Civ4: Omega Expansion

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by eris

So, for the ultimate expansion, the diplomacy points could be reflected in more specific comments. "You took from us and we will never ever forget. However, what deal did you have in mind?"

Good idea. Though there also ought to be a capability for the worst of enemies to join forces against a newer, deadlier enemy, as has happened in the past. Though, of course, the old hatreds might prevail to the detriment of all.

[Thedrin]

I'm still thinking that the next expansion should base around expanding diplomatic options and that an increased role of trade routes (as discussed earlier in this thread) is an important way of adding to diplomatic options. There's a second alteration to the game mechanics that I think should be added but I amn't sure if it's feasible.

Expanded peace treaties.

Consider civs A, B and C are the equally prominent civs on a continent. A and B go to war while C remains on poor terms with both of them. It is not in C's interest to see either A or B destroy the other - this would lead to one civ becoming more powerful than C.

As it is it may require too great a change to the AI mechanics to cause C to switch alliances based on keeping the status quo but I wonder if the introduction of a peace conference would also require a great deal of change to the game mechanics.

Say A is winning and earns the more favourable terms in the peace treaty. What each civ wants from the treaty:

A: To increase its power as much as possible.
B: To retain as much influence as possible.
C: To limit the increase in A's power.

Possible outcomes:

If A demands a harsh peace which B accepts (effectively demanding capitulation) C can demand a reduced penalty to B backed with the threat of war. C has (presumably) been at peace during the war whereas A and B will both have suffered economic hits through war so that C can back up its demands effectively.

A offers a lenient peace to B since B is not down and out yet.. C can choose to accept this or again declare war. In this case B may choose to ally with C to gain better terms.

A offers a lenient peace to B which C accepts. Everyones happy (except B).

I'm curious how workable this idea is.

The first change that would be required is that both sides in a peace negotiation can offer incentives to the other side (unlike the current situation where only one side gains anything from the treaty) since it's difficult to imagine it having a great deal of affect on the game unless C has the ability to demand the return of territiories to B from A..

The second change is to try to find away that only local powers take part in the negotiations. Most likely this can be done by having each AI assess its own military strength when conflicts end and deciding whether or not it should try to influence the outcome.

The third change to be made is probably the most drastic and least feasible. The AI currently have the attitude that if another civ is weak they should take advantage. They would have to be programmed to consider the weakening of another civ as possibly a situation to be reversed rather than taken advantage of.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Thedrin
I'm still thinking that the next expansion should base around expanding diplomatic options and that an increased role of trade routes (as discussed earlier in this thread) is an important way of adding to diplomatic options. There's a second alteration to the game mechanics that I think should be added but I amn't sure if it's feasible.

Expanded peace treaties.

Yes! Good idea. It didn't make sense for a civ to make peace and then demand a city in the middle of your empire while ignoring the 5 border cities you took from him.

And here's another idea. After conquering a civ, you are able to recruit their unique unit. Sort of like Romans hiring auxilia from nations they conquered. Or Alexander the Great filling his army with Persian and Bactrian units.

And the culture of a conquered civ should remain for a fairly long time after they've been destroyed.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Alexander01
And the culture of a conquered civ should remain for a fairly long time after they've been destroyed.

What purpose would this serve in the game?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LordShiva


What purpose would this serve in the game?

More frequent rebellions. Maybe a new imperial aspect where your civ is at the heart of a larger empire of smaller cultures that you have to keep integrated. If you mismanage, they could respawn. Aside from the initial difficulty in taking a city, I think conquest is too easy. Make it a little easier to capture a place, but make it harder to maintain control over.

[EternalSpark]

Originally posted by eris
I would rather have a form of cultural Alzheimer's than relive hatreds from a millenium ago.

You took the words directly out of my mouth. What's the point of having thousands of years of cultural history, when the bulk of it consists of millions dying for the same piece of rock again and again? (I realize this is fairly ignorant, but it's not as if we're not told this whenever Atrocity X happens...)

Oh, and to add one of the things I've always wished the Civ games had: the ability to make an agreement with the AI concerning territory and/or land. Something along the lines of "draw a line in the strategy view, and then talk to Toku and say that we won't build bases above that line, and you dont build bases below that line."

