Tweet
Diplomacy is mentioned a bit everywhere but has no thread to group comments and ideas about it. So I feel it necessary to mend that with this new thread because diplomacy is a major aspect in making this game interesting and not just a bloodlust.
Aspects of diplomacy:
- territory negociation (overlaps with the thread on borders): we should be able to negociate disputed borders and trade pieces of land.
- trade (overlaps with the thread on resources): we should be able to trade:
. goods or resources (hopefully quantitized, not as abstract as it is)
. terrain or city improvements
. units (to sell and loose its control or to rent keeping its control but be paid depending on type and number of enemy units killed)
. energy (electricity - see thread on that idea)
. cities (may be also consider a limited time option, like the return of Hong Kong to the chineese after a hundred years?)
- research pact: to put in common scientific production or progress, or be able to negociate/coordinate with another civ that they search this, you search that, and you exchange techs after.
- trade pact: so as to enact some freetrade agreement between two countries, with 0 import or export taxes (if these are implemented with a more satisfying macro economic model making it possible to simulate some ALENA or EEC like economic pacts)
- mutual defense agreements: but smarter than is in Civ3. As it is, i ended up having a mutual defense pact with civA first, then civB two turns later. Then civA attacked civB and declared war, and the computer automatically put me at war with civB when it retaliated on civA which was the agressor. So stupid! I should have been offered the choice of deciding who to side with or of staying neutral.
- alliance against a civ, but with ability to discuss who attacks where and when, so as to plan surprise coordinated attacks in separate locations.
- pressure on a civ by threatening it to wage war, nuke, embargo, contaminate with smallpox, or whatever, if it doesn't:
. sign a peace treaty with that civ (that we should then be able to pressure also so that it accepts)
. teaches us a technology or pays a tribute (money or resource or give a city...)
. agrees to entering some pact (trade pact, science, or whatever we choose) with us
. stops reserching a given technology or building a given unit, improvement or wonder
. votes for you at next UN general secretary election
. more generally put pressure so that the pressured civ is more likely to accept any one of the diplomatic demands or deal we are proposing her.
- maps, but with ability to supply falsified maps, or to supply only maps of a given civ territory (for instance to prepare a joint attack and make sure our maps of the ennemy land match)
- be able to make a difference between allowing trespassing of any unit, or trespassing only of non fighting units (and of course with no fighting units on bord), allowing no trespassing at all.
- discuss embargoes either for all trade with a country or concerning only some strategic resources.
- if there is for a lasting period a trade and research and defense pact, there should some option to enter a political alliance (of European Community type?) or even a unification (confederation?), that would more or less result in the dominating country (based on a mixture of military might, cultural influence and trade power) absorbing the minor one (if we're the minor one than we lost the game). The minor civ should retain its caracteristics, especially its palace anti corruption effects (at least partially) and its cultural diversity aspects that might make some of their cities more likely to rebell and wish to leave the empire. But macro data like reasearch or wealth is agregated.
Thus you'd have a peaceful external growth option to work towards a world domination victory without slaughtering everyone...
- diplomatic reputation should evolve over time in a more effective way, so that you don't end up spending 4000 years of diplomatic efforts and still having other civs reproching you the same very ancient bad deed.
=> one important thing: no treaty should ever be automatically applied without offering us the opportunity to resign from it. We must be free to be trustworthy or to be sly tongued and treacherous. Treaties with regular effects over turns should go on of course, but with a possibility to break them at any time. The actual 20 turns compulsory commitment is not acceptable.
Besides length of the agreement should be also a matter of debate, and not by fixed 20 turns periods.
Aspects of diplomacy:
- territory negociation (overlaps with the thread on borders): we should be able to negociate disputed borders and trade pieces of land.
- trade (overlaps with the thread on resources): we should be able to trade:
. goods or resources (hopefully quantitized, not as abstract as it is)
. terrain or city improvements
. units (to sell and loose its control or to rent keeping its control but be paid depending on type and number of enemy units killed)
. energy (electricity - see thread on that idea)
. cities (may be also consider a limited time option, like the return of Hong Kong to the chineese after a hundred years?)
- research pact: to put in common scientific production or progress, or be able to negociate/coordinate with another civ that they search this, you search that, and you exchange techs after.
- trade pact: so as to enact some freetrade agreement between two countries, with 0 import or export taxes (if these are implemented with a more satisfying macro economic model making it possible to simulate some ALENA or EEC like economic pacts)
- mutual defense agreements: but smarter than is in Civ3. As it is, i ended up having a mutual defense pact with civA first, then civB two turns later. Then civA attacked civB and declared war, and the computer automatically put me at war with civB when it retaliated on civA which was the agressor. So stupid! I should have been offered the choice of deciding who to side with or of staying neutral.
- alliance against a civ, but with ability to discuss who attacks where and when, so as to plan surprise coordinated attacks in separate locations.
- pressure on a civ by threatening it to wage war, nuke, embargo, contaminate with smallpox, or whatever, if it doesn't:
. sign a peace treaty with that civ (that we should then be able to pressure also so that it accepts)
. teaches us a technology or pays a tribute (money or resource or give a city...)
. agrees to entering some pact (trade pact, science, or whatever we choose) with us
. stops reserching a given technology or building a given unit, improvement or wonder
. votes for you at next UN general secretary election
. more generally put pressure so that the pressured civ is more likely to accept any one of the diplomatic demands or deal we are proposing her.
- maps, but with ability to supply falsified maps, or to supply only maps of a given civ territory (for instance to prepare a joint attack and make sure our maps of the ennemy land match)
- be able to make a difference between allowing trespassing of any unit, or trespassing only of non fighting units (and of course with no fighting units on bord), allowing no trespassing at all.
- discuss embargoes either for all trade with a country or concerning only some strategic resources.
- if there is for a lasting period a trade and research and defense pact, there should some option to enter a political alliance (of European Community type?) or even a unification (confederation?), that would more or less result in the dominating country (based on a mixture of military might, cultural influence and trade power) absorbing the minor one (if we're the minor one than we lost the game). The minor civ should retain its caracteristics, especially its palace anti corruption effects (at least partially) and its cultural diversity aspects that might make some of their cities more likely to rebell and wish to leave the empire. But macro data like reasearch or wealth is agregated.
Thus you'd have a peaceful external growth option to work towards a world domination victory without slaughtering everyone...
- diplomatic reputation should evolve over time in a more effective way, so that you don't end up spending 4000 years of diplomatic efforts and still having other civs reproching you the same very ancient bad deed.
=> one important thing: no treaty should ever be automatically applied without offering us the opportunity to resign from it. We must be free to be trustworthy or to be sly tongued and treacherous. Treaties with regular effects over turns should go on of course, but with a possibility to break them at any time. The actual 20 turns compulsory commitment is not acceptable.
Besides length of the agreement should be also a matter of debate, and not by fixed 20 turns periods.