1. the computer does come and ask for alliances
i agree with 2 and 3 though. i think city swapping/borders should be a big part of diplomacy.
Alliances. . .*Allied* victories
Alliances are not worth while in civ2. Heres my ideas for alliances in civ3...
1. When you make an alliance, the computer (depending on his/her mood towars you) will demand gold or tech. That should be expanded, For one thing, the computer should be smart enough to come to you and ask for an alliance when they are in danger. And also, you should be able to demand anything from then, not just tech. or gold. Likewise for your enemies.
2. When you liberate your ally's' city from the common enemy, you should have the option of either keeping it, or giving it back to your ally. And when you dont give it back, the alliance is broken, and you lose reputation. Likewise for your Ally.
3. You and your ally should be able to enjoy the victory together, and one anothers victory. Just look at WW2, when Britain won the "Battle of Britain", the AMERICANS celebrated it also.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 06, 2000).]
1. the computer does come and ask for alliances
i agree with 2 and 3 though. i think city swapping/borders should be a big part of diplomacy.
Need city swapping. Especially if you and one of your allies take apart another civ, often you each have cities scattered everywhere. It would be good if you could get together and say well lets swap W and X, and Y and Z, that way we will have a coherent teritory.
------------------
- Biddles
"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
I like this idea. You could even take alliances one step further: if you and the other civ have perfect relations for x turns then an option will show up asking if you would like to perminantly merge your civs (under you're leadership, you choose which gov of the two civs you take). Some factors might alter how many turns until this option shows up, like differences between your SE, differences in technology (higher if greater differences: larger having compassion on the weak, or higher if closer to the same: you consider yourselves equals, and join up to fight a common enemy)
I definatley like number 2 and 3, these would be a good idea for Civ 3
------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow
While not really about alliences (but keeping with the giving away of cities), How about being able to conquer a civ completly but then give all its cities back to it
For example, in a WW2 scenerio, the Allies capture all the German cities, destroying the civ, but are then able to "recreate" Germany, by giving up cities and installing a govt.
In Civ2 war is always about conquering someones territory and keeping it whereas in history countries have often not taken perminant control over even totally defeated countries.
I like the idea of alliances (like I do pretty much all diplomacy ideas). Prehaps it shouldn't be a simple "alliance" either. Maybe there should be different levels of allying - you can choose to only cooperate in name only (as a front to other civs), or that you choose to have a mix of military/science/economic cooperation.
And another suggestion could be that heavily allied civs share the same border/territory, as if they were the one civ.
------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)
Im glad most of you agree with me!
Thats not a bad idea ultra, of different levels of alliances.
quote:
Originally posted by airdrik on 12-06-2000 11:15 PM
I like this idea. You could even take alliances one step further: if you and the other civ have perfect relations for x turns then an option will show up asking if you would like to perminantly merge your civs (under you're leadership, you choose which gov of the two civs you take).
There's something about this idea that seems extremely ridiculous and unrealistic. What country would voluntarily give up its sovereignity. (please no references to Great Britain or the Austrian merge with Germany in WW2)
Plenty of examples of states giving up their sovereignity (some, not so voluntarily, but still):
- German unification under Otto Von Bismark
- Italian unification
- 13 US states forming their union
- Australian states forming the commonwealth of australia (which I know for a fact that they did voluntarily)
These are all small states (- small civ's) that chose to form one nation (or were coerced in the case of some of the german and italian states). I can't think of any examples of larger states combining. The closest thing I can think of is the way the Habsburg's created the Austria-Hungary double monarchy. I don't know how the hell you would model that in a game sense (Daughter units that you can marry off to foreign king units).
------------------
- Biddles
"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
One of the reasons I suggested this 'unity' form of alliance was for a end game situation where you manage to have perfect relations with the rest of the world and unite the world under one head (which just happens to be yours, for the sake of the game). One of the challanges of doing this is when you unite with another country, you also gain their enemies, not that they didn't already hate you for allying with them, but even under an alliance, your ally's enemies don't hate you as much as they hate that ally. So when you unite with that country, now their enemies still hate you just as much as they hated your ally whom you just united with.
Hmmm, I dont know about this idea, seems rather unrealistic, I was just thinking of you and your allies both take the victory, but still be different civs.
FYI, Biddles, the Dual Monarchy was simply Austria's way of placating the Hungarians--giving them large amounts of political autonomy. Before this it Hungary was under direct Austrian rule.
I don't see voluntary fusing of civs as feasible, it never happened on the scale represented in the game.
I do agree that alliances should be more flexible, and this is my suggestion:
After all major great-power-conflicts since the Thirty Years War, there have been international congresses where the partcipants hash out territorial redistribution, reparations, and other terms. Vienna, Versailles, Potsdam,.....these kinds of postwar negotiations should be represented in some way in the game. (hopefully the AI will understand the concept of "negotiation" better). This would, I hope, have the effect of shortening wars for civs that are losing steadily, since they can expect to regain at least some of their country lost to foreign occupiers.