[Blaupanzer]

I am definitely in favor of of more trade options, especially as related to trade routes. Maybe a leader trait called trade, with 1/2 cost harbors and 3/4 cost banks and which adds one trade route to each city beginning with the building of the second city in a civ.

Maybe an ability by a naval power to declare that it has cut your ocean (and/or coastal) trade routes and what are you going to do about it (pay bribe or fight war). I'm a little fuzzy on what ratio of relative naval power would enable this capability, but it would add value to the trireme units.

The ability to transfer food output between cities in some way in the more modern era would also make sense (maybe enabled by the railroad tech).

I liked caravans as a trade device, but not so much as a way to transport goods to a building site. That is, I used the latter characteristic but felt it was cheesy.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by EternalSpark


You took the words directly out of my mouth. What's the point of having thousands of years of cultural history, when the bulk of it consists of millions dying for the same piece of rock again and again? (I realize this is fairly ignorant, but it's not as if we're not told this whenever Atrocity X happens...)

Oh, and to add one of the things I've always wished the Civ games had: the ability to make an agreement with the AI concerning territory and/or land. Something along the lines of "draw a line in the strategy view, and then talk to Toku and say that we won't build bases above that line, and you dont build bases below that line."

Though history does consist of the same hatreds being fought over again and again. (Greece vs. Persia, the Middle East, etc.)

[padillah]

Aw, crap. I wrote this yesterday but side-tracked by work. Stupid work.

Anyway, what I want in the next XPack is real negotiations. Not Me guessing what the AI wants for stuff but some sort of measurement for any given trade resource and then that trade could be met any way I want.

For example, to Brennus sheep are worth 120 points (their health helps keep up with his happy-cap) but to Mansa they are only worth 100 points. So when you trade with Brennus you can offer whatever you want as long as it's over 120points. Or save the points up to use as leverage later, "I gave you sheep 5 turns ago, now you owe me corn." You are not stuck offering one thing and one thing only. It's kinda like negotiating.

I hate the current situation of trying to figure out the "combination" to the AI trade requirements. There is no negotiations, I just pick stuff from the AI and click "What do you want for this?" cause there's no other answer. Trade negotiations are pretty one-sided right now.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Though history does consist of the same hatreds being fought over again and again. (Greece vs. Persia, the Middle East, etc.)

And if the game took 6000+ years to play this may seem reasonable... but it's a game, so no, it's not.

(I had horrible "America vs. others" sarcasm to spew but I don't want to get OT. It was pretty funny though, Will9 would have hated it.)

Tom P.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by padillah
Aw, crap. I wrote this yesterday but side-tracked by work. Stupid work.

Anyway, what I want in the next XPack is real negotiations. Not Me guessing what the AI wants for stuff but some sort of measurement for any given trade resource and then that trade could be met any way I want.

For example, to Brennus sheep are worth 120 points (their health helps keep up with his happy-cap) but to Mansa they are only worth 100 points. So when you trade with Brennus you can offer whatever you want as long as it's over 120points. Or save the points up to use as leverage later, "I gave you sheep 5 turns ago, now you owe me corn." You are not stuck offering one thing and one thing only. It's kinda like negotiating.

I hate the current situation of trying to figure out the "combination" to the AI trade requirements. There is no negotiations, I just pick stuff from the AI and click "What do you want for this?" cause there's no other answer. Trade negotiations are pretty one-sided right now.

Tom P.

I agree that negotiations are sub-par. So it seems that people want either an expansion focusing either on diplomacy or on economics.

[Thedrin]

An expansion focusing on trade routes would focus on dimplomacy and economics.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Thedrin
An expansion focusing on trade routes would focus on dimplomacy and economics.

Maybe a Silk Road scenario, maybe an Age of Discovery/Colonization scenario...

[EternalSpark]

I would like to see a "no civ with trait X" when doing a custom game.

If I had a dime for each time the game "randomly" gave me all the aggro civs right next to me, I could finance civ5.

[Cartimandua]

Originally posted by EternalSpark
I would like to see a "no civ with trait X" when doing a custom game.

If I had a dime for each time the game "randomly" gave me all the aggro civs right next to me, I could finance civ5.

AMEN! I've had to nuke Montezuma twelve too many times! And it's even worse when Tokugawa, Isabella, and Caesar are right next door.