Repost - Diplomatic Wish List

Palleon · July 18, 2002, 03:21

These are a couple of things that I thought would be nice to add to diplomacy, please vote for what you like, and feel free to add what you think I missed, or tell me which you didn't like.

Edit - Let me explain a few, a lot came from SMAC.

1) Make peace with X : Self explanatory I think.

2) Cancel your ROP with X. I've had a lot of neutral nations allow enemy units to use their rails to invade me. If they won't ally with me, I'd like at least for them to not allow units to go through their territory to attack.

3) Concentrate you attack on X city. : This way you and your allies can have some form of combat strategy.

4) Trade Embargo of certain items. : This could have less of an angering effect on a civ, if you just want to prevent from from building certain units, or if the AI doesn't want to lose a lucurative luxury trade, but you don't want them to make tanks.

5) Cease-Fire Treaty : A temporary 5-10 turn peace treaty, instead of 20, to let everyone catch their breath, and maybe work out something more permanent.

6) Concentrate your research. : The AI already does this, it would be nice if the human could get in on this, I just don't know if the AI would be willing to trade with you afterwards, and humans will do this without a treaty, but it would still be a nice feature.

7) Global - Pollution Reduction Treaties : If they allow a SMAC style UN, this would make every civ lose a certain % of shields from every city they have, to reduce pollution by so much. So if everyone has to reduce pollution by 10%, some civs might lose 1-2 shields a city, others more if they pollute more.

8) START treaties : Limits the amount of nuclear weapons each civ can have, and if they go over, they must pay fines to the UN.

Darkworld Ark · July 18, 2002, 13:34

You forgot about one-way protection pacts, & Mercenary trieties.

The_Hawk · July 19, 2002, 18:43

I think 2, 4 and 6 make the most sense to me, IMHO. 3 and 5 make the least to me, since you can coordinate with your ally with 3 and 5, it just seems to close to a peace treaty with less turns.

Karkworld Ark,

I'm not familiar with either of your suggestions, but they sound intriguing. Could you explain further as i haven't played SMAC.

Palleon · July 19, 2002, 19:00

Well, the concentrate your attack is mainly to get the AI to be useful in your wars, it won't do much for humans. None of these are really targetted for players, its to try to make the AI a bit more useful. The cease fire I put in because War Weariness can really be killing you, but you don't want to commit to 20 turns of peace, just to be dragged back in well before that with a reputation hit.

Dimorier Maximus · July 19, 2002, 19:55

I'd like to see the first six, but I don't like those global things. Like the UN is that strong anyways...the UN can't do crap to the US.

Darkworld Ark · July 19, 2002, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Hawk
Karkworld Ark,

I'm not familiar with either of your suggestions, but they sound intriguing. Could you explain further as i haven't played SMAC.

Karkworld?

Anyways, a One-way protection pact would be for those civs who want to have the protection of a MPP, but don't want to get into the other civs wars. This would allow the protected civ to stay in Democracy while the protector, proboloy a war monger, would get the Democracy's techs. This works best in Multiplayer, but would still be helpful in Single Player.

As for the Mercanary triety, a civ would pay another civ to fight a war for them.

zulu9812 · July 19, 2002, 20:10

First of all, the UN doesn't work that way. And trust me, if the US decided to go to war with the UN, they would quickly regret it - simply because they would, in fact, be going to war with virtually the entire world.

Secondly, global pacts are a good idea. Why is diplomacy almost unchanged in Civ3 over 6000 years. There should be modern techs which allow global pacts, in the same way as Nationalism allows Mpps. Pollution pacts are a good idea, but there needs to be a handy readout of your pollution, rather than just that sun.

Dimorier Maximus · July 19, 2002, 20:18

Let me tell you something about pollution, it is way too annoying, and if anything, they need to just take it out of the game. I don't see huge amounts of land in the world getting polluted and giving off -1 production shield.

That is a load of crap. There should be an option to play without pollution, heck, it should be the default option.

And about the US going to war with the UN, they wouldn't do that. But they could refuse to obey the UN. And there isn't a darn thing that the UN would or really could do about it. Sure, embargo and MPP, but that is about all the power the UN has. If you are a self-sufficient country, you could easily take on the UN if you wanted. I don't want shields disappearing because I am polluting. This isn't the future SMAC. Give me a break...the UN is weak.

If you want to make a future mod with these abilities, go ahead, but leave them the heck out of the standard game.

The START treaty is okay. But the pollution stuff is nonsense. Complete nonsense.

Palleon · July 19, 2002, 20:41

The UN has a vast amount of influence and power. Yes, the US makes up a significant amount of that, but it is well within the UN's power to invoke sanctions against the US, and if they were to hit the US with an oil embargo, it would cripple the US, in fact, it would probobly lead to a world war, just like it did when the US did it to Japan. The UN wouldn't do it, but they can. They have the power to call upon the militaries of over 150 countries.

