Real Diplomacy

Deornwulf · April 15, 2002, 16:01

I hope the new patch or the next one addresses some of the diplomatic issues with the game, such as

1. It should be impossible to make an MPP with a civ at war with another civ with whom you already have an MPP.

2. In the event of war breaking out between two allies, you should have an option of choosing which ally to back.

3. There should be a stronger diplomatic state beyond MPP.

4. Bring back reputation. One should be held accountable for one's actions and be rewarded or punished accordingly. One should also be able to track rep like in Civ2.

5. There should be a diplomatic option of making peace between two other waring countries. (Third party peace treaties)

6. Units should be available for trade. (Why can't I give F-16's to the Zulu's?????)

scooter mk2 · April 15, 2002, 16:05

I agree totally. Reputations were good to know and I would love to be able to give units, obselete ones namely, to my allies when they are fighting a war I want them to (while I stay out of it

) so that they have a better chance to win.

Cyclotron · April 15, 2002, 17:57

I'm pretty sure reputation is very much a part of Civ3, although it doesn't tell you exactly what your reputation is. You must interperet how others see you through negotiations... Try razing cities, attacking your allies, and using rights of passage to sneak attack another nation, and you'll see what I mean.

On all your other points, I agree wholeheartedly. I would especially like the 3rd party peace option and unit trade options. However, I'm not really sure what would be a stronger alliance than MPP... isn't automatic war enough?

Theodrik · April 15, 2002, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Deornwulf

2. In the event of war breaking out between two allies, you should have an option of choosing which ally to back.

4. Bring back reputation. One should be held accountable for one's actions and be rewarded or punished accordingly. One should also be able to track rep like in Civ2.

5. There should be a diplomatic option of making peace between two other waring countries. (Third party peace treaties)

6. Units should be available for trade. (Why can't I give F-16's to the Zulu's?????)

Yes, on these points, I most definately agree! The selling of arms that allies can't make for themselves is old. French muskets in 1778 to the US Continental Army, US SHermans to Engalnd, Soviet tanks and arms to the Viet and Warsaw pact. I could go on and on.

Thrawn05 · April 15, 2002, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Deornwulf
I hope the new patch or the next one addresses some of the diplomatic issues with the game, such as

1. It should be impossible to make an MPP with a civ at war with another civ with whom you already have an MPP.

2. In the event of war breaking out between two allies, you should have an option of choosing which ally to back.

3. There should be a stronger diplomatic state beyond MPP.

4. Bring back reputation. One should be held accountable for one's actions and be rewarded or punished accordingly. One should also be able to track rep like in Civ2.

5. There should be a diplomatic option of making peace between two other waring countries. (Third party peace treaties)

6. Units should be available for trade. (Why can't I give F-16's to the Zulu's?????)

1: Agree
2: Sure
3: I'd go for that
4: I thought that's in Civ3? I must of missed somthing.
5: Yes, a must in a furture patch.
6: Instead of trade, I would prefer to pay a civ to build a unit for me, even UUs, and when completed, goes straight to my capital ready for orders. I'm not sure if I want that new unit to keep the nationality of who built it, but I leave that up to everyone else.

My #7
7. Be able to propose disarmament of units in agreements, particularly Nukes and ICBMs (if not every unit).

For example, you're spies show that a civ that you've been at war with before, have been building LOTS of ICBMs. You can ask that civ, that you agree to destroy X ICBMs in exchange that he/she destroys Y ICBMs else you two goto war.

Or... You're spies find out that the germans are building 50+ Panzers within a few turns, and looking at the stolen map you see that they are positioning them for what appears to be an offensive, one that you could really lose at. You then ask bismarck if he would destroy X panzers, and you destroy Y Infantry. Else you go to war.

I'd like to see something like that in the game.

Il Duce · April 15, 2002, 23:51

What about the addition of multi-civ pacts like NATO and Warsaw Pact?

Miznia · April 16, 2002, 13:35

I think a cleaner alternative to "third party peace" would be a unilateral "I guarantee this civ's independence" kind of thing. So you'd have to be clear beforehand whom you don't want attacked.

And no doubt this isn't patch material, but "vassal" status would be cool.

Inverse Icarus · April 16, 2002, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Il Duce
What about the addition of multi-civ pacts like NATO and Warsaw Pact?

a UN that actually worked (ala SMAC) would be pretty decent, but makign 3 way alliances or so, sounds real fun

PhoenixPhlame73 · April 16, 2002, 22:05

Those all sound cool, but I think that in order for them to work the diplomatioc agreements should be more binding, so that a Civilization (*cough, cough* Ghandi and his Godd***ed indians*cough, cough*)can't abuse a treaty that was a step above MPP. Maybe something like two more discontent citizens per city and a mandantory switch to despotism???

Cyclotron · April 16, 2002, 22:09

Sounds like somebody's a little bitter...

Tuberski · April 16, 2002, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Miznia
I think a cleaner alternative to "third party peace" would be a unilateral "I guarantee this civ's independence" kind of thing. So you'd have to be clear beforehand whom you don't want attacked.

And no doubt this isn't patch material, but "vassal" status would be cool.

You don't, by chance, play EU2 do you?