Diplomacy

[Flip McWho]

I was sitting in my Poltical Science tutorial today (Wealth and World Politics) and was amazed at how much of it is actually in Civ3... at a basic level. Seems like i'm all set up for my POLS course with Civ3

Well notice how I said basic level. Thats the thing. I wish that the diplomacy in Civ3 was so much more advanced than it is now. I've got a few improvements I think are needed. For starters just expanding the options would be good. The basics that should be included are things like third party peace deals and the such like that. You should be able to threaten the AI more to. Like whatever happened to the "our words are backed with nuclear weapons" threat? Also wouldn't it be great if you could say things like:
"Come now persia, don't be daft. I have a military force three times your size, three times the tech level and my economic centre and infastructure is vastly superior to yours. All I ask for is a simple luxury, and I'm even offering you gpt for it too. Your choice buddy"
While I'm on it. I'd also like as a function that becomes available with embassies the ability to get a complete report made on a certain opposing state. For example click an option within the espionage menu saying "Gather comprehensive report on State" and it'll cost you so much gold to do. This report would tell you things from the current form of government, general happiness of the nation, general level of tech, general level of infastructure and economic stregth, level of military strength compared to you and general tech level of the military (eg mostly spearmen and swordsmen or pikemen and tanks with a spattering of infantry). This would be handy in giving you that little bit more information about a potential enemy or ally. For example if you get a report on a nation you are thinking of attacking and realise that they are having unhappiness problems and that they are democratically governed you decide to attack hoping that war weariness occurs quickly and effects them that much more because they are already suffering unhappiness.

Well thats it for now, I had more ideas earlier but can't remember them at the moment. Hope what I wrote makes sense to. If it doesn't ask, i'll try to clarify. I'll also post somemore if I think of them. Also add your ideas and do you agree that the Diplomacy in Civ3 is vastly lacking?

[Alex]

Yes, the diplomacy aspect in Civ3 could have been better, especially because we had a great (not perfect, though) diplomacy system in SMAC.

I love the option you had in SMAC of framing another faction for your own espionage actions. Great tool to manipulate the political machinations under the hood.

I think that your idea about a complete report on an enemy nation is interesting, but I also think that it should be dependent on how much your spying abilities were developed or not. Getting this kind of complete report by the means of an embassy is too powerful in my opinion, especially considering that, in Real Life, most nations hide some kind of strategic information, which constitutes the "denied data" that must be obtained by means of espionage.

[vmxa1]

I would vote for removing Dip from the game.

[Boracks]

Originally posted by Alex
Yes, the diplomacy aspect in Civ3 could have been better, especially because we had a great (not perfect, though) diplomacy system in SMAC.

Yes, the diplomacy in SMAC is much better than in CIV3, actually useful. Lack of an effective diplomacy engine in CIV3 has caused me to abandon some games.

[Willem]

At the very least, there should be a non-aggression agreement in the game, not just mutual protection. And a civ shouldn't just be able, for the most part, to go from peace to war. There should be a few steps between in most cases, such as expelling your diplomats, cancelling trade agreements etc.

[Flip McWho]

vxma1 thats a bit extreme isn't it? Having diplomacy removed totally??

[Barinthus]

Guess he's a such warmonger he just don't need diplomancy

[dexters]

Not having played SMAC, it is my understanding that SMAC has a more complex Diplomacy but a less competent AI in the sense of the AI just doesn't know how to use a lot of the features.

If that is the case, then i'd go for the Civ3 system, where its simplicity allows for the AI to be programmed to learn human exploits and know all the features.

Do I want a more complex diplo system? yes. I was very very disappointed when I learned locked alliances was something you set in a scenario and not a new diplomacy option. But thinking about it, had it been a new diplomacy option, it might have required a new re-write of a large chunk of the AI diplo code to allow the AI to be able to cope with it. And if the AI can't use it but the human can? no thanks.

[Flip McWho]

Yeah I'm definitely holding out for the days of almost pure AI (ie can think for itself). In those days we will see a AI that can compete on par with a human player. It'll be a day of glorious celebration with people crowding the streets getting drunk celebrating the birth of pure AI. Well not quite but you get my drift.

