DIPLOMACY (ver1.1): Hosted by Jeje2

[Mo]

3.1.*
I would like that you can ask another civ with which you are at peace but not allied to allow passage through their territory for a certain number of units. They can ask for payment and require that you keep your units at least 1 or 2 spaces away from their cities.

[Cartagia the Great]

You know, I ahd that idea myself way back when, during one of me, and my cousins, continual "how this would be better" discussion sessions. The idea of paying people to allow them to go through your territory, and paying to go through others. the only problem woudl be that, wether you like it or not, the other nation might associate you with the enemy, after all.

Another idea was that you could sell you military units to another civilization for a certian amount of time to be used as merceneries. When the war is over, or time runs out, those units are rreturned to your control, or how ever many remain of them.

[Eggman]

This may be an AI issue but here goes.

Please do not have the AI come begging for a ceasefire after I capture a city. Unless they are in really bad shape, they would be much better off counterattacking. The way it works in Civ2, I can just slice a part of my enemy away each turn, make a ceasefire and repeat until there is nothing left. Dumb.

[Qinglong]

One thing missing from Civ 2 was the complex diplomacy which follows the resolution of a war. In Civ 2, the only penalty for losing a war was gold or technology, if you had any. Winning a war would be much more satisfying if you could gain territory from it. On a related point, would it be possible to have a surrender following loss of units, like 50% or whatever of the military forces? I'm sure the territory one could be done, since Brian reynolds just posted a message saying that borders would not only be included, but evolve with time.

I hope this is useful

[Zen0n]

Harel: Your idea is godd. However, did USA lost in economics after the WWII? I think the war was big impulse for them...

[NotLikeTea]

I was listening to the local campus radio, and they were discussing war crimes. Got me a thinkin'...

One major point from the Neuremberg trials was that initiating a war of agression is not only a war crime, but the worst possible crime. In Civ, however, it is not only acceptable, but encouraged!

Could this be implemented, as a treaty, perhaps? Suddenly, if passed, starting a war without reasons (I don't know what reasons could be.. diplomatic, certainly) would become an atrocity. Could dramatically change the end game. If you're the warmonger type, you'd want to do all you could to stop this from getting passed.

Speaking of this, what would be a valid diplomatic reason the start a war? Spying, probably. WWI was triggered (not started by.. it would have started eventually regardless, most likely) by an assasination.. could we have random diplomatic events?

What about other rules of war? Could attacking civillans (settlers, engineers, etc) be outlawed? Obviously there should be a treaty to ban the use of Nukes, nerve gas, biological warfare, etc... What else?

[NotLikeTea]

Brings up another point, something from Colonisation (of all places)

If units have special abilities, why not a "Piracy" ability? Flys no flag, can attack in peacetime, as the enemy has no idea who is doing the attacking. Would become more and more easy to discover the identity as tech advances. Could also be used as a starter for wars, or a way of getting around the restriction.

[Ecce Homo]

NotLikeTea, thanks for bringing up Pirates. I don't know whether this is the right thread, but:

As barbarian gangs wander around the map, you could send them an emissary and give them an agreement charter - they may move in your territory and attack and plunder your enemies.

[Ecce Homo]

NotLikeTea, thanks for bringing up Pirates. I don't know whether this is the right thread, but:

As barbarian gangs wander around the map, you could send them an emissary and give them an agreement charter - they may move in your territory and attack and plunder your enemies.

[Ecce Homo]

NotLikeTea, thanks for bringing up Pirates. I don't know whether this is the right thread, but:

As barbarian gangs wander around the map, you could send them an emissary and give them an agreement charter - they may move in your territory and attack and plunder your enemies.

[Galen]

My biggest problem with Civ2 and SMAC was the AI being able to get away with attacking me or canceling a peace treaty over me being in their territory, but I can't. I also don't think the AI should be able to attack without consequence.
I also didn't like a few other things:
I don't think anyone should be able to declare War/Vendetta through a sneak attack, they have to try to contact you.
Sneak attacks should just declare a conflict, not a war.
Destruction of units in your territory should be okay.

