NEEDED - a non-aggression treaty

[Venger]

An expirable, non-revocable non-aggression treaty. This would fix trading between agressive and non-aggressive countries.

Now to make sense, it must be irrevocable, like the MPP (which SHOULD be revocable with penalty).

Example:

A Civ is agressive but needs some resources. Right now, the other Civs won't trade with them, likely due to security concerns. Why give oil to the enemy war machine?

But - a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns would allow the non-aggressive Civ a sense of security and give the aggressive Civ an opportunity to obtain trades and enjoy the diplomatic aspect of the game.

Allow us to trade security for goods - it makes sense and benefits both parties.

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

One other thing that would be nice could be tied to the United Nations (thus giving another reason to build it) wherein anyone can ask someone to stop fighting another- useful if you have two potential allies but when you side with one it pisses the other off...

[Venger]

I think the act on behalf of option you are talking about was in SMAC, and also should be considered to be added as well.

An elegant system should give us options, and should always leave us with multiple possibilities. To ask the Russians to pressure their allies the Germans to stop fighting you is a step in the right direction.

Venger

[Boracks]

Yes, please, I want a non-agression treaty for 20 turns including resources so I can build up my forces and then crush you after the 20 turns are up. What? The AI won't go for it? The game is broken!

[/sarcasm]

This game has more diplomatic depth. If you can't adjust your style to it, it will beat you with it. Pick your aggresion carefully, some might even say strategically. This isn't CIV2.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Boracks
Yes, please, I want a non-agression treaty for 20 turns including resources so I can build up my forces and then crush you after the 20 turns are up.

Who said twenty turns? How do you know how the trade system is valued when resources are included? As it is now you simply GUARANTEE war over oil and other late game resources.

What? The AI won't go for it? The game is broken!

How about you bring something to the thread other than your overpowering ignorance?

This game has more diplomatic depth.

Than what? Smac? No. Imperialism? No. There are numerous older titles out that have far superior diplomatic options...

If you can't adjust your style to it, it will beat you with it.

No, it won't. I doubt I'll ever lose to the AI in Civ3, unless I'm totally screwed early on. I'd rather the game have some diplomatic depth than just "No Oil For You!" as it's mantra.

This isn't CIV2.

Another remark from the brain trust...thanks...

Venger

[Boracks]

Originally posted by Venger


Who said twenty turns?

Some guy named Venger in the first post said, "...a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns would allow the non-aggressive Civ a sense of security and give the aggressive Civ an opportunity to obtain trades and enjoy the diplomatic aspect of the game. "

How do you know how the trade system is valued when resources are included? As it is now you simply GUARANTEE war over oil and other late game resources.

Funny, as it is now, I don't go to war for resources, I trade for for them or expand my borders to include them (had to do both for coal).

How about you bring something to the thread other than your overpowering ignorance?

not on topic

Than what? Smac? No. Imperialism? No. There are numerous older titles out that have far superior diplomatic options...

Your opinion. My opinion is that I think the diplomacy in CIV3 is better than SMAC (which I think has good diplomacy) and Imperialism (which I didn't like).

No, it won't. I doubt I'll ever lose to the AI in Civ3, unless I'm totally screwed early on. I'd rather the game have some diplomatic depth than just "No Oil For You!" as it's mantra.

Obviously, the style of game you play is to get all the civs upset with your agressiveness and then not understand why they don't trust you. And, yes, this game can be won as a pure wargame if that's all you play. The style I play, I've not had a problem getting someone to make a deal. Not always the civ I want to deal with and not always the deal I like but I've always gotten what I needed, without declaring war. (Yes, I'm one of those. I usually don't start wars, I just make sure they end in my favour.)

Another remark from the brain trust...thanks...

You're welcome.

ps. nothing personal, we just obviously have different styles of play and, therefor, different ways of viewing the game and even different ideas about what we want to get out of it. Must be a heck of a game to have such a broad scope, even in its unpolished state!

[Dienstag]

I heartily agree there should be a non-aggression pact option. I'm not too keen on having the AIs gang up on me, but in my experience the mutual protection pact causes more trouble than I'd like...

This actually happened to me (in the tournement game which I've almost finished):
I had MPP with China, Eqypt, and Aztecs, to try to balance against agressive Zulus and most-power-civ Greece (hi MarkG!) which had conquered Romans.
MPP with China expired, and since my Iron source had just been exhausted, and becuse the Chinese had 2 cities in the heart of my territory that refused to act on the awe they felt for my culture, I decided to invade.
The treacherous Egyptians honored an MPP they had with the Chinese. (I'll have to figure out the AI MPP priority system, now) Concerned with the loss of this key ally, I sign an MPP with the Zulus, who quickly declare war on my allies the Aztecs, drawing me in with them... about two turns later they Aztecs sign a peace treaty with the Zulus but still won't consent to hear my diplomats bearing offerings of peace.

So now instead of me (Babylonians), Egyptians, and Aztecs vs Chinese....it's a messy free-for-all. The Greeks and Persians got involved as well in ways that are too confusing to remember. I think there was a time when each of the 6 civs were only at peace with one other civ.

So anyway...a non-aggression pact would be a very nice tool for discriminating between who you want to make war with vs who you don't want to make war on. ...Patch please!