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgalad5 on 12-10-2000 10:36 PM
I don't see voluntary fusing of civs as feasible, it never happened on the scale represented in the game.
Yet.
We cannot see into the future and see what is going to happen (in Europe, North America, etc.), so you cannot say that it will never happen. As I said you would have to have PERFECT relations for a large number of turns. You could go into a 'Republican' system, where they have their gov, and you have your gov and you both send deligates to decide things for the whole civ (kind of like the UN, only just for those nations 'fused' together).
That sounds like a kinda good idea, but it is for the UN, which brings up this subject:
the UN.
In Civ3 the UN should be what it says, the United Nations, not a stupid "wonder of the world". THe Nation that built it would have it in there capital city, that nation as control over it, so it says who can and cant join the UN. When you would join the UN, just go to negotiate, like usual, except there would be an extra option at the end (this would be only with the civ that built the UN), Ask to Join UN. That civ could say yes or no, and if he said yes, then that civ becomes part of it. when you are part of the UN, you get the benefits of it. the first would be that if you are attacked, every other civ in the UN had a responsibility to help that civ, (give money, unit, territory, city, etc) in some digree. If a civ did not help, they would be temporaraly (or permanently) thrown out of the UN, the leader of the UN would deside wether it was permanent or not. There could be many more benifets, what do you think so far??
Actually, the UN is not controlled by the US (the founder there of) but by it's deligates. Therefore, each civ that participates in the UN has an equal say in who can/will join, and all affairs thereof. If a civ asks to join the UN, all civs already part of it vote, and the majority decides if that civ joins, if there is a tie, then probably it is denied for one turn, after which they can re-partition to join, another vote, etc. until there is not a tie.
I realize the USA us not in control of the UN, I was just thinking in general terms. Your idea of voting is a good idea, but I think it is too micromanagement, maybe the leader of the UN could choose, but the other civs in the UN would have a say in it, if the magority did not agree with the desision of the leader, it would be thrwarted.
quote:
Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-11-2000 03:56 PM
I realize the USA us not in control of the UN, I was just thinking in general terms. Your idea of voting is a good idea, but I think it is too micromanagement, maybe the leader of the UN could choose, but the other civs in the UN would have a say in it, if the magority did not agree with the desision of the leader, it would be thrwarted.
How do you propose to find out whether the civs agree or not without voting?
The way you can do it without voting is you (and all other civs) would put out a 'platform' on the things you are against, the things you are for, and the things you don't care about. When a case is being proposed (like a new civ wishing admittance), then it counts up all the yes's, all the no's and picks a random number for all the maybe's. Whatever wins is the decision, and a message will pop up saying what the verdict is (and what you voted if you said maybe).
Problem with this is you have to alwasy make sure your platform is up to date. But if they used a voting system, you only needed to worry about it if something came up.
Thank you for answering his question Airdrake. I agree with you on this.
quote:
Originally posted by airdrik on 12-11-2000 07:05 PM
The way you can do it without voting is you (and all other civs) would put out a 'platform' on the things you are against, the things you are for, and the things you don't care about. When a case is being proposed (like a new civ wishing admittance), then it counts up all the yes's, all the no's and picks a random number for all the maybe's. Whatever wins is the decision, and a message will pop up saying what the verdict is (and what you voted if you said maybe).
Problem with this is you have to alwasy make sure your platform is up to date. But if they used a voting system, you only needed to worry about it if something came up.
I think just voting is a lot simpler than always keeping your platform up to date and trying to anticipate how you'll feel about something in the future. How long does it take to click yes/no? Less time than it takes to tell a settler to irrigate.
Airdrik is not just talkin about clicking yes/no, he saying that over time, it will get quite boring, and too much micromanagement over time, just look at near the end of the game, it takes like 5 minutes for me just to get through my cities at the beginning of my turn so I can start moving units.
Am I right, Airdrik?
Actually, it could be an option if you want to keep up a platform, or if you want to be prompted when a decision is being made. That way if you are one who might change your mind often on ideas you can just have it prompt you, or if you never change your mind about issues, then you can just set up a platform and keep it like that for the durration of the game.
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgalad5 on 12-10-2000 10:36 PM
FYI, Biddles, the Dual Monarchy was simply Austria's way of placating the Hungarians--giving them large amounts of political autonomy. Before this it Hungary was under direct Austrian rule.
Yeah, I realise that. Did you note that I said the closest thing that I could find. I can't find a single example of two powers voluntarily forming a single country. I was saying that the closest thing to that was Austria-Hungary, since although Hungary was under Austrian control, it wasn't happy and the hungarian people tried to rebel numerous times. Austria went to the hungarian leaders and said, well, we'll give you autonomy a constitution, a parliament and separate courts, but the emporer of Austria will also be the king of hungary. The Hungarians agreed. This is the closest thing I could find. I know it's not the same as two powers joining. It was kinda a joke as well (I wasn't serious about daughter units!0
Edit: Stupid spelling mistakes that changed the meaning (sorry).
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited December 11, 2000).]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks