No "ceasefires"

[David Murray]

I noticed that it is not possible to sign ceasefires (going on what has been revealed about the diplomacy system); the nearest alternative is a peace treaty. Why? There is a difference between signing a treaty committing to a peaceful relationship and signing a treaty saying that you won't blow someone's head off for a few turns.

Also, no option to negotiate the decommissioning of arms or pollution reduction? Sounds like this game has a Republican's idea of diplomacy--all about trade and money, baby, to hell with anything of social or humanitarian value.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by David Murray
Sounds like this game has a Republican's idea of diplomacy--all about trade and money, baby, to hell with anything of social or humanitarian value.

Do I sense a flame war? And I will stay out of it, seeing as I consider myself neither Republican or Democrat but an independent.

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Do I sense a flame war? And I will stay out of it, seeing as I consider myself neither Republican or Democrat but an independent.

The point still stands--too much eyecandy and too little substance in Firaxis' new diplomacy model. Very superficial, just like all the other so-called "improvements" are looking so far.

I mean--no option to ask someone to reduce their nuclear arms capacity? No antiballistic treaties? No option to ask someone to stop destroying tiles because they have so many polluting factories?

Why has there never been one Civ game that ever got it just right with the range of diplomacy options?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by David Murray
I mean--no option to ask someone to reduce their nuclear arms capacity? No antiballistic treaties? No option to ask someone to stop destroying tiles because they have so many polluting factories?

Treaties are only meaningful...

A: if the AI can exploit/ make use of them correctly. Personally, Im prioritize a "qualitative few" over "quantitative many".

B: if they cannot easily be ignored/ backstabbed, without severe (Europa Universalis-style) consequences. Such hard-to-brake treaties must be time-limited, of course.

[Th0mas]

....because to make the diplomacy options have meaning in terms of game mechanics is probably a very difficult thing to do.


for example:

How does an AI civ meet its anti polution commitments as specified in the agreed treaty, without compromising its production (something that is difficult to get the AI to do well at the best of times!)

[Jaybe]

Because it is a game. Also no plagues, loss of science (dark ages), change in weather (e.g., European 'mini-ice age') other than for pollution-caused global warming.

I also would enjoy an "educational" version of the game where all these other factors could come into play.

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Ralf


Treaties are only meaningful...

A: if the AI can exploit/ make use of them correctly. Personally, Im prioritize a "qualitative few" over "quantitative many".

B: if they cannot easily be ignored/ backstabbed, without severe (Europa Universalis-style) consequences.

If they can program an AI to participate in the exchange of luxuries and complex military alliances, I'm sure they can program it to do other things too, like um...getting rid of some (or all) of their nuclear weapons. non?

[Th0mas]

Oops beat me to it Ralf

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by David Murray


Why has there never been one Civ game that ever got it just right with the range of diplomacy options?

Because Davis Murray forgot to apply for that job at Firaxis.

Douple post, incoming.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by David Murray


Why has there never been one Civ game that ever got it just right with the range of diplomacy options?

Because David Murray forgot to apply for that job at Firaxis.

[Th0mas]

If they can program an AI to participate in the exchange of luxuries and complex military alliances, I'm sure they can program it to do other things too, like um...getting rid of some (or all) of their nuclear weapons. non?

The difficulty is programming the AI to make judgements about the worth of any particular proposal. How do you apply a value to environmental cleanup effort- remembering that each Civ within each game within any time period is different.

...I hope that made sense

[faded glory]

Pollution is not the AI's priority in Civ games for a number of reasons.

1)Cutting back on pollution means cutting back on production.
2)Contructing expensive city improvements
3)The AI does not fully understand the consequences until a disaster has happened.

[Pembleton]

The arguments about pollution make sense.

But what about cease-fire? Is it known for *certain* this option won't be in the game?

[player1]

Originally posted by Th0mas
....because to make the diplomacy options have meaning in terms of game mechanics is probably a very difficult thing to do.

You are right.
take for example CTP2:
-lot of treatries:
nuke reducition, pollution reduction, remove troops,
research treatry pact, etc.
-tone of voice: Frendly, Hostile, Kind...

Still, AI did'n KNOW to use them.
They were there just for LOOK.

Even with MODs it's diplomatic system is worse than in SMAC.

[Stuie]

Have we even seen any diplomacy screens between two civs at war? The option probably wouldn't appear unless it applied to the situation. No use jumping to conclusions...

Which reminds me, I haven't see a screen with a "Save Game" option on it; I guess by the prevailing logic this means we won't be able to save our games.

[The Andy-Man]

well, considering that it has been said that you can end a war and set new borders (ie, if some one is loosing they can go for a peace but the other civ may demand a bunch of cities or they will just continue to ransack them - much like the end of WW1)


this sounds great!

