A couple random thoughts I had...

[CJM]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
The problem with a lot of your ideas are that the faults you find with the AI describe my prefered playstyle.

I pollute liberally until I get the techs to stop. Production it too important to stop.

I nuke liberally if I feel someone deserves it.

I station troops along allies' roads (and neutral civs' till they make me leave).

I regularly ignore the other civs borders if there is someplace I want to go.

I wouldn't sign one of these pacts and if someone doesn't like my behavior they'll have to make me stop by force of arms.

The thing is, with perhaps the exception of the pollution idea as presented, all of the ideas Traelin and others bring up would simply be diplomatic options. If your prefered play style involves liberal nuking and border violations, even with these changes you can still give other civs the finger when they ask you to stop. This may lead to war more often than not, but it seems like your style courts conflict, so this probably wouldn't be a problem for you. Yet, if someone doesn't want a whole lot of wars, shouldn't they have more options that allow for some diplomatic arm-twisting?

[Traelin]

Originally posted by CJM


The thing is, with perhaps the exception of the pollution idea as presented, all of the ideas Traelin and others bring up would simply be diplomatic options. If your prefered play style involves liberal nuking and border violations, even with these changes you can still give other civs the finger when they ask you to stop. This may lead to war more often than not, but it seems like your style courts conflict, so this probably wouldn't be a problem for you. Yet, if someone doesn't want a whole lot of wars, shouldn't they have more options that allow for some diplomatic arm-twisting?

CJM, exactly my point. What I am proposing would be implemented as options. Just like Warp was suggesting, you don't have to sign an agreement you don't like. Most of the things that Warp mentioned would be provocations for war anyways, regardless of whether or not the options were in the game. You can nuke whomever you want, and not sign a treaty. You can station your troops wherever you want, and not sign a treaty. And IMHO all of the things I mentioned can indeed be implemented. Let me take each one and analyze it.

2. a. "Use my airspace" agreement.

This one would be programmatically "interesting" to implement in Civ, perhaps difficult. Why? Due to the turn-based nature of Civ3, if nothing else. Bombers and fighters, unlike regular troops, do not end their turn in your territory, but rather end up back on home turf. The only way I can see this being implemented is by either disallowing people to do it without an agreement in the first place, or by treating an invasion of airspace in much the same way as a settler building a city in someone else's territory -- automatic declaration of war.

The AI as it currently is programmed doesn't seem to understand how to learn alternative methods to attacking an enemy. For instance, you can tell them to leave your territory, but what do they immediately proceed to do the next turn? The same darn thing. I think that if it was modified to find alternative means of invasion that we would all be a lot happier. Use transports more effectively, for one. Use carriers, for another.

The airspace agreement can indeed be implemented, but this would probably be the most difficult thing to program correctly.

b. "Call off your attack against X third party."

This was implemented in Civ IIRC. This would be easy to implement. If it can be done 10 years ago, it can be done now.

c. AI needs to be reworked in how it handles trades.

This needs to be done ASAP. It is very silly how the human gets punished for the AI's limitations. It can be done.

d. The AI is not punished enough when it breaks RoP agreements, Military Alliances, and Trade Embargos.

This also needs to be done ASAP. It simply is not a good enough excuse to blame it on AI limitations, or on game equilibrium between human and AI. IMHO they have enough of an advantage by knowing the entire map.

e. "Let us coordinate our attack at position X."

This was also done in Civ IIRC. It can be done now as well. The AI just sucked at it in Civ. I think it would be an awesome, awesome addition in Civ 3, what with the advanced AI. Can you imagine a true tet offensive in Civ 3, versus its limited couterpart in Civ? OMG military alliances would actually have meaning.

f. "Stop using nukes."

This NEEDS to be done. This won't change another player's wartime strategies. Simply don't sign the deal, or vote against it in the U.N. (depending on how it's implemented). The AI seems to be a heck of a lot better in Civ 3 (vs. Civ/Civ 2) in conducting war. But it seems like diplomacy has been shuttled away for it. In Civ, I remember Napolean telling me "his words were backed with NUCLEAR weapons". It kinda added to the hesitation to go to all-out war. Why can't we do this again?

g. "Units for gold/gpt deal."

C'mon, I know you guys want to see this as badly as I do. I want to pull an America and arm people. And it would be so darn cool to see it bite you in the arse down the road, like it has for America many times (not that I would enjoy it, but it's realistic at least).

It can be done by using some of the same code that's already implemented for workers. Just don't allow AIs to sell units to us. I think one of the reasons they didn't implement this thus far is because Firaxis already had a smooth human-AI communications/trade window. Perhaps if this was changed to be more fluid in unit trading it would be better. My humble suggestion would be as follows:

g. 1. Along the bottom of the window, replace "New" and "Active" with your categories on the left (i.e., Resources, Agreements, etc. etc.). Then add a "Units" tab. This way you don't have to scroll through a ton of irrelevant stuff to make one deal. So if you want to sell a unit, you click on the "Units" tab, select your city, then select your unit(s) to sell. Some other tweaking to the GUI can be implemented as well. I'll discuss the details if the need arises.

g. 2. Now, put your "New" and "Active" tabs on the left part of the screen, and voila, a much nicer way of doing things.

This can be done, but would have to be included in an XP. This would probably take the most work out of all the options, except perhaps the U.N. tweaking and airspace coding.

h. I do not know if the human is punished for buying workers from an AI, but if they are, this should stop.

It only makes sense, and it can be done.

i. "Stop stationing your troops along my roads."

