Cold war and better alliances

BeeBee · April 19, 2000, 18:58

.
[This message has been edited by BeeBee (edited April 19, 2000).]

BeeBee · April 19, 2000, 19:01

Right !!
There should be a way of being able to exert pressure on your allies so that they remain hostile against your enemies. I mean, when they make peace with your worst enemy, it should be kind of loyalty rupture. Certainly making alliances with your enemies should have consequences.
This way you and others might think twice who to make alliances with...

I haven't thought about this matter very deeply, perhaps there are serious drawbacks in this system...

Comment on this plz !

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

BeeBee · April 19, 2000, 19:02

sorry for the double post !

Otso Vuorio · April 20, 2000, 00:06

It's sometimes very unpleasant when you must declear a war when you want to punish a civilization you hate. Instead of always declearing war, there should be some kind of "Cold war mode" too. Cooperation between the civilizations wich support the same ideology (goverment) against the others would be great. For example Democratic civilizations against those who support Communism. Just like in the history of the world after the WWII.
There should be new options of how the civilizations can give military- and money support for each other. It would make the game more realistic and fun!

It's always very unpleasant when your best ally declears peace with your worst enemy leaving you fight alone. This is why there should be more realistic alliances wich contain a lot of options, not just some sort of temporary attacks together, but businnes and ideological "wars" against the enemies too.

ivorgrubisic · April 20, 2000, 05:54

You mean triple?!

BeeBee · April 20, 2000, 20:34

Why is no-one replying on this thread?
Didn't you hate it in civ2 when your ally made an alliance with your worst enemy and exchanged knowledge you just gave to him?

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

WarVoid · April 20, 2000, 22:41

Cold Wars could be effectively through an advanced espionage and diplomacy screens. More options other than just poison water supply or destroy improvement. Like instigate revolution. Making a city become an independent civ. Kinda like in my civil wars post.

Adm.Naismith · April 21, 2000, 06:05

Yes, diplomacy, espionage, also trade pacts, the whole concept of CIVilians, religions or culture joining or dividing people.

We already have something on the line of common "social agenda" and government attitude in SMAC, but they don't work very well IMHO, I laugh every time a leader call me to menace me, then end the chat with words of peace and love because we are "green" or "fundamentalist" like him/her

The main reason is stopping me to write reply to the forum these days (well, almost

) is that I'm tired to speculate about a game we have so small hints about the actual state od design.

If Firaxis really force itself publishing some main in/out list, we will know what to deeply examine and what to forget. Minor things as asking to us about "Save File name convention" are interesting but...

But it's a Secret Project, they don't want some one else gain knowledge about it (you know, that nasty "three share tech"

) and rush up a clone on the shop shelf.

So we are left alone, brainstorming every concepible game idea and some more, from "First Person Civers" to "Civ's fashion" and "Civ fighters IV"

Oh well, happy easter in advance (not sure I will be on-line for a few days).

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

Stefu · April 21, 2000, 07:46

Kappas, lisää suomalaisia.

DanM · April 23, 2000, 00:13

I am also sick and tired of having other civs hate me just because I happen to be the most advanced.I've had many many MANY games where I NOT EVEN ONCE instigated any attack all the way to the modern age,and other civs in the later stages of the game decide they now hate me and eventually ally against me and declare war just because I micro-managed my way to be the most advanced civ in the game.I am pretty generous with giving gifts to allies,but,they only remain happy for a few turns and they slowly start to dislike me again(not to mention trading away my hard earned research ideas to a common enemy).It reached a point where I just wouldn't bother with being friendly to anyone,because in the end,what was the point?

Otso Vuorio · April 23, 2000, 11:13

Yeah! It's cool that you have replied my topic. It's nice to see that you others have been thinking this matter.
I have even thought that some kind of Espionage from the space could be quite effective against the enemies. There should be a possibility to construct a whole satellite system for spying. What you think?

ps. BeeBee, I really happen hate that too, when the one who used to be my best ally makes a pact "to contain my agression" in Civ2. It REALLY irritates me!

Otso Vuorio · April 23, 2000, 11:23

DanM, I know what you mean, and I think we all know. That Usually happens, when you are more (or most) advanced than the others. The other civilizations get weary and sometimes I have even found myself in a situation where everyone else have decleared war against me. Hopefully they all haven't allied with each other (Well what's the real difference between peace and alliance in civ2 after all ?!?). The other civilizations are just jealous and this is very common in civ2 when you are leading the game

.

DanM · April 24, 2000, 02:58

It would actually be refreshing to see an AI civ be smart enough to know that it might be in their best interest to remain on good terms with the most powerful civ in the game,especially if the stronger civ has done no wrong to the weaker AI civ.
After all,I cannot help but be honorable when I play the game,and I think that if I have been on good terms with another civ for 1000 years,that should not suddenly change just because I am the most advanced.What could change our relationship should be more to do with differing ideals of government,diplomatic blunders,third party disputes etc.
[This message has been edited by DanM (edited April 24, 2000).]

