|
Author
|
|
Topic: Diplomacy: The Vitmore Book Club recommends... |  |
|
Vitmore The Great
Chieftain
Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted January 25, 2001 14:28
   | 
 |
 |  |
There are always big discussions on how Civs should treat each other under certain strategic situations in the game. For example, if there is one Superpower civ, do the other civs join together to create a balance of power, or be pacifist to the hegemonic regime of the superpower. Well, at the moment I am reading a great book by G. John Ikenberry called "After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Resraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars". I tell ya, I'm learning a lot about how international realationships work, especially after major conflicts such as the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and WWII. After reading this book, you will a better perspective of how international order works. So to anyone who wants to learn more about this subject (especially the Civ II team who could maybe apply some of the books general theories to AI Diplomacy), I recommend this book.Ikenberry, G. John. "After Victory". Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, 2001. ISBN Hard 0-691-05090-2
ISBN Paperbk 0-691-05091-0 |
tniem
Warlord
Grand Rapids
Apr 2000
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 14:32
 |
|
| |
I will look for it.But since you brought up this concept of diplomacy, I would like to know what this author thinks about the treatment of a superciv. |
Vitmore The Great
Chieftain
Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 14:56
|
|
| |
Well, Ikenberry says that after every major war, there is a need for a new international order, since the previous order has been swept away by the war (ie. League of Nations before WWII). The only power one that has the strength to establish the new order is the nation that emerges from the war in the best, most materially superior position (al US after WWI and WWII). The power has three options: a)Withdraw from the world in isolation (US after WWI), b)Dominate the world (Hegemonic), and c)Create instituations to create and preserve the new order (UN). Now, the X factor ina new order is the secondary and weaker nations of the world. They could respond to the super power by either a)Joining any institutions that is created, which limits how much benefits the superpower enjoys, b)Joining together in blocs to creat a balance of power, which is anarchic in subsatance since there are no overiding power to limit the superpower and the blocs, or c)Totally submit to the superpower as hegemonic vassals.In Civ III, if there is one superciv, other civs should either submit to it by being exteremely cordial to the superciv and give tribute and the like, form alliances with other weaker and secondary civs to creat a balance of power, or if the UN in the game is a viable organization (not just a wonder with benefits to the civ that has it) the other civs could join it, with the superpower having influence over it, yet still being limited by its constitutionality. I find these models very simple concepts for a game like civ. Depending on Civ characteristics that make each one unique (as you can tell I support this game concept) and how the superciv treats the other civs, they have three options of response to the superciv. Vitmore P.S. I just had an idea for the UN. Though I'm not quite decided on what affects I would like the UN to have in the game, I think that if the previous diplomatic models stated in this post are applied, that after the capital of the superciv (which most likely would have the UN) is captured by another civ (which is assumed to have eclipsed the previous superciv in might), the UN would be lost and dissolved, resulting in temporary international choas. The victorious civ would then have the opportunity to re-establish the UN, and therfore create a new order with it as the new superciv. I really like this idea. |
wittlich
Warlord
Fayetteville, NC, USA
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 21:09
|
|
| |
This idea does have some merits. The UN, how you describe it, reminds me of the Planetary Council in Alpha Centauri. Why couldn't the UN in CIV III be modeled around SMAC Planetary Council? Of course, the head of the UN would be the same as the Planetary Governor.Why should the biggest superpower have the automatically have the leadership of the UN? Why not have a planetary vote like in SMAC or how the UN picks it's figure head in real life? Of course the superpower or Superpowers should have added influence in the election process (extra votes) because of their global infuence in general.  What do you think? |
Vitmore The Great
Chieftain
Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 00:44
|
|
| |
You might think a little less of me after I say this, but I haven't played an actual game of SMAC before. (the thing about civ is that it is grounded in histroy, which I like). As a result, I'm not an expert on The Planety Council, though I could imagine how it would work. When I talk about the UN in Civ III, the superciv has overall influence over UN, so it would be given the "Planetary Governor's" position, keeping with the SMAC comparison. To "accurately" give the superciv the prominence that its world stature requires, it would be more practical to have the superciv as the permanent leader of the UN, at least until it is defeated by a rival civ which would have to rebuild the UN with itself as leader. Its powers would be limited, since the UN is not an empire and is based on the UN Charter, which is effectively a constitution. Think US President and Congress. The Prez is the boss, but Congress has limiting powers over the Prez. Other civs should not be "forced" to join UN, but the superciv should be able to give incentives to join, such as money, military agreements etc. This is where my previous post about the various options secondrary and weaker states should have in this situation. As to the other civs voting on UN actions and such, the AI would have to be very intelligent indeed. It would have to know the difference between UN interests and national interests. Originally I thought that the superciv would have overall control of UN and what it does would be supported by other civs because of its influence. Actual voting would be more realistic, which I like.Vitmore
[This message has been edited by Vitmore The Great (edited January 26, 2001).] |
Zeevico
Settler
Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 05:31
|
|
| |
It's a good idea but you'd need a lot of civs for it to work effectively. Also, why does the most powerful civ control the UN? A head governor position is ussually overruled by the congress of the institution. Apart from that it seems good. |
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 08:10
 |
|
| |
The builder of the UN could get double planetary council votes and all communications (empath guild in SMAC) |
Vitmore The Great
Chieftain
Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 18:06
|
|
| |
Alright then. I have no experience with SMAC, so I didn't really follw the actual Planetary Council Concept. It's a good idea I suppose that the main civ have double, or at least more votes than any one other civ. Double of everybody together would just make UN a puppet. The superciv would have to have some support form memebrs to get things done. The closest model to this idea that I have personally seen is in MOO2, when you are up for election for Chairman of the Galactic Republic. Power was not the determining factor in how many votes you could cast, it was the number of colonies that you had. Civ III, to make things simple should have the superciv with a token UN Wonder in one of the civs cities, only to differentiate the superciv from the others.Vitmore |
wittlich
Warlord
Fayetteville, NC, USA
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 19:28
|
|
| |
Ok, you have me sold on it. 
|
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 23:44
|
|
| |
let me redefine double. Everyone has so many Planetary Council votes based on their poupulation. Double means that this ammount would be doubled. |
wittlich
Warlord
Fayetteville, NC, USA
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 27, 2001 11:49
|
|
| |
Exactly Biddles 
|
Vitmore The Great
Chieftain
Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted January 27, 2001 12:26
|
|
| |
Oh, I follow you now. Makes sense! Vitmore |
kochman626
Settler
New York, New York, U.S.A
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 31, 2001 16:58
|
|
| |
i think that maintaining a super power should be very difficult. first, there should be the idea of revolution in distant cities (which is what happened to the former british empire) and there should also be trouble from countries with fundamentalist governments. countries like those would send out terrorists (or something) to make it hard for u, thinking that u, being the superpower, are evil, and that god wishes u to be destroyed. |
Vitmore The Great
Chieftain
Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted January 31, 2001 23:03
|
|
| |
That is also a good idea. Sorta of a built in vendetta? Fundies have more of a tendency to resist a superpower than, lets say, a republic? Iran comes to mind when you mention a fundie resisting a superpower (US). In the book that I am reading, which actually started this topic, where I am (analysis of settlement of 1919), it doesn't mention how fundies would interact in an international order. But as I mentioned before, Iran can be an example.
Vitmore
|
Anunikoba
Warlord
Michigan,USA
Sep 1999
|
 |
posted February 01, 2001 14:28
|
|
| |
Can I join the Vitmore Book Club? | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
