Apolyton CS: Civilization III: The List v1: Diplomacy

DIPLOMACY
-Summarized by Thread Master: JeJe-
jerri@iki.fi

1. LEVELS OF MEETINGS    TOP

In several postings it has been suggested that we need a three-level meeting system for discussions between players.

1.1) Meeting between A and B: This is the normal meeting were things can bee discussed freely. Here should exist the most freedom. Something like SMAC but more options. (I will come to options later)

1.2) A pact meeting: Something likes NATO and EU meetings. Discussion is still quite free.

1.3) Forms of pacts: I like Midlance's idea of three types of pacts: military, economic and research.

1.4) How to form a pact? This is still open.

1.5) How can a pact grow?

1.5a) C summons the pact and requests membership.
1.5b) C asks A to join the pact and A summons the pact for approval of C.
1.5c) The pact decides to ask C to join.

1.6) How can one leave a pact? Should it just as simple as leaving?

1.7) Can a member of a pact be expelled? For what reasons can one be expelled from a pact? Can it be temporarily?

1.8) Who can form a pact? Can a pact exist between different political/economic/religious systems?

1.9) What happens if a player changes his system?

1.9a) Automatically rejected.
1.9b) A voting is conducted.
1.9c) Nothing happens until someone summons a meeting about it.

1.10) Can players form pacts from the beginning?

1.11) Agendas for a pact
1.11a) Peacekeeping forces.
1.11b) Ultimatums for peace.
1.11c) Penalizing a player for something he did

1.12) Declaring war as a pact: Many small countries can make a good response to a big aggressive country if working together.

1.13) Having a common foreign policy: A pact can decide that Ex. They are against pollution/polluters.

1.14) What is there that a pact shall not be able to talk about? To make these three systems balanced, I think there should be something that can only be discussed in "privacy."

1.15) Making secret pacts: It should be possible, but it must cost.

1.16) UN-meeting (or Geneva meeting): A summoning of all players to vote for an agenda, like in SMAC. Here only one thing can be suggested and voted for.

1.17) Veto: It has been suggested that UN is to be a wonder of the world (WoW), with builder having the veto-right. So no meetings with all players are to exist before UN is built.

1.18) Shall the membership cost? This requires more discussion.

1.19) Builder: An idea of UN not being a Wonder is suggested. Instead when x nations have the knowledge, UN is gathered or several players could build it together. This way, the UN wouldn't be destroyed and erased from the game. If UN is a Wonder, make it a) impossible to destroy, b) possible to rebuild.

2. WAR    TOP

There has been discussion about what happens if a democratic land attacks another player who is democratic. OK this is good, but what about the rest? We need more discussion here.

2.1) Declaring war: We seem to believe that the regime must influence on a player's ability to declare war. For a democratic player there must be a large penalty if he attacks another democratic player.

2.2) Demanding for patience: And computer always knows how much money I've got. This is unfair:

2.2a) If the demander is poor, he should be satisfied with less.
2.2b) There should be an uncertainty in his knowing about my funding.
2.2c) The ability to demand for multiple things would also be good.

2.3) AI - demanding: In Civilization and SMAC, they are all the time demanding for the best I've got and then declaring war if I refuse. This needs more attention.

2.4) Giving a reason for war: One could try to rationalize war their own people and/or other countries by giving a reason for declaring war. (Ex. Religious war, Defending own race)

2.5) Earlier happenings: Should this influence the reaction of people? Ex. In late 1939 Russia attacked Finland. War ended next spring in peace, but many Finns were angry. Finland lost a lot of its land. So Finland joined Germany and attacked Russia.

2.6) Duration for declaration of war: A problem is that peace doesn't give any real protection for you. So in peace one couldn't declare war, but would first need to declare relations as hostile (1 turn) and then maybe next or following turn one could declare war. If players are allied it should take even longer. If you chose to attack without declaration, a large penalty would be effected on you. (This way the player/AI still can act, but the price must be high.)

2.7) Wartime: One thing is clear, in war there shall be no co-operation between countries.

2.8) Asking for help: It happens too often in Civilization II and SMAC that when you join a war, the asking side makes peace and leaves you with an unwanted war.

Some ideas have been suggested:

2.8a) When A and B make a peace treaty, it affects you, too.
2.8b) You can become a supporter of some form. (Money, units etc.)
2.8c) If you join A, he agrees to wage war for a certain time.

