Repost - Diplomatic Wish List

[Palleon]

These are a couple of things that I thought would be nice to add to diplomacy, please vote for what you like, and feel free to add what you think I missed, or tell me which you didn't like.

Edit - Let me explain a few, a lot came from SMAC.

1) Make peace with X : Self explanatory I think.

2) Cancel your ROP with X. I've had a lot of neutral nations allow enemy units to use their rails to invade me. If they won't ally with me, I'd like at least for them to not allow units to go through their territory to attack.

3) Concentrate you attack on X city. : This way you and your allies can have some form of combat strategy.

4) Trade Embargo of certain items. : This could have less of an angering effect on a civ, if you just want to prevent from from building certain units, or if the AI doesn't want to lose a lucurative luxury trade, but you don't want them to make tanks.

5) Cease-Fire Treaty : A temporary 5-10 turn peace treaty, instead of 20, to let everyone catch their breath, and maybe work out something more permanent.

6) Concentrate your research. : The AI already does this, it would be nice if the human could get in on this, I just don't know if the AI would be willing to trade with you afterwards, and humans will do this without a treaty, but it would still be a nice feature.

7) Global - Pollution Reduction Treaties : If they allow a SMAC style UN, this would make every civ lose a certain % of shields from every city they have, to reduce pollution by so much. So if everyone has to reduce pollution by 10%, some civs might lose 1-2 shields a city, others more if they pollute more.

8) START treaties : Limits the amount of nuclear weapons each civ can have, and if they go over, they must pay fines to the UN.

[Darkworld Ark]

You forgot about one-way protection pacts, & Mercenary trieties.

[The_Hawk]

I think 2, 4 and 6 make the most sense to me, IMHO. 3 and 5 make the least to me, since you can coordinate with your ally with 3 and 5, it just seems to close to a peace treaty with less turns.

Karkworld Ark,

I'm not familiar with either of your suggestions, but they sound intriguing. Could you explain further as i haven't played SMAC.

[Palleon]

Well, the concentrate your attack is mainly to get the AI to be useful in your wars, it won't do much for humans. None of these are really targetted for players, its to try to make the AI a bit more useful. The cease fire I put in because War Weariness can really be killing you, but you don't want to commit to 20 turns of peace, just to be dragged back in well before that with a reputation hit.

[Dimorier Maximus]

I'd like to see the first six, but I don't like those global things. Like the UN is that strong anyways...the UN can't do crap to the US.

[Darkworld Ark]

Originally posted by The_Hawk
Karkworld Ark,

I'm not familiar with either of your suggestions, but they sound intriguing. Could you explain further as i haven't played SMAC.

Karkworld?

Anyways, a One-way protection pact would be for those civs who want to have the protection of a MPP, but don't want to get into the other civs wars. This would allow the protected civ to stay in Democracy while the protector, proboloy a war monger, would get the Democracy's techs. This works best in Multiplayer, but would still be helpful in Single Player.

As for the Mercanary triety, a civ would pay another civ to fight a war for them.

[zulu9812]

First of all, the UN doesn't work that way. And trust me, if the US decided to go to war with the UN, they would quickly regret it - simply because they would, in fact, be going to war with virtually the entire world.

Secondly, global pacts are a good idea. Why is diplomacy almost unchanged in Civ3 over 6000 years. There should be modern techs which allow global pacts, in the same way as Nationalism allows Mpps. Pollution pacts are a good idea, but there needs to be a handy readout of your pollution, rather than just that sun.

[Dimorier Maximus]

Let me tell you something about pollution, it is way too annoying, and if anything, they need to just take it out of the game. I don't see huge amounts of land in the world getting polluted and giving off -1 production shield.

That is a load of crap. There should be an option to play without pollution, heck, it should be the default option.

And about the US going to war with the UN, they wouldn't do that. But they could refuse to obey the UN. And there isn't a darn thing that the UN would or really could do about it. Sure, embargo and MPP, but that is about all the power the UN has. If you are a self-sufficient country, you could easily take on the UN if you wanted. I don't want shields disappearing because I am polluting. This isn't the future SMAC. Give me a break...the UN is weak.

