Diplomacy

[Vitmore The Great]

In Civ II, I found the Diplomacy option kind of lacking. Once you have established a stable empire, there ain't much more to do thatn to develop tech, or wage war. Developing tech aint't that enthralling to me, and waging war for fun just inhibits you from building structures your cities need. There needs to be something else, more interactive and significant multiplayer. Can anyone tell me of the Diplomacy option in Civ III, and how developed and advanced it will be?

[Napoleon I]

First of all, none of us really have any decent idea of what the diplomacy option will be in Civ3. If we actually knew, a lot of discussion on this forum would have to turn out to be useless .
If you have any ideas that deal with diplomacy, come on out and spill them out we're all glad to hear them.

------------------
Napoleon I

[Christantine The Great]

I have one big problem with Diplomacy. Why can't you declare war on other civ if you want to but if you insult someone else they can and will declare war on you?

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[Napoleon I]

Christantine:

I believe that this problem was solved in SMAC. I think that there is now an option to declare vendetta (war), against any faction that you have contact with. I believe that the'll keep this option in Civ3.

------------------
Napoleon I
[This message has been edited by Napoleon I (edited July 18, 2000).]

[UltraSonix]

I think that the (equal with AI) biggest area of improvement in Civ3 would be diplomacy. It should be made quite complex, diplomat/spies units made defunct through a diplomacy screen, and if the computer can't handle the sophisticated new diplomacy techniques, then it should only be done in multiplay. And example of improving diplomacy is the adding extra diplomatic states (I think it's vital - and easy to implement - I've mentioned the list of possible states somewhere, but can't find it now), and having negociations with multiple civs.

I've finally dug up where I had previously posted my idea on new diplomatic states (I love that search feature!).

quote: more diplomatic states should be created. An example of diplomatic states could be (* denotes uncommon): No Contact Hostile States: No Diplomatic Relations War *Truce (ie don't fight for 2 turns) Temporary Cease-Fire (don't fight for 16 turns like in civ2) *Permanent Cease-Fire (eg Koreas) Peaceful States: Peace (eg US and Malaysia) *Permanent Peace (as in US and say, Australia) Alliance *Full Alliance (must help each other, auto share techs, can use each other's cities, aiports, aircraft carriers, cannot be broken without huge loss of reputation). eg NATO, or the Commonwealth idea I mention in my colonies thread. I think the most important and versatile one would be "no diplomatic relations". It would allow the "skirmish" state that DoctorGonzo was talking about. As you can see, I'm heavily into improving the diplomatic side of the game, and I think it is through improving this facet of the game that we can easily avoid a "civ 2.5", as some other guys have been talking about.

I've also dealt with the commonwealth idea "Colonisation" and "Cities Ceding From Your Empire".

---

Well, that's it from me for a while- I've finally got a life and can't read this forum too often

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited July 22, 2000).]

[phunny pharmer]

Civ has always been way too militaristic, in my oppinion. I have also thought that the deplomacy has been rather weak. So, lets all moan and groan and post more suggestions about new diplomacy topics. Also, this should be imcorperated with the trading threads, because trade is based very much on deplomacy.

I think there need to be other ways to contact civs in the first place. Having military units bump into each other is a fairly weak way to represent the clash of cultures. Perhaps there could be an announcement that your people have met another tribe, based on your exploration, your empire's width, and your number of military units. Usually, however, when the military units meet, it's too late for deplomacy (in the real world).

Any other new ideas?

[Napoleon I]

Actually, I think that the existing model does pretty well in the area of discovering new civs. I mean aside from the Top 5 Cities list, how would you even know they were there in the first place ehh?

But, yes, back on the point of diplomacy, we do need a lot of improvement in the area. Anyone have definite ideas that we bash to death?

