How about a "mutual non-aggresion pact" ?

[Tiberius]

Well, having a huge military force never hurts. Otherwise, why would people listen when you're threatening them with a "stop the aggresion against our friend OR ...".

[Ethelred]

Some demand, like "stop the agression on our friend" will be usefull to deals diplomatics more real,

That is one I would like.

However if you look closely in the real world that sort of demand rarely has much effect. What usualy happens is a nation might send help like the US did for China in WWII, or the oil embargo for the same reason. Trade gets cut. Ambassadors are sent home. Spys are unleashed. Resources and money is given. Many of those can be done in Civ III.

[zeh]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Well, having a huge military force never hurts. Otherwise, why would people listen when you're threatening them with a "stop the aggresion against our friend OR ...".

Yep. I concur... It's like a small boy ask for a giant to get out of his way. Someone will be smashed here, hehehe.
But I like have the both options. If the diplomatic fails, so the military war machine will be put in action.

[Arrian]

I like both options. I also agree that having a powerful military should greatly improve your chances of convincing a Civ to "stop the agression against our friends, the _____"

-Arrian

p.s. Capone - Hitler and Stalin "nerds" that brightened my morning. Thank you.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Here here anything that would improve the diplomacy and /or the trading aspects of the game would be very welcome.It is fair to say that some older games have more dip/trade options than civ3 and this needs to be addressed by Firaxis.

Please dont make us wait for civ4 before this happens!

[Carver]

MNAP would be very good, just one of many improvements needed in the diplo arena. Although the MNAP should be breakable, with a stiff penalty. Maybe all your cities should riot for X turns, or other civs won't make trades with you for X turns.

[Tiberius]

More support? Anyone?
Come on, don't be shy! All I'm asking for are 3 words:

I second this!

[mtgillespie]

Can't this be achieved already, by re-negotiating your peace treaty? Then anyone who attacks within 20 turns takes a rep hit.

[Tiberius]

I might be wrong but I don't think that peace treaties have an expiration date. AFAIK they expire only when are linked together with some other things (like peace in exchange for peace and 20 gpt).

Besides you can sign any treaty to obtain a reputation hit if somebody attacks you. It's just not the same thing with a treaty that has a specific goal.

I see the non-aggresion pact as a natural transition between a peace-treaty and a MPP; the missing link on the "enemy - peace - ... - ally" chain.

"Piss of and leave me alone" is one way to look at it, while
"We are friends so I support you and I won't attack you, but I don't want your wars" is another possibility.

One more use I can think about is the possibility of modeling neutral civs. Playing Switzerland would be more of an option this way.

Either way, IMHO it would add more flavour to the diplomatic relations.

[aahz_capone]

a mnap will also make the ai think twice about being bribed into a coalition against you. There's little to stop them breaking a peace treaty, often they couldn't care less for a few techs. I see a peace treaty in civ3 more as "cease fire" because I know those dirty rottten $%@%$%@ will attack again.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I might be wrong but I don't think that peace treaties have an expiration date. AFAIK they expire only when are linked together with some other things (like peace in exchange for peace and 20 gpt).

Initial peace treaty has a time limit of 20 turns, but then automatically migrates to untimed peace treaty. The difference is
A- if break peace within 1st 20 turns, take a reputation hit,
B- if break peace during untimed peace, there is no reputation hit.


MNAP would be a great addition to game if factored into AI willingness to not join MA against you. Maybe something like, 2 * cost to AI for MA against civY with civX if civX had a MNAP with civY.

-- PF

[ThaddeusAlexander]

I love the idea as a peacekeeper ... it actually gives me that role in the game! If an AI player starts to get roudy and pushing for a domination or conquest victory, then I can beat down on his capitol and some other cities, break them, and declair peace only if they agree to not declair war agian for X number of turn ...

That would be great ... and would help in the race for a victory if I'm going for the later-game diplo or space race ... more time !

Although I think it would be a good idea to maybe do a mutual "no production" pact as well... Mutually agree to not produce nukes or ICBMs for example ... or stealth units maybe ..... or maybe just force them to stop producing tanks for 20 turns

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Der PH]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
Although I think it would be a good idea to maybe do a mutual "no production" pact as well... Mutually agree to not produce nukes or ICBMs for example ... or stealth units maybe ..... or maybe just force them to stop producing tanks for 20 turns

Another good idea that I second!

[Nym]

I agree, but it is impossible to verify that the treaty is/was respected. It would be so useless.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by Nym
I agree, but it is impossible to verify that the treaty is/was respected. It would be so useless.

It wouldn't be hard at all ... Once the pact is signed, the option to build whatever you decided upon is simply removed from the build list of the players involved. Thus, you simply cannot build it!

Cheers
~Thadalex