations. Other things would come up to a vote. Also asking for aid from a pact member would be much better recieved than askign for aid from a non-member. However, you MIGHT be drug into a needless war, or forced to givem oeny to a cause you don't agree in. Still the advantages would be great

Alliance:same as in Civ2, more or less

Peace treat:same as in Civ2. NOt a temporary thing

Partition: this would be a temporary alliance. Two or mroe parties would pick another nation, and decalre war on them. They would then draw out boarders for after the partrition ash taken place. When goals have been completed these boarders come into affect. If you have taken a city to help an ally, but you did not agree to that city, it is given to the nation it belonged to in the agreement. There would, most likely, be a set time to accomplish your goals.

Reinstatment: This happens when a civilization, for one reason or another, recreated an old nation, or created a new one out of cities. For instance, if The Zulus have destroyed the French Civilization, but you, the Celts, have had an allaince with the French, you could declare war on the Zulu, and, when it is over with, create a new French nation. Or, you could create a new nation inside your own boarders if there as been a good deal of rebellion, and clammering there. This would also allow for the creation of buffer states inbetween Empires, which is always a good thing.

land trade: This would be the agreement to sell cities, or territory, to another civilization. If you have four cities on a continent with 2 larger Empires, and are unable to defend them well as you are in a major war with a power on your main continent, you might choose to sell these lands to one of those other nations for a price. Likewise they could sell territories to you for a price.

Colonies: I'm not sure if this would really fit here, but I still believe that you should have the option to build colonies. These colonies would produce more money, but would ahve a greater chance of rebellion. If they rebell there is a chance they will form their own nation and bring other colonies with them. If you conquer another civilization you can opt to make it a colony, and not a full fledged part of the Empire. You could, at a later date, grant these colonies freedom, for a nice reputation boost, or ,for a price, make thme part of the Empire.

Jsut a few ideas, tell me what you think

[DarthVeda]

I have a great idea, a civ can hire you to produce x units. The base cost would be the unit shields converted to gold, plus incentives on top of that. The unit could be something the civ already discovered, or something you have that they don't.

There would be no chance of them discovering the technology for themselves upon receiving the unit. They could disband the unit in a city with a library, university, or laboratory, and a small chance of discovering the unit's technology would occur. This would count as a diplomatic penalty on their part.

[billybobjoe597]

I also think that having subdivisions within your nation is a good idea like haveing colonies and such. I think that land agreements are of course nessasary. These could be part of a peace treaty to end a war or one nation could simply lease land to other nations. I think that the UN also schould olny become avilable after a large world-wide-war much like the UN and NATO came about after WWII and the leauge of nations after WWI. I also feel that like govements schould get some sort of incentive for forming an alliance/ pact.
also special atteck like convert city and francise shcould become more allowable thae closer of allies you are and stoping these attack scuold be more unacceptical singifiying the free flow of ideas and trade.

P.S. for all of you that think decmocarcies don't fight wars here is a partial list of wars founght by just one democracy: War of 1812,civil war, Mexican american war, Spainish american war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitam, Desert strom, the current situation in yougoslavia and numerous peace keeping/ national security actions like bosina, panama, and haiti.
Democracies don't fight wars, huh?

[Ecce Homo]

Billybobjoe: I think most people know about those wars. What they mean is that Democracies don't fight each other.

[CormacMacArt]

NotLikeTea - Maybe your right. I do change the way that I play depending on who my opponents are.


Cartagia the Great - I like your ideas, but why should there be a diplomatic cost if I declare independance? Maybe that cost would depend on how each civ views the civ I just declared independance from?

I also think that the ATTITUDES need adjustment over time. One thousand years ago there was very little diplomatic cost for conquering your neighbor, but today that is looked upon as uncivilized. No pun intended.

[Flavor Dave]

When getting out of an alliance, you should have the choice of paying $$ or taking the rep. hit (1.2.2.2)

[Cartagia the Great]

When I said a diplomatic cost to delcare independance, I believe I was refering to a diplomatic boost for allow a colony to go free. Much like many European nations began to let their colonies go free when they became to costly, and also to gain a better relationship with other neighbors.

[NotLikeTea]

Another tangent here.. Pacts and Liberation.

I can't remember if CivII let you transfer control of cities, but I know that SMAC could.

Consider the following situation. The canadians are in a pact (Allies) with the dutch during WWII. At the end of the war, they march in and liberate holland. Super, right? No.. instead they say "Sorry folks.. you're our newest province now. Do as we say!" Think the dutch would have liked that?

However, in Civ and SMAC, freeing a city/colony of an ally makes it yours, forever, with no repercussions. I think that if you liberate the city of an ally, they should immediately contact you and ask to have it back. Refusing to do so would not be an atrocity, but would do nothing good for relations. If the situation is very grim, they might ask you to look after it for x turns (about 5 at most, I'd think), the ask for it back again.

This could create wars for diplomatic reasons, and not just for conquest. In Civ, even the "good guys" are conquerers, no matter who wins the war.

Maybe even in wartime, with non allies. If the Greeks ask me to fight for them against the Aztecs, we might come to a deal about conquered cities. They may promise to give me 4 techs if I promise to give all captured Aztec cities to the Greeks once I capture them.