[GePap]

Better Alliences

I agree on the need for non-aggression pacts (whic many other games like MOO2) had. I also think that alliences shoulod be retought to include defensive aspects. A MPP is a general deffensive allience, but I want to be able to say, 'hey aztecs, if the Zulu attack either of us, we help each other. But the chinese are your own damn problem'. This allows for greater diplomatic balancing acts and is in many ways how alliences actually work (which is why while the Germans and Japanese were allied in WW2 the Japanese never declared war on the SU. In Civ3, with a MPP, they would have to.)

[Venger]

Originally posted by Boracks

Some guy named Venger in the first post said, "...a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns

Whoopsie!!

Funny, as it is now, I don't go to war for resources, I trade for for them or expand my borders to include them (had to do both for coal).

Well, they won't trade me for it, and the borders are set and have been set for most of the game...

Obviously, the style of game you play is to get all the civs upset with your agressiveness and then not understand why they don't trust you.

I understand why they won't want to trade - but they should be able to trade with ensured security. Mind you, I've gone to war with three of the other civs ONLY because of MPP's. And despite being generous with trades, there is nothing I've done they've not done to others. If they are going to make late game resources crucial to even surviving, accessing them via diplomacy is crucial, and having a non-agression pact is a way to do that while ensuring some security.

ps. nothing personal, we just obviously have different styles of play and, therefor, different ways of viewing the game and even different ideas about what we want to get out of it.

Hey, nothing personal here either. I like the breadth of options in the game. I just think this addon may address the issue of late game resources trading for resources. I'm wanting to hear input on how to make it so the AI could get security so it'd be willing to trade for those resources.

Must be a heck of a game to have such a broad scope, even in its unpolished state!

It has potential...

Venger

[Sevorak]

I don't know about that...MPPs and stuff generally cover that quite well...

I'd prefer to fix the resource problem with a world commodities market. Price goes up with demand, down with supply, but you can always get the later resources...if you've got the money.

Of course this system is really only appropriate if there are more strategic resources than just eight, since two don't run out, and because luxuries don't run out and are clumped. But if there were 15-20 tradable resources? That would make the economic forum pretty important (not to mention allowing some kind of SMAC style economic victory).

-Sev

[Dienstag]

regarding my post about 4 posts up: I just realized (I'm not too quick, sometimes) that I could have tried for an alliance with the Zulus against the Chinese... but I'm still all for adding a non-aggression pact option.

As for the resources vs security question: I would like it to be possible to create genuinely friendly relationships with another civ. The best I've seen in Civ III is a superficial smiley-face tolerence of my civ until some random factor makes them annoyed at me again. I think there is a definate AI bias against the human (though maybe not so much as in Civ 2, thankfully). So as it's programmed now I don't think the AI is capable of that much trust, let alone when to use it.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Sevorak
I don't know about that...MPPs and stuff generally cover that quite well...

Problem -

Assume I join MPP to get Civ A to trade oil to me. Fine. Now that I have oil, I begin production on all sorts of oil based units. Once I've created entries in the queue, I break my MPP and declare war. The AI has no security in this situation. Now, if we had an enforcable non-aggression treaty component...

Also, it'd be nice to have the AI have it as an option when making peace with you - he'd only give a peace treaty in some instances when their is a non-agression guarantee...

I'd prefer to fix the resource problem with a world commodities market. Price goes up with demand, down with supply, but you can always get the later resources...if you've got the money.

Very smart - but nations can deny resources to other nations. Perhaps you have to have at least X number of operating harbors to trade for non-resident materials (i.e. if you have 40 cities, you must have 4 operating harbors to still obtain oil on the spot market). Of course, the enemy can always eithe destroy their harbor or blockade it (harbor closes if a warship is within the city radius). Also, this would give privateers a chance to actually be more than just a unit that sinks - a privateer stationed in a bay will hijack bough commodities and convert them to gold for the owner of the pirate ship.

Why aren't we all making a game fellow Civ'ers??

Of course this system is really only appropriate if there are more strategic resources than just eight, since two don't run out, and because luxuries don't run out and are clumped. But if there were 15-20 tradable resources? That would make the economic forum pretty important (not to mention allowing some kind of SMAC style economic victory).

I'd like to see more, rarer resources. That is, more types, fewer of each type. Go to the thread I'm starting...

Venger

[Ralf]

Re: NEEDED - a non-aggression treaty

Originally posted by Venger
A Civ is agressive but needs some resources. Right now, the other Civs won't trade with them, likely due to security concerns. Why give oil to the enemy war machine?

But - a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns would allow the non-aggressive Civ a sense of security and give the aggressive Civ an opportunity to obtain trades and enjoy the diplomatic aspect of the game.

Good point! An added non-aggressive pact option is needed for many reasons.

[SuiteSisterMary]

How about this:

A Mutual Protection Pact will NOT bring a signatory into an ALREADY OCCURING WAR. That would require a MILITARY ALLIANCE.

In addition, a MPP will NOT bring a signatory into a war that another signatory starts. I understand that as it is, so long as you're fighting on your own soil, it's not invoked, but that's not good enough.

[Blaupanzer]

Why should the AI trust a non-aggression pact. One of the examples was breaking a treaty to invade China and the hassles created by selectively invoked MPPs. If Egypt crossed you and backed the Chinese, why should you trust them later? Why should China assume any pact has value with you? What in-game penalty would be sufficient to give this non-aggression pact value without artificially creating a God-like referee? Wait until you meet the Aztecs as your in-game opponent. (One sure reminder this isn't Civ 2.) No pact has value to them for even one turn, unless you have the army to back it up. Obviously the non-aggression pact implies one side does not have the power to back it up. Won't work unless some UN-like programming device forces everyone else into the fray.