{The List} - Diplomacy

[Brundlefly]

I'm an experienced player so I know when I intentionally do something wrong that the AI will restrict trade with me. But when a civ refuses to make certain types of trades with me because I "broke a pact" with some other nation, I want them to tell me exactly what I did that offended them.

It is very difficult to figure out sometimes what I've done to make the AI angry with me. I never break agreements - I always let them expire and then renegotiate. Yet I wind up getting trade restrictions on gpt frequently. Firaxis provides no documentation on this subject of AI anger nor do they provide many warnings within the game of when you have done something to break a treaty.

[ThePlagueRat]

Yeah, we all know that diplomacy sucks in Civ3.

Just what could be done to make it better in Civ4:
Use the same system, and providing cues to what to do and not to do? Or make a better system?

[Kramsib]

From the Spanish Community List:

DIPLOMACY

11. More editable options for scenarios. Not only war and locked alliances, but also mutual protection pacts, embargos, … trade exchanges too.
12. New diplomatic options like asking a civ to do an action against or in favour another third.
13. The ability to edit the attitude of every civ for a scenario.
14. The ability to trade military units, not only workers.
15. It seems a good option to extend the idea of locked alliances to other treaties, like locked embargoes or locked mutual protection pacts, …

ESPIONAGE

16. More options, bribe cities, bribe units, poison water deposit, introduce nuclear artefact.
17. Use special units for subversive actions.
18. It seems to be good to combine the Civ III diplomatic system with special units to carry out the dirtiest covert operations.

[Kloreep]

Admittedly I've only glanced through this thread, but an important feature I don't see mentioned is allowing allies to share tiles - IE let civs help defend the cities of their allies.

I would have loved to see what a Persian+Greek or Iroquois + Zulu alliance could have done if this option had been added to Civ3.

[ThePlagueRat]

Right on Kloreep...
Long time ago, I did mention bringing back features from SMAC.
Letting allies share tiles, as they could in SMAC is a good thing IMO.

[Madine]

I think SMAC had the best UN. GalCivs UN had random issues, and the AI's voting didn't seem to make sense.

The problem with unit trading, and iirc the reason it isn't in Civ 3, is that the AI is bad at it.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ah... unit trading, one of my favourites!

I just think it should be implemented differently in the future.
With a resource based system, 'modules' could be traded instead of whole units. The reciever would have to use his own manpower though. Look in the resource-prod-thread! There is more about it.

[DarkCloud]

From Creator-

it would be good to be able to give units to other nations like ships tanks etc as gifts or threats etc.

Through diplomancy

[DarkCloud]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115592

... could also be of use

[DarkCloud]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117908

Cybershy's Diplomacy thread.

[Drachasor]

Re: {The List} - Diplomacy

Since I am new to this thread, and I have been absent from these boards for a long time, I shall quote the overview and make my comments (as needed) on what has been discussed.

Originally posted by TechWins
All Diplomacy related ideas will go here:

I don't have much time to discuss this in detail, but I feel that there should be more to diplomacy than in previous Civ games. In Civ3 right now you are basically either at peace or at war. Granted there is 'feelings' towards each Civ, but they simply don't play a big enough role. I believe that there should be levels of engagement, such as cease-fire, allied peace, neutral, etc.. I'll go into detail later on.

I couldn't agree with this more. There definitely needs to be something beyond merely "allied" for instance. Historically, allies could change sides pretty easily (hello, Italy!), but there needs to be something the signifies a deep and resounding friendship and trust between two Civs.

For instance, American and Britain wouldn't go to war together, not even if Britain could take on America. Why? The Americans and Britains are friends and allies, and largely see many basic things the same. Something like this would make it so that you can have some allies you are certain of, and othes you are wary of. I think it would be fair to penalize players that break such alliances with the universal loathing and mistrust of all other Civs, though you should be able to back out of it bit by bit.

I am sure you can see many other levels of interest there could be.

1 Unit Trading
~Allow unit trading
-general consensus for the list-

1.1 Unit Trading
~Unit trading for a certain number of turns
gopher

What about just letting you trade the capability to build X number of units instead of trading units for a specified number of terms? The trader of the ability would cover any strategic resource requirement, unless otherwise bargained. This would allow you to control how many tanks some other Civ has, if they don't have the tech/SR to build it, for example. It is also pretty realistic and less of a hassle than unit trading for a duration (for the units may die or be disbanded).