[Cartagia the Great]

Well, I believe that sneak attacks should be allowed early in the game. Back during the time of the Roman EM
mpire, sneak attacks were looked down upon, could lower your reputation, but were seen as a good stratigic option as well. LAter in the game over, the Genevea Convention outlawed sneak attacks along with war against civilians and secret alliances. This brings in a few ideas:

First of all, perhapse there should be a Genevea Convention type situation in the game where laws are passed to regualte war fare. Until then certain things would be allowed, but afterwards, doing them would be a MAJOR case of dipolmatic lese majesty.

Also when you sign an allaince you should have the option, for a certian amount of money, to keep the alliance secret. this price would be justified by the amount of resources you have to divert to keep this alliance secret from all. the bennifits would be that diplomacy would be carried on as if no one knew of it, and the alliance did not exist. This might allow you to goad people into wars, and have yo ally crush them, or other sneaky manuvers. However an enemy spy could disocver this allaince and make it public knoledge. In doing so it would waste the moeny you spent , as well as give you a diplomatic penalty with the other nations.

Likewise attacking refugees(units that would pop up along with partisans) would be accepted early in the game, as well as settlers, but would be make illegal later in the game, for a major diplomatic penalty. If my other idea of having ethniticity play a part in the game, any hampering with hem, alter in the game, would be a dipomatic no-no as well

i also like the idea of pirating. In Civ:CTP pirating is allowed, but actually gaisn you nothing in return ,except cutting supplies for other nations. I must prefer the way that Colonization dealt with the situation, and you gaiend money from the venture, as well as hurt your enemy. I believe that a similiar thing must be used in this game. Piraty would, eventually, be outlawed later in the game, but would be a pwoerful force for a long time. After all, who doens't want to paly the pirating civilziation

[Eggman]

Fot those modern warmongers out there, you should be able to try to *manufacture* a reason to go to war to avoid an atrocity penalty. Have a spy go over there and attempt to create an incident which would be a politically valid reason to go to war. However, the whole scam could be revealed (which would be WORSE than just attacking).

[Mo]

I think that when one of your pirate ships is destroyed there should be a random chance that the other civ discovers that the ship belongs to you.

[Jimmy]

One thing that I want to see is less outrageous demands like "Give me this tech or X gold or else" from the AI. Democracies should never make those kinds of demands. You don't see Tony Blair demanding stealth technology from Clinton. And if he did and the US refused, he would not break the alliance. I can't stand the AI making demands everytime and breaking treaties or declaring war if you refuse. The AI should also not declare war on you even when you are an ally just because you refused the demand.

On another issue: I think attacking a unit should not automatically be a declaration of war but you should have to formally declare war before you attack a city. This is the way Botf works and represents border skirmishes very well. Also, it adds more strategy for the player: if the AI sends one unit into you territory and attacks a colony pod, do you escalate the crisis and declare war or do you let it go because you don't want a war?

[NotLikeTea]

True... wars are never so simple anymore. The NATO strikes on Yugoslavia have never been called a war, and likely never will be. Meanwhile, North and South Korea are still oficially at war, though nothing much comes of it these days.

[yin26]

NotLikeTea,

Since I'm in South Korea, and love the topic, I'll just interject:

A few years ago, a North Korean commando team infiltrated the South on their way to the Blue House (the South's White House). Before they were all eventually killed, the North Korean commandos managed to kill 33 South Koreans. North Korea also blew up a South Korean airliner in 1987/88 (?) killing some 130 innocent people, mainly men returning home to their families from doing construction work in the Middle East. On another occasion, the North ignited a bomb that killed most of South Korea's key government officials in the early 70's (o.k, not recent, but still). They did this in an attempt to kill President Park, but he arrived late. And as of like three months ago, the North drove one of their spy submarines right along the South's coast until they were hunted down--at which point they killed themselves inside the boat, only to see the North Korean government call it an evil trick to make them look bad.

Probably the closest all this came to another war was in the early 80's (sorry if my dates are a bit off) when North Korea soldiers along the DMZ killed two U.S. soldiers because they were ordering the trimming of a tree! They killed them with axes. Thus, Operations Paul Bunyan began, which saw aircraft carriers, Stealth Bombers flying overhead, the entire armed forces in Korea put on War alert, and so forth. The U.S. was ABSOLUTELY prepared to go to war that day if the North attacked even one of their team. Thank God nothing happened.

