DIPLOMACY (ver2.0): Hosted by Jeje2

[Jeje2]

Hello again,
Sorry for not posting earlier, but I currently have too much work. I know, no excuse…

I've read your postings and trying to make a short list of them is hard, way too hard. So hope you can accept my list as is, or if you can't, tell me what is missing and I will add it.

I have tried to make a systematical way of representing things, but everything is so mixed that it's difficult. So please have patience and if you know a better way tell it to me.

(This is over eight pages on my MS word, so hope you have the strength to read it )

1 Levels of meetings
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 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.

1.2.1 Forms of pacts

I like Midlance's idea of three types of pacts, military, economic and research. (Have I forgotten something?)
Can there be combinations of these?

1.2.2 How to form a pact?
This is still a little open. So I give one solution now. Players A and B meet and decide to form a pact. This can then grow later. (Like it?)

1.2.2.1 How can a pact grow?
- C summons the pact and requests membership
- C asks A to join the pact and A summons the pact for approval of C
- The pact decides to ask C to join

1.2.2.2 How can one leave a pact?
Should it just as simple as leaving?
Or should there be something?

1.2.2.3 Can a member of a pact be expelled?
This has happened in real life, ex. South Africa was expelled from British Commonwealth. For what reasons can one be expelled from a pact? Can it be temporarily?

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

1.2.3.1 What happens if a player changes his system?
- Automatically rejected
- A voting is conducted
- Nothing happens until someone summons a meeting about it.

1.2.4 Can players form pacts from the beginning?

1.2.5 Agendas for a pact
1.2.5.1 Declaring war as a pact
(My suggestion) Many small countries can make a good response to a big aggressive country if working together.

1.2.5.2 Having a common foreign policy
A pact can decide that Ex. They are against pollution/pollutioners.

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

1.2.6 Making secret pacts
It should be possible, but it must cost.

1.3 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.

1.3.1 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.

Talks about how many players should have veto-right has been and it should depend on number of players in the game.

1.3.2 Agendas
At least same as in SMAC, any more?
Suggested so far:
- Peacekeeping forces
- Ultimatums for peace
- Penalizing a player for something he did

1.3.3 Shall the membership cost?
There has been this idea, but I am confused about this. This requires more discussion.

1.3.4 Builder
There has been discussion about how UN is the bee. An idea of UN not being a Wonder is suggested. Instead when x nations have the knowledge, UN is gathered or several player could build it together. This way 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
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.

2.1.1 Demanding for patience
And computer always knows how much money I've got. This is unfair
More modifiers here are needed.
- If the demander is poor, he should satisfy with less.
- There should be an uncertainty in his knowing about my fundings.
- The ability to demand for multiple things would also be good. (Goes for response too)

2.1.1.1 AI - demanding
In Civ and SMAC they are all the time demanding for the best I've got and then declaring war if I refuse. (Have you seen Major asking for stealth tech. From Americans or a war over it?) This needs more attention.

2.1.2 Giving an reason for war
One could try to settle the own people and/or other countries by giving a reason for declaring war. (Ex. Religious war, Defending own race)

2.1.3 Earlier happenings
Should this influence the reaction of people?
I say yea. 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. Rest is history. But there weren't too much complaints about joining the second war in Finland at that time.

2.14 Duration for declaration of war
A problem is that peace doesn't give any real protection to you. (Just attack) So in peace one couldn't declare war, but would first need to declare relation 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 whit out declaration, a large penalty would be effected on you. (This way player still can act, but prize must be high.)

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

2.2.1 Asking for help
It happens to often in Civ 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:
- When A and B make a peace treaty, it affects you too.
- You can become a supporter of some form. (Money, units etc.)
- If you join A, he agrees to wage war for a certain time.

2.3 Peace negations
Classical A and B make peace.
UN or a third can negotiate

2.3.1 Surrender
- Definite surrendering, ending the game for loosing side
- Making peace by giving one or more cities/tech's or buying peace
- Making peace by giving shield and/or research points

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

2.3.3 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.

2.4 Cold wars/ propaganda wars
Ah very important aspect. No one can ignore this. 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
There shall be several possible interactions between players. They can be working together on military, commercial and/or research. The possibilities depends on the relations between countries. Please read the posting by midlace.

3.1 Military interaction
3.1.1 Lending units

Player A can loan some units to B for some time.
Questions for discussion:
a) If A lends a unit with technology that B doesn't own, what happens?
b) How many units can be loaned and for how long?
c) If B uses units against C, is it considered as a declaration of war between A and C?
d) If B uses units against C, can C declare war on A with no penalties. (Penalties discussed later)

If unit is lost, there should be a penalty. Also the prize would depend on what purpose unit going to be used at. (Defend city vs. Attacking enemy)

3.1.2 Using others ground
Players A and B can allow units to move in others territory.
Questions for discussion:
a) 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?
This can have a cost of course

3.1.3 Combining forces
Players can combine forces for a common goal

3.2 Commercial
There are to be several layers of commercial between countries.

- Embargo
No trade between players. (War means always embargo.)