BeeBee · April 24, 2000, 08:54

You're right DanM,
it is not realistic that suddenly everyone is against you, just because you're the most powerful !
The AI civs should be selfish too, but in favour of themselves (not just to counter you as the most strong one, with the 'implicit' help of everybody else)
It's very logical that a smaller civ remains loyal to you just for self-interest !!

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

general_charles · April 25, 2000, 00:54

I think a lot of things that have been said here are right and I would like to express my views on the idea. I think the diplomatic views of the computer are too much turned towards the player, didn't it happen to you that because you are allied with one civ and at war with another, your ally just sends military units to wonder around your cities instead of attacking the other computer player? I think something should be done about this.
It is true that military help should be organized in the game, you should be allowed to make profit selling military equipment to other civs (or even sell losing money, as long as they support your kind of government). This brings me to what I have said in my own room, alliances should be limited by the government type...
To go back to military support, I think it is important, because thanks to capitalisation, you only make between 50 and 100 gold per turn with your best cities, and if you can be able to sell say 400 or so a tank unit that costs 2 to 3 turns, it is a great income bonus. Futhermore, it not only helps you, your treasury, your government type and your allies, it also creates an interesting twist in the game, perhaps creating greater gaps between coalitions of governments, or so called blocks.

Otso Vuorio · April 25, 2000, 09:09

Yeah! It's very common that a computer ally sends its troops to your territory, builds fortresses near your cities and decides to remain there doing nothing.
Once I tried to play a Deity-level game (nearly impossible!), where my only ally Mongols had so much troops around my cities, that there was actually no free squares around my cities (excluding water areas)!

Otso Vuorio · April 25, 2000, 09:18

DamN your right DanM !

And BeeBee, you are right when you say that the other civs should keep good reletions with you because of self-interest. This is realistic.

But SOMETIMES it's normal that some other civs get jealous, but it shouldn't be so common (especialy not if you have same goverment with the smaller civ, the smaller ones should worship you and wriggle under your feet

, when you are the most powerful civ).

DanM · April 25, 2000, 22:29

Exactly.
All I would like to see is for it not to happen the SAME WAY EVERY GAME.
Those who wish to "wriggle under my feet",

as Otso Vuorio puts it,can do so.
The rest I will "crush under my feet"

[This message has been edited by DanM (edited April 25, 2000).]

Az · April 26, 2000, 06:17

Otso Vuorio: all of this happens because the AI plays this game not as a leader of a country but as a gamer . you know . all the AI 's try to win this game . of cource ,also , so do you , but you , as a human, are much more realstic , and understand that as an ally of Civilization Alpha ( that means the leader ) you'll get much more perks and , in the long run much more chances to WIN this game , when the hour strikes, and the maraphone is almost over you can make a move to win , and btw not striking that civ alpha with nukes coz there are much more Civs to be captured

. and BeeBee and DanM I guess you look at this situation the same way I do.

Adm.Naismith · April 26, 2000, 08:07

Dalgetti, you are right!

The main problem is that: keep the game interesting when a human player is so stronger to other (AI) Civ that there's no more challenge.

Because computer know better (well, in a relative meaning

) how to fight a war then how to grow a better developed Civ, it rush a hopeless war against you, joining forces with every available Civ. How silly!

In Italy we have a motto that sounds like "If you only have a hammer, you will treat every problem like a nail"

Modern leaders have different tools available, and different problem to cope with: limited conflicts, eco global damage, weapons of mass destruction widely available, global market and its wide economic effects, etc.

No realistic way to military conquer the whole globe, no hope to live long as an isolationistic Civ.

I really hope Firaxis will try to expand the AI approach to keep game interesting till the end. SMAC made some step into the right direction with its wider winning path available and some more diplomatic options, still it's not enough to satisfy us, the harder Civers.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

Otso Vuorio · April 29, 2000, 02:42

All right Dalgeti & Adm.Naismith.
The main idea of all this conversation under my topic is about better alliances and cold war of course. The biggest problems I see in civ2 is unworking alliances and the lack of cooperation between the civs with same goverment.
I think there should absolutely be a new way to win the game in civ3:
I think that a whole alliance of civs could win the game as a team. Not just lone rivals but more cooperation (as I early wrote).

What do you think ?

ps.
Dalgetti, I know that AI tries to win the game, there's nothing new in that comment.But the queston is: "How to make AI a better ally and smarter?"

[This message has been edited by Otso Vuorio (edited May 02, 2000).]

DanM · April 29, 2000, 22:41

Thats right.Why shouldn't good allies be able to win as a team?I think if you have an ally(s),and you both go to war with an enemy(s),then you should be secure in knowing that your ally won't make a dumb peace treaty "behind your back".You should be allies for the duration,and at least be able to consult with each other before making any rash decisions.
As far as being able to win the game as allies,I think alot of factors need to be taken into consideration;like how long you had this alliance(becoming allies with the strongest of 2 civs left in the game in order to wipe out a weak civ with 2 cities just doesn't seem like an honorable way to win a game to me).

Otso Vuorio · May 2, 2000, 07:21

...And neither to me DanM. The lack of cooperation as well as loyalty was a very bad problem in Civ2's alliances, and I hope this will be fixed in Civ3.

ps. I really happen to hate those "dump peace" treaties (as DanM puts it) too.