Just kidding, bring them all on

------------------
Napoleon I

[Vitmore The Great]

I think that diplomacy should more like the real world. Imagine you busting a rival civ up. You advance and advance, then they sue for peace. I would a "Declare Protectorate" or "Declare Mandate" optioin in Civ III. This would allow the victorious civ to still pass pass through the civs territory without there being an alliance (why have an alliance with a defeated foe?). Also, a sort of tribute system can be integrated, maybe a more advanced version of Master of Orion II. The victorious Civ should be able to have influence of the politics of the protectorate, vetoing various decisions, like a declaration of war. The protectorate can risk defying the Victor Civ, which would be an act of rebellion, with dire consequences. The possibilities are endless.

Vitmore

[Evil Capitalist]

What about joint production or research between allies- like the Eurofighter project.
Of course that would rely on some way of controlling production of your close allies. You could use the diplomatic AI to decide how much it needs what you want to build, or you want to research with them.

[Pondo]

Hi all!

How about buying/trading resources of the AI or opponent, like 100 of those science beacon thingies for 50 Gold, the map or a unit, or shields and the otherway round. I think that in generally there schould be more options to swap different items. It not unusual that Nations buy Know-How of other nations (like Germany IT-Knowledge of India).
What do you think?

Pondo
-----------------------
I am not a pazificst, sir, I´m a coward.

[Christantine The Great]

Pondo

Microprose already beat you to being able to trade maps and units.

quote: How about buying/trading resources of the AI or opponent, like 100 of those science beacon thingies for 50 Gold

In real life, nations don't buy "scientific researching capibilities" from other nations, they just trade/sell the tech.

You are right about being able to "introduce" you to other nations. That should be implimented.

Evil Capitalist

Great idea. Joint research between allies is a great idea.

I have a proposal. I think you should be able to conquer cities back for your allies. This would be easier than trading cities because you wouldn't have to worry about your allies being so greatful for "your" cities that they may force a gift on you, like a city that you don't want. Tell me what you think.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[phunny pharmer]

Hmm...buy science beaker things...hmm...I have a spy...hmm...he infiltrates your lab...hmm...I pay him 50 gold...he gives me beaker things...hmm...I just bought science beakers...hmm...was that diplomatic?

Quote (from one of those books of 1001 quotations): "Peace: a period of cheating between two periods of fighting". Why should I deal with your science- I'll leave that to my spy!

However, for those leaders who still have a remnant of a conscience and for those countries who have well-protected science labs (unlike the US ), there should be a trade science option like the one in Civ2, not like SMAC.

I found that treats worked equally well there, if not better.

[Vitmore The Great]

I still like the Master of Orion II Research and Trade treaties. They worked well in that game. Maybe the system can be upgraded and more developed in Civ 3.


Vitmore

[Napoleon I]

Well, some great ideas here in this thread. First of all, it seems like a nice idea to be able to have a trade treaty with someone, but I would want some kind of system to be implemented that would make the AI really reluctant to agree to it. After all the only example of this in the real world that I can think of was the Anglo-American cooperation during WWII at a time of extreme danger.

It would just really piss me off if a bunch of AI players who are slow on science, would form a treaty and boost up their science production just to overtake me. Of course the same principle should apply to the trade treaties.

Anyways, that's just my humble opinion on the subject

------------------
Napoleon I

[Stuff2]

One of the most annoying things in civ2 is when two of your allys wage war right in the middle of your empire. I think that there should be an option to prevent this. First of all an ally should not be allowed to wage war within your territory agianst any other civ than those you wage war with. There should be possible to limit how many foreign units u allow within your border or within certian regions.

[Stuff2]

One of the most annoying things in civ2 is when two of your allys wage war right in the middle of your empire. I think that there should be an option to prevent this. First of all an ally should not be allowed to wage war within your territory agianst any other civ than those you wage war with. There should be possible to limit how many foreign units u allow within your border or within certian regions.

[Deathwalker]

I agree Diplomacy needs to have a major overhaul, it is very under used, it the real world it is like a soft war of words in Civ this was never relised.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[DarkCloud]

STUFF II

They could add a 'restriction' coding that wars cannot be fought in your territory, which would be determined in the same way as Alpha Centauri.

