Diplomacy

[Robert Plomp]

I hardly hear anything about diplomacy.
Before cIIIv was created this was a major issue among the fans.
I think cIIIv came with a very good diplomacy model, it should be improved though.

- be able to discuss the number of turns an agreement lasts
- better alliance model in which you can free the cities of your allies and give them back to them. (or they automaticly become theirs again)
- good indicator of attitude between civs, this shouldn't change too easily. If 2 civs have long good relations, that should pay off.
- implement long-term diplomacy, in which you discuss several matters over several turns, in which you try to get your oponent slowly on your site
- global-diplomacy with multiple civs at the same time.

pherhaps more to come...

[Master Zen]

Agree with all of them.

I would also like to add trading of military units.

There should be closer military collaboration among allies, perhaps also the SMAC method of suggesting targets for your allies, and also perhaps being able to walk into your allies' cities for defending or combined stacks...

The use of allied cities would be very usefull also to heal your units.

One more thing: eliminate RoP rapes. This is not too hard to do, the moment you declare war against a civ you have a RoP with, all your units in their territory automatically move out.

[Robert Plomp]

Good things I can agree with!

Another idea: make joint armies (not the cIIIv armies) that can be controlled by one party. ie. my best friend is in war, I don't want to join that war, but I want to give him 50 tanks to use in this war. After the war is over I want them back. He'll be in total control over the tanks.

[Urban Ranger]

Will you be paying maintenance on them tanks?

[Dauphin]

Loaning units is a good way of give technologically backward nations a helping hand in a war without giveing them the technology or means of production.

[Robert Plomp]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Will you be paying maintenance on them tanks?

I think not.
I should say, compare it to the peace keeping forces from the UN all over the world right now.

I don't think the americans or the iraqi's are paying maintanance over the dutch troops in Iraq right now. (ok, that's not UN)

[Urban Ranger]

It's a totally different scenario.

The Dutch is present in Iraq. It's not like the US is present in Iraq in Dutch tanks.

[Robert Plomp]

That's true.....
But in fact the solution is simple,
the owner of the tanks pays maintanance but the loaner must get an agreement with the owner to rent it for a specific times.

That can be an agreement that involves money.

[Drachasor]

And what happens if all the tanks are destroyed? What happens if he disbands the tanks or sends them on suicide missions? I don't think renting units is pratical.

However, why not just have it so you can either give someone a unit, or give them the means to build X numbers of a particular unit (or even building). Then they can build a certain number of said unit or building, until they use up the help you gave them. I think that would handle things in a more elegant manner. There are too many potential difficulties with unit loans, I think.

-Drachasor

[Jon Shafer]

Yeah, unit lending is a tricky issue.

Perhaps you could charge something for each lent unit that was lost - but then you're getting into some really complicated diplomatic situations. And because they're so complicated, I think the liklihood of being in Civ IV is rather low.

Unit trading should be in.

Having allied units in the same city should be in.

Giving liberated cities back within alliances should definitely be in (adds much more realism, IMO).

Suggesting target nations (and cities) should be in.

Suggesting tech research goals should be in (come on now, you ought to be able to coordinate techs with your AI partners!).

And more...

[General Ludd]

There's only one thing I want out of dimplomacy. An AI that acts more or less rationally, as if it where leading a country rather than playing a game of chess.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

civ4 needs to implement long term, short term, and era term goals for the ai so it acts rationally.

[PresidentMarcos]

Wait...if a civ is wiped out, if all it's cities are captured...if you liberated all it's cities, could you possibly decide to revive it, as in France post-WWII?

[Tassadar500]

I don't think that is a good idea. If a civilization is dead, it's dead. No reviving. What they are talking about is, just giving back a few cities to your allies, not making a whole new civilization again.

[peteruk223]

I think that is a good idea to revive conqured nations. It will amke it more realistic if there is like a world war and a nation is conqured but saved by its allies.

[Ijuin]

What I want is for the AI to stop accusing me of breaking an alliance when I win the war.

Here's an example: In a WWII scenario, I am America, allied with England, France, and Russia against an alliance of Germany, Rome, and Japan. I completely conquer one of the enemy civilizations. As the CivIII AI is set up, I get accused of breaking my alliance because the civilization that we were allied against has died.

I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that the game should not penalize you with your allies for winning such a war--isn't winning a war supposed to be the top reason for forming an alliance in the first place?

[builderchad]

I fully agree with unit 'trading' and not lending as lending doesn't really happen in reality. Or at least I dont think it does.