~establishing claims for various tiles or areas
gopher

This would be a bit tricky. There are claims and there are claims. This might be hard to fit into bargaining algorithms too. It is a nice idea, but I have trouble seeing a clean interface for it (which I think is important).

~Give us casus belli and stability to prevent too much backstabbing and making long-term diplomatic planning an option.
statusperfect

Perhaps being able to label part of a treaty with "casus belli enforced," so that breaking that can lead to War? If so there needs to be a "no trespass" agreement that you can apply this with, and the AI needs to be careful about following such agreements.

~Make the game show via the foreign advisor what you can do to increase relations with civs you have bad casus belli with.
statusperfect

Perhaps when you violate it, the diplomacy trade window will pop up, and the violator can then offer something as an appeasement (with the advisor giving advice as to wait will make them happy/what you should accept).

~You should be able to get a civilization to sign a peace treaty with another civilization or ask that a civilization stop building certain kinds of units.
Lorizael

Yup, a nuclear missle ban pact should be possible, and odd pacts like tha with other units as well (no subs, perhaps).

~Keep the bargaining table. It was superb.
Optimizer

Indeed!


[QUOTE]~You should also introduce some kind of vassalage, that could benefit both parts. The vassal civilization would pay maintenance for all units that the master civ stations in its territory, but the master suffers a great loss of reputation if the vassal loses any city to an enemy.
Optimizer[QUOTE]

Also, the Vassal shouldn't be able to trade tech with others without your say-so, nor should it be able to expand without permission. This will allow you to give them as much tech as you see fit and by giving them units or the ability to build units you could make sure they can defend themselves. Hmm, you need to be able to tell them how much military/defense to have.

You should also collect money and research (if they can research what you are researching) from the Vassal. Now, the vassal should also be able to break free if its military ever becomes close to an equal match to yours, or if it sees an opening. How likely it is to do this should depend on how you treat it, but it should always be possible (even if very unlikely). This it to balance the money and research you should get from them.

~Haggling is nice, but stick a limit on it. Make it so you can haggle 3 times per turn to get it right, and if you do not accept on the third turn, there is a 5-10 turn diplomacy blackout on that matter
hexagonian

Ehh, I am fine with the 3 deals, but if it goes south you should just have to wait 1 turn. That' enough of a punishment (especially if you are trying to get a tech or something else vital).

[QUOTE]~Get rid of the trade "advisor" who allows you to get the best deal possible down to the last gpt.
Fosse[QUOTE]

Jut make him imperfect...off by 10-20%, potentially either way (random error). Make it clear in the game that he is only giving you a rough idea of what they'll accept.

[QUOTE]~Multilateral diplomacy is a MUST. Both as a UN in the late game, and as three or more at one table throughout the game.
Fosse[QUOTE]

Indeed, and if you have an alliance against another alliance, this is even more essential (though having one member make peace and exit the war should be an option, albiet a reputation damaging one).

~Surrender needs to be put back in (from SMAC)
Fosse

Quite.

~durations of things need to be negotiable: Why 20 turns for every deal? What if 15 would be better?
Fosse

Agreed, but it should stick to multiples of 5, I think, just for ease of use.

[QUOTE]a) unit trade: when buying the unit you must specify the location/city where it should be delivered.[QUOTE]

This is potentially abuseable between two allies. If one ally needs to get a unit to some far-flung corner of the map, he could just trade it back and forth with another (especially if they are human). Even without this, the AI tends to make even trades. This is perhaps why unit trades weren't around in civ3. Perhaps some random city near the border of the two nations? Or perhaps the unit goes from the capital of the giver to the nearest city of the reciever. Or merely to the capital of the receiver. Still potential issues, but less that way.

b) build city improvements: this is for having one civ build an imp "x" in it's city "y" for another civ's city "z". For example, suppose I cannot build a hospital yet but the chinese can. I can offer to pay them 100 gold for one of their cities to build a hospital in one of my cities.