Palleon · July 19, 2002, 20:42

And as for pollution, turning it off is the cowards way out in my opinion. It's something you're supposed to be able to deal with. If you put a mass transit system in every one of your cities, you don't see polluted squares. It's all part of the games strategy, it's one of those things you're supposed to be able to regulate like you regulate your economy, it's not hard to apply it to shields.

zulu9812 · July 20, 2002, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Palleon If you put a mass transit system in every one of your cities, you don't see polluted squares.

Yes you do! Esp. if you also have factories and power plants!

Palleon · July 20, 2002, 11:57

I don't. If I build factories and solar power plants, and add a mass transit system, I have approximatly 4 pollution triangles in the city square, and pollution is so rare that worker clear it the same turn it shows up. But again, I'm still on Regent, so maybe it's worse up there. But I take steps to remove pollution from my cities, and I get recycling early to totally eliminate it.

introvert · August 1, 2002, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Palleon
The UN has a vast amount of influence and power. Yes, the US makes up a significant amount of that, but it is well within the UN's power to invoke sanctions against the US, and if they were to hit the US with an oil embargo, it would cripple the US, in fact, it would probobly lead to a world war, just like it did when the US did it to Japan. The UN wouldn't do it, but they can. They have the power to call upon the militaries of over 150 countries.

If the UN passed a resolution to place an Oil Embargo on the US, the US would turn around and veto it. It's a bit hard to talk about the UN doing anything to the US that the US doesn't like, because the US can always veto anything it doesn't like. Indeed, the US has, historically, used it's veto more often than any other member of the UN (the nations with veto's being the US, Britian, France, Russia and China). Far more often than the USSR ever did, and more often than China has.

GhengisFarb™ · August 2, 2002, 08:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
Let me tell you something about pollution, it is way too annoying, and if anything, they need to just take it out of the game. I don't see huge amounts of land in the world getting polluted and giving off -1 production shield.

That is a load of crap. There should be an option to play without pollution, heck, it should be the default option.

Right on! In Civ3 rules the entire American East Coast would be a desert already.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
And about the US going to war with the UN, they wouldn't do that. But they could refuse to obey the UN. And there isn't a darn thing that the UN would or really could do about it. Sure, embargo and MPP, but that is about all the power the UN has. If you are a self-sufficient country, you could easily take on the UN if you wanted. I don't want shields disappearing because I am polluting. This isn't the future SMAC. Give me a break...the UN is weak.

I don't think the US would go to war with the UN. Why? What could possibly make the US or anybody do that? The entire question is useless, the UN has no land or resources there's no point. Nobody's ever made a press announcement "I, leader of Apolyaq, declare war on the UN."

If the UN passed something to force the US to do something it doesn't want, the US would simply leave the UN. That's what everybody else does, and there is growing resentment in the US of the United Nations. Every year those anti-UN people that bring their petition to the voter registration areas get more signatures than the last time.

And lastly, without the US where's the UN going to get its peace-keeping forces? While the UK, Canada, and a few others send token troops the brunt of demand tends to fall on the US to fill the gaps. When a nation needs food because of a drought where does the food come from? The US. When the World Bank needs money for Developing nation loans where does it go? The US.

Harm · August 6, 2002, 19:02

I still want to be able to give mechanical units (i.e. jet fighters, bombers, tanks, mech inf, etc.) to another civ as a means of assisting them during wars. It's a tactic used in modern times and should be an option.

Panag · August 8, 2002, 11:03

hi ,

they all seem good

have a nice day

Panag · August 8, 2002, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Harm
I still want to be able to give mechanical units (i.e. jet fighters, bombers, tanks, mech inf, etc.) to another civ as a means of assisting them during wars. It's a tactic used in modern times and should be an option.

hi ,

sounds great , but there should be the option to give or not to give the tech with it , ....

have a nice day

hzm · August 10, 2002, 00:02

Why wasn't unit trading in the game in the first place? You can already sell workers and settlers.

Panag · August 10, 2002, 06:20

Quote:

Originally posted by hzm
Why wasn't unit trading in the game in the first place? You can already sell workers and settlers.

hi ,

indeed , but there is a bug with that , imagine you have 20 workers from 5 different civ's , then they show all like yours in that city , so you dont know the id of the one you are sending abroad , .....

before it was not like that , Firaxis , please fix this

and there should be more trading of those two units between players , ....

have a nice day

Caliban · August 10, 2002, 13:05

Why is there no "All of these" option in this poll??

Panag · August 10, 2002, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Caliban
Why is there no "All of these" option in this poll??

hi ,

logical , the way the poll's are set up , ....you could do it , but what about the other options , ...

imagine some people voted for all the options , and for all the above at the same time , ....

have a nice day

ammt603 · August 12, 2002, 06:57

has anyone heard if any of these diplomatic things have been added in PTW or if they are planning to add any? I do think some type of extra negotiation needs to be added, the setup is just to simple as is.

TexasPride · August 15, 2002, 21:00

I hate the idea of a trade embargo of certain resources. Its rediculous! Noone would ever stand for an embargo of that type without embargoing everything on you. its like saying when you declare war.........

"I declare war on you but only in X region"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways just a thought...