- Protectionism
Limited trade

- Normal trade
Some limits exist

- Free trade
No limits between players

- One needs a certain tech for normal trade and another for free.
- Between different economic systems there can only be some forms

3.3 Research
Same as previous, several layers of interaction should exist.

3.3.1 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 tech 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 tech.
Questions for discussion:
- Shall this be possible?
- If player C is missing a tech in between, does he get it for free?
- Do C and D join at once or after they have finished there previous one?


4 Trade
4.1 Multiple trades.
I give tech A and 150 gold for tech B, etc.

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


5. Way of talking
Personnel responses according to nation and used government.


6 Domestic politics
Ok, this is important too.
One should be able to affect own people. (I have to ask for more suggestions here. You can give more money to luxury already, what more?)


7 Reputation
One is to have a reputation with all players. This could be used as the modifier for people's response when declaring war on somebody.

7.1 Atrocities
Some kinds of acts should reduce a civ'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 civ in an emergency.
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.

7.1.1 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.

7.1.2 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.)


7.2 Repairing reputation
In contrary to Civ 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!)

(My idea) How about improving your reputation, by giving/lending units for UN, to be used in peacekeeping operations.


8 Size does matter don't it?
Well not in earlier games. A one-city nation declares war on you, when I have tens of cities. Argh!


9 Others
- Possibility to use a third party to make connection
- Possibility to buy a single country out. (This has also received negative feedback)
- In early game there shouldn't be all the different possibilities, but they would require a certain tech.
- Colonies, produce more money etc., but there is a risk of them declaring independence.
- Pirates, doing harm around.4

If you read this, you made it!
Now it is your time to give me more response.

---------------------------------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2

[Jeje2]

OK, for the first version I counted following submitters:
Akron, Al Gore, anachron, billybobjoe597, Bingmann, Black Dragon, Bubba, CarniveaN, Cartagia the Great, Chris J, CormacMacArt, CrayonX, CyberGnu, DarthVeda, Diodorus Sicilus, Diplomat, Doo1284, Dreadnought, Ecce Homo, Eggman, EnochF, FinnishGuy, Flavor Dave, Fugi the Great, Galen, Gallagher, Harel, HughTheHand, Ilprincipe, Imran Siddiqui, Isle, itokugawa, JamesJKirk, Jason Beaudoin, Jimmy, JT, korn469, LordZarm, MBD, meowser, Mindlace, Ming, Mo, Mr. Biggelswrth, NotLikeTea, Octopus, Qinglong, Redleg, Robert Miller, Shining1, Snipe, Stefu, tfs99, Trachmyr, Transcend, Txurce, Viking, Willko, yin26, ZenOn and Zorloc.

If your name is missing, please send email to me (Jerri@iki.fi) for correction.

------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited June 19, 1999).]</font>

[Ecce Homo]

Thank you for this well-prepared summary! I feel it is almost impossible to make new suggestions in a post with 50+ posts!

About point 7.1.1: Atrocities - early vs. late game
Whether certain acts are atrocities should maybe not be decided by the game year, but by Govenment/Social Engineering of the offending and the observing states. For instance, enslaving citizens of a civ which has abolished slavery would be a grave atrocity.

About point 8: Size does matter...
What is "size" then? I would suggest military power + military potential (production+tech). (One of the greatest problems of the European Union today is that their influence is hampered by not having any armed forces.)

[Harel]

I failed to find two things:

1. A section to state all the possible peace treaties level ( i know people suggested quite a few, like: war, limited war ( like a limited strike against a country ), no-aggersion pact, peace, alliance, unity, and probaly more ).

2. I suggested a new level of pact, a unity in which you can have shared victory conditions: you can both win toghter is you ally up. Kill all other civ's, and you both win the game, or build a space ship toghter.

[Eggman]

Did anyone suggest the option of having two different types of AI diplomacy? Before the game starts, you could have two choices:

1) Realistic - Computer opponents will act like "real" powers. Wimpy small nations will grovel and try to be friendly with the big powers. Long-time friendly major powers can remain friendly indefinitely as long as something doesn't come between them.

2) Standard - The computer opponents try to win the game at all costs. If one player gets too far ahead, they gang up to stop that civ from winning. Small civs will go to war if that is their only hope of winning.

[Flavor Dave]

Eggman--that is one of the most brilliant ideas I've seen here. Solves alot of problems/complaints folks have talked about here. Would it be too hard to program? I don't think so. The AIs have some pretty obvious triggers for how they regard you--1750, 1850, space techs. All you'd have to do is move or eliminate those triggers.