In my opinion diplomacy is the only thing lacking in Civ. Everything else is fine by me.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
vxma1 thats a bit extreme isn't it? Having diplomacy removed totally??

I find it boring and annoying. Contactng civs and bouncing around with the advisor for a deal.

I just don't bother with it. I do not make many trades and usually go out of my way to not be nice.
My favorite response it "not a chance". At emperor I do not need their help and above it they don't want to give it much anyway.

Not a true warmonger, notg a true builder. Although I prefer to build my empire and structures more than troops.

That is why I love playing repulsive in Moo2. No trades no deals no contacts. When I wants something from the AI I take it. If they want somethign from me they have to take it.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Yeah I'm definitely holding out for the days of almost pure AI (ie can think for itself). In those days we will see a AI that can compete on par with a human player. It'll be a day of glorious celebration with people crowding the streets getting drunk celebrating the birth of pure AI. Well not quite but you get my drift.
.

Don't forget Skynet taking us over and the world becoming infested with terminators.

[Flip McWho]

Sci-fi books/movies have already written the future.. we're just heading towards it now.

Wow vxma1 thats pretty hard line. I thought I was usually a pretty isolationist player. Obviously I have nothing on you. Am I right in assuming you have a large military?

[dexters]

I definately try to take what I need. it's better to control something than to trade for something, but i place my weights differently.

I play really with an eye on balance of power, advancing my interests through friendly contacts and exploiting openenings by helping one side over the other if I have a goal to contain someone.

It's always better to have two AI clobber each other while I build than be a party in a war that I'm not prepared to fight anyways. This probably comes in part because I'm more of a builder and under most circumstances, my early military is not equipped for massive sustained long-term conquests. There's too much infrastructure I want to build.

That said, there's obviously no one right way to play a Civ3 game. I like to use diplomacy more for its implicit effects than its explicit one. An ROP is just an ROP, but one signed with a Civ that is at war with a more powerful civ can shift the balance of power by allowing one Civ free reign over my territory and thus counterattack effectively while the other civ plod along.

It's me, but I like stuff like that.

P.S. in almost every game, I've always picked one Civ that I partner up with. We never go to war and they are often, not real vassals as in a really weak civ. but more of a middle power. On difficulty levels (Emperor, Monarch ) which I play most often, having a partner civ like that around ensures that there's always someone who is behind me and I can trade techs to as well as the frequent bonus of them going down a different tech path and allowing me more options in trades.

It's an arguable benefit I suppose as most people can trade techs around with or without this partner. But a partnership with me usually entails a strong rich middle power, which is much more secure than some other AI civ that could be wiped out anytime or one that may not have the cash to pay for it.

[kailhun]

I have to agree that diplomacy is fairly pointless in Civ III. Basically it features in the following ways:

- all the AI civs have mutual protection pacts, so that sooner or later a cascade of wars start;
- if you want a luxury (say furs), you have to offer wine, dyes and incense otherwise the AI is insulted;
- techs and world maps are not traded for luxuries (if I even offer one as part of the deal the AI is insulted);
- if you have a tech the AI wants then most deals that do not involve that tech will fail.

Most deals run along these lines:

Me:"What do you want for furs?"
AI:" Wines, dyes, incense, world map."

Me:"What will you give for wines?"
AI:"2 gold per turn."

Somewhat pointless.

I'm sure this has been covered before, but It happened to me last night (again) and I felt a need to complain about it.

[Tall Stranger]

As you probably know, the reason for this is simple: the AI bases its demands on how many happy faces the luxury you seek will provide you. Thus, if you already have 3-4 luxuries and have a large number of marketplaces, a single luxury can be worth several happy citizens. Because you will benefit much more than they will in a one-for-one trade, the price they demand is high.

If you add into the equation the fact that humans use the luxury slider while the AI doesn't, that single luxury you get from them may also enable you to reduce your luxury budget, thus allowing you to up your research as well.

Finally, so what if they want a 3-for-1 deal? If you have surplus luxuries, they're not doing you any good just sitting there. The benefit you get from that extra luxury is more than worth propping up the AI.

In short, I never understood why people think a 1-for-1 deal is "fair," when it demonstrably is not. In most cases, with a well-developed human empire, even 3-for-1 is very beneficial to the human.