Column #109; By Harel

[DanQ]

Gamers shouldn't play demi-god in the world of Civilization, Harel claims, but rather a politican.

Read his article entitled "The Power Of A Good Politican". Harel is a first-time writer for The Column.

Comments/questions welcomed.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[The Joker]

That is just about the essence of what I want Civ3 to be like.

[Gearyman]

Adding more features for diplomacy would be a great addition.

The reason that diplomacy is NOT so much a part of the older games is probably because of its complexity to implement and the fact that the original game focused on the micromanagement of cities. As a result, the basics of diplomacy are there, albeit crude.

I think the 'surprise' nature of some of the scenarios happening would be very realistic. And of course, the diplomacy techniques and results could & should change over time. Early on, civs would be quick to declare war over something, whereas later on, more 'talks' would occur and other forms of punishment would occur (restricting trade, etc.)

SMAC's diplomacy was a little better, but even that could still be improved.

Diplomacy is an essential part--it's the part of getting along as well as overcoming that gives Civ realistic attractiveness.

Good article.

[Sirotnikov]

I support you 100% Harel.

Come to think of it, in my column I talked about a similar thing: Diplomacy, the board game.
There you can do everything you described because it's actual people talking to each other.
I would love to see it in civ 3.
And hey, you gave A LOT of very good examples. How long did it take you to make such a rich list? don't you ever sleep?

You said it better than anyone. Diplomacy is the best way to deal with issues. Not always in a peacefull way though.

I liked your idea about choosing my words. I hated it in Civ 2 that everything the AI said sounded good while my responses were always wimpy: "No, sorry" "I apologize".
Also i hated it when the AI talks to you just to let you know they have developed cruisers and I shouldn't under estimate thier power. why can't I threaten them? I also like to brag?

In SMAC it was better. Then the replies were very humorous and sarcastic. I like that. But, if I had 3 possible ways to express the same response it would be very good.

It would allow for delicate things to be expressed.
For instance:
I want to trade techs so I choose between:

1. "Hi... uhm Mr. Great All Mighty Leader... I was in the neighborhood and I was kinda wondering, is there any chance we could trade techs?"
2. "Hello Mr. Leader. How about trading techs for the mutual prosperity of our nations?"
3. "Now you listen to me, and you listen good. I want these techs - got it? It can go the easy way, or it can go the hard way? what do ya choose?"

I hope i interpreted your idea correctly.
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited April 04, 2000).]

[DirkZelwis]

Hello!
I already did a comment to this column, and the connect failed. Shards!
In short: The column is right for modern times... only. Tutenchamun, the king of Egypt, would talk to Hammurabi, the king of Babylon, from the front of his battleline. No embassies 2000 BC. Remember Marco Polo? A messenger from Europa would need a looong time to reach the king of China, and he can't call back for some small detail. So, not much options in diplomacy in BC.
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers"

[don Don]

Not at all! Exchange of Ambassadors was a relatively early aspect of Fertile Crescent civilization. It didn't extend beyond that limited region, true enough. Attempts to establish embassies over that distance should be limited in some way, but given the length of the game turn…

[Sirotnikov]

That's true actually.
A game turn is 1 year in modern times and even more in early times.

anyway, if we need, we can say that italy can only chat with china once every 3 turns
that can be done.

although it would make the game annoying.

[MidKnight Lament]

I think for the purposes of the game, the current system is fine. I don't think we need to put limits on it.

- MKL