If you want to make a future mod with these abilities, go ahead, but leave them the heck out of the standard game.

The START treaty is okay. But the pollution stuff is nonsense. Complete nonsense.

[Palleon]

The UN has a vast amount of influence and power. Yes, the US makes up a significant amount of that, but it is well within the UN's power to invoke sanctions against the US, and if they were to hit the US with an oil embargo, it would cripple the US, in fact, it would probobly lead to a world war, just like it did when the US did it to Japan. The UN wouldn't do it, but they can. They have the power to call upon the militaries of over 150 countries.

[Palleon]

And as for pollution, turning it off is the cowards way out in my opinion. It's something you're supposed to be able to deal with. If you put a mass transit system in every one of your cities, you don't see polluted squares. It's all part of the games strategy, it's one of those things you're supposed to be able to regulate like you regulate your economy, it's not hard to apply it to shields.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Palleon If you put a mass transit system in every one of your cities, you don't see polluted squares.

Yes you do! Esp. if you also have factories and power plants!

[Palleon]

I don't. If I build factories and solar power plants, and add a mass transit system, I have approximatly 4 pollution triangles in the city square, and pollution is so rare that worker clear it the same turn it shows up. But again, I'm still on Regent, so maybe it's worse up there. But I take steps to remove pollution from my cities, and I get recycling early to totally eliminate it.

[introvert]

Originally posted by Palleon
The UN has a vast amount of influence and power. Yes, the US makes up a significant amount of that, but it is well within the UN's power to invoke sanctions against the US, and if they were to hit the US with an oil embargo, it would cripple the US, in fact, it would probobly lead to a world war, just like it did when the US did it to Japan. The UN wouldn't do it, but they can. They have the power to call upon the militaries of over 150 countries.

If the UN passed a resolution to place an Oil Embargo on the US, the US would turn around and veto it. It's a bit hard to talk about the UN doing anything to the US that the US doesn't like, because the US can always veto anything it doesn't like. Indeed, the US has, historically, used it's veto more often than any other member of the UN (the nations with veto's being the US, Britian, France, Russia and China). Far more often than the USSR ever did, and more often than China has.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
Let me tell you something about pollution, it is way too annoying, and if anything, they need to just take it out of the game. I don't see huge amounts of land in the world getting polluted and giving off -1 production shield.

That is a load of crap. There should be an option to play without pollution, heck, it should be the default option.

Right on! In Civ3 rules the entire American East Coast would be a desert already.

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
And about the US going to war with the UN, they wouldn't do that. But they could refuse to obey the UN. And there isn't a darn thing that the UN would or really could do about it. Sure, embargo and MPP, but that is about all the power the UN has. If you are a self-sufficient country, you could easily take on the UN if you wanted. I don't want shields disappearing because I am polluting. This isn't the future SMAC. Give me a break...the UN is weak.

I don't think the US would go to war with the UN. Why? What could possibly make the US or anybody do that? The entire question is useless, the UN has no land or resources there's no point. Nobody's ever made a press announcement "I, leader of Apolyaq, declare war on the UN."

If the UN passed something to force the US to do something it doesn't want, the US would simply leave the UN. That's what everybody else does, and there is growing resentment in the US of the United Nations. Every year those anti-UN people that bring their petition to the voter registration areas get more signatures than the last time.

And lastly, without the US where's the UN going to get its peace-keeping forces? While the UK, Canada, and a few others send token troops the brunt of demand tends to fall on the US to fill the gaps. When a nation needs food because of a drought where does the food come from? The US. When the World Bank needs money for Developing nation loans where does it go? The US.

[Harm]

I still want to be able to give mechanical units (i.e. jet fighters, bombers, tanks, mech inf, etc.) to another civ as a means of assisting them during wars. It's a tactic used in modern times and should be an option.