[phunny pharmer]

The reason why everyone resorts to war in the Civs is because that is the only way to win...or at least its the only tool. If Firaxis was to add a few more tools that were not armies, then people would use the diplomacy more...

[Lonestar]

Diplomacy was lacking in Civ II, but it was much improved in SMAC. I have some Ideas on how it could be further improved though...

1. After The UN is researched ( or created) you can build a "coalition". Let's say Elbonia (yes, 'Dilbert') invades pagong, which has a bunch of oil resources in it's squares. The UN can form a coalition, and it can elect a country to lead it to drive out Elbonia. The units that don't belong to you return to the original civs at the end of the war, or when Elbonia is completely destroyed.

2. Borders. They need to be fixed by the Industrial age. They can only be expanded by negotiation, unclaimed land, or by attacking another country with no less than 2/3 the approval of other countries. Until the other nations ( or home nation) aknowledges it, anything from sanctions to wars will be aimed againest you.

------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar on 08-10-2000 10:28 PM 2. Borders. They need to be fixed by the Industrial age.

Borders are a lot older than that. Medieval for existance, rennaisance for sanctity.

[Adm.Naismith]

Lonestar, about your

quote: The UN can form a coalition, and it can elect a country to lead it to drive out Elbonia. The units that don't belong to you return to the original civs at the end of the war, or when Elbonia is completely destroyed.

I'm not sure I wouldl like to watch in horror bad AI leading to a massacre my expensive units of the "coalition army"

With decent AI your proposal will be very good; until then will be better If only a human player can be the leader (MP games can manage it by some sort of election).


edited to remove some mistake, probably adding more on the process...
------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited August 11, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

Of course the AI should only be able to control as many units as you put up for the "coalition". After all, did the US put up its entire military in Bosnia or Somalia?

[DarkCloud]

About borders, Instead of only discovering them when encountering a civs leaders as in SMAC, you should know about them when you enter the territory, for, agricultural citizens would tell the oncoming forces about the borders.

[Lonestar]

I know, which is why I said BY the industrial age.
Obviously the whole singleplayer coalition thingamabob hinges on good AI....But I see no reason for it not being in Multiplayer.

------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

[DarkCloud]

People would know their borders in the stone or even bronze ages.
Examples
-Greeks
-Babylonians
-etc.

[Lonestar]

'Fraid I have to disagree with you there Darkcloud, For the Greek City-states there weren't any offical borders, just "accepted" ones.

For the Babylonians, all you have to do is Look at NechubanezzersII's signature "Ruler of all the land between the seas...". Clearly, not what you'd call official, I think

------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

[Adm.Naismith]

ShadowStrike, I mean that during coalition war, forces are usually under the main control of the biggest of the parties (USA, usually, since WWII) for strategical decisions.

That said, any commander usually can keep tactical control of own troops, just to avoid bad use of them (read, use them as bloody meat for suicide attack).

SMAC system can be extended: when planning a joint attack to an enemy city you can propose a different target (quite smarting, the AI usually accept your proposal ).
With a "point and click" you should be able to define any square on the map as the attack target. If you point on units on a map square, you can specify if your target is that square conquest, that square pillage (if enhanced) or the search and destroy of the units (useful when you try to intercept enemy scout).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[UltraSonix]

I've a small suggestion - people here were talking about UN and donating "peacekeeping" troops.

How about the UN, once established, can call up troops to settle hot-spots of conflict. The troops are donated and once given, belong to a new UN civ that can station troops in any towns/territory/ belonging to any civ who wishes to be a part of the UN. Donating troops helps to increase your reputation and could also be an indirect way of attack an enemy without declaring war and hence losing reputation.

But as was mentioned above, the AI better good to do this well.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[DarkCloud]

Lonestar-

What exactly do you mean by 'accepted' is that not relatively the same as 'agreed' or something like the 'agreement' between Yemen and Saudi Arabia today of a blurred border?