Along the lines of what was summarized, that ancient "reputation" was a very different thing than it is today, perhaps we could have the tech "international law" which triggers the new diplomacy. Or 3 stages--ancient, nation-state, and modern. "Colonialism" would trigger the 2nd, intermediate stage.

Also, if you're going to have this, there should NEVER EVER EVER be only one tech for the human to research. You should NEVER be forced to research colonialism or international law. Even Future Tech 25 instead of international law.

[Ove]

Mainly a proposal for the OTHER thread, but this touches on issues which may be of interest for the DIPLOMACY thread too:

AI ministers/governors
The ministers in CIV2 were an amusing interruption of the usual chores (micromanaging cities, micromanaging units, etc.). They didn't really give any useful information, they just complained if you were not doing what they thought should be done. Who is the ruler here?

It would be better if they were able to act upon directives from you (or each other, depending on how much power you grant them) as an extra (micromanagement-reducing) layer between you and the city/regional menus. After they have been given tasks or general directives, they present you with their suggested solution(s) which you may accept/modify/decline.

example:
You have given your diplomacy minister a directive to improve relations with your neighbour.
Diplomacy informs you that your neighbours insist on a special trade relation in which they will buy weapons for food.
The ministers of trade, production and military tries to dissuade you from that course of action, because; you will lose money, your production facilities are already engaged with other orders and it is dangerous to arm your neighbour.
You instruct diplomacy and trade to make the deal anyway, but to delay the weapon shipments. Production are ordered to commence the weapon production and turn them over to military who will use them to make an attack army that can crush this insolent neighbour.

Diplomacy's directives could be shaped like this:
MISSION (to Persians):
x Improve Relations o Provoke War
Get
o Territory o Bases o Passage rights o Technology o Money o Goods o Trade agreement o Prohibition against Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/... o Acceptance of Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/...
Give
o Territory o Bases o Passage rights o Technology x Money (200 gold) o Goods x Trade agreement o Prohibition against Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/... o Acceptance of Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/...
Willingness to achieve mission goal(s) (1-10): 7
Willingness to offer gift(s) (1-10): 5
Who can sign agreement? o Agent x Emperor
Duration of mission? o Immediate o Fixed # of turns x Until an agreement is reached

[Cleggster]

There is one thing I belive that a UN feature needs. Sanctions. If one culture is getting to aggresive, then everybody can vote for UN resolutions against then. These could be economic sanctions (no forign trade), punitive sactions (no units aloud out of there territory), or a resolution for the destruction of the society. The latter being really hard to immpossible to pull off. The other UN idea is that of forceing peace between two other factions. SMAC got it with the ability to ask someone to stop attacting an ally. But wouldn't it be nice if you could step in to stop unaffiliated civs. Much like the US of today.

Another option is surrender. If there is an overwhelming power that a smaller power in the way, how about a non-combative option. The fact that you have to conquer every city by hand is overly aggressive with no option otherwise.

I also feel that all these suggustion be given some kind of higher priority to Firaxis. The fact that you could wini the game with fully peacfull means is what made Civilization stand out. Unfortunately Activision ignored my attempts to get a better diplomatic model. SMAC come close, but still leaves true diplomacy short. I feel that we should stongly emphasize the importance is lots of diplomatic options in the game.

[Theben]

I dropped this in RADICAL IDEAS also.

Your people all start out as a homogeneous cultural group. There are several "diplomatic"
categories: You(the ruling class) vs. other rulers, your people vs. other rulers, your
people vs. you, your people vs. other peoples, their people vs. their rulers, & their
people vs. you; also a religion vs. religion scale. Generally each category is on a sliding
scale from, say, 1-10, 1 being insanely hateful while 10 is harmonious bliss. At 1st
contact these will generally fall into the 6-7 range. Markers include daggers, bloody
daggers(to represent atrocities), doves, and doves with an olive branch(represents
generous gifts). These last few will affect relations far into the future, otherwise the
scale tips for standard actions(wars, treaties, trade, etc.) on a turn by turn basis.
Things that affect one group(their people) will not affect others(rulers) quite the same;
ex. genocide rarely affects the ruling class, so although the people will be very angry
with you, the rulers will not be as angry; a gift of food or medicine(tech?) will please the
population more while a gift of money will more likely please the ruler.

Societies cease being homogeneous over time w/o govt. intervention. Conquest & trade
are the quickest methods; warfare w/o conquest, connection by roads between peaceful
empires, types of terrain between cities, etc. also affect the rate. Conquered cities are
assumed to have their old culture. Whenever a city grows by a population point
(assuming civ3 will be using citizens like civ1&2 in that the size of the city=# of
"people") a formula will be needed to determine what the new pop's culture will be based
on the above factors, plus how well the populations get along(a pop will rarely migrate
to a land where they are not welcome!). The new pop will then assume all of the
diplomatic categories of that culture. Governments can limit the flow of people to their
lands and of their people to other lands; there should be some kind of penalty for
this(perhaps a minor trade reduction?). Mixed pops may cause additional unrest in a city
if the pops do not get along.

