Repost - Diplomatic Wish List

[Coracle]

Originally posted by JohnM2433


Well, I believe that in WWII the Germans and the English agreed not to bomb certain of each other's cities. Also consider the "smart sanctions" that have been considered against Iraq -- sanctions of weapons but not other certain other goods. In other words, targeted sanctions.

Of course, in MP, players will be free to make their own agreements outside of what is allowed in the diplomacy box. The main thing is to give them the tools to do so, which should probably include, among other things:

1. Allow the unilateral cancellation of agreements before they are up without a declaration of war (results in a big reputation hit, obviously).
2. Allow civs to negotiate the cancellation of agreements before they are up (e.g, "I'll give you 50 gold to cancel our MPP and trade deal X).
3. Allow players to specify how long any part of a deal lasts, instead of always having 20 turns (e.g., "In exchange for providing me with iron for the next 40 turns, I'll give you 5 gold per turn for the next 50 turns).

Your suggestions are fine.

Your comment about the Germans and British in WW II is dead wrong. The British especially went about firebombing German cities deliberately targeting civilians.

[Panag]

Originally posted by TexasPride
For one thing the Cold War was not a war at all. More like a diplomatic power struggle. It was mainly an arms race though and no US troops ever fought any russian troops in that span of time.


As for your drug war......OH PLZ that's a freakin law enforcement deal. Your Illegal immigrants is not a war at all! That's just enforcein borders. If you can't tell the difference I would think twice fore goin to war with any one cause the AI sure don't have that prob. Furthermore what the **** do you know 'bout what goes on over here on the US/Mexico Border, I seem to notice you live in Israel. Your not even in the US. I happen to live right at the forefront of what you're ATTEMPTING to talk about. I live in TEXAS! If you want a way to simulate illegals than simply have them immigrate cross borders to more advanced and developed civs from 2nd rate ones.
Sure havein a small war that is contained would be interestin' in alot of respects but would be completely impossible once you consider the human mind.

ALSO BESIDE THE POINT!!!

I'm not tryin to say anything 'bout confined wars, I started out tryin to make a point about embargos on specific items. (The analogy seems to have drawn all the people in this forum who have no concept of what and how war is.) So I repeat IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT. If you don't like what I think then say you disagree and we'll go on bout our business, but if you try to argue (well don't cause I almost never say anything I can't back up fully and entirely) I will feel the need to make a point on where the arguement is flawed.

hi ,

well the post you replied to was also "just a thought" , ....

have a nice day

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Coracle
Your comment about the Germans and British in WW II is dead wrong. The British especially went about firebombing German cities deliberately targeting civilians.

Maybe it was WWI? Or perhaps even an entirely different war?

I could swear I read about something like that somewhere. I think it was in one of Stephen Hawking's books (discussing the history of scientific discoveries inevitably brings up lots of other history as well). If anyone really wants me to look into it, I could try to find it.

Speaking of firebombing German cities, I read the the firebombing of Dresden killed more people than died when The Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima. I guess the new, scary weapon wound up getting all the press. The really sad part about this is that Dresden had little or no strategic value, and was bombed pretty much just for the sake of killing a lot of people.

[Galvatron]

Concentrate your attack on... would be a very good feature this way you could plan an invasion even with the dump AI as a partner

And the trade embargo option. I'm a sneaky guy and like to beat a civ without actually attack them because an attack will always be a waste of units but with an embargo you can conveniently force them to surrender without doing anything hahaha

[Panag]

hi ,

when we sign an agreement with the AI and we as the human player dont keep our end of the deal the AI remembers it , .....

yet the AI signs a mutual defense pact with you , you are at war , or go to war , or your partner goes to war , sometimes your partner does nothing , .....even when the war is going on for 40-60 turns , ....

there should be a type of intel that when your partner does something you get a message , you should also be able to see what units he has lost , what uniçts are on their way , etc , ....

in order to see this we should need the intel agency , and maybe a second building

it would also be intresting to remind that partner in the future , if he comes again , to say , yeah BUT , you let us down then , ...

we should also be able to close an embassy , it should cost more money then to open it

while at it , we should also be able to close or destroy a foreign embassy

have a nice day

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

when we sign an agreement with the AI and we as the human player dont keep our end of the deal the AI remembers it , .....

yet the AI signs a mutual defense pact with you , you are at war , or go to war , or your partner goes to war , sometimes your partner does nothing , .....even when the war is going on for 40-60 turns , ....