I would also like to see the following changes/additions to diplomacy in civ4:

- Bases/airfields on allied soil

- A way to force another nation to cease its hostilities/war against an ally. Through threats or gifts (like trade etc)

- Proper alliances that states can join (like NATO)

- Trade blocks (like EU and FTA) that basically equate to increased income for the states involved and better/cheaper access to other members resources etc.

- Protection agreements in exchange for resources (or even possibly luxuries) or other. Similar to what has been in place between the US and Saudi Arabia for the last 60 years where the US guarantees Saudi military protection in exchange for access to her oil fields. This could be done by say making the agreement which would automatically include a RoP and one state has to setup a militray base on the others soil before the access to resources can begin. There would need to be some cleverness to ensure that the agreement was being upheld should hostilities begin however. This might be in the form of a one way Mutual Protection Agreement so it automatically draws the protector into war with any advisaries of the protectee but not the other way round.

- This is tied to another idea I have about sea based fishing grounds and oil fields so would involve other game changes too. And agreement that would allow friends access to your waters for fishing or to prospect and build oil platforms. All with limits ofcourse.

I have many other ideas too but want to see peoples thoughts on the above big ones first.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by builderchad
I fully agree with unit 'trading' and not lending as lending doesn't really happen in reality. Or at least I dont think it does.

Perhaps you forgot the famous Lend-lease?

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko


Perhaps you forgot the famous Lend-lease?

That's a very good point I was going to mention. There are many historic examples of military unit transfers.

Regarding reviving a dead civ, France was not really totally conquered -- by a civ definition. Vichy France (about half of the original size) signed a peace treaty with Germany, declared war on England (technically the British navy opened up on the French warships that would not surrender). So the French AI made a crazy about face (in a Civ perspective).

A few years later, US and British invaded French land in North Africa fighting French, then German troops. Clearly France was restored to it's original geography. However, it was done relatively quickly (all within 5 to 6 years) and there were Vichy French cities providing an already existing nation to add cities to - the civ perspective.

[Fosse]

A new feature for diplomacy...

The addition of "Occupied" as a new status of land.

In Civ III, the land is either theirs or yours. A conquered city might have a few resistors for a few turns, but largely you own a city as soon as it's taken.

If we have a system in which conquered land becomes "Occupied," and provides no shields or production for either side, then we have the beginnings of some really neat war-time diplomacy.

You cannot trade occupied territory to third parties (closing the silly exploit of giving conquered cities to third parties), and the cities become very high stakes chips at the eventual peace talks.

Occupied cities become officially part of the conquerer's land when peace is made (unless the city is returned) or when the enemy is destroyed or surrenders. Occupied land returns to the defender when peace is made (if the city is returned in bargaining), when the city is retaken militarily, or when the aggressor is destroyed by the defender or a third party.

This also lets Mutual Protection Pacts keep you out of trouble when your friend gets aggressive. If you sign a pact, and your pactmate goes on a rampage and some poor civ tries to take back its own city, then you don't have to go to war.
If that guy presses into your friend's land though...

[Vince278]

Originally posted by builderchad
I have many other ideas too but want to see peoples thoughts on the above big ones first.

You've got alot of good ideas there.

A problem with lending is that the enemy your friend is fighting may see your lending as an act of war (which it is).

[Drachasor]

I thought the problem with lending was dealing with the disband/destroyed/suicide issue. It isn't like you have those units insured.

I think lending would be handled well enough by being able to give units, or give the ability to build units. If you give the ability to build a unit, you can choose it to last a certain number of turns or for a certain number of units. That way you avoid the muddled issues involving lending units.

-Drachasor

[Fosse]

I'd like negotiable deal lenghts.
20 turns for everything is boring. I want to negotiate less gpt for more turns! Or I won't declare peace for anything less than 30 turns of guaranteeed safety!

I'd like to see multilateral diplomacy.

I'd like to see one way ROP and MPP. I might come to the rescue of a tiny nation that sells me resources if I'm the world's biggest power. But if Number 2 attacks me then that little place shouldn't necessarily be brought into it.

I want politicaal borders, that can be decided upon by nations with embassies, and are immune to the effects of culture (unless a whole city defects). Cultural borders should only be important in the ancient ages. After a certain level of advancement they should be taken as the default political border, until two nations decide to run a nice straight line down the middle of the mountain range in between them.

Surrender, like SMAC!
Ceasefire, like Civ2 and SMAC!

No "advisor" that simply tells you yes and no! Let diplomacy happen with real bargaining!