How about 50 Gil and they give you the tools you need to build 1 hospital (you pick the city). Rather like my unit idea.

[QUOTE]c) production/food trade: shields/food should be tradeable from one city to another. For example, I offer the Spanish to locate 100 shields per turn from Athens to Madrid in exchange for 200 gold.

I had this idea in regards to one's own cities, as far as food and production went. In my Crazy Idea thread. I agree such things should be tradable, though trade is best represented by research and money. Research needs to be tradeable in some limited fashion...perhaps if nations are in the same age (have I found a reason to have ages?), or perhaps you can work collaboratively on a research project, sharing beakers and the result.

d) terrain tiles: this way, the terrain tile chosen will become part of the civ's territory.
e) military bases: have a civ allow the installation of a millitary base (fortress) in one of their tiles in exchange for x gold.
J-S[QUOTE]

This potentially can lead to backstabbing abuses, and I'd be wary about it. Needs work to make sure you can't setup a huge army around the enemy and then break peace and take them out.

~3) Automatic foreign relations manager: be able to have your foreign advisor manage the general aspects of the relations with other civs automatically, giving him general indications. For example, instruct him to "maintain good relations with the chinese".

Perhaps he should automatically tell you if something nebulous is causing a loss of respect. Sometimes it isn't having enough military, sometimes it is making a trade with someone else (you can be warned here). If it is just from falling behind somehow, then this advisor should tell you that is happening.

"negotiate trade of extra resources for best price", always confirming with the player to finish the transaction.
J-S

Best handled via Multi-nation diplomacy. You offer the Iron and ask for bids. That way you can exclude nations you don't like easily, and it is subsumed in another interface.

~border agreements where the nations can trade land for units or land for cities, etc. and can basically carve out borders between each others nations
Darkcloud

This would have to be balanced with Culture in some way, I think.

~if there are going to be minor civs- I would suggest that the major civs can, if 2 or more of them discover the minor civs and the 2 are at peace with each other, carve out the land of the minor civ between them
DarkCloud

~Make it so you can do this with MAJOR civs as well (in reference to DarkCloud's above idea)
Skywalker

The allies did this Germany in WWII, so I don't see why it couldn't be done here. Interface might be a little tricky, but it is easier to carve out cities than it is to carve out territory (I think).

You could demand that another civilization become a territory of yours. Once this happens, new diplomatic options are available to you. You would have the ability to gain access to certain parts of your territory's civilization. You could ask to control the construction of improvements, or military units, or their income sliders, their science, and other such things.

Great Idea, but control should be limited to no more than telling them how to build (e.g. defensive, infrastructure, offensive, general military, research, commerce, etc). Anything more should be handled by you outright taking them over.

While writing this I realized that few players (computer or AI) would ever actually agree to a situation like this. Because of that, there must be a way to threaten people during diplomatic negotiations.

If they maintain some control, and have the potential to be free again (my idea near the front of my post), then players might not like it, but would probably agree over annihilation. Otherwise a player would just quit.

~You need a wonder (or facility, or something) like the Eiffel Tower or whatever it was that improved your reputation over time. The most annoying thing about Alpha Centauri diplomacy is that there's practically no way to repair your reputation - even for comparatively minor transgressions.

This should be automatic, and you shouldn't need a Wonder or anything. With good behavior, over time people should think better of you. If you make deals in the favor of others, it should help to an extent as well.

~Again and again I ask for EU type of diplomacy. It is much clearer; you can understand why somebody does not like you (religion, or you made a war with its friend). EU type of alliances rocks! Negotiations to make peace and decisions who gets what after the war are great! Ability to look at the map how any country treats other countries is very welcome. There are many other aspects that I want to see in CIV game that are in EU diplomacy model.
MxM

Not familiar with "EU" (other than the European Union), but this sounds good.

~There should be a diplomatic state between two civilizations when they first meet. It would just be Contact. There would be no formal peace treaty of any sort, and because of that no need for formal declarations of war. Units from these civilizations could attack and destroy the other's units at will without suffering a hit to their reputation, to war weariness, or having to deal with many civilizations ganging up on the attacking civilization.
Lorizael

I disagree here. If you go around attacking strangers, you should suffer a hit to your reputation from people that know those strangers (or meet those strangers before you). You are acting like a Barbarian and that isn't looked kindly upon. Similarly, you are basically at war (attacking a contact Civ should put you in a state of war, but shouldn't require a declaration), so you should suffer weariness.

