Will there be SMAC Alliances?

[Inverse Icarus]

in SMAC, when you signed an alliance (pact) you could stack your units with theirs, and garrison their cities. will this be carried over?

[joseph1944]

We do not know yet. Maybe this time when Firaxis make the update.

[KrazyHorse]

I hope the implications of an alliance are strengthened. In Civ II, signing an alliance means very little. The diplomatic repercussions of breaking an alliance should be even more severe, and an allied city which you recapture should return to its original owner.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I hope the implications of an alliance are strengthened. In Civ II, signing an alliance means very little. The diplomatic repercussions of breaking an alliance should be even more severe, and an allied city which you recapture should return to its original owner.

It would depend on who you are. Example are Hitler, Soviet Union, and Red China, they have broken almost every treaty they have made, with no repercussion or consequence. Even the US broke most of the treaties with the American Indians.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I hope the implications of an alliance are strengthened. In Civ II, signing an alliance means very little.

A propo of that, I'd also like to see the implications of accepting an offer to go to war strengthened also.

In civ 2 you'd get the money and then you didn't even send one elephant and it was all ok. (just your rep. and the war statues with the other civ changed).

So if you accept a war you should be expected to do more than that or face some consqeuences.

[Inverse Icarus]

my favorite thing that would always happen in civ 2 is when an AI declared war with me on an island map, and never got to my isle

[Rasputin]

Treatys and allainces are different....

Hitler signed treaty with Stalin to dually invade Poland and split it up, he didnt ally with him. Hitler was allied with italy and certainly wouldnt have attacked them.

It would have been like England decalring war on France during WW2..

Treaties are meant to only run for limited time , but allainces are much longer and are usually only broken due to major change in government (eg russian revolution) or atrocious acts by ally.

i agreee there need s to be more emophasis placed on letting allys stack together, fight together etc... recaptuing conquered city should be upto allies to decide who the city is now controleld by.....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by joseph1944
Example are Hitler, Soviet Union, and Red China, they have broken almost every treaty they have made, with no repercussion or consequence.

Sorry if it's off topic, but what treaties are you referring to? I know Hitler broke peace treaties and guarantees he had signed, but what are you talking about for the other two?

[Sean]

I would hope the SMAC would be the bare minimum of any new diplomacy 'system' enacted by frixas. SMAC did have a resonible standard of diplomacy, but it does need improvment...like the enforcement of war-pacts as mentioned earlier.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Sorry if it's off topic, but what treaties are you referring to? I know Hitler broke peace treaties and guarantees he had signed, but what are you talking about for the other two?

No I do not have a list in front of me to quote from.
However Russia did break the Non-aggression pack with Japan in 1945.
China had a agreement with the US not sell high tech missile and nuclear tech to Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea. However we found out a year or two ago that they were selling tech to those countries.

[JamesJKirk]

Originally posted by joseph1944

No I do not have a list in front of me to quote from.
However Russia did break the Non-aggression pack with Japan in 1945.
China had a agreement with the US not sell high tech missile and nuclear tech to Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea. However we found out a year or two ago that they were selling tech to those countries.

I'l avoid a protracted debate, but the USSR only did that to Japan to fulfill obligations to the US, and sure you can they only held a few free elections in countries they were sure they'd win anyway, but they also marched out of Austria right on schedule in 1955, surprising everyone. And yes, you can say that about China, but how many treaties has the US broken in arming countries it wasn't supposed to?

Besides this is irrelavent, the USSR was around only for 80 yrs, and Nazi Germany for 12, not really a big scope of time to base any sort of normal civ rules, is it?

[jadlakha]

Re: Will there be SMAC Alliances?

Originally posted by UberKruX
in SMAC, when you signed an alliance (pact) you could stack your units with theirs, and garrison their cities. will this be carried over?

The answer is 99.9% Chance is yes. This is more like a common sense thing, I mean if the base code for Civ3 is the same code of SMAC then most likely the major features have been left in Civ3.

[KrazyHorse]

Someone from Firaxis posted saying that while they started off with the SMAC engine, they've altered 90% of the code. I don't think it's very safe to say that anything's "in" or "out" based on such an argument, especially when it comes to the diplomacy system which has been completely rewritten (emphasis added for those of you who have not been paying attention).

[jadlakha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Someone from Firaxis posted saying that while they started off with the SMAC engine, they've altered 90% of the code. I don't think it's very safe to say that anything's "in" or "out" based on such an argument, especially when it comes to the diplomacy system which has been completely rewritten (emphasis added for those of you who have not been paying attention).

So in other words, they deleted completely 90 percent of smac, and rewrote it from scratch. To be quite honest I believe that the vast majority of that 90% is just the visual part of SMAC that has been converted(from menus to graphics). I believe that the 10% that was kept was the VERY CORE gameplay.