Differences in religion will be handled separately. Religion will function mainly as to how
you will handle certain situations, and will be chosen by you when the pre-requisite tech
is discovered(polytheism, monotheism in civII). For instance, you're a christian leader of
the christian Franks. Burning a christian city of the Germans to the ground will not only
upset the Germans, but every other christian leader and population, including yours. Now
if you burn another city down that is pagan, muslim, etc., your people will not be as
upset and if it is considered a 'hateful' culture by ANYone then it may even grant a
bonus in relations to that group(with exception of a modern democratic society). In the
case of a mixed city you could leave certain pops alive. Depending on how this is set up,
I envision either (a) button(s) to push in the city screen or a command given to army
groups to cause actions like SMAC. Some possible actions:

Forced conversions/cultural- Removes possible unrest due to differing cultures.
Diplomatic penalties with other civs people, possibly minor penalty with rulers.

Forced conversion/religious- Removes possible unrest due to differing religions.
Diplomatic penalty with all civs with that religion & their rulers.

genocide- Kills off citizens of the city. Can be tailored to only kill certain religious/cultural
groups. Severe penalties with that civ & it's rulers, penalties/bonuses with other
civs/rulers depending on their diplomatic status with the genocided civ and religion,
possible penalties/bonuses with your own pop.

Suppress population following conquest- Unrest in city decreases considerably.
Suppressed people of conquered cities do not begin to assimilate into your civ until
suppression ends. Penalties to any similar cultural/religious group. City will probably lose
1-2 pop points as refugees flee from your armies.

Treat new population well after conquest- No extra penalties vs. their people, but
penalties vs. their rulers. If you treat your people better than the newly conquered
people's are used to, and treat them as well, less unrest will result and assimilation will
be quicker, and your penalty vs. the other ruler would be greater. If your pop hates their
pop and you treat them well after conquest, you may suffer a penalty with your own
people.

Gifts- Depending on type of gift. Food to starving population will increase diplomatic
bonuses between yourself/your people and their people considerably, and to their rulers
somewhat. If you want to make it even more complicated allow the ruler to not tell
where the food came from; then the bonus is between the ruler and subjects while
you/your people have minor penalty vs. the other ruler.

Forced conversion/genocide after modern era AND civ is democratic causes additional
penalties from demo population vs. the ruler committing the action.

[Flavor Dave]

Cleggstar--I fear your idea would make winning by world conquest too difficult, eliminating it as a good option (unless you're one of those warmongers who can pull it off before the UN).

[Ecce Homo]

I like Theben's idea. Instead of "building" diplomats and spies in the regular way, you could buy them for money in your capital. Then you can order them to carry out a mission in another nation - in the diplomacy screen OR by walking the unit on the map.

Having an embassy would simplify this kind of missions, but embassies should cost money to maintain.

[Eggman]

I like the spy simplification idea. Just makes life easier. However, you do need to deal with how to handle certain spy missions like scouting (not only specific cities but also just the area at large).

Perhaps you could build spies like in MOO2 and they go in a special espionage screen. Then you split them up into various ongoing tasks (sabotage, counterespionage, steal tech, scout) which they do automatically. When you need a special mission, take one of those spies off its job and send it to do its dastardly deed (revolts, poisoning, nukes).

This whole screen would probably be easier if the spies were kept track of as number (3 spies doing scout in the Aztecs, 1 spy stealing tech from the Romans, etc.) instead of icons which get too messy.

Hey, maybe we should give up building spies altogether. You just set an intelligence budget and you get an appropriate espionage team for your spending level.

Just throwing out ideas here...

[Cartagia the Great]

I believe that the best way to do skying in Civ3 is to elimiante the spy unit and the diplomat unit. Instead I would structure it much like it's done in ST:BOF.

If done in this fashion you would have a certian amount of integlence points, based on the amount, and type, of certian strucutres you have built in your cities, as wel las the type of government you have.

These points are then invested in the differant nations, allowing you to pick jsut one another to destroy itnernally or many, as well as to invest in internal security. You could choose certian areas to disrupt in the enemies civilization(Domestic, Foreign, technology, Military ect).

For a certian amount of extra points you could attept to target a single city for something truely infamous, or to a certian etyhnic group inside that Empire. You want the Romans to Rise up in Revolt agaisnt their Chinese masters? try to funnle them arms and propoganda to stage a rebellion. Or, perhapse, you've always disliked the Japanese who are a large minortiy in the Austiran Empire. Simpyl spread a plauge through predominantly Japanese cities and watch the unrest Also has the added benifit of gettign rid of an old enemy evne after they've been taken over

What do you all think of this? i think it woudl add a nice layer of depth to the game, that would be fun to play. After all, who doesn't like commnading their spy networks to do something evil without havign to build a spy which, for all you know, could get wasted in a turn by a tank.