MPPs and military alliances only require a declaration of war, not actual fighting. So not fighting the enemy is not breaking your word in this case. You don't have to fight an offensive war against a civ you are allied against either.

Maybe there should be an agreement actually requiring you to attack another civ. Your ally's happiness with you and the degree to which other civs would want to sign such an agreement with you in the future would depend on both your performace.

I will sometimes bribe a civ to join a military alliance against another civ because it is the only way to keep them from trading, since embargos only cover the trading of resources and luxuries. It would be nice to be able to make this sort of no-trading deal without both sides, or even one side, going to war. That would even be useful in multiplayer, because, while human players might agree not to trade with a certain civ, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to monitor the other player's trading, and see that the deal is being carried out. (Or maybe the Diplomatic Advisor could inform you when any civs you have an embassy with make a trade?)

Originally posted by panag
there should be a type of intel that when your partner does something you get a message , you should also be able to see what units he has lost , what uniçts are on their way , etc , ....

in order to see this we should need the intel agency , and maybe a second building

Maybe there could be some sort of Intelligence Sharing agreement, where each civ could see what the other sees. It would also be nice to be able to have this -- along with ROPs, military alliances, embargoes, etc. --one-way instead of applying to both civs. It would also be neat if we could secretly bribe one civ to attack another, as in Civ II -- but the targetted civ would have a chance of finding out if they had a spy in either of our embassies (and an even greater chance with a spy in both). Perhaps "listening posts" will be brought back for Civ III multiplayer.

Originally posted by panag
it would also be intresting to remind that partner in the future , if he comes again , to say , yeah BUT , you let us down then , ...

It would also make sense for the AI to be reluctant to sign a MPP or alliance with a civ that doesn't fight much when in such agreements, especially if that civ has let them fight alone in the past when allied with them. After all, what's in it for them to ally with someone who won't help them?

Originally posted by panag
we should also be able to close an embassy , it should cost more money then to open it

while at it , we should also be able to close or destroy a foreign embassy

Embassies in Civ III are mutual -- when a civ establishes an embassy with you, you get an embassy with them, too. You even get to see the location of their capitol and what it looks like inside -- I've seen it happen! But you probably already knew that, since it wouldn't make sense to close an embassy if the other civ didn't lose information about you. Of course, usually I'm the one who establishes embassies, but I could get them for free if I waited around for the other civ to establish one with me; it would probably be a long wait. Maybe the AIs establish most of the AI-human embassies in the higher difficulty levels.

If by foreign embassies, you mean embassies between other civs... perhaps all of a civ's embassies (possibly one with you, too) should be destroyed if their capitol is taken? After all, a new national government would have to be established, which would need to make its own new contacts to outside governments.

Originally posted by panag
have a nice day

OK, I will!

[Panag]

hi ,

we should get the script option from civ 2 back , more improved and adcanced , ...

example ; declare war in year Y , between civs A and B

JohnM2433 , the embassy , we should have an option to close the one we have with civ X , in short to stop certain diplomatic actions like rop for good (!)

untill there is a new embassy opened naturally , ....

this should cost twice the price it costs to open it

nice feedback

have a nice day

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by panag
JohnM2433 , the embassy , we should have an option to close the one we have with civ X , in short to stop certain diplomatic actions like rop for good (!)

Well, just giving players the options to unilaterally cancel ROPs, military alliances, etc. would allow the same thing. But maybe shutting down an embassy would be taken as a sign of your extreme dislike for the civ and would not be counted the same as simply breaking a deal by other players. Eliminating the embassy would of course make espionage missions impossible for both sides, but that seems a little unfair -- it could be impossible to conduct espionage against a civ you were at war with.

