Announcement

**KiloAlpha4** · November 8, 2005, 01:07

thus far

Thus far I like that I can not accept a request (turn it down) from another civilization and not get nailed for it negatively in the deplomacy screen. I also like that I can make defensive packs with all other nations and if 2 go to war I'm not drawn in to either's side and I remain neutral (joy). I think that there should have been a global trade market although since we have global trade and resources where values/prices randomly fluctuate by supply and demand and these alter the ability to use trade (amounts) in the diplomacy screen between nations. EG maybe 1 wheat= 1 oil but in 20 minutes the same deal would change to 2 wheat= 1 oil in value. To me this would spice up global economics a bit and add another level of thought to the game. Also I would like to see blocade a nation ability (naval) to stop sea trade or the ability to sanction a nation from all world trade by starting a vote. EG 4 nations and 1 starts a vote to sanction nation 2 but needs the approval/backing of nation 3 and 4 thus you have to get them to approve by bribe or by how much they like you (would have to be 90% or above rating for each). I also would like to see the possibilities of a blocade or sanctions causing the nation being blocaded to have some hardship in production as demand drops so would supply and income a bit and also that if it is too much for the nation being sanctioned they may invade or declare war, use spies to attack you, etc, in retaliation, nevermind the adverse effects to your popularity with them. I think this would be a good measure to try and slow that neighbour that is becomming too powerful too quick and posing a threat. They could also make a embargo etc against someone if their popularity drops too low or they deny trade with the AI etc too many times over a resource they want (the AI) .

just my 2 cents.

**Traelin** · November 8, 2005, 09:42

Negative Aspects of Diplomacy

OK as I see it, here are some major downers to the Civ4 diplomacy system. A lot of them are corollaries to the pros, and probably could be enhanced with a patch or an XP. If I have any other questions about the specific topic, I will post them at the end of the topic discussion.

1. UN and Limited Resolutions. Even though the Civ4 UN is a great start to revamping diplomacy, I feel it could be a lot better, in the following ways:
a. Most of the choices have no downside to them. One could make the argument that Environmentalism and global trade routes are negative resolutions, which is a fair argument. But heck, if you're going to make certain Civics choices votable, why not make them all votable? SMAC had the thumbs up vote on Punishment Spheres IIRC, so why can't we have some controversial Civics choices as votable?
b. We need some of the current resolutions to have negative consequences, and we need to have a lot more resolutions as votable. For instance, why can't the Sec Gen propose sanctions against ANY Civ in the game? Just because we can vote on it, doesn't mean it will pass. Let the game's enhanced diplomacy system weed "evil" Civs out, via the UN.

Another cool thing to vote on would be military restrictions on ANY Civ. The Sec Gen should be able to propose a vote on any Civ that would warn a Civ in moving troops outside his/her own territory, INCLUDING air space and international waters. If the resolution passes, then any country that voted in favor of the resolution would declare war on that Civ.

Questions/Comments:
Once you've voted on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, can you vote the other way? That is, can you overturn a previous vote via a new vote?

All votes should have the ability to be overturned via another vote. Of course with Civics resolutions, this is automatically done when you vote on changing to another Civic.

2. Trading is Very Linear. Now that we don't have to worry about trading units anymore, and there have been two years to play with diplomacy, you'd think we'd have a more flexible trading system. Unfortunately the fix to the previous system was to restrict trades to "Apples:Apples" trades, and disallow "Apples:Oranges" trades. IMO this is a HUGE step back. Why can't I trade Optics for Iron? And please don't tell me that it is "too difficult" to do this, because the early, Neanderthal way of doing this was already present in Civ3. There's nothing I hate more than to be restricted in diplomacy. Civ4 has done such a good job in diplomacy that it's a shame it took a step back on this.

Look, it's fine if you don't want to allow me to trade resources for War Against Khubilai (yes, this is the true spelling BTW), because there could be potential exploits here. But please oh please allow me to trade resources for techs, or lump sum gold for resources. Sheesh.

3. Respecting Borders

This one automatically falls into the questions/comments category, because I think borders are spectacular in Civ4, UNLESS the AI Air Force doesn't respect borders. Remember in Civ3 when you'd see the AI pretend like there was no such thing as a country's sovereign air space? Well as long as Civ4 takes air space into account, I have no beefs whatsoever with Borders.

4. AI that Suffers from the "Nagging Wife Syndrome".

OK, so we now have an AI that is diplomatically interactive and immerses us even more in the game. (Thanks Soren, you've ruined my home life again.) But have you guys ever gotten that "nagging wife" feeling from the AI, like it pings you *too* much to cancel trades, declare war, etc.?

I always play on a Huge map, Epic, with at least 14 Civs, so I get pinged at least once every turn. Sorry, but this is annoying. I mean it's one thing to ask for potential trades, or to demand tribute, etc. But it is unacceptable to be asking me to cancel trades very time I turn around. Right now, my workaround is to reload, because there are certain messages that don't pop up again if you reload to the prior turn.

The ones that do continue to pop up? Tribute demands, Declare war requests, Apples:Apples trade requests, "Polite" requests for tech. The ones that you can avoid by a reload (and rightfully so)? Requests to stop trading with Civ X What's the chance we could tone down the requests to stop trading, or at least make the AI suffer negative points when it requests the same thing from another AI Civ? I have NEVER seen the AI receive negative diplomatic points if they refuse this, and I have to assume that there ARE AI:AI requests for this.

Bottom line is, sometimes too much communication can be a bad thing, but unfortunately I can't have a heart-to-heart with the AI about this.