How many people would be interested in having the MP diplomacy model in the game, where you offer a deal on turn 1, they counter on turn 2, and so on until both parties accept or one stops. That might be neat in SP.

[Tall_Walt]

In addition to lend-lease, mercenaries have a long history: the Swiss were famous for theirs. US bases in Europe or Korea are essentially lended units as a deterent.

In order to make lending work, the borrower should not be able to disband the units. If he tries, the lend ends. Further, the lender should be able to set a damage limit after which the units will automatically reteat to the nearest allied city. They aren't going to fight as hard for someone else as for their own country. Alternatively, when a lended unit becomes weakened, the owner decides whether the unit continues or retreats. This is representative of the unit commander following the policy of his own country instead of the country he's fighting for.

The biggest thing that needs fixing is that allies should consult before going to war. You don't just go to war and drag all your allies with you. And an ally refusing to join a war you started (especially if you didn't get him to agree to it) is not as bad as an ally that doesn't aid you when you're attacked.

I think it should be possible to restore countries. I'll add to the example of France the example of Poland, which did not exist between WWI and WWII. These kind of things should greatly increase your diplomatic standing. To simplify things, perhaps a single government in exile, like the Free French, should exist: allying to it will mean you don't need garrisons for any cities you retake.

Countries should be able to federate or amalgamate, as the 13 colonies became the US or as the EU is forming now. A weak country threatened with destruction should be looking to become part of a stronger country, even if the only choice is the country presuring it. A modern example is Hawaii, but the examples are countless as nations formed from kingdoms.

It may be too complicated to maintain national identities beyond federation to allow repetition of the fragmentation of Czecheslovakia or the Soviet Union--or the US Civil War. It might also frustrate a player.

[builderchad]

I like Fosses' ideas about the 'occupied' land idea.

Political borders also sound great and I have wished for those ever since playing SMAC. Fosses' ideas on it are great though it could get fiddly when it comes to dividing land. This could be simplified by having subregions based on geography which could be subdivided.

I am also keen on Tall_Walts' ideas on nations forming from smaller states and fragmentation. One way this could be achieved is by having many many cutural/racial groups (like Texicans and Georgians or Czechs and Slavs etc) which would mean that in addition to running all your normal affairs foriegn and domestic you would also have a whole slew of issues to deal with specifically related to cutural divisions within your own country. One idea I was playing with was the notion that despite there being 'unexplored' land at some point peoples become native to it and lay a kind of ancient claim to it. This would mean that regions become more important and part of negotiations, invasions, defense etc.

Negotiable length treaties and agreements is also a must, I have never liked the '20 turn' limit.

Alliances should grow stronger and ties between long standing allies should run deeper and deeper. Take the US and UK for example. There is not much that would undo that relationship and it would take a great deal of time for that to errode. Alliances in CIV always seemed so fragile to me regardless of how long you had a good relationship with another nation.

I would appreciate it if someone could explain the Swiss mercenaries lend-lease thing to me as it would be useful to see how this was actually worked. I can see this working better in older times but today there is such tight integration of units to other parts of the military and intelligence that this would definately be more of a challenge and I would like to hear of any modern day examples of a true lend-lease. The US forces in both Europe and Korea, for example, are still commanded entirely by the pentagon of that there is no doubt. Albeit if those forces were to enter into action it would be under heavy coordination with local forces and other NATO presence.

[Lambiorix_be]

I don't think mercenaries would be such a success. If they are used in a conflict the opposing civ will see it as an act of war (or will at least demand that you retreat those forces or go to war). So a classic alliance would be more suited. If you place your units in a allied city you should have the choice not to go on the offensive but by putting units in the allied city (meaning that the ennemy civ needs to attack you before being able to overtake the city) you still aid your ally and if you choose a more active role you can declare war on the ennemy civ too.

This has the advantage that you don't have to be automatically at war when you do not want to and still honour the alliance.

In diplomacy terms your ally should ask to choose between the following:

1. Declare war to the ennemy (your ally preferred option)
2. Send troops into the border cities for defensive purposes (2nd best because it libertates a lot of your allies units )
3. give a certain ammount of money/turn (so he can buy weapons)
4. give weapon related technology
5. Cancel Allience (not really an option requested by your ally but a choice that you always have during negotiations)

Maybe different types of alliances should exist, like a 'defensive alliance', 'research alliance', 'Full alliance'...but maybe that is a bit over the top

[DarkCloud]

any chance that any of you want to take over the diplomacy threadmastering efforts:
of this thread since TechWins disappeared?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=104252