2.9) Peace negations: Classical A and B make peace. UN or a third can negotiate

2.10) Surrender:

2.10a) Definite surrendering, ending the game for losing side
2.10b) Making peace by giving one or more cities/technology's or buying peace
2.10c) Making peace by giving shield and/or research points

2.11) When to ask for peace: In Civilization II there are holes in this. Capture a city and you can make a cease-fire immediately. Next turn just attack the next city and make cease-fire.

2.12) DMZ /no fly zone etc. When making peace players can agree on a DMZ zone for a time. (If either player moves units to that area it must be considered as a hostile act and other player can demand for talks / declare war etc.)

2.13) Cold wars/ propaganda wars: One can always tell his people the truth or tell them a lie or not tell them at all. This must influence the game.

3. INTERACTION    TOP

There shall be several possible interactions between players. They can be working together on military, commercial and/or research. The possibilities depend on the relations between countries.

3.1) Military interaction

3.2) Lending units: Player A can loan some units to B for some time.

3.2a) If A lends a unit with technology that B doesn't own, what happens?
3.2b) How many units can be loaned and for how long?
3.2c) If B uses units against C, is it considered as a declaration of war between A and C?
3.2d) If B uses units against C, can C declare war on A with no penalties?
3.2e) If unit is lost, there should be a penalty. Also the price would depend on what purpose the serves (Defend city vs. Attacking enemy).

3.3) Using others ground: Players A and B can allow units to move in others territory. Questions for discussion: Will A's units defend B's cities automatically when C attacks? If yes, does it lead to war between A and C. Will C suffer from penalties by doing this?

3.4) Combining forces: Players can combine forces for a common goal.

3.5) Commercial: There should be several layers of commercial relationships between countries.

3.5a) Embargo: No trade between players. (War means always embargo.)
3.5b) Protectionism: Limited trade
3.5c) Normal trade: Some limits exist
3.5d) Free trade: No limits between players
3.5e) One needs a certain technology for normal trade and another for free.
3.5f) Between different economic systems there can only be some forms.

3.6) Research: Same as previous, several layers of interaction should exist.

3.7) A common goal: How about the possibility to combine forces for a common goal? Ex. Player A has nuclear technology. Players B, who can begin the research on nuclear technology, asks C and D, who may or may not have the possibility to research nuclear technology now, to join him. Then B, C and D research is summoned together (maybe a small penalty is subtracted or there is a gain [< 1] for summoned research points) making research much faster and they all get that technology. Questions for discussion:

3.7a) If player C is missing a technology in between, does he get it for free?
3.7b) Do C and D join at once or after they have finished their previous one?

4. TRADE    TOP

4.1) Multiple trades: I give technology A and 150 gold for technology B, etc.

4.2) Trade goods: Besides the normal (technology, map), even land, cities and units should be tradable. Even future production. (I give you technology C and you produce for me X units.)

5. REPUTATION    TOP

5.1) Atrocities: Some kinds of acts should reduce a civilization's reputation. As before, we have sneak attacks, diplomatic scandals and diplomatic betrayal (when you declare war against the Greeks because the English tell you to). In a more complicated game, more acts should be declared Atrocities, for instance usage of ABC weapons, genocide or refusing to aid a minor civilization in an emergency.

5.2) In the ancient age however, a feared leader was also a respected leader. Throughout history, the world has turned more critical to violent acts. So, concentration camps might not be an atrocity until the Geneva Convention Wonder, for instance.

5.3) Early game vs. late game: Up to modern age there has been small or no penalties for war. So the year in game should affect on the amount of penalty. Small in beginning and large in late game.

5.4) Wartime crimes: Much talk about murders of men and raping of women has existed in war-zones during the last decade. Should these have negative effects on you? (It can be for ex. Attacking settlers, plundering a city, etc.)

5.5) Repairing reputation: Contrary to Civilization 2, reputation should heal through time, though slowly. Certain Wonders would also improve it. (Not the Eiffel Tower - Hitler wasn't more respected after the capture of Paris!). How about improving your reputation, by giving/lending units for UN, to be used in peacekeeping operations?


Apolyton Civilization Site Copyright © Daniel C. J. Quick All trademarks and trade names are the properties of their respective owners