Peace = timelimited mutually nullified attack-ability?

[Ralf]

Peace-agreements should be much more worthwile and 100% binding in Civ-3 - although timelimited. And, if appropriate - with some negotiated hard-to-swallow price-tags attached to them.

The problem:

When you was about to attack/pillage an AI-civ whom you have established an peace-agreement with, a popup-message asked you if you really wanted to break that treaty. All you had to do was to click the Yes-button. Even trusted AI-allies could be shamefully double-crossed this way. The only thing you suffered was declining diplomatic reputation; some easy containable AI border-quarrels, and perhaps a lower civ-score in the Hall of Fame. Thats a waaay too weak deterrant-factor for most pro-civers.
Also, making diplomatic deals with erratic AI-civs where often somewhat of a hit-and-miss affair. Infact, both in Civ-2 & SMAC you where much better off never even try to "buy peace" at all, because any deals where not binding anyway. Everyone just doube-crossed everyone else - and because of this, diplomacy often felt rather meaningless.

I would like to have above replaced with time-limited, but mutually & exclusivly nullified unit-attack/pillage ability to all units that gets effected by that peace-treaty (they can still expel though). In other words: if you try to attack an AI-civ/unit from whom you have established a still valid peace-treaty with; a popup-message informs you how many turns is left of the peace-treaty, and one button to click: "Expel unit?".

• War (well - war is war)
• Cease-fire (can brake it anytime).
• Neutrality (can brake it; but with negative diplomatic & trade- economical reactions (also from non-participating AI-civs - you disturbing the overal power-balance. To counteract you must establish ally-treaties).
• Peace (cannot break it for a agreed amount of time. Only expel).
• Alliance (can never break it - first downgrade to peace-treaty only - then the timelimit is ended, not renew the peace = leading to neutral relations.

In practice: you (or any AI-civ) can ONLY attack under war, cease-fire & neutral conditions. NEVER under peace- & ally-conditions.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 21, 2001).]

[Ralf]

I usually dont bump my own threads, but since the subject is important, and the whole forum was closed for upgrade, directly after I posted it - perhaps I can make this one exception.

Any reactions on above method in dealing with diplomacy-deals and treatys?

[connorkimbro]

I wouldn't say to make it impossible. . just impose MORE severe penalties on doing so. on the player AND on the AI. Perhaps if you break a peace treaty or alliance, then the opposing civ's citizens will bye HAPPY to go to war against you. . and happieness for military civs not in their home city is nullified, or something like that. .

[Henrik]

Either way this is something which needs change as it is now.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by connorkimbro
I wouldn't say to make it impossible. . just impose MORE severe penalties on doing so. on the player AND on the AI. Perhaps if you break a peace treaty or alliance, then the opposing civ's citizens will bye HAPPY to go to war against you. . and happieness for military civs not in their home city is nullified, or something like that. .

I dont think your counter-suggestion is enough. Its much better to lay the burden on the human player, letting him accept AI-friendly hardcoded peace-rules (perhaps not as constrictive as in Europa Universalis, but certainly not as free-wheeling as in Civ-2/SMAC either), then it is to wish-thinking about an AI that can play "on equal-terms", with such good-for-nothing rubber-band diplomacy-rules, as in Civ-2/SMAC. Its time for a change. If they planning too add peace- and alliance-based diplomacy - at least give us hard meaningful (but time-limited) rules that both the AI and the HP, actually can TRUST.

[tniem]

I agree with Ralf's proposals. I think that alliances and peace treaties should be binding and should have a length to them.

You could sign deals that go on indefinetely, but most of the time you would sign them to come up for renewal every 20 turns. You would then be forced to carry out the deals. Of course you could always declare that a deal was void and say that we were going to war, but that would mean almost all nations ended trade agreements and you would have a serious penalty.

I look forward to these overhauls to be made in the trade and diplomacy menus.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

To make a list you have to do
[list]

then number the points with[*]
then finish it with[list/]

[Ralf]

Originally posted by tniem
You could sign deals that go on indefinetely,

Well, it takes at least two to sign a treaty and if the AI-civ in question thinks that it can win more by joining an AI-pact that excludes you. Perhaps you are willing to sweetening the current deal somewhat? It ultimately hangs on the actual game-situation, I guess.

but most of the time you would sign them to come up for renewal every 20 turns. You would then be forced to carry out the deals.

Under certain conditions 20 turns i good. The number of enforced peace-turns can of course vary somewhat depending on which time-era you play in, and also on some other factors.

I look forward to these overhauls to be made in the trade and diplomacy menus.

Well, no info about modified Civ-3 peace- and alliance-rules have been revealed yet. For now, I just keep my thumbs hoping that such "hard" treaty-rules is implemented at all. One way or the other.

[Pilfur]

This is horribly unrealistic and I do NOT want to see it implemented. I sign a peace treaty and then my units are unable to attack at all? The computer simply tells me that no I can't do that? Thats just not right. I should be able to make whatever stupid move I want, and then have to pay for it. It should drop world reputation for trustworthiness dramatically if I turn on an ally (and reputation will be worth a lot more in CivIII), and it should also incur domestic political effects of people not wanting to turn against their old friends. Propaganda improvements could be used here.

Only in particular government types, such as Democracy, should the populace be able to rise up and refuse the orders of the ruler to break a peace treaty (ie, the 'your action has been overruled by the senate' thing)

The computer should also be able to break a peace treaty in a completely unexpected way and time, but should do so rarely and should also draw fire from its populace and other civ.

There should be no game rule to stop an evil manipulative and backstabbing civ from turning on its allies, or faking the acceptance of a peace treaty that it has no actual intention of adhering to.

[SerapisIV]

While I agree with the fact that its too easy to double-cross the AI, I do not want time limits on treaties. Just look at the Russian-Nazi friendship treaty prior to WWII, that lasted all of a year or two. Double-crossing is too easy with current AI, and no I don't have my own solution, but I don't want to see time-limits.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

No matter what happens, it should always be possible to break a treaty. Throughout time, nations have been betraying other nations, violating treaties, etc. This even goes for Democratic nations. History tells us that just because two nations agree not to attack one another for a set time, doesn't mean they both have to hold to the bargain.

I suggest that possibly we tweak the system a little to allow for serious consequences w/ breaking treaties, but no more.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I, too, disagree about having the treaty be enforced by the game code. It is an excellent idea to have the consequences of breaking one's word be grave. The player should be able to choose that path if he chooses. That said, the AI should also have the consequences - no more of those nations who've been at war for 4000 years should suddenly ally against the player. To echo several posters, treaties have often been used to simply buy time until a knife can be plunged into the "friends'" back.

Another example: The USA wrote and summarily broke several hundred treaties with Indians, almost the entire time with actual gov't policy being to exterminate or expel all indians from lands the US wanted.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Another example: The USA wrote and summarily broke several hundred treaties with Indians, almost the entire time with actual gov't policy being to exterminate or expel all indians from lands the US wanted.

LOL! That's exactly the same example I was gonna give. You read my mind!