Diplomacy Sucks

[Kristjan]

However, in Civ3, the cost of war was nearly nothing, especially in the late game. You could easily defend against any incoming attack because of an inadequate attack AI and infinite rails, if the AI happened to be on another continent, the most threat it would pose would be a few units, and the AIs happily ruined their own economy by forgetting infrastructure if you were at war.

Here you are - THAT is the problem that should have been solved. NOT tech trading itself.

And the cost of war HAS increased substantially, if I have got it right.

[Solver]

Iceland, Finland and the Swiss aren't good examples. For example there are certain extremist countries that hate all European or Christian countries. You can have countries well-liked in a region (Switzerland), hated in the region but with a distant ally (Israel), but not really loved everywhere.

Here you are - THAT is the problem that should have been solved. NOT tech trading itself.

And the cost of war HAS increased substantially, if I have got it right.

In Civ4, yes, the cost of war is much larger. But there would still be problems if you allowed GPT for tech. For example, if you're actually planning to go to war with someone, buy techs from GPT, declare the war and fight as you were going to anyway.

I guess you could fight that problem with a number of things. Resume payments after war, introduce a heavier diplo penalty for breaking agreements, a few more things. That would be a lot of mechanics to combat one problem - the way it's done is simpler. In my opinion, that way works pretty well and I do not think that trading GPT for techs is a feature that really needs to be in. You may of course disagree.

[Julinoleum]

Then Disneyland. Everyone love disneyland, no?

[Imminence]

Some other points of view:

Since CIV 1, I'm pi**** by the AI-"diplomats".

Just an example:
I was in good relation with Persia (hmmm....the German word is "erfreut" and would be translated best as "delighted" or "pleased").
I started a chat and the guy said something about "...nice to meet you" and stuff but then he continued with "Beware our new dangerous helicopter and don't try weird things".
Ok, funny. Just imagine, you call an old friend to invite him (her) for a beer or two and the person agrees and tells you then "but beware my new knife, just for the case".
Perhaps in certain social classes this would be considered as "normal"; for me it's just ridiculous. But maybe my sense of humour is different, if existing at all.

Another example: I want a certain town. Of course nobody trades towns over the counter, so I agree, if the AI does not offer them. What must I do? Start a war. Why do I not have an option to blackmail the other guy like "give me that town or war will start". He can refuse or agree.
No improvement since CIV 1.
Next point (although already discussed here): Even my worst AI-enemy can just ask for anything and is annoyed, when I refuse. Again: No improvement since the early 90s, when I played CIV 1.
I just do not have the option to ask for something I like, regardeless the relation. Why do I necessarily know about the AI's techs without having a spy and / or an ambassador, which I needed in earlier CIVs? Now I know and mostly see "XXX will not trade with .....". Why am I not able to demand it? Why is it not possible to ask politely and pay a ridiculous price? Why...why...why...

In my not so humble opinion the diplomatic feature in CIV 4 is again totally below average adult logic and thus not improved since about 15 years now.

(BTW: I know about the difficulty to balance things in a huge game like this and can imagine, why the devs decided to make it this way and not the other way. But this does not necessarily mean, that the result is ok).

[AoA]

There should be that ability to threaten, Give me X or else (even if its listed in red). It does seem that the AI can do that to us. We should be able to do it to them and make them capitulate.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by AoA
There should be that ability to threaten, Give me X or else (even if its listed in red). It does seem that the AI can do that to us. We should be able to do it to them and make them capitulate.

You can do this. Go into trade mode and only put something on the table from their side.

If you are on friendly terms, you're asking for it as a friend and they might give it to you for free if they like you enough. I don't think there is a diplomacy hit if they refuse, though.

If you are not on friendly terms, you're demanding it as tribute. If you are strong enough, they will yield, but there is a definite diplomacy hit ("You made an arrogant demand!").

I had one game where I would frequently hit up a weak civ and take its "lunch money."

[AoA]

I don't think you can choose red-lighted items though....or can you. I don't think they get added to the list if I click on them.
Maybe it just seems that they can be Furious at me (like after a war) and so I'll maybe give into a demand to avoid more war, but they don't know that I'm Furious at them and will crush them if I'm not paid the proper respect.

Maybe they just think I'm weak. Those bastards! I'll show them! I'll show them all!!!!!!

[Boris Godunov]

If it's red, you can't demand it, period. That's a shame, as I'd like to threaten just to piss off my rivals more.

[LordShiva]

And I think it's just silly when the AI considers some inconsequential techs as untradeable, no matter how much you have to offer.

[AoA]

I'm just happy that I have to fight less for resources. I only play tiny/small maps and so there's never enough Civ3-crucial resources to go around. Civ4 does seem to allow a better distribution, alternate units to choose and somewhat better trading for them. Plus so far, no more...You discovered Oil and the next turn You ran out of Oil. Son of a ......

[Kristjan]

Originally posted by Solver
In Civ4, yes, the cost of war is much larger. But there would still be problems if you allowed GPT for tech. For example, if you're actually planning to go to war with someone, buy techs from GPT, declare the war and fight as you were going to anyway.

So what - it is just backstabbing. Quite a frequent occurance in the course of history, I may say.

That would be a lot of mechanics to combat one problem - the way it's done is simpler. In my opinion, that way works pretty well and I do not think that trading GPT for techs is a feature that really needs to be in. You may of course disagree.

I most respectfully do. I am a fan of "realistic" things and all kinds of limitations should be result of subtle game mechanics, not just hardcoded rules. Basically it is the same problem as ICS was. An easy solution to remove ICS would have been maxCities=10.