5. Civ4 and the Diplomatic "Good Guy/Bad Guy" Scenario.

While Civ4 really makes me feel like I have closer friends and more vile enemies than in Civ3, I feel like it almost over-reaches for the goal of "good side/bad side". I don't really know how to explain this, other than to say it is partially due to number 4 above. When the AI is *constantly* haranguing you to do this or do that, it gets tedious. If it's for things that are mutually beneficial, fine. But not when it costs you negative points every stinking turn. Which leads to number 6.

6. Diplomatic "Point System" Favors the AI, and is Very Skewed.

This is perhaps one of the biggest pet-peeves I have with Civ4. It is so frustrating to go to war with an AI -- whether it be through Defensive Pacts or via my own aggression -- and be penalized permanently via the "You declared war on me!" -3 points. However, when the AI attacks me afterwards, this isn't cancelled out, nor does time cause it to fade.

Yet it should. Take a famous example in real history, the Americans and Brits. We were involved in Colonial-Sovereign disagreements. We were involved in a Revolution. We were involved in the War of 1812. Really, we had awful diplomatic relations until WW2. Where are we now? Hrm, perhaps the BEST of friends. OK yes, maybe the Brits and French should have permanent negative points with each other, but that's a completely different situation.

In all seriousness though, there is no reason why the AI should hold a grudge against me for a war that happened 3000 years ago. I know I don't, not when they could be a vital ally in the future.

EDIT: I forgot the problem below, which I had posted in a previous post.

Say you start trade relations with Civ X, who happens to be enemies with Civ Y. However, you haven't met Civ Y, so you don't know that you're pissing them off. Now when you meet them, you notice that you automatically start out with -4 points (or whatever) because Civ X and Civ Y are enemies. This makes no logical sense, and really needs to be rethought.

I know I'm forgetting some stuff, so I'll probably modify this post later. Anything I'm missing?

**Arrian** · November 8, 2005, 10:17

Questions/Comments:
Once you've voted on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, can you vote the other way? That is, can you overturn a previous vote via a new vote?

Yes, I believe you can re-vote on any resolution and, if you wish, overturn it. I revoted on one once b/c I misclicked

...

I agree with you on being "pinged" to stop trading with XYZ civ. It does seem to happen a lot, and it gets highly annoying, especially for a peaceful trader type (which I have often been, so far). I've had AIs work themselves into fury with me w/o ever fighting a real war with them, just because I wouldn't cave in and give them what they were demanding (and, of course, my heathen beliefs). It's good overall, but maybe needs to be toned down a notch.

-Arrian

**Traelin** · November 8, 2005, 12:38

Originally posted by Arrian

Yes, I believe you can re-vote on any resolution and, if you wish, overturn it. I revoted on one once b/c I misclicked

...

I agree with you on being "pinged" to stop trading with XYZ civ. It does seem to happen a lot, and it gets highly annoying, especially for a peaceful trader type (which I have often been, so far). I've had AIs work themselves into fury with me w/o ever fighting a real war with them, just because I wouldn't cave in and give them what they were demanding (and, of course, my heathen beliefs). It's good overall, but maybe needs to be toned down a notch.

-Arrian

Yeah, IMO diplomacy is so close to being ideal, but there are still a few very annoying kinks that can be solved rather easily. The enhancements, such as new resolutions, could be added via an XP.

**SirOsis** · November 8, 2005, 12:54

Re: My thoughts on diplomacy

Originally posted by Traelin
10. Religion. There isn't even enough time to go into how cool an addition this is in Civ4, so I'll just touch on some of my initial thoughts AS IT PERTAINS TO DIPLOMACY. (That is, I do NOT want to discuss the pros/cons of having a city with multiple religions, etc...I am only concerned about religion and diplomacy.)

It is VERY realistic to see Civs thumbing their noses at "non-believers". I love seeing the negative points on the Diplomacy Advisor for me being a "heathen". Humor aside, this is a pretty cool modifier of diplomatic relations.

All of your points are quite good. I do take exception with this particular one. I agree that it is realistic that they thumb their noses at you, but only to a point. It would seem that as you enter the modern era, religion should play less of a role in relations. Certainly in some cases it would still hold true but overall by the modern era most countries are not so concerned with the religion of their neighbors. I think it should be affected more on your civic choices than what individual religion you are. Perhaps this could be adjusted by what year it is as well.

And where is the Church of Scientology?

**Traelin** · November 8, 2005, 13:15

Re: Re: My thoughts on diplomacy

Originally posted by SirOsis

All of your points are quite good. I do take exception with this particular one. I agree that it is realistic that they thumb their noses at you, but only to a point. It would seem that as you enter the modern era, religion should play less of a role in relations. Certainly in some cases it would still hold true but overall by the modern era most countries are not so concerned with the religion of their neighbors.

SirOsis,

Thanks for the response. (I love the username BTW, it took me a couple secs LOL).

I definitely agree that it should play less of a role in the modern era, which it does. My only concern is that Islam really comes too late in the game to make a difference, and as we know, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. So I still think religion should play somewhat of a factor in the modern era.

Originally posted by SirOsis
I think it should be affected more on your civic choices than what individual religion you are. Perhaps this could be adjusted by what year it is as well.

And where is the Church of Scientology?

I think you nailed it dude, that's a cool idea. Perhaps Theocracies could have negative relations with those implementing Free Religion? That would be interesting, considering the AI really likes Theocracy for some reason.

Oh, I'll take a stab in the dark and say the Church of Scientology comes way too late in the game to make a difference.