Should Be A Force Ally To Make Peace

Raleigh · November 13, 2001, 22:29

A neat diplomatic option would be to convince/force your allies to make peace, possibly for a hit to gold or reputation, depending on culture/power/relationship.

This function is in Masters of Orion 2, and since it's the same company I think, I'm surprised this idea didn't make it to Civ3.

Anyone Firaxis should definitely consider this in the future, if possible.

General Ludd · November 13, 2001, 22:42

Master of orion 2 is from another era, the only connection it has with Civ3 is that it was published by microprose, which was bought by hasrbo, which was boought by infogrames.

But yes, I would've liked to see this. You can never have too many diplomatic options.

Venger · November 13, 2001, 23:44

Any subtle nuances to the Diplomacy system would be welcome - I don't think you should be able to force - but you should be able to influence or exert pressure.

Venger

Kc7mxo · November 14, 2001, 00:29

Why they left this option out is beyond me.

It was in smac, why isn't it in civ 3?

cort · November 14, 2001, 04:21

yeah, that would be great

Adagio · November 14, 2001, 07:15

Yeah, that would be great, but how about adding it in another way too:

You send an invitation to all civs (and hopes they show up) and try to make a e.g. peace negotiation, let's say 3 civs want peace, but the 3rd civ (who is at war with 2 or 3 of the other civs) only wants peace if he/she can get a certain tech or something. If he/she gets that he makes peace with all civs

How about that, could be a great addon to diplomacy...but maybe it's too hard to make, so you idea will proberly be easiest

Jeje2 · November 14, 2001, 07:28

Why not use Europa Universalis model?

In EU the contry atacking or first country which is attacked are considered ally-leaders. When a ally-leader makes peace with anyone all in your alliance makes peace with it. If your allyleader makes peace with opponents allyleader war endes.

A non-allyleader may sign own peacetreaties, but receives a badboy-hit.

Why not have in Civ3:
- Country A attacks Contry Z
- Country A asks Country B to join him and B declares war on Z

If A and Z make peace, then B is also considerd made peace with Z.
But B may sign peace with Z dirextly too, but if so done before 20 turns B will receive a badboy hit to his/her trustworthy. (Worst case A declares war on B)

So I'm all for the EU-model

Adagio · November 14, 2001, 07:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeje2
Why not use Europa Universalis model?

In EU the contry atacking or first country which is attacked are considered ally-leaders. When a ally-leader makes peace with anyone all in your alliance makes peace with it. If your allyleader makes peace with opponents allyleader war endes.

A non-allyleader may sign own peacetreaties, but receives a badboy-hit.

Why not have in Civ3:
- Country A attacks Contry Z
- Country A asks Country B to join him and B declares war on Z

If A and Z make peace, then B is also considerd made peace with Z.
But B may sign peace with Z dirextly too, but if so done before 20 turns B will receive a badboy hit to his/her trustworthy. (Worst case A declares war on B)

So I'm all for the EU-model

Sounds great

Grumbold · November 14, 2001, 08:19

Yes the diplomatic model in EU1/2 is very impressive. Sometimes the morons have absolutely no idea when to declare peace or when to demand territory but that is very historically accurate. The number of times I've captured provinces only to have to return to the "status quo" because the leader has chickened at the sight of a big army on his land

Jeje2 · November 14, 2001, 10:16

Grumbold:
I sort a liked that system.
Sometimes you help, sometimes you are beeing helped.
(Have even received land from these battles to me sometimes, also given to a AI-country once or twice land as part of peace.)

I just wish I can get EU2 soon.