|
Author
|
Topic: DIPLOMACY (ver1.1): Hosted by Jeje2
|
Cartagia the Great
Civer
IP:  |
posted June 11, 1999 13:01
   
Along this same topic, I believe that Russia has jsut put up for vote a treat which will offically end World War 2, by declaring peace with Japan. I also agree with NotLikeTea about the demanding. Demaning tribute I can see, but should only be used in the ealier stages of the game. Doing it in the later stagues should set off a diplomatic incident. Although the Byzantines would think nothing of demanding tribute from the Arabs, the Greeks would have a serious problem tryign to exact tribute from Macedonia, becase of international opinion. I ,personally, am for the idea of diplomacy getting more and more complexe as the game goes on, just like in real life. Of course I'm the one who LOVES Diplomacy in the game, far better than war  I'm the kind who'd prefer to put myself into a diplomacticly secure position ,and dicker with people rather than crush their cities until I KNOW it would be a fast win. I know, I'm strange Another idea which I agree in is that, just because you attack a military unit, or even seize a city, doesn't mean you offically declare war. Sometimes, allowing the enemy to take a small city is better than declaring all out war......sometimes |
Cartagia the Great
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 13:01
Along this same topic, I believe that Russia has jsut put up for vote a treat which will offically end World War 2, by declaring peace with Japan. I also agree with NotLikeTea about the demanding. Demaning tribute I can see, but should only be used in the ealier stages of the game. Doing it in the later stagues should set off a diplomatic incident. Although the Byzantines would think nothing of demanding tribute from the Arabs, the Greeks would have a serious problem tryign to exact tribute from Macedonia, becase of international opinion. I ,personally, am for the idea of diplomacy getting more and more complexe as the game goes on, just like in real life. Of course I'm the one who LOVES Diplomacy in the game, far better than war I'm the kind who'd prefer to put myself into a diplomacticly secure position ,and dicker with people rather than crush their cities until I KNOW it would be a fast win. I know, I'm strange Another idea which I agree in is that, just because you attack a military unit, or even seize a city, doesn't mean you offically declare war. Sometimes, allowing the enemy to take a small city is better than declaring all out war......sometimes |
NotLikeTea
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 13:36
Wow.. I'm happy to see such support. But I don't even agree with my ideas on demanding. I never made any Jimmy made the comments about demanding techs, not I. I want to make sure the proper people are recognized for their ideas. I agree with it, BTW. |
Flavor Dave
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 14:34
Jimmy, two more points. One, even if we don't see it in our world, is this the only possible world? Obviously not.Two, India is a democracy. Do you think they've ever asked the US for nuclear technology? I do too. |
MBD
Junior Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 15:16
To rephrase an old saying - "diplomacy is war by other means."
I'd like to see diplomacy include, when appropriate to the time period, such things as DMZ's, no-fly zones, mutual-defense pacts, secret agreements between nations, truly neutral nations, the "Finlandization" of small nations near major powers, and supra-national organizations (both military and economic.)
There should be a way to use latitude and longitude lines as a possible basis for negotiation (54'40 or fight.)
I'd even like to have the possibility of joining two nations through the marriage of their rulers (remember Ferdinand and Isabella?)
I'd like to able to at least make a demand for anything (a city, a region) that belongs to my opponent and that I might otherwise be able to take through force, although I agree that it recently has become harder to make overt demands of other nations and every demand, whether successful or not, probably has a long-term cost in reputation.
The more available diplomatic options the better, particularly between human players. I'm not sure how anyone could create an AI that can make "intelligent" use of all of its possible options. |
CormacMacArt
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 16:37
Flavor Dave - don't you think that it would be a far better game if the AI requested the tech, you refused only knowing that you will now have to be prepared for serious espionage? |
Jimmy
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 18:20
I agree that our world is not the only way. I just want the AI to be smarter that's all. How many times have we seen a small civ threaten a human player who is a super power and when the human refuses, the small AI declares war. Or, an ally break a treaty over a human player refusing a demand when the AI should have a sense that breaking an alliance over such a thing is a strategic mistake. I am not against demanding tribute. Such a thing was done all the time in Ancient Times and the civ that was more powerful did declare war if the tribute was not payed but later, diplomacy became more subtle and complex. |
Flavor Dave
Civer
IP: |
posted June 12, 1999 12:34
Jimmy--there are certain discreet points in the game when the AI gets more hostile toward you. 1750, 1850, the discovery of space flight and other space techs, and when you launch your ship. The wussy AI that demands something and then declares war when you refuses is NOT acting in its own best interest. It is acting in the best interest of the computer, which is trying to keep you, the human, from winning the game.So, they start making these demands when it's the only chance the computer has of stopping you from winning. That's why it's in the game, to make it challenging. |
Eggman
Civer
IP: |
posted June 14, 1999 22:21
About diplomacy in general, I would be very happy if diplomacy was set up in such a way that (1) it made it a valuable part of the game (other than we are at war/ we are not at war/ do this or we will be at war) and (2) it made the computer player act like a real human instead of an easily manipulated rube.