[NotLikeTea]

Hrm.. on the one hand, I love the idea of propaganda, and have advocated for a propagandist unit (or maybe a spy special ability).. lots of fun in cold wars.

However, as unrealistic as they are, I like my spy units. I like sneaking them across the seas, and infiltrating enemy bases. I like spy duels if the opponent has counter-sepionage measures installed. Having spying done through menus and windows may be more realistic, but I tihnk it lessens the excitement. A unit is more real than words on a screen...

[Theben]

If there is a ESPIONAGE thread, I apologize:

Eliminate diplomats, spies, probe teams, cyberninjas, etc. Have an espionage screen linked to the diplomacy screen. Have a selection of espionage missions to choose from, pay X amount of coins and a spy team will be sent on its way. The team will not be visible on the main screen. After an appropriate amount of time (depending on distance to target and tech available for movement) you will get a report on whether or not the mission was successful. You might get more than you asked for &/or something different as well (1 idea is that sending teams through unknown territory, they would also come back with the map of the route they took). Counter-espionage would be necessary, which could be done by paying coins each turn, through city structures, or just assumed through tech advances.

-The Embassy unit. The only reason I bring up this one is because in life they were expensive-i.e. many shields- and should be in this game (well, in China, Korea, and Japan they were expensive). Aside from establishing embassies (info on enemy civ's would be in espionage) they would confer a status to the sending civ; what that does I haven't figured out yet (maybe bonus to trade for sender, or enemy population views your civ as superior?).

[Flavor Dave]

I LOOOOVE the idea of an intelligence budget. It really would add depth to the game. Firaxis would need to be very very careful to make sure that there is a good espionage/counterespionage balance.

We all agree spies are far too powerful. It's quite possible they're going to change them radically anyway--why not go all the way and adopt this idea. Espionage budget has a max of 10%, maybe with 20% under commie.

In another thread, I think the tech thread, I suggested a way to use all of the minor techs everyone suggested. I grouped them into money, food, army, science, and happy. One for each of the 4 eras. Each would add 10% for each city. But I pointed out that when you get to the modern era, a city generating 50 arrows would get a 40% boost, to 70. 20 wheats become 28. We'd need to find a way to absorb this extra stuff.

We've already found how to absorb the extra beakers--these "enhancement techs" have to be discovered. Extra happiness would be taken care of by using many of the ideas about races/religion--you'll need the extra happiness to maintain balance. Now, we've figured out where the extra tax revenue would go--espionage budget.

You build up money in the budget, with a few ongoing costs. Then whenever you want to do some spying, just choose from a menu, and the money is deducted from the intelligence budget. In general, I'll leave it to the playtesters to decide what everything should cost.

Categories--1. general intelligence--1G/turn before you have an embassy, free after. General intelligence is just what you get with an embassy now. Establishing an embassy costs X gold, and knowledge of the location of at least one city.

2. City intelligence--this is like investigate city.

3. Funnel arms--for every 25G you send, the rebels build a partisan. With a limit of 100 G or so per turn per AI civ. Counterespionage could intercept the arms.

4. Sabotage--you already know this one.

5. Incite revolt--this should be waaay more expensive than it is now. Alternatively, this could be propaganda, which would cause unrest/unhappiness. Then, make it so you can only buy cities in revolt (except this makes fundy bribeproof, and therefore too powerful. Thoughts?)

6. Bribe unit--this should be cheaper than it is now.

7. Famine--I like this better than poison--for a certain number of turns (dependent on tech level?) irrigation doesn't work, or doesn't work in a certain city. Use in combination with a siege. In another thread, there seemed to be a consensus that sieges should work better.

8. I don't like the nuclear device. The AI never uses this, and I don't need it.

9. Oh yeah, and steal tech.

10. Counterespionage

Cartagia--great idea.

[Theben]

Eggman,
Your last suggestion is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. No more spy units, just spy MISSIONS. You pay for them, with either money &/or production, and they do their thing. If anyone's ever played Pax Imperia that's what I'm basing it on.

Notliketea,
Personally it seems to me that players like civ for either 1) Exploring new worlds, 2) Conquering new worlds, 3) Building an (utopic) empire, 4)Multiplayer. Trade, spying, diplomacy (agianst the AI) aren't high on the priority. Yes, we want them to work well, but the other stuff is what attracts us. Simplifying trade, spying, etc. helps micromanaging w/o killing the stuff we like. The above, of course, is IMHO.

