posted May 19, 2001 07:14

Also, the higher the culture-rate is between negotiating Civs, the more an agreement is considered an agreement. Infact, many times I would rather prefer enforced (but time-limited) peace- & ally-rules, so both the AI-civs and the HP-player really can trust them better. Diplomacy with too weak backstabbing-deterrant rules, becomes more-or-less meaningless.

	posted May 19, 2001 09:34

I agree with the point that the computer players should not be able to refuse your diplomatic efforts. Even during the Cold War both sides were in close contact.

	posted May 20, 2001 15:07

The main reason its implemented is to reduce the strength of wondrs like the great wall and the united nations when used by the player. Of course it doens't work when the AI's have the damn things.

	posted May 21, 2001 10:08

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-19-2001 07:14 AM One rather annoying thing in Civ-2 was the large frequency of "I refuse to speak with you" diplomacy AI-responses. As I look at it; "I refuse..." should be the exception (even in wartime) - not the more-or-less standard phrase one is confronted with ever so often. Everything have a pricetag (although not necessarily measured in mere money, of course). The AI-civs are free too blackmail and/or make rather stiff & greedy demands for peace - but they should however nevertheless almost always be reachable through diplomacy. [/b]

I agree. Sometimes I tried very hard to make a generous agreement to some SMAC faction, just to avoid the hassle to destroy it, or because I want to focus on others targets.

We know some people hate each others too much to sign an agreement, but they should listen at least. Third part Civ could still "force" him to cease fire (in SMAC that worked well enough, if both fighting civs are yours allies).

------------------
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. The mind was the first and final battleground, the stuff in between was just noise.
- Admiral Naismith

	posted May 21, 2001 13:57

quote: Originally posted by Kc7mxo on 05-20-2001 03:07 PM The main reason its implemented is to reduce the strength of wondrs like the great wall and the united nations when used by the player. Of course it doens't work when the AI's have the damn things.

Hmm! I didnt thought of that. Well, in that case the Great Wall and the United Nation wonder must be tweaked & adjusted in order to bypass, or counteract that somewhat. Its more important for gameplay reasons that these inflationary "I refuse to speak..." diplomacy-messages gets minimized as much as possible. Maybe Im cynical; but everything have a pricetag - and if the price is increasingly more generous & persuasive enough, and no certain AI-victory is possible anyway. Well why not make a deal?

Two things is important here: Offering some money, a tech or 2-3 units can only persuade the AI so far. The real "hard currency" here, is giving up a city, or two - as geographically close as possible to the AI-civ in question. On the other hand, and as I said in my previous reply:
Any peace-agreements should be "carved in stone" = 100% non-breakable (perhaps mutually exclusive nullified attack/pillaqe ability for both parts, for a certain amount of turns). Just declining diplomatic reputation or hall-of-fame civ-points, simply isnt deterrent enough for most pro civ-players.