Wouldn't it be nice if a diplomatic focus could result in true advantages? How about sending diplomats around could make minor powers (I still like this idea) like you more? Create more trade? Make citizens of other civilizations like you more and thus reduce the chance of war? Make your citizens less likely to revolt? Even some sort of Planetary Council ala SMAC would be nice. Even add in some third (of fourth) parties (the pope comes to mind) that give you an advantage when you reach some sort of diplomatic milestone.As for the AI, the Eiffel Tower artificially made the computer like you more which is totally unrealistic. If you want a diplomatic wonder, make it do something more tangible. And how many of you out there have become masters of diplomatically manipulating computer players to continually declare war on you, allowing you to actively conquer their territory as a democracy without any reputation damage? Plus getting those key breathers from those convenient ceasefires? Make diplomacy a major factor but one that makes sense. |
Bubba
Civer
IP: |
posted June 15, 1999 08:30
I sorry I didn't read all the posts so I apologise if there is any repetition. I just have to points:1) Proposed no war between Democracy rule: I would vote no for such a rule. Depending on how you interpret what a democracy is, there have been wars between democracies in the past according to the Economist, e.g. Britian versus the Boer republics, American Civil War inter alia. Everyone supports this idea by claiming that one of the parties was not a "true democracy." But who is a democracy? Many people will still argue that the US, UK & Canada are still not true democracies because certain groups are still marginalized. While it is unlikely that western democracies will fight one anther it is not inconcievable that the west might fight an Islamic or Eastern democracy in the future. If you want to make it difficult for Democracies to wage war this should be done through the government profile rather than diplomacy. 2) On the rule that their is absloute embargo during War on trade. I would disagree again. In earlier wars (Napleonic), British merchants still traded with European Merchants even after Napleon imposed the embargo. I can understand cancelling CTP style trade routes but not disallowing a Civ II caravan one-time payment. Perhaps a better idea would be to have a Caravan in War only give a one-off reduced profit from the trade rather than creating a route. |
Harel
Civer
IP: |
posted June 15, 1999 14:07
A bit late, but what the heck.
ZenOn, i just found your post.
What I said about wars, that they give you a bonus to military production.
However, civilain production does suffer after the war.
America economy slancked down ( in comparision ) after both world wars.
A war is a strain on the economy: by directing it to realms it has no use in peaceful times, you are damaging the growth and direction of the industry.
Not a single country did not suffer reduced effectivness after a war ( the few years after ).
|
yin26
Moderator
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 05:35
-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=- |
korn469
Civer
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 08:14
here's something i'd like to see...neutral civilizations neutrality When a civilization is neutral then it can't have any combat units outside of it's borders (it can however have non combat units and explorer units outside of its borders), neutral civs receive only half the commerce of having a treaty with someone, however a neutral civilization has commerce with all civs. A neutral civ can't vote for or be elected planetary governor (if that is even in civ3). If they declare war or sign a treaty then they lose their neutral status. If advanced diplomacy options were ever added to the game they wouldn't be able to do the ones that would violate their neutrality. However, it is an atrocity to attack a neutral civ if someone attacks a neutral civ then the neutral can have military units outside of their borders but they can only attack their conquered cities. If they attack a city that wasn't originally their own they lose their neutral status, also if a neutral faction ever commits an atrocity it loses its neutral status. As soon as they either retake the cities they lost or those cities are assimilated into the attacking empire all of the neutral's military units are returned back to inside of their borders. To become neutral you can't have had any other diplomatic state besides truce for 10 years after you have came in contact with another civ korn469 |
Mr. Bigglesworth
Junior Civer
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 15:43
First off, Cartagia the Great said that piracy should become obsolete at some point, but even today cutting off trade lines is a big part of war. I agree thought that there should be some option where instead of destroying the trade line you could just place a unit there and siphon off a percentage of the profits.Secondly, agree with DarthVada's suggestion to be able to sell units to other civs. Say for instance the Russians are invading Afghanistan, you could sell some SAM's to the Afghans, perhaps at a discount (.5 of production), so that they keep an enemy occupied, or you could sell some bombers to a civ that hasn't discovered flight yet and set the price above its value. It'll be like arms deals, maybe you can negotiate a contract or something. Civs would not be able to get techs from the units though. ------------------
"When Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset, people DIE!"