Flav Dave,
For your missions:
3, 5, & 6- Happiness of both your people & theirs would be a factor in cost. Happier they are, more cost. If your citizens are more(less) happy than theirs, the cost would go down(up).
4- Spy missions wouldn't have the overall power to destroy a "building". I suggest they knock out the building for x# of turns, or implement "structure damage" (which I'll describe later).
8- I don't like it either, but it is a threat in this modern world, so it should be there.
Otherwise I agree with the rest!
We're gonna need a list of possible missions. Start brainstorming people!

Cartagia,
Should include tech advances to give intelligence points. Nice idea, though.

[korn469]

terrorist could be barbarian spy units or babarian spy missions

korn469

[Flavor Dave]

korn--good idea--IMO, they should be limited to sabotage and poisoning, and subject to counterespionage.

[Alexander's Horse]

One thing that should be fixed is that if you build up trading links with another civ and particularly if the other civ is smaller than you, it shouldn't turn on you unless you mistreat it. Trade should also improve relations with Hostile/rival civs.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 29, 1999).]</font>

[EnochF]

Exactly. And trade embargos would worsen their attitude.

In Diplomacy terms, a minor point, though people have gone on about it for some time in the Economic thread.

[VaderTwo]

In CivII, the computer can demand a one-time monetary or technology tribute only when you talk to them.

I would like to see where you could demand that a computer or human nation become a tributary/protectorate under your nation or the computer would demand that your nation become their tributary.

Under a tributary, a certain percentage (say 5 to 10 percent) of a tributary's food, shields and trade would be diverted to the master nation. Unlike the current situation, this tribute would continue every turn, until the tributary "rebels" against the master nation. This tribute would go into a reserve that could be allocated to whatever city and whenever the master nation wanted.

A tributary would be required to join any war that the master nation is fighting when the master nation demands it. However, a master nation would also join the war when one of its tributaries was attacked to protect their interests. A tributary would also be required to obtain permission from its master nation before being allowed to attack another nation. However, unless they revolt, withhold tribute or refuse its demands, a tributary would not be attacked by its master nation.

A tributary could "rebel" from its master nation either by withholding tribute, refusing its demands or simply hitting the revolting option. This would lead to immediate war between the two nations.

However, freed from their oppressor, the rebelling tributary would receive a couple of benefits for the duration of the war: one more happy citizen in all of its cities, a 25% attack bonus against the master nation and/or up to 5 units that are support-free per city.

The war of liberation would end only with the capture of the rebellious capital, or in a cease-fire/peace agreement, or 25 turns. After which the bonuses of the rebelling former tributary would be eliminated. If the capital falls a new capital is immediately established but the rebellion would be ended and the tributary status would resume, but at twice the previous percentage. After two unsuccessful revolts, the master nation can have the option to conquer the entire tributary nation.

[Flavor Dave]

Vader, a few questions.

1. Why would any nation decide to accept the lesser status? It would just weaken an already weak nation, and strenghten a strong one. As they say, it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

2. I think the answer to #1 is, you take the tributary status in order to get the bonuses for revolt that you mention. But that just makes it a trick for the human player to exploit. I think you'd have to make accepting tributary status like a "cease-fire", or a 25 or so turn Great Wall/UN. As a practical matter, the way you've conceived it won't make the game better.

But the idea is promising. It adds some neat options, and is realistic, which is a good thing as long as you don't mess up gameplay. You need to make it much more worthwhile to be a tributary. Some ideas.

I suggest that you have to keep the lesser status for a while, and then have the option of renewing it at 5 turn intervals. At the same time, the master nation can change the terms. Then, the master nation has the option of letting you go, or declaring war at no penalty (if democracy or republic, no senate revolt) if you refuse the harsher terms.

The tribute always starts out the same--X % of your civ's food and gold (we'll let the playtesters decide a good suggestion.) If the master is worried that the tributary is too strong, he can increase this % by one at each renewal. Conversely, if he's worried the burden is too onerous, he can reduce it by one.

Other ideas for the effects.

1. You get every tech of the master civ. This is if you need to warmonger, and need to funnel arrows into gold, for buying cities (remembering that the master civ gets a percentage of your increased tax revenue). This would give you the benefits at the alliance, without the permanent obligations, but with added cost. Better and more realistic, the master civ can only be one tech ahead. If the master civ has two techs you don't have, you get to choose one of them.
2. You get double trade for every caravan that arrives at the master civ. (But not vice versa.)
3. The lesser nation gets the benefit of universal wonders, or perhaps just the happiness wonders. This would allow you to try some new strategies. Perhaps you want to forgo Mike's and JSB, and use SOL and fundy. You accept tributary status from the JSB or Mike's civ, in order to go republic to get the science to get to democracy early.
4. When the relationship is terminated, the master civ has the option of any of the following 3 statuses--war, no contact, and peace.
5. I think that maybe the 2 nations should only be obliged to go to war for one another when attacked. Yes, I know this isn't at all realistic, but it would work better with the game. Otherwise, the human, tucked away in South America, would become a tributary of a nation centered in Europe, in order to force them to fight a power in Africa that the human SA civ would have no problem provoking. Then, 25 or whatever turns later, end the relationship, knowing that the European civ can't do much to you while embroiled in another war.

