No "ceasefires"

[David Murray]

I noticed that it is not possible to sign ceasefires (going on what has been revealed about the diplomacy system); the nearest alternative is a peace treaty. Why? There is a difference between signing a treaty committing to a peaceful relationship and signing a treaty saying that you won't blow someone's head off for a few turns.

Also, no option to negotiate the decommissioning of arms or pollution reduction? Sounds like this game has a Republican's idea of diplomacy--all about trade and money, baby, to hell with anything of social or humanitarian value.

[Pembleton]

Re: No "ceasefires"

Originally posted by David Murray
Sounds like this game has a Republican's idea of diplomacy--all about trade and money, baby, to hell with anything of social or humanitarian value.

Do I sense a flame war? And I will stay out of it, seeing as I consider myself neither Republican or Democrat but an independent.

[David Murray]

Re: Re: No "ceasefires"

Originally posted by Pembleton


Do I sense a flame war? And I will stay out of it, seeing as I consider myself neither Republican or Democrat but an independent.

The point still stands--too much eyecandy and too little substance in Firaxis' new diplomacy model. Very superficial, just like all the other so-called "improvements" are looking so far.

I mean--no option to ask someone to reduce their nuclear arms capacity? No antiballistic treaties? No option to ask someone to stop destroying tiles because they have so many polluting factories?

Why has there never been one Civ game that ever got it just right with the range of diplomacy options?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by David Murray
I mean--no option to ask someone to reduce their nuclear arms capacity? No antiballistic treaties? No option to ask someone to stop destroying tiles because they have so many polluting factories?

Treaties are only meaningful...

A: if the AI can exploit/ make use of them correctly. Personally, Im prioritize a "qualitative few" over "quantitative many".

B: if they cannot easily be ignored/ backstabbed, without severe (Europa Universalis-style) consequences. Such hard-to-brake treaties must be time-limited, of course.

[Th0mas]

....because to make the diplomacy options have meaning in terms of game mechanics is probably a very difficult thing to do.


for example:

How does an AI civ meet its anti polution commitments as specified in the agreed treaty, without compromising its production (something that is difficult to get the AI to do well at the best of times!)

[Jaybe]

'gamish' diplomacy model

Because it is a game. Also no plagues, loss of science (dark ages), change in weather (e.g., European 'mini-ice age') other than for pollution-caused global warming.

I also would enjoy an "educational" version of the game where all these other factors could come into play.

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Ralf


Treaties are only meaningful...

A: if the AI can exploit/ make use of them correctly. Personally, Im prioritize a "qualitative few" over "quantitative many".

B: if they cannot easily be ignored/ backstabbed, without severe (Europa Universalis-style) consequences.

If they can program an AI to participate in the exchange of luxuries and complex military alliances, I'm sure they can program it to do other things too, like um...getting rid of some (or all) of their nuclear weapons. non?

[Th0mas]

Oops beat me to it Ralf

[HalfLotus]

Re: Re: Re: No "ceasefires"

Originally posted by David Murray


Why has there never been one Civ game that ever got it just right with the range of diplomacy options?

Because Davis Murray forgot to apply for that job at Firaxis.

Douple post, incoming.

[HalfLotus]

Re: Re: Re: No "ceasefires"

Originally posted by David Murray


Why has there never been one Civ game that ever got it just right with the range of diplomacy options?

Because David Murray forgot to apply for that job at Firaxis.

[Th0mas]

If they can program an AI to participate in the exchange of luxuries and complex military alliances, I'm sure they can program it to do other things too, like um...getting rid of some (or all) of their nuclear weapons. non?

The difficulty is programming the AI to make judgements about the worth of any particular proposal. How do you apply a value to environmental cleanup effort- remembering that each Civ within each game within any time period is different.

...I hope that made sense

[faded glory]

Pollution is not the AI's priority in Civ games for a number of reasons.

1)Cutting back on pollution means cutting back on production.
2)Contructing expensive city improvements
3)The AI does not fully understand the consequences until a disaster has happened.

[Pembleton]

The arguments about pollution make sense.

But what about cease-fire? Is it known for *certain* this option won't be in the game?

[player1]

Originally posted by Th0mas
....because to make the diplomacy options have meaning in terms of game mechanics is probably a very difficult thing to do.

You are right.
take for example CTP2:
-lot of treatries:
nuke reducition, pollution reduction, remove troops,
research treatry pact, etc.
-tone of voice: Frendly, Hostile, Kind...

Still, AI did'n KNOW to use them.
They were there just for LOOK.

Even with MODs it's diplomatic system is worse than in SMAC.

[Stuie]

Have we even seen any diplomacy screens between two civs at war? The option probably wouldn't appear unless it applied to the situation. No use jumping to conclusions...

Which reminds me, I haven't see a screen with a "Save Game" option on it; I guess by the prevailing logic this means we won't be able to save our games.