I think you should be able to shut down the embassy temporarily, which would have the same basic diplomatic impact as going to war with the civ, plus cancelling all diplomatic agreements. It should also make espionage more difficult (if espionage isn't already more difficult to conduct against a civ you are at war with, it should be).

I would also like an option to block trade between X and Y. As it is, I understand that two civs can trade through your territory if only one of them is at peace with you. Incedentally, does a trade embargo prevent a civ from trading through your territory? (It should, or at least that should be an option.)

I would like to see a lot more options between just 'war' and 'peace'. As it is, diplomacy in the game isn't really all that nuanced.

[Dinner]

The diplomacy system is good but is very limited in the options it give to players. All of these would be an improvement.

[Panag]

Originally posted by JohnM2433


Well, just giving players the options to unilaterally cancel ROPs, military alliances, etc. would allow the same thing. But maybe shutting down an embassy would be taken as a sign of your extreme dislike for the civ and would not be counted the same as simply breaking a deal by other players. Eliminating the embassy would of course make espionage missions impossible for both sides, but that seems a little unfair -- it could be impossible to conduct espionage against a civ you were at war with.

I think you should be able to shut down the embassy temporarily, which would have the same basic diplomatic impact as going to war with the civ, plus cancelling all diplomatic agreements. It should also make espionage more difficult (if espionage isn't already more difficult to conduct against a civ you are at war with, it should be).

I would also like an option to block trade between X and Y. As it is, I understand that two civs can trade through your territory if only one of them is at peace with you. Incedentally, does a trade embargo prevent a civ from trading through your territory? (It should, or at least that should be an option.)

I would like to see a lot more options between just 'war' and 'peace'. As it is, diplomacy in the game isn't really all that nuanced.

hi ,

, great points

okay , why not include some options here , ....

its allready closed during war , but it remains there , so it goes as follows ;

war -

embassy stays closed but is there , re-opens after war
embassy stays close and is put out of order for all time unitill new one is build with that civ

peace -

embassy stays open like it is
embassy closes for a duration (20 turns or so)
embassy is closed permantly

that should do it

have a nice day

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by panag
embassy closes for a duration (20 turns or so)
embassy is closed permantly

I don't like having these diplomatic things being for a fixed number of turns, whether 20 or some other number. Let a civ close its embassy with another civ whenever it wants and reopen it whenever it wants, if the other civ will allow it, with the only cost, if any, being diplomatic (damaged reputation). (Obviously, if you unilaterally cancel any diplomatic agreements by closing the embassy, that damages your reputation too.)

Closing an embassy permanently -- i.e., removing it completely -- would prevent espionage by the other civ. Too powerful, IMO.

Incedentally, embassies could require the permisson of the other civ to establish. Maybe instead of paying gold, you should have to obtain the permission of the other civ.

[Panag]

Originally posted by JohnM2433


I don't like having these diplomatic things being for a fixed number of turns, whether 20 or some other number. Let a civ close its embassy with another civ whenever it wants and reopen it whenever it wants, if the other civ will allow it, with the only cost, if any, being diplomatic (damaged reputation). (Obviously, if you unilaterally cancel any diplomatic agreements by closing the embassy, that damages your reputation too.)

Closing an embassy permanently -- i.e., removing it completely -- would prevent espionage by the other civ. Too powerful, IMO.

Incedentally, embassies could require the permisson of the other civ to establish. Maybe instead of paying gold, you should have to obtain the permission of the other civ.

hi ,

well the real challenge are not the options , ...

the real challenge is to implement them in such a way in the game that each person can use the options they like , .....

have a nice day

[JohnM2433]

Oh, I absolutely agree. Ideally, I would like to see all of the changes implemented as options that can be turned on and off in the editor.

"You can't please everyone," they say. It's true, it would be impossible to design PtW so that everyone could have exactly what they want. But the more that players have the ability to remake the game the way they want it, the closer we come to that ideal.