- Dr. Evil
|
NotLikeTea
Civer
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 19:36
The world's largest industry (in terms of dollars) is the arms trade, so it seems reasonable that it be included.Interestingly enough, #2 is the drug trade... |
Ecce Homo
Civer
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 19:47
NotLikeTea, I believe I have read that these two have expanded the most during the century. And that sex/pornography was in third... |
EnochF
Civer
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 19:50
I hadn't yet read DarthVeda's idea. That's the problem with having 70+ posts in your thread, I suppose. (Where is this Jeje2, anyway?)Point is, selling military units is a great idea! The way Darth describes it, it's more like contracting, which is very pertinent to Diplomacy. The way I see it, though, is that at any time you could opt to sell a military unit to any civilization at any time (unless you're at war or cease fire with them). Of course, there would be nothing to stop a nation to go to war with you after they'd bought your stealth bombers, but that's part of the fun. And of course, there would be certain civilizations that would be arms dealers by nature. In ancient times you might run across the Phoenicians, who offer to sell you one of their highly sophisticated caravels for 350 gold. Well, you've only got 600 gold, but there's this spot across the ocean you'd like to settle, and you don't want to risk a trireme, so... you go for it. Meanwhile, you turn down the Germans' offer to sell you catapults for 250 gold each; they're not worth it. I think this suggestion should be included in the Units thread. Has anybody checked to see if it's there? |
Mo
Civer
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 21:13
If a country who you sold weapons to turns against you you should have an advantage fighting against the units you sold them since you designed them and know all of their weaknesses.
Civs to whom you sell units for which they don't yet have the technology to build should gain a bonus to researcht that tech or its prequesits. |
FinnishGuy
Civer
IP: |
posted June 17, 1999 08:06
Real world arms selling countries do not sell their latest top hardware, but stripped down or older versions instead. The reason is exactly that they don't want to face their own best weapons. This could be modelled in CIV III by giving a permanent attack/defense penalty to sold equipment. So, when your latest tank model has values 12/6 and you sell them, the client actually gets say 10/5 tanks.
|
Diodorus Sicilus
Civer
IP: |
posted June 17, 1999 16:00
This is the second time today I've posted ideas gleaned from another game, but, as the song goes: "Plagerize, but please, call it Research..."
In the game 'Birth of the Federation' (BotF) the attitdue of each major and minor power towards your power is represented on a sliding scale from Worshipful to Hostile.
By using this is CivIII we could implement a lot of the diplomatic 'penalties' that modern and ancient governments were attuned to. For instance, a Democracy that declares war without provocation would get a negative slide on the scale from virtually everyone, inclkuding its own people (negative Happiness), while a Totalitarian government would have less impact because, well, it's sort of expected...
Civs that practice 'benign' diplomacy in the form of trade agreements, peace pacts, respect borders, etc, would get increasingly higher reputations, which make it easier for them to get agreements with other Civs. The gamer who insists on playing like a Warmonger all the time, will find it virtually impossible to get a Diplomatic agreement with the AI, and the AI will be more likely to Sneak Attack, pirate, spy, and otherwise Do Unto Him who has the bad rep.
This is similar to, but more flexible, than the system in CtP where attitudes where discrete ranges from Smiley Face to Snarl: a sliding scale allows more variation of opinion/reputation and more acts or things you can Build, Do, or not do to affect the reputation.
Democracies, by the way, are historically ambivalent towards war: if attacked, they tend to gain huge support from their populations and wage Total War. If they try to initiate the attack without Real Good Reasons, internal support is very weak and neighbors start to eye them suspiciously. The ancient Roman Republic was also very careful about its reputation, but could almost always present an opponent's actions as an Insult to Roman Dignity and an excus eto declare war.