Anyway, these are 3 things that popped into my head as ways of making this worthwhile to the weaker civ.

If this idea can be properly implemented, it would make early embassies a big deal.

[VaderTwo]

Flavour Dave,

Actually the idea originated simply as an "Annual Tribute" idea. This situation would be far worse than giving another player (AI or human) techs or money as tribute as it would involve giving up the civ's independance to a certain extent and would involve a per turn tribute.

I like the idea of renewing it every 5-8 turns and the dominant civ (I really don't like the term master nation I don't know why I used it - reminds me of the Nazis)having the right to reset the terms upon its renewal.

I wouldn't give the tributary all of the dominant civ's techs as that would be another human trick, but maybe a percentage chance (say 10%-25%) each turn of learning one of the dominant civ's tech.

Actually I would not limit this idea to tributary civs. It would be interesting to give each neighbouring civ a percentage chance of learning an advance from another neighbouring civ with the percentage based on the level of your current tech and the distance from your capital to the other civ's capital. But they could not use the units/buildings/wonders/etc. of this tech until they researched it as they do not completely understand it. However researching it would cost only half as much as it would have as they know some of the information for this tech already. This would show the reality of new ideas flowing from one place to another.

What anyone would get out of becoming a tributary would be survival. This would be a way of stopping a war that a civ was losing and give them the time to rebuild its defenses and/or units or time to try and covertly gain allies or support from other civs.

One other idea would be that when a civ becomes a tributary all citizens would become content as the dominant civ would frown upon any dissent.

[Jeje2]

Hi,
I have read your comments and will make few personal comments now.
(I am waiting the official layout from yin, before making a new summary) But let me say that here are many new and good ideas.

OK, I will now comment some mails:

Harel:
You were absolutely right. I will correct my mistake in next version.
(Don't know how I skipped number 1, but number 2 I remember thinking a lot about. Were would it fit best? And then left it for later decision and forgot. Sorry)

Eggman (and Flavor Dave)
Wow! (Have you crossposted this to AI-thread? They might also be interested)

Ove
Minister meetings and agreements whitout player interface. (How about that if political system is very diplomatic, ministers could work automatically and you couldn't stop them, just delay or try to get them to focus on other things? Just an idea)

Cleggster
How could we miss that? UN should be able to declare sanctions. Are they to be the law or?? (Should pacts be able to this too?)
And yes, I also would like to se more diplomatic possibilities in Civ3 compared to SMAC.

Theben
Your first idea sounds radical. And will be a living hell for me, when I next time update my system. (But that is not your problem, it's mine. So keep on posting )

Simplifying ESPIONAGE has made some talk around here. Personally I do like the idea.
A question: What game is ST:BOF? (Cartagia the Great was talking about it) It seams to some sort of solution I should maybe know. Right now, more information wouldn't hurt (An URL maybe? THX in advance)


Finally, one thing is sure. I will have to completely rethink my summary system. But keep on sending ideas.

Jeje2

P.S. I will be gone for a while, so here will be a break from my side. My next change to use a computer will be on 19th. of July, so a little patience and I will then make a new summary. (Hope to have the official layout by then )

[Theben]

Jeje, I originally made it for the "Clash" team months ago, but they are planning to have so many civs it wouldn't work as I hoped. If civ3 has a reasonable amount of civs it should work (though programmers may curse my name ).
To go back to the question of scouting missions for spies (Eggman 6/25), I guess this could be done, but isn't that what regular units and explorers are for?

I'm guessing, but it probably means Star Trek: Birth of Federation.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited July 01, 1999).]</font>

[Ecce Homo]

As a civ becomes the most powerful in the world, the enemies get more likely to form alliances.

This factor should be extended to make global conquest harder. As a human civ gets closer to world domination, these events could be triggered:
1. All wars between computer players end. Including barbarians!
2. All computer civs ally.
3. All computer civs virtually act as one.

If the human civ loses some of its power, these conditions cease.

[John Barbarossa]

Rather than have just different forms of govenment slowly devolving power from a centralised state to a representative state, you could have devolution WITHIN your existing government.

For example, if you have a border city far away from your capital, naturally they are harder to pacify than cities closer to the administrative centre. I have took this to represent the fact that due to the difficulties of increased supply lines, and poor communications, cities far away feel less like a part of the empire than your central settlements. This is a cry for more regional autonomy to reflect thier reduced feelings of nationhood.