Despite the pros you listed later, it still just sounds like going A-Viking.


~The ability to claim lands as you explore them. Other Civs could then recognize those claims and

a) Let you settle it
b) Take it for themselves (another reason to go to war)
c) Recognize your ownership, and purchase the claim.

This would make exploration slightly more powerful, no?
mrmitchell

Perhaps the solution to these ideas is to have two ways to claim land.

1: beyond your explicit borders are you "understood" borders, wherein it is allowable for another Civ to settle or build, but it is considered bad form (they take a reputation hit from other Civs). How bad this is depends on how close to you they are...your Cultural influence peters out in the non-explicit area, but is still there in the understood border sense. Also, building next to someone's minimum border area is considered very bad form, and would be very unlikely to be done (so no more dealing with enemy Settlers building a new city nestled just between two of your cities).

2. You can have a military unit "claim and guard territory" which claims a city-sized space around that unit, but doesn't extend LOS. However, I don't think there should be a big reputation hit for violating this. Oh, and the Unit can't move when it does this, it must stay still or lose the claim. All other claims, historically, have been more grandstanding than anything else.


That's all I have for now, I just realized this is getting very, very long.

-Drachasor

[DarkCloud]

Bumping this, and asking for people to volunteer to take over this thread assuming that TechWins doesn't appear on the forums or PM me by the 25th of this month... assuming (s)he returns after that, s/he can always work with the replacement person, however, if that person wants.

Since I vaguely think TechWins responded to a PM by me about 3 months ago, but I haven't heard anything since.

(s)he certainly did one of the best upkeep jobs through January on his/her thread

--Threads of Note:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=117908 Cybershy's diplomacy thread

[Vlad Antlerkov]

IMHO, one of the few (the only?) thing MOO3 did right was not making diplo communications real-time. You make an offer, send it off, and the AI civ accepts or rejects it within a few turns. Importantly, you can send off only one such offer per civ per turn. Limits diplo haggling. Something similar could probably be implemented in Civ IV, basing the round-trip time for a proposal on distance. How we'd get around the issue of contact time with civs on the other side of the planet, I dunno: either make the round-trip communication time some large amount of turns, or just limit contact to everyone within a certain range (which the MOO games do).

As for other anti-haggling measures, I like Fosse's proposal as refined by Drachasor (making the Foreign Advisor inaccurate).

[Fosse]

I don't like the idea of limiting the number of people you are talking to at all. Simply making communications last more than one turn (like MP does with another player in Civ III) would solve both issues you brought up, Vlad.

Plus, I think it would be fun. Diplomacy would have some elements of tension added to it, as offending the other leader with a poor offer could cause him to cancel negotiations that have gone on for two or three turns. Peace treaties especially would be harrowing if you are on the defensive!

The downside: "But then diplomacy would take years, even in modern time! Centuries in the ancient times! Egad, the unrealitic timeframe is horrible!"

My Response: A tank traveling on a road between Chicago and New York doesn't take a year.

[Fosse]

I don't think that this has been mentioned in a while (at least, I haven't said anything! ).

I think that a declaration of war should only be made as an intentional move in diplomacy.

Meaning: If the other person does something (tresspasses, uses nukes, violates a treaty, attacks a unit of yours) that could be an act of war you get the message: "The Romans have kidnapped one of our Settlers. Shall we... Declare war; Ignore the transgression; Condem the act and warn against future actions"


What this actually does in terms of game play is give players and AI leeway to break and bend the rules of civility without causing war every time. You can choose to risk war, certainly.

This would let you attack that small military force that has been camping on your palace steps without necessarily starting war. An international incident, to be sure, but not war.

This would allow for skirmishes that don't interupt world trade (or even trade between the nations).

There would be a diplomatic penalty for engaging in acts of war while diplomatically at peace.

Also, bring back the old cease fire! So you can stop fighting and try to hash out a deal while the spectre of breaking down relations leads directly to war.

This would be great in single player, but would especially beef up multiplayer diplomacy.