No seperate peace!

Dauphin · October 4, 2001, 15:47

Well, lots of treaty options have been put forward, and I was wondering if the option of invitation to join a war could be combined with a "no seperate peace" clause.

Civ2 annoyed me when an AI would request me to go to war with their enemy, and the turn after I declare war the AIs agree a peace and my former ally declares war on me!

Perhaps if the invitation is made, and they subsequently make peace, then you are automatically included in that peace. A bit like EU diplomacy with a head of alliance in negotiations.

Ralf · October 4, 2001, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Civ2 annoyed me when an AI would request me to go to war with their enemy, and the turn after I declare war the AIs agree a peace and my former ally declares war on me!

Treaties and agreements should be time-limited, and braking them should be very painful in terms of domestic destabilization and foreign nation reactions - compare with "Europa Universalis", for example. Otherwise, these treaties become just as inflationary meaningless as they in fact often where in Civ-2 and SMAC.

Ralf · October 4, 2001, 16:27

Above should ultimately be dependent on your government-choice, of course. Under despotism, monarchy and communism you can brake treatys with less domestic repercussions. Especially under despotism. But foreign-reactions will still be very negative.

Dauphin · October 4, 2001, 17:08

One of the bect things about EU is the implications of a prolonged war, and breaking treaties.

I think civ would do well to have citizens hapinness affected by treaties being broken, and a war being prolonged.

Lorizael · October 4, 2001, 17:24

I read somewhere that prolonged wars do take a toll on a civilization's happiness. Very good.

One element still missing from war is casualties. You can lose units and cities but no people. Yes, I know there is already a thread about this. But I mean you actually lose populations points or something. My idea is that you lose a certain amount of food in storage. That way war will slow growth because of casualties, and could actually cause population to go down if you lose enoough people.

As far as treaties I've heard the AI is a lot better than it used to be so stupid treaties will probably not be made... as often. Diplomacy is also supposed to be a lot more detailed so hopefully there will be more options (but don't go as far as... CTP).

dearmad · October 4, 2001, 20:00

Since when has war slowed pop growth? Baby boom came just after WWI and II... worldwide. Slow growth would be a silly addition to the game.

Lorizael · October 4, 2001, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by dearmad
Since when has war slowed pop growth? Baby boom came just after WWI and II... worldwide. Slow growth would be a silly addition to the game.

Yes, just after World War I and II. But during the war there are more deaths and therefore slower net population growth. It's a little abstract because of the system used in Civ, but I think it makes sense.

(I also pray to the Monkey god so who knows...)

Sean · October 4, 2001, 20:12

No seperate peace!

A very sensible a good idea indeed. I too found the descibed situation most annoying and unfathomable.

Lorizael · October 4, 2001, 20:19

I don't think being included automatically is accurate. No one ever has the same opinion when it comes to politics. It makes sense that the enemy AI would be more likely to sign a peace treaty, but I don't belive it should be automatic when it comes to world issues.

Jaybe · October 4, 2001, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by dearmad
Since when has war slowed pop growth? Baby boom came just after WWI and II... worldwide. Slow growth would be a silly addition to the game.

Talk to the British of the aftermath of WWI!! There were virtually no men left in the country!!

monkspider · October 4, 2001, 23:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

Talk to the British of the aftermath of WWI!! There were virtually no men left in the country!!

................ Or the Southern states after the American Civil War, I believe the statistic was that 1/3 of all southern men lost their lives.
But I digress,

I think "No seperate peace" is a wonderful idea. I hope you are listening Firaxis.

Jaybe · October 5, 2001, 01:13

Meanwhile, Back to Topic.
It's all in how we find that diplomacy works. With the new complexities of trade, culture, etc., we (and the AI) may find that while going to war is tough, getting an agreement on a cease fire or peace treaty may be challenging because of timing. (e.g., "sure, but it will cost you 5 gold per turn," or "sure, right after I cripple this trade route of yours)."

I think it's going to be really exciting to find out how it works -- and how it doesn't!