{The List} - Diplomacy

[patcon]

Originally posted by lorifromsf
For trading . . .

Sometimes I want to sell a tech this year, but my current luxury deal expires in two or three years. I should be able to offer an extension during my negotiations (“I’ll give you Steel for 500 gp and you extend my wine delivery another 20 years).

There should be an option of having a pop up appear when 1) when you are first able to trade with a civilization and 2) when a commodity appears that you currently don’t have (The Persians have extra silk. Why don’t we trade for it?).

Excellent ideas! Especially the idea of offering extensions on trade agreements that haven't expired yet.

Some other ideas on trade.

1. The "20 turns for everything" model is a one that doesn't always fit. Allow deals for shorter periods, but probably need to restrict things to 5 turn increments.
a. Maybe I want iron from France so I can build my Immortals right now, but I know I can get my own supply of iron in 5 turns. Why can't I negotiate a deal shorter than 20 turns?
b. Maybe my trading reputation is less than great because of broken trade agreements in the past (not my fault, of course). Why can't I rehabilitate my reputation by making, and scrupulously keeping, short-term deals? Of course these deals would have to be really sweet for the AI to take a chance, but that could be part of the cost of doing business.
c. Maybe I wouldn't mind the AI sending units across my territory to get to a battle for 5 turns, but I don't want to let them traipse all over my land for the next 20 turns. Why can't I offer them a 5 turn RoP?

2. Rather than only being able to enter into negotiations for resources with one civ at a time, why not allow an open market once a certain tech (call it 'International Trade') is achieved. This would allow the civ with IntTrade to have open negotiations with all of its potential trading partners by declaring "I have furs to trade. What am I bid?" or "I'm in the market for coal. Let's hear some offers." Of course you can do this now, sort of, by going to each civ individually and seeing their deals and then going back to the best offer. What IntTrade would allow is to do this more easily, and secure better deals because the other civs know they are in competition. Only civs with IntTrade would have knowledge of the other offers. Private negotiations would still be possible. IntTrade combined with Espionage would also allow a small wonder called 'Trade Mission' which allows the civ to possibly 'listen in' on trade negotiations involving civs where you have an embassy and an option to step into the negotiation to interfere by offering a better deal ("France is offering 10 gpt for your coal? I'll give you 250 gold up front.") or possibly making one of the parties an 'offer they can't refuse' ("That's a really nice city you have there on my border. It would be terrible if buying Espionage made something bad happen to it."). Maybe make the chance of listening in fairly high but the chance of interfering somewhat less. Having a Trade Mission would also lower the probability of other civs listening in on or interfering with your negotiations.

[Harfang]

The Civ3 system was much more flexible than the SMAC one. Good. But its interface annoyed me to no end: I'm a keyboard person. The less I touch the mouse, the better. Please, make it so I can use the keyboard.

Peace brokerage. As in SMAC. Already mentioned several times.

Mercenaries. An idea I just had. More or less like unit trade, except that they could be "leased".

More realistic right of passage. Unless two nations are strongly allied, the mere passage of a military unit in their territory, including their territorial waters, could be construed as a declaration of war. It could less stringent in the early game, when relatively nonthreatening units would simply be out exploring. I'd suggest a scout-like unit with a defence rating, but no offence.

If the Civ3 model is to be kept, at least make the civilizations have the good grace to ask for a RoP agreement before they enter your territory, something they currently never do.

Multilateral pacts. If you have a mutual protection pact with a civilization, you should have a veto right on any other pact it wants to make with a third civilization.

Accrued trade à la SMAC. More gold in your coffers for being nice.

Bring back the old truce state. Units moving out of foreign territory would be seen as a sign of good will. Bringing more in would break the truce. You might even specify the path enemy units must take to leave your land and go back home.

Veto on tech trade. If you trade or give a tech to a civilization, you may demand that it does not trade it to other civilizations. If it does anyway, it will chill relations.

City trading. Have the civilizations more open to city trades, as did the European rulers until very recently. It could become hindered by the discovery of nationalism. If you liberate an ally's city from a common foe, it should rightfully expect it back at the end of the conflict, especially after the discovery of nationalism. Not returning it might cause was and damage your reputation.

Tech tree. I'd like to see where a given civilization stands in the tech tree, just as I can for my own.

[alms66]

Originally posted by Fosse
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 an excellent addition.

[patcon]

This is really a Trade/Diplomacy question/idea.

Is a trade route between two potential trading partners blocked by passing through another civ's territory? (I'm pretty sure it currently is.)

If it is, I'm miffed. Shouldn't I be able to negotiate a trade route through that territory?

If it isn't, I'm miffed. Shouldn't these civ's have to ask permission to use my roads or sea lanes?

My solution
Allow (early on, possibly with Map Making) the negotiation of "Trade routes" between civs. If two civs agree to TR then trade to/from one of these civs can pass through the other's territory.
A city on the "other side" is then resource-connected to its home civ if a viable sea or land trade route exists.
A civ on the "other side" could trade with you if a viable sea or land trade route exists.

TRs could be purchased in the usual ways. There should be some sort of "tax" for actually sing a TR's benefit, say 1 gold per turn (paid by the selling civ) for each resource passing through. Perhaps a higher "tax" rate could be offered in negotiations to lower the initial price of the TR. The cost of a TR through a civ should be less if you are currently trading with that civ. The cost of a TR should be much less than a RoP.

The terms of a trade between civs requiring a TR through an intervening civ should be slightly more favorable to the civ having the TR if only one has the necessary TR.

The agreeing civs also allow workers to enter their territory for the sole purpose of building roads.

Question
I've always advocated one-way RoPs (I send my troops through your territory, but you don't go through mine). Should TRs automatically be two-way, even if RoPs get the one-way option?