Skirmish Vs. War

[DoctorGonzo]

In Civ II you are either at peace, war, cease fire or in an alliance. (And in Civ: CTP, War, war and um, war).

If you attack another side they automatically declare war on you, no matter how small the conflict. Same with a cease fire. Now, many, many times in history two opposing sides have fought it out (sometimes with extreme brutality) without actually going to war. I am not necessarily talking about a Vietnam type situation, but more along the lines of the Soviet Union and China in the late sixties.

My question to all of you is, how would you like to see such a situation work?

What would be the benefits of one over the other?

The drawbacks?

How much of a conflict could you have before it descended into all out war? How would this differ between each nation? Would the opposing side see any benefit that might exist in keeping the situaion going? (a Wag the Dog, or Canadian Bacon scenario)

Would internal situations be considered wars or skirmishes? ie: a city revolts and forms a new nation, you take it back. Or to liberate a city an ally refuses to return after a war, etc.

How would the internation reaction be? I would assume it would be more difficult, if not nearly impossible to bring in an ally. What kind of repercussions would a nation face? Would a skirmish be looked down upon as a "dirty" conflict? Would it be prefferable in some instances to make a quick land grab without starting World War III (or IV, depending on what has gone on) by virtually eliminating the ability of allies to ge involved?

[Par4]

% of army anything less that 2% of your total units doesn't count as a war. So if you have 50 units then 1 unit could get a skirmish and fight without a war. Also if units are in a stack then that counts as 2 units or more so a war would start. Obviously if you have 2 warriors and 1 gets killed then your probably gonna start a war, well bad example but 1/2 your army was killed that merits a war. Also you should be able to set it to if any unit for trade route or something gets attacked then its war or you can get attacked all you want without a full fledged war.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

[UltraSonix]

I think there should be a way to fight a war without actually being in a state of war with the enemy. Conversely, I think you should be able to trade, etc with an enemy that you are still technically at war with, ala Koreas.

But I disagree with Par4 in the way it should be done. Instead of basing it on a formula, which is unrealistic, 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 taling about.

As you can see, I'm heavily into imrpoving 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.

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

Perhaps there could be a no-mans land between 2 borders.. You could fire across the border into troops coming too close.. as happens between india and pakistan

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Kyle]

That's not entirely true. If you have not diplomatic relations (i.e. no offical contact) with a civ, you can attack them at will.


But you're right, border wars and skirmishes should really be implemented.

Perhaps anything outside the zones of city control could be considered a skirmish. Or if they occur directly at the border squares. So, anything within two square of the border would be considered a skirmish (but away from the cities), but each civ would have the option of declaring war. Hopefully the AI will be smart enough to assess the situation and make a good decision.

[Markus The Mighty]

You could also create a diplomatic state which accepts the status quo, which means both civs agree with their borders (like "Peace" in civ2). This would be historically accurate, as there were a couple of wars in Europe in the 17th and 18th century, which ended simply with one state agreeing with the borderline of another.
Another form of peaceful agreement could be a Non-Agression Pact (like in MoO2), which together with the Borderline-Agreement replaces the simple peace state in Civ2.

[DoctorGonzo]

Perhaps, in addition to Ultrasonix's idea (which is great BTW), either side is asked at the outset of hostilities if they wish to go ahead and declare war, or wait (and perhaps let the player specify how many turns to wait before asking again). Of course, just going to the diplomacy window and hitting "I Decare War On You...." or whatever could end the skirmish and let allies enter the conflict more easily, etc.

However, it should be possible to bring in allies, but very, very hard. (and not just 400 gold either) Unlike Civ II or CTP, they should have some vested interest in the conflict, like taking back a city after a war, etc. Not just, "Hey, lets get those punks!"

Of course the penalty for declaring war on the agressor in such a skirmish should be nil, unless of course you provoked them by surrounding their cities or doing something else that was blatantly unethical.
[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited June 18, 2000).]

[Par4]

Ok my idea was stupeed . I don't think in a full alliance they should get all techs. Do you think if the US found the bomb and ruskies didn't steal it we would let the european nations have it too so the ruskies could steal it from them. No. Also you should be able to have an all out war even if there is no relations, maybe relations can be patched up easier or something. But you would have be an isolationist or something.

"You better not touch me or we nuke you, arg"
Black jack

I like Ultrasonix's system, it works

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

[UltraSonix]

Bump.

There's been a lot of new threads started lately, but I feel that the most important aspect of improvement in Civ3 is probably diplomacy (along with AI). If they can improve just these two things, that'll probably be enough.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Ralf]

There are 3 war-diplomacy issues that have annoyed me in Civ-2 and SMAC. First of all: that "not interested in talking with you" AI-message, should appear much less frequently then in Civ-2 and SMAC. Most motivations to continue war also have a price-tag; and if the give-away tributes is generous enough, a peace-treaty can be established.

Seconly: more honour and word-keeping. Repeated back-stabbing should be *much* more costly - not only in terms of reputation and final civ-score, but also; any trade-deals with disapproving civs should be gradually lesser and lesser profitable for the backstabber, and for the backstabber only.

If the Human player races ahead to much and becomes to dominant, the AI automatically stops all internal AI-civ wars. The 2-3 AI-civs closest to the human player join forces and goes to war against him, while the other ones further away, preferably on other coninents, now concentrates almost fully on growth, science, economy and terrain-improvements - living peacefully side by side, for the time being.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited October 25, 2000).]