Alliance

[Par4]

DMZs NFZs good, I like, you could select a hotly contested area or an area where an invasion could easily happen. NFZ could be over military bases or labs or something important. You should set up NFZs but they should hurt your economy and be only for the isolationist. UN could also do this stuff.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[OrangeSfwr]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a consequence for losing a war. If there is a no fly zone over their territory than they can't fly their planes anywhere. Make sense? But I like your ideas as well Par.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Par4]

Oops the UN can do it, I meant other countries, like a punishment. I realized what you meant, just didn't put it very well.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[Spekter@Home]

I think what we need is more and different types of peace treaties. A hostile peace treaty would prevent the signatories from overflying each others territory completely. Entering someone else's airspace is grounds for cancelling the treaty. A neutral peace treaty would allow them to overfly each other, but both would still have the right to demand the withdrawal of air units (like you can do with ground units already). Refusal to withdraw becomes grounds for cancelling th e treaty. A friendly treaty would give the right for overflight with no option for the demand for withdrawal. However they couldn't stack units. Stacking should be restricted to Allies only. I think these ideas would apply to ground units as well, but would perhaps require a bit of tweaking. Also, you'd need to set up some way for treaty status to fluctuate based on the relationship between the civs.

Any thoughts?

------------------
"We are all greater artists than we realize."
-Nietzsche

[OrangeSfwr]

Spekter - that's a very good improv plan. I like it a lot. I hate the way the AI treats peace treaties like a promise with their fingers crossed. It's not realistic at all and I think your system would solve a few of the problems with diplomacy. If your civ hates another civ, than the peace treaty should be easily broken. But a longer lasting peace treaty or a treaty between two friendly civs should not be so easily broken. I also feel that friendly peace treaties should not have the right to "demand tribute" every turn. It gets annoying and I always refuse anyway. The refusal of tribute is not grounds for war, just less likeness towards another civ. Same with not sharing a tech. Good thoughts everyone, anything to add?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Jon Miller]

they should make civ3 so that allies actually matter and are could to keep and that taking over is not always advantageous, as it is it is always best to treat the treaty as a scrap of paper (and the A/i does this too) and use it to sneak attack

Jon Miller

[abuzayd]

quote: Originally posted by Akron on 06-08-2000 10:08 AM Here's another thing to think about. What if you are attacking a foreign civilization with your Ally. Both of you attack the same city, but from opposite directions. How should the territory gained be split? Your Ally might have lost a lot of his troops while you suffered minimal damage, but you get the city more territory. Should Allies be able to demand that you split it up? And how? It needs to be split up equally, depending on how much each person has contributed to the war effort. (Can't really think of anything)

Racing to claim enemy territory before your erstwhile ally does... dividing a single city up into occupation zones... sounds like the end of WWII to me.

I really like the idea of sharing Wonders benefits w/allies. But I think you should always be able to break alliances and stab your friends in the back, Diplomacy-style. Of course, you'd have to plan ahead and realize that you'd lose the benefits...

[UltraSonix]

I also agree with Spekter about the having different types of peace treaties.

It's about time that diplomacy in a game was really strengthened. At this forum we seem to concentrate mainly on the realistic modelling of how a civ would work, but we tend to leave out diplomacy and trade. One should be able to play Civ3 and has a country/civ of a small size but having considerable world influence through diplomacy, eg Switzerland.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Gameopolis]

Being able to Offer Loans to Allies. Breaking an alliance with paying back the loan ruins your rep massively, no one will sign a treaty or up with you and you must pay back the loan so you can get back your rep.

------------------
GAMEOPOLIS

[UltraSonix]

Gameopolis, it's a bit unfortunate that your first proper suggestion here already exists. The loans idea you mentioned above was implementeds in pretty much the way you described in SMAC.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited June 12, 2000).]

[Spekter]

quote: One should be able to play Civ3 and has a country/civ of a small size but having considerable world influence through diplomacy, eg Switzerland.

Does Switzerland really have that much influence? Calling Switzerland a world power is like calling Canada a world power (I can say that, because I'm Canadian ). Sure, most countries have heard of us, and we seem to have a good reputation in most places, but when push comes to shove we really aren't taken that seriously. If we want to push our agenda, we have to sucker one of the real world powers into backing us.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of much better diplomacy. However, would you really want to play Switzerland (or Canada ) for a whole game? Maybe I'm just too much the wargamer, but it doesn't seem like all that much fun to me.

[UltraSonix]

I guess it probably couldn't work to play a purely "Switzerland" - but still, I'd like a game which could be won diplomatically even though you're in a vastly inferior militaristic position.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Az]

quote: Originally posted by Spekter on 06-12-2000 04:43 AM Does Switzerland really have that much influence? Calling Switzerland a world power is like calling Canada a world power (I can say that, because I'm Canadian ).

have you see Southpark the movie ?

anyway the most annoying thing in Civ 2 was that plot : an allied civ asks you to break a peace treaty with its sworn enemy. I don't like them much either so I agree . the next time I meet them the are mad at me because my reputation is low . no logic.


------------------
Prepare to Land !

[Tiberius]

For me the most annoying thing was the fact that no matter how peacefully I played, they always sneak attacked me. And later, when I proposed a peace treaty, they didn't want to, because "they saw how I betrayed my friends"

The diplomacy model of CIV2 wasn't bad for its time, but it surely needs a lot of improvements. Fortunately Mr. Sid Meier promised this to us already .

Mr. Meier, there are some good ideas in this topic, too. Take a look!

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 15, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

I think the main thing is, the AI should play like that in the early stages, but gradually **** to a more peaceful method, like after the UN, who's gonna sneak attack a country with nukes and then not have peace? Simple things like this need to be changed to make the game better. Along with having the Civ Love you one turn (enthusiastic) because you gave it 1000 gold, and the next turn it hates you again (uncooperative)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"