TexasPride · August 16, 2002, 11:45

I just thought of a really good idea. I think it should be possible to make treaties that would only take certain tiles. Basically it would draw your borders exactly as you want them.You wouldnt be able to expand your borders more than a few extra tiles (lets say two just for discussion purposes). This would be really useful for those wars that you won but without takin cities and you dont think you can take a city.

Panag · August 17, 2002, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by TexasPride
I hate the idea of a trade embargo of certain resources. Its rediculous! Noone would ever stand for an embargo of that type without embargoing everything on you. its like saying when you declare war.........

"I declare war on you but only in X region"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways just a thought...

hi ,

, the answer , a conflict , two nations fight each other in a region , yet they are friendly with each other in the rest of the world , ....

nice idea , but that is not the general point

have a nice day

TexasPride · August 17, 2002, 16:59

Thats rediculous!!!!!! I can't think of a single war in which two nations only fought in a certain region and in the rest of world shook hands and went about thier business. Its rediculous!! Maybe im misunderstanding you but the idea of an agreement to fight only in a certain area is not even near maintainable or for that matter realistic!!!

Anyways that's beside the point....

WHat im tryin to say here is that embargoing certain goods and not others it unrealistic and no one in the human race would stand for it. Even with alternate history the way humans react and think doesnt change!
In conclusion, while it is physically possible to embargo certain goods it is unrealistic and hypocrytical to do so.

SABRA · August 18, 2002, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by TexasPride
Thats rediculous!!!!!! I can't think of a single war in which two nations only fought in a certain region and in the rest of world shook hands and went about thier business. Its rediculous!! Maybe im misunderstanding you but the idea of an agreement to fight only in a certain area is not even near maintainable or for that matter realistic!!!

Anyways that's beside the point....

WHat im tryin to say here is that embargoing certain goods and not others it unrealistic and no one in the human race would stand for it. Even with alternate history the way humans react and think doesnt change!
In conclusion, while it is physically possible to embargo certain goods it is unrealistic and hypocrytical to do so.

The cold war would be a good example .
It would also be intresting to see a type of small conflict , not a full scale war .
Or a type of border conflict , like the US / Mexican border , there is no war there , yet there is a small war against drugs and illegal immigrants .
Stuff like that would be great .

TexasPride · August 19, 2002, 12:04

For one thing the Cold War was not a war at all. More like a diplomatic power struggle. It was mainly an arms race though and no US troops ever fought any russian troops in that span of time.

As for your drug war......OH PLZ that's a freakin law enforcement deal. Your Illegal immigrants is not a war at all! That's just enforcein borders. If you can't tell the difference I would think twice fore goin to war with any one cause the AI sure don't have that prob. Furthermore what the **** do you know 'bout what goes on over here on the US/Mexico Border, I seem to notice you live in Israel. Your not even in the US. I happen to live right at the forefront of what you're ATTEMPTING to talk about. I live in TEXAS! If you want a way to simulate illegals than simply have them immigrate cross borders to more advanced and developed civs from 2nd rate ones.
Sure havein a small war that is contained would be interestin' in alot of respects but would be completely impossible once you consider the human mind.

ALSO BESIDE THE POINT!!!

I'm not tryin to say anything 'bout confined wars, I started out tryin to make a point about embargos on specific items. (The analogy seems to have drawn all the people in this forum who have no concept of what and how war is.) So I repeat IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT. If you don't like what I think then say you disagree and we'll go on bout our business, but if you try to argue (well don't cause I almost never say anything I can't back up fully and entirely) I will feel the need to make a point on where the arguement is flawed.

JohnM2433 · August 19, 2002, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by TexasPride
Thats rediculous!!!!!! I can't think of a single war in which two nations only fought in a certain region and in the rest of world shook hands and went about thier business. Its rediculous!! Maybe im misunderstanding you but the idea of an agreement to fight only in a certain area is not even near maintainable or for that matter realistic!!!

Anyways that's beside the point....

WHat im tryin to say here is that embargoing certain goods and not others it unrealistic and no one in the human race would stand for it. Even with alternate history the way humans react and think doesnt change!
In conclusion, while it is physically possible to embargo certain goods it is unrealistic and hypocrytical to do so.

Well, I believe that in WWII the Germans and the English agreed not to bomb certain of each other's cities. Also consider the "smart sanctions" that have been considered against Iraq -- sanctions of weapons but not other certain other goods. In other words, targeted sanctions.

Of course, in MP, players will be free to make their own agreements outside of what is allowed in the diplomacy box. The main thing is to give them the tools to do so, which should probably include, among other things:

1. Allow the unilateral cancellation of agreements before they are up without a declaration of war (results in a big reputation hit, obviously).
2. Allow civs to negotiate the cancellation of agreements before they are up (e.g, "I'll give you 50 gold to cancel our MPP and trade deal X).
3. Allow players to specify how long any part of a deal lasts, instead of always having 20 turns (e.g., "In exchange for providing me with iron for the next 40 turns, I'll give you 5 gold per turn for the next 50 turns).

TexasPride · August 20, 2002, 19:02

Sounds good John!