Which means, there's a good precedent for the effects of your diplomatic actions on your own civ and other civ's opinions of you being dependant on your government/social type, the discovery of certain Philosophies (International Law, Pacifism, Absolutism, etc) and your previous reputation: it will be a long, long time before Japanese troops are welcome anywhere in southeast Asia or China, and it has taken 50+ years for German troops to be acceptable outside Germany (in Yugoslavia, just this month). |
Flavor Dave
Civer
IP: |
posted June 17, 1999 16:11
Civs that practice 'benign' diplomacy in the form of trade agreements, peace pacts, respect borders, etc, would get increasingly higher reputations, which make it easier for them to get agreements with other Civs.----- This is a bad idea, b/c as it would play out in the game, it would mean that if you're a pretty strong, nice Civ, and you've built Hoover Dam, the game is over. You won't be attacked, and you'll win the space race. Please remember WHY the AIs get increasingly hostile toward you--it's to keep the game from being too easy for you. ----- The gamer who insists on playing like a Warmonger all the time, will find it virtually impossible to get a Diplomatic agreement with the AI, ------ By warmongering, do you mean fighting all the time, or sneak attacking? If it's the latter, that is ALREADY in the game. If it's the former, WHY??? Being aggressive militarily is just as valid a way to win as building a perfect SimCiv. I don't play that way, much, but I'd hate to have this method penalized. There's no reason in the world to RESTRICT strategic options. If you are wanting to add realism, then you can just play two turns, and die of old age. |
Eggman
Civer
IP: |
posted June 17, 1999 21:22
That joke never gets old, does it? ;-)Personally, I think diplomacy should not only effect the AI players (which affects single player games and multiplayer games with computer opponents) but also your OWN POPULATION (which affects all games, including pure multiplayer). Build a lot of trade with a civ, going to war is going to be unpopular. Turning on allies will be harder and cause all sorts of happiness penalties. Etc. Give diplomacy a more tangible feel than the artificial diplomacy of Civ2 which disappears in muliplayer. |
EnochF
Civer
IP: |
posted June 18, 1999 12:11
We're still waiting on a summary! Who's been following this thread closely? Eggman? Flavor Dave? NotLikeTea? |
Flavor Dave
Civer
IP: |
posted June 18, 1999 12:58
Eggman--that joke will become old as soon as I stop seeing ideas that make it appropriate.;-)That's probably a pretty good idea, to have diplomacy affect your own happiness. I would like to see a small, temporary bonus for a democracy that is sneak-attacked. Perhaps 5 turns of a police-station effect (and if you already have Women's Suffrage, that would mean NO unhappiness from units in the field.) Your military advisor would jump in before the last turn of this effect and say, "Sir, I think the men need to be rotated home." Also, even under communism or fundy, there should be some penalty for you being aggressive. At the least, the aggressor in a war loses the trade income from trade routes. Perhaps, under communism, the effects of martial law are halved for 5 turns. |
Francis
Civer
IP: |
posted June 18, 1999 14:18
Here's a diplomatic suggestion in the interest of game balance: Less tribute/gifts from allies. Doing either well is a trick to learn, but once learned it's ludicrously easy to build yourself up at the expense of civs who get nothing in return. Unless a civ is really weak, or really under your guns, or, I don't know, dependent on trade with you and worried about the disruption a war would cause, this gravy train should turn into a gravy little red wagon for Civ III. |
Flavor Dave
Civer
IP: |
posted June 18, 1999 15:00
Program the AI to give tribute once, then it doesn't give tribute unless you have a unit within 2 squares of one of its cities.Also, civs should (possibly) give tribute whenever you give them a gift. This would have the effect of selling gunpowder to the hapless Sioux, and using the money to buy some tanks (heh heh). |
EnochF
Civer
IP: |
posted June 18, 1999 15:30
*sigh*Fine. Ignore me. But just so you know, you're all making suggestions to a vacuum unless somebody takes over for Jeje2. |
Jimmy
Civer
IP: |
posted June 18, 1999 21:56
How about if single player civ3 had the same diplomatic system as multiplayer SMAC. Instead of typing a message, both the computer and the human could chose a message to send from a list. Both the human and the computer would have the same list so that both sides get the same option. The list should be as long as possible to cover as many possibilities as possible ( the most important ones since every possibility cannot be covered. The messages would range from demands, declaration of wars, requests in exchange for what you are offering ans simple statements.
This type of diplomacy is excellent because there is the negotiation aspect. offer, counter offer etc... |
Jeje2
Civer
IP: |
posted June 19, 1999 04:03
EnochF: You are absolutely right. I have been negletting this thread. I'm sorry.But, now I just updated the list, to thread "ver2.0" I hope you all can read it and comment on flaws. (My email: Jerri@iki.fi) I've spent last night and this morning reading them. Please move over to: DIPLOMACY ver2.0 ------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2 [This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited June 19, 1999).] | |
Thread Closed 
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
