Will diplomacy be the same????

[trickey]

Does anyone know how diplomacy will work in multiplayer if its not the same way?

[Jon Shafer]

Probably.

[asleepathewheel]

Probably depends on the type of MP you're playing; ie hotseat or lan v. PBEM. I've never played by email, so I'm not sure about the logistics, but it seems to me, that if you had to email someone making an offer for a resource, then haggle over it before finishing the turn, then repeating every couple of turns, would cause for an extremely long game. I don't know what the alternative could be, other than setting acceptable parameters for your civ that woudl operate in between turns. Again, speculation (Like most all I say) since I don't know anything about PBEM. (so perhaps I shouldn't have answered this, but I was looking for my 500th post )

As far as hotseat or Lan, I don't think iw would be different.

As far as turnless goes, who knows what the entire thing will be like, let alone the diplomacy.

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm fairly sure firaxis will add several more options for human diplomacy, as they did in civ2. the ability to trade units was one of my favorites, i could give a human player tanks without giving them the techs to build them.

other things i'd like to see (but probably wont). a "border dispute" trade, where a human player sharing a border with another can negotiate who gets what squares. i'd love this option but i know i wont see it.

[trickey]

Thanks for your ideas i too would like too see more options on the diplomacy screen. I think i would be cool to trade some units tooa friend without worrying that they will catch up too you. But i don't think that will be in the game cause it would be kind of unrealistic.





ps. congrats to asleepatthewheel on his "almost" 500th post

[redstar1]

Not unrealistic. You could view it as giving military aid without becoming involved in a conflict yourself. Think Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent filtering of arms from the US to the Afghan fighters.

Of course the player on the other end of the tanks might well have his or her suspicions about where they came from.....

[Inverse Icarus]

yea, isreal has a bunch of US planes now dont they?

and before america got into ww2, it supplied the allies with weaponry / money

[redstar1]

I don't think Israel is quite the same as they have bought both US and Russian equipment on the open market. Good point though.

The US 'assistance' to the UK during WW2 was covert in a sense. Without getting involved in the war at that stage they 'sold' a number of warships as well as military equipment/supplies/intelligence.

Can't wait for the PBEM game tbh. Should be fun, if slow, as long as you get a group of committed players.

[KaiserIsak]

The russians forces in afghanistan were only military aid as well in the start. The afghanis implemented the communism themselves, it was first when the russians were invited in by their afghani comrades that they entered.

[Hagbart]

They'll probably add the ability to chat when u are negotiating, like in civ2.

It would be cool if they made a council where all of the nations could talk, chat, vote and agree on global treaties. Like cut down polution and that kind of stuff.

[I-iZ-1337]

I hopez they letz j00 chatz and d00 city managing and diplo when it'z not j00r turn.

Az for diplo, I hopez in MP they getz rid of the leader picz, or letz j00 change them.

[Spiffor]

I think diplomacy will be handled differently, or there will be some problems :

1) Currently, if you want to know something about a current deal (is my MPP breakable or not ?), you have to go discuss with the AI. It's sad there is no information screen about someone else, but you can do this without going on the nerves of the AI.
Now, if I want to know how long I have to pay 40 gpt to Asleepatthewheel (for example) for the saltpeter I don't need, I have to contact him only to see something, not to barter. He's not an AI, it will get on his nerves.

2) There is currently no reason for a human being to vote for someone else at UN elections. If you vote for someone else, you give him chances to win, and you give yourself chances to lose. I don't see, however, how this can be changed.

3) It will be hard to trade for luxuries / resources because the player has no idea of the relative value of his goods (you could say, the absolute value is more interesting). Worse, there is no way to know how valuable is the world map of another player. Maybe the foreign advisor should advise prices, based on what an AI would propose.

[Spiffor]

What I'd like to see is a way to betray your partners... I mean, if the deal is "I give you Steam power, you give me 2000 gold", it would probably be cool if there was a way not to give the tech when you recieve the gold, or that you don't recieve the gold after giving the tech. In real life, relations between nations handle trust between each other... The strongest you are, the less trustworthy you need to be
This lack of trust was annoying as hell in Diablo1 because you had no way to strike back against someone who cheated you (he left the game just after aquiring the items without paying), but in Civ3, you could always take revenge against the untrustworthy.
That might be cool to potentially poison relations between armchair world rulers