more diplomacy refinement needed

[sophist]

1) You need to be able to negotiate another nation out of its trade embargo against you.

2) You need to be able to negotiate another nation breaking other treaties, such as an alliance against you, mutual protection, etc. What's the point of making peace with the Zulus if their allies the Chinese are still attacking you? You make peace, attack the Chinese, and you're at war again.

3) Attacking a nation that gave right of passage to your enemy should be an acceptable (or at least less UNacceptable) war

4) Attacking a nation with a trade embargo against you the same as above.

[Venger]

Originally posted by sophist
1) You need to be able to negotiate another nation out of its trade embargo against you.

Agreed, this is weak.

2) You need to be able to negotiate another nation breaking other treaties, such as an alliance against you, mutual protection, etc. What's the point of making peace with the Zulus if their allies the Chinese are still attacking you? You make peace, attack the Chinese, and you're at war again.

Yep.

3) Attacking a nation that gave right of passage to your enemy should be an acceptable (or at least less UNacceptable) war

Not a bad notion.

4) Attacking a nation with a trade embargo against you the same as above.

A trade embargo is a hostile act - though I think in this case it's not an offense that you can just go to war over without cost.

I still think we need a non-aggression treaty...

Venger

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by sophist
1) You need to be able to negotiate another nation out of its trade embargo against you.

This would make sooo much sense - talk to the patch people @ the civ team or the mod makers !

Originally posted by sophist
2) You need to be able to negotiate another nation breaking other treaties, such as an alliance against you, mutual protection, etc. What's the point of making peace with the Zulus if their allies the Chinese are still attacking you? You make peace, attack the Chinese, and you're at war again.

True ... dirty dealing and backstabbing is always fun "Hey, how much you like your allies? oh yeah??? would 1000gold and a tech change your mind?? two techs then ????" i love it! Just would hate for a big ally to turn on me ... never know how AI would use this ...

Originally posted by sophist
3) Attacking a nation that gave right of passage to your enemy should be an acceptable (or at least less UNacceptable) war

True again - there can be no bystanders in war, right? "You be with us or against us, nothing else" - Alexander the Great (speaking of this quote, what recent politician have i heard use this?? hmmmm )

Originally posted by sophist
4) Attacking a nation with a trade embargo against you the same as above.

Agree ...

Cheers!

~Alex

[sophist]

Just generally the options for dealing with another civ regarding a third civ are weak. I mean, I've been best buds with a neighboring civilization while a bloodthirsty civ on the other side sends hordes of troops through at me. That cannot be right. Certainly isn't realistic, and it does not fall on the better gameplay side of the realism vs. gameplay argument.

Regarding war for an embargo: it should not be without cost; I simply advocate less cost. Right now there is no necessary cost to being part of a trade embargo (not that I've really felt the hurt much). It should make the target civ justifiably angry.

There also needs to be a way of seeing what another civ has for trade without entering the diplomacy screen. As well, you cannot see what items a civ can trade in the trade screen when you have no connection or are at war or there's an embargo. You have to know whether it's worth building a road, ending the war, or whatever.