Behind all this, of course, is the constant worry that North Korea is building nuclear weapons--which in 1993 one of their lead 'diplomats' said could fill Seoul with a 'sea of fire.' I could go on and on. Infiltration tunnels, all the propaganda (on both sides), the famines and lack of Commnist funding that is pushing the North into a corner, etc.

Clinton once called North/South Korea, in particular the DMZ, 'the scariest place on the Earth.' While not true (I've visited the DMZ twice, and it's eerily peaceful, full of rare species of fish and birds and over 1,000,000 landmines), it most certainly would be true if one of these infinite 'little' incidents finally activiates the tripwire of war.

So, MUCH has happened, but thanks to good diplomacy , WW3 has thus far been avoided.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited June 10, 1999).]</font>

[Flavor Dave]

"One thing that I want to see is less outrageous demands like "Give me this tech or X gold or else" from the AI. Democracies should never make those kinds of demands. You don't see Tony Blair demanding stealth technology from Clinton. "

If you want realism, you should play two turns and then die of old age. This feature is in the game to prevent it from being too easy. There is a guy who has, with only one city, landed on AC in the 19th century.

If this feature bothers you, you need to become a better player.

[Jimmy]

The feature bothers me because it is poor diplomacy and I want to see a better diplomatic model for Civ 3. It has nothing to do with being a good player or not. For your information, I am an experienced SMAC player long past the newbie stage. I just want a complex diplomacy model where civ behave according to national interests, agendas, not a simplified system where they make demands all the time and automatically declare war if the answer is no and leave you alone if you say yes.

[NotLikeTea]

I think that is a wonderful point, Yin. My prof recently went to South Korea, and says that thee DMZ is almost a tourist attraction now. Plus a brochure advertises that people visit the "Anti-communism Hall".

No matter how diplomacy is incorporated into CivIII, cold wars are a must. Real propaganda wars, spying, and so forth.. major part of modern history, less so in the past. Wars without outright fighting, often more important than the bloody ones.

[Cartagia the Great]

Along this same topic, I believe that Russia has jsut put up for vote a treat which will offically end World War 2, by declaring peace with Japan.

I also agree with NotLikeTea about the demanding. Demaning tribute I can see, but should only be used in the ealier stages of the game. Doing it in the later stagues should set off a diplomatic incident. Although the Byzantines would think nothing of demanding tribute from the Arabs, the Greeks would have a serious problem tryign to exact tribute from Macedonia, becase of international opinion.

I ,personally, am for the idea of diplomacy getting more and more complexe as the game goes on, just like in real life. Of course I'm the one who LOVES Diplomacy in the game, far better than war I'm the kind who'd prefer to put myself into a diplomacticly secure position ,and dicker with people rather than crush their cities until I KNOW it would be a fast win. I know, I'm strange

Another idea which I agree in is that, just because you attack a military unit, or even seize a city, doesn't mean you offically declare war. Sometimes, allowing the enemy to take a small city is better than declaring all out war......sometimes

[Cartagia the Great]

Along this same topic, I believe that Russia has jsut put up for vote a treat which will offically end World War 2, by declaring peace with Japan.

I also agree with NotLikeTea about the demanding. Demaning tribute I can see, but should only be used in the ealier stages of the game. Doing it in the later stagues should set off a diplomatic incident. Although the Byzantines would think nothing of demanding tribute from the Arabs, the Greeks would have a serious problem tryign to exact tribute from Macedonia, becase of international opinion.

I ,personally, am for the idea of diplomacy getting more and more complexe as the game goes on, just like in real life. Of course I'm the one who LOVES Diplomacy in the game, far better than war I'm the kind who'd prefer to put myself into a diplomacticly secure position ,and dicker with people rather than crush their cities until I KNOW it would be a fast win. I know, I'm strange

Another idea which I agree in is that, just because you attack a military unit, or even seize a city, doesn't mean you offically declare war. Sometimes, allowing the enemy to take a small city is better than declaring all out war......sometimes

[NotLikeTea]

Wow.. I'm happy to see such support. But I don't even agree with my ideas on demanding. I never made any

Jimmy made the comments about demanding techs, not I. I want to make sure the proper people are recognized for their ideas.

I agree with it, BTW.

[Flavor Dave]

Jimmy, two more points. One, even if we don't see it in our world, is this the only possible world? Obviously not.