One solution might be the devolution of power to that city. This could be done by building a 'regional assembly' or 'city hall' as a prerequisite AND declareing them a semi autonomous City State (In medieval Europe this was done by granting a town a 'City Charter' to run thier own affairs ie Venice.) This should drastically cut unhappiness and corruption and stimulate an automatically enhanced growth and it should also drastically enhance production making the city more militarily useful, perhaps along the lines of Civ 2s 'We love the leader days' or the effects of Communism. However, to represent the devolution of power from the Central Government, you will only be able to set a direction for your City State to build (ie military or civilian) and will only be able to give general orders to the troops from that city, ie attack Rome, hold the garrison, or even as simple as defend or attack.) The AI would have to take over the application of those orders simulating the local barons leadership of the troops and the local governments priorities for infrastructure/units, thus giving you a REAL taste of the way representative government restricts the application of power.

Once again, I am sorry if these ideas have been suggested.

Regards
John Barbarossa
ICQ #31005032
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by John Barbarossa (edited July 06, 1999).]</font>

[John Barbarossa]

I am new to this thread (and its forerunners) so forgive me if these ideas have already been suggested. Here are a couple of trade ideas, as they relate to diplomacy.

I would like to see a South Africa style trade embargo. By that I don't mean that participating nations will not build new trade routes, this is already common in diplomatic Civ 2 games (see Tales from the diplomatic front on Apolytons Multiplayer forum) rather that the ongoing benefits of existing trade routes will be eliminated for the duration of the sanctions. This should have several effects and conditions.

-Obviously the imposers and the victim's trade will be hurt, but assuming it is a bilateral strategy in partnership with others, the effect on the victim will be exponentially bigger as you lose trade with one nation whilst the victim loses trade with several.

-The recipient of the trade sanctions should have increased corruption, as thier economy shrinks and is forced to rely upon internal trade.

-The effectiveness and totallity of the sanctions should be related to the form of government the imposing nation is run by. In the case of South Africa, many high profile companies (Barclays Bank etc) did not obey the British governments sanctions, using thier internationalism as a defense. I therefore propose that In more representative forms of government that the totallity of an embargo be less than in more centralised economies.

-During an embargo cities in Anarchy should have their trade restored, despite thier governments (your) wishes until order can be restored. (As an aside from the trade issue, the AI should take control of the military to reflect deserters and revolutionary elements in the military during revolts, turning them back over to player control after the city returns to order).

Embargos would provide enormous diplomatic leverage for those who have prioritised it. Imagine if you went to war in an internationally unpopular way, the international trade embargos might mean that you will go from profit making to loss making and from a discovery every 10 turns to one every 25. In Civ2 trade is undervalued. It does not reflect the way external trade is the cornerstone of political influence in modern politics, nor the way that trade can be used as political muscle to achieve non-trade related international political goal. Right now I would value the Civ2 caravan/freight unit as worth no more than 20 shields.


I would like to see each country set an import rate which will decide upon thier split of any initial monies from caravans. Obviously the lower the rate the more attractive trade with that country is, leading to smaller countries setting competitive rates (perhaps even 0% to encourage the ongoing effects). A crude version of this is often applied in diplomatic games relying upon trust (see 'Tales from the diplomatic front' & 'A game of diplomacy' on Apolytons Multiplayer forum ) but to formalise it would be a great improvement. That we are already attempting to simulate this is proof that, at very least us diplomatic players, would make extensive use of the feature. It also brings in one of those supply and demand resource management balances that so effectively simulates Capitalist economies.

Regards
John Barbarossa
ICQ #31005032
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by John Barbarossa (edited July 06, 1999).]</font>

[Jimmy]

I have two ideas for civ 3 diplomacy:
1) expand on the dialogue part. ie the AI Roman civ could say to the player civ (let's say the player is carthagians) something like "Do you approve of our war with the Zulus?" and the player could click "yes" "no" or "We are neutral".

2) Actually see the contents of a treaty.
When a civ proposes a treaty to the player the screen would ready:
(type of treaty) Treaty of (city where diplomats are) between (name of both civs)

article 1: (sentence on exchange of territory or not, several choices to choose from)
article 2: (amount of tribute per turn if any)
article 3: (relations between both parties, this part determines type of treaty, choices could be non-agression/cease-fire/peace/alliance of trade/alliance of research/military research/mutual defense/surrender/war pact)
article 4: (passage through territory allowed or not, choices would be free passage, no passage, only non-military units can pass through)
article 5: (conditions of treaty, ie must declare war on third party X, make peace with third party X, share intelligence etc..)
article 6: (duration of treaty, ie 10 turns, 30 turns, indefinite)

space for both parties to sign.
The player could click a "reject treaty" "negotiate changes" or accept treaty" button. When both civs accept treaty their signatures would appear at ther bottom. If the player clicks "negotiate treaty" he/she could click on the article they wish to change and they would pick what they want instead from the choices. The treaty would come back with the article scratched and the alternative below. The treay would go back and forth until someone clicks reject or they both accept.