Cease fires in this game are sort of meaningless, as all it is is a a peace treaty where your enemies can still fortify out side your capital and block resources.

[Madine]

Nukes are kind of tough, but I think the AI can be made to understand the harmful consequences of pollution.

In CTP2 when another Civ agreed to a anti-polution treaty they adhered to the guildlines.

There was a time when my pollution levels doubled and I was polluting about double of all the other civs combined. I was approached with anti-pollution treaties from all the other civs.

Actually I would say that because of the very direct numerical representation of pollution and to an extent even nukes that the AI would be better able to grasp the issues of pollution and nukes than to decide whether to sign a cease fire or peace treaty for example.

[Sava]

I don't think there are such cease-fires anyways, the opposite of war is peace, if you aren't at war, you are at peace. The Treaty of Versailles was basically just a cease-fire from WWI to WWII. It's not like the Germans became peaceful towards the French between the wars.

In future Civ games, I would like to see scalable units. Not just a non-specific battleship, but different sizes and types. The Yamato class battleships were humongous compared to the rest of the world's fleets' ships. Had it not been for carriers, the Yamato class ships would have been tough ships to sink. For example, putting a limit on the size of battleships (Treaty of Versailles), specifying the ban on certain units (Germany wasn't supposed to build an air force after WWI), and specifying a cap on the size of armed forces (Japan wasn't supposed to have any troops other than a domestic force after WWII).

I think that these things probably won't make it into a Civ game because too many Civers are the kind of people that don't want to think, they just want to play. I call them Cavemen Gamers.

"OOH OOH build tank... move left... declare war... attack *yourcivhere*"

I'd much rather see a game that requires thinking and real strategy.

[Inverse Icarus]

oh, when my mighty Polish Panzers come toward your Civ, you shall phear.

[Phutnote]

I think I read a waaaaaaay back that you can ask another civ to lower it's pollution. think that was in an early game preview. Maybe it's not in anymore, but I'm pretty sure I saw that mentioned at one point.

Don't know about the ABM treaty or arms reduction, but that sounds like a nifty idea.

Who knows? they may have implemented it already.

There seems to be lots of new stuff in the game, and Firaxis is being pretty cagey about releasing it. Only recently did anyone find out that fighters/bombers no longer work like ground units, and still no details exist about how that works (attacks/turn, etc).

I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by all the new features they've stuffed into Civ III.

Phutnote

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

In Civ2, you could lower pollution in a city just by building "Clean Improvements", like Solar Power and Mass Transit, without any loss of production. So if you had an anti-pollution treaty, the AI would simply have to prioritise the construction of these improvements in Cities with the highest pollution!!
As for anti-nuclear treaties. This is just a question of the AI disbanding a certain number of its strategic and/or tactical missile units!!
Research treaties would simply involve each side getting a set percentage of the others TOTAL research "points" added to their own (or simply adding your totals together!!)
I do hope that cease-fires exist, because a peace-treaty usually involves the movement of hostile units from "enemy" cities, wheras cease fires are, as has been mentioned, merely a cessation of hostilities which can be reneged on at any time (with little or no loss of reputation). Breaking a PEACE treaty, on the other hand should come at a very high cost.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Madine]

I agree that there is an important distinction between cease fires and peace treaties.

[Dida]

[SIZE=1] . For example, putting a limit on the size of battleships (Treaty of Versailles), .

That's Washington Conference, not Treaty of Versailles.

[Nenad]

Does anybody ever saw any polluted tile on AI's territory? I think I didn't. So, I don't see a reason to negotiate about reducing pollution with the AI.

[Skanky Burns]

Yep. Every time i start a nuclear war with another civ, they never clean the pollution up... I lost 470 points last time (silly me decided to launch nukes the turn before my spaceship landed on AC)

[Th0mas]

I love the idea of being able to define borders within a treaty - Historically border disputes have been some of the most contentious and therefore interesting diplomatic situations.

I really hope this means that in CIV III you can have situations where two civilisations sign a treaty where they 'carve up' land - irrespective of the local indigenous civilisation...he he

(example: Spain and Portugal with regard to the Americas)

[Saint Marcus]

Yep. Every time i start a nuclear war with another civ, they never clean the pollution up... I lost 470 points last time (silly me decided to launch nukes the turn before my spaceship landed on AC)

Actually, they did clean up the pollution. I saw it happen once or twice after getting my third Global Warming

Honestly, they do clean up. But I think only if the food production becomes to low to support the city's population, or something.

[Skanky Burns]

Well, ill admit that the three or so turns i waited wasnt really long enough for them to get started on it, but after 3 global warmings... thats just *slightly* too long for me to wait

[The Andy-Man]

i only ever use nukes as a last resotrt, i think 'i have a veteran fleet with veteran air/ground units, why should they sit on their arses all day'

any way, its more fun having a carrier fleet ransack a civ.