Two, India is a democracy. Do you think they've ever asked the US for nuclear technology? I do too.

[MBD]

To rephrase an old saying - "diplomacy is war by other means."
I'd like to see diplomacy include, when appropriate to the time period, such things as DMZ's, no-fly zones, mutual-defense pacts, secret agreements between nations, truly neutral nations, the "Finlandization" of small nations near major powers, and supra-national organizations (both military and economic.)
There should be a way to use latitude and longitude lines as a possible basis for negotiation (54'40 or fight.)
I'd even like to have the possibility of joining two nations through the marriage of their rulers (remember Ferdinand and Isabella?)
I'd like to able to at least make a demand for anything (a city, a region) that belongs to my opponent and that I might otherwise be able to take through force, although I agree that it recently has become harder to make overt demands of other nations and every demand, whether successful or not, probably has a long-term cost in reputation.
The more available diplomatic options the better, particularly between human players. I'm not sure how anyone could create an AI that can make "intelligent" use of all of its possible options.

[CormacMacArt]

Flavor Dave - don't you think that it would be a far better game if the AI requested the tech, you refused only knowing that you will now have to be prepared for serious espionage?

[Jimmy]

I agree that our world is not the only way. I just want the AI to be smarter that's all. How many times have we seen a small civ threaten a human player who is a super power and when the human refuses, the small AI declares war. Or, an ally break a treaty over a human player refusing a demand when the AI should have a sense that breaking an alliance over such a thing is a strategic mistake. I am not against demanding tribute. Such a thing was done all the time in Ancient Times and the civ that was more powerful did declare war if the tribute was not payed but later, diplomacy became more subtle and complex.

[Flavor Dave]

Jimmy--there are certain discreet points in the game when the AI gets more hostile toward you. 1750, 1850, the discovery of space flight and other space techs, and when you launch your ship. The wussy AI that demands something and then declares war when you refuses is NOT acting in its own best interest. It is acting in the best interest of the computer, which is trying to keep you, the human, from winning the game.

So, they start making these demands when it's the only chance the computer has of stopping you from winning. That's why it's in the game, to make it challenging.

[Eggman]

About diplomacy in general, I would be very happy if diplomacy was set up in such a way that (1) it made it a valuable part of the game (other than we are at war/ we are not at war/ do this or we will be at war) and (2) it made the computer player act like a real human instead of an easily manipulated rube.
Wouldn't it be nice if a diplomatic focus could result in true advantages? How about sending diplomats around could make minor powers (I still like this idea) like you more? Create more trade? Make citizens of other civilizations like you more and thus reduce the chance of war? Make your citizens less likely to revolt? Even some sort of Planetary Council ala SMAC would be nice. Even add in some third (of fourth) parties (the pope comes to mind) that give you an advantage when you reach some sort of diplomatic milestone.

As for the AI, the Eiffel Tower artificially made the computer like you more which is totally unrealistic. If you want a diplomatic wonder, make it do something more tangible. And how many of you out there have become masters of diplomatically manipulating computer players to continually declare war on you, allowing you to actively conquer their territory as a democracy without any reputation damage? Plus getting those key breathers from those convenient ceasefires?

Make diplomacy a major factor but one that makes sense.

[Bubba]

I sorry I didn't read all the posts so I apologise if there is any repetition. I just have to points:

1) Proposed no war between Democracy rule: I would vote no for such a rule. Depending on how you interpret what a democracy is, there have been wars between democracies in the past according to the Economist, e.g. Britian versus the Boer republics, American Civil War inter alia. Everyone supports this idea by claiming that one of the parties was not a "true democracy." But who is a democracy? Many people will still argue that the US, UK & Canada are still not true democracies because certain groups are still marginalized. While it is unlikely that western democracies will fight one anther it is not inconcievable that the west might fight an Islamic or Eastern democracy in the future. If you want to make it difficult for Democracies to wage war this should be done through the government profile rather than diplomacy.

2) On the rule that their is absloute embargo during War on trade. I would disagree again. In earlier wars (Napleonic), British merchants still traded with European Merchants even after Napleon imposed the embargo. I can understand cancelling CTP style trade routes but not disallowing a Civ II caravan one-time payment. Perhaps a better idea would be to have a Caravan in War only give a one-off reduced profit from the trade rather than creating a route.