If one has a RoP agreement and RRs, this is almost never a problem. But we all know how the AI treats your territory if it doesn't have a RoP. It would be nice to have a happy medium, where you can so "OK, I submit to the AI being semi-stupid, and I don't feel like going to war every time they enter my territory, but just please let me use my own road/rail system."

This would be much less of a problem if, as I mentioned above, the AI learned how to manage war more effectively. But let's be realistic, that would be a pain to recode. The guys at Firaxis are damn good programmers, but we can only ask so much from them in such a limited period of time.

j. If I've obliterated an AI in war (like I'm doing to the Ottomans), they should in reality do just about anything to end it.

*Sigh* I just miss the way SMAC had vassal states. In SMAC, if you beat the tar out of an opponent, their demeanor would go to "Submissive". You never had to worry about them again. I thought that was cool. It can be done, but this is more an opining on my part than anything else.

k. ATM we can informally create a "treaty organization" via triangular MPPs, etc. I'd like to see a bit more organization with this.

I think it would be really cool if we had treaty organizations existing under the current system. Yeah we can already kind of achieve it, but wouldn't it be neat to pull up a NATO submenu and talk to your allies separately?

l. "Rules of War" agreement.

I understand why the AI disbands certain workers. It's simply because they are either a) not their native workers, or b) they are too far away from a native city and deep within enemy territory to provide them protection. This is fine if you only want the Civ to perform admirably in warmongering. I just want a bit more realism added to the game in this area. Yes, it's just a game. And yes, some things are going to be gamelike. But obviously the game has some reflection of reality, else we wouldn't be playing with the Egyptians, Mongols, etc. -- we'd be playing with that Green chick from SMAC. So can't we add a bit of reality to the whole notion of the atrocity of ethnic cleansing?

m. "Modification to current deals".

This is really just a wish. It's nowhere near as pressing as the issues mentioned above, which I think must be added to add realism and color to the game. But it would still be neat to avoid an all-out AI boycott on the human for inadvertently messing up a deal. I mean the AI messes up deals all the time and has no consequences, so why can't we have a happy-medium?

[WarpStorm]

To be honest, most of these options or ones similar to them were in SMAC and they were a good thing.

[Cyclotron]

Excellent points, good options. I agree 100%... actually, more like 90%, because of this:

j. If I've obliterated an AI in war (like I'm doing to the Ottomans), they should in reality do just about anything to end it. OK, so they offer me a couple crappy cities for peace. As far as I'm concerned, I've taken 2/3 of their empire, including their capital and second-biggest producer. I want a little more, and I'll be damned if I care if you're (the Ottomans) are insulted by the deal I offer.

This seems like you want the AI to roll over and play dead once you are winning the war. I've seen sudden alliances, last-minute offensives, newly found techs, culture flips, and overwhelming war weariness all force the hand of the apparent winner or end the war even when the loser only has a few cities left. I like the AI to make peace when necessary, but I think the current AI handles it pretty well and I would not include more submissiveness.

What would I include? Well, I think I have a solution for this issue without making the AI get on its knees. Right now, the AI seems to sue for peace readily when you have units in their territory. That makes good sense, but I've had times when the AI was asking for peace, and then I take one of their big cities and suddenly they won't even discuss the issue until my units are back in their cultural borders.

If the AI were programmed to remember the fact that you have a fat *** army right outside their borders that just trashed their largest city that they saw last turn, even if they can't see it this turn, their peace overtures would certainly be more sensible. They would sue for peace after you take a big city, instead of waiting until you move your forces into siege position on their next city. I think this would really extend the lifespan of the AI, and probably would solve the problem you are observing.

[Nakar Gabab]

Speaking of which, why is a Furious postwar AI so apt to make war against me again? Since you wind up with an angry opponent, it's harder to deal with them and easier to make them go to war with you.

Shouldn't the AI realize that if I obliterated half his army (obviously not all, or he probably wouldn't be aggressive), took a bunch of cities, and have my whole army garrisoned on OUR borderline, I'm probably not the dude to be messing with for at least a little while? You didn't see Germany invading France again in 1920. They battened down the hatches and waited until their army was competitive before their invasions began.

[Inverse Icarus]

"Rules of War" agreement. Even in war, there should be certain rules. I personally don't disband any captured workers. That's the equivalent of ethnic cleansing. There should absolutely be some sort of agreement you can make with a warring AI, or perhaps have a global war crimes tribunal with the UN? I don't know, but it really annoys me that all my captured workers get disbanded, and actions like that IRL don't go unpunished.

exactly. then i starve the cities of their native population and all is done...

oh, what wasn't your point.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Excellent points, good options. I agree 100%... actually, more like 90%, because of this:



This seems like you want the AI to roll over and play dead once you are winning the war. I've seen sudden alliances, last-minute offensives, newly found techs, culture flips, and overwhelming war weariness all force the hand of the apparent winner or end the war even when the loser only has a few cities left. I like the AI to make peace when necessary, but I think the current AI handles it pretty well and I would not include more submissiveness.

What would I include? Well, I think I have a solution for this issue without making the AI get on its knees. Right now, the AI seems to sue for peace readily when you have units in their territory. That makes good sense, but I've had times when the AI was asking for peace, and then I take one of their big cities and suddenly they won't even discuss the issue until my units are back in their cultural borders.

If the AI were programmed to remember the fact that you have a fat *** army right outside their borders that just trashed their largest city that they saw last turn, even if they can't see it this turn, their peace overtures would certainly be more sensible. They would sue for peace after you take a big city, instead of waiting until you move your forces into siege position on their next city. I think this would really extend the lifespan of the AI, and probably would solve the problem you are observing.

I see your points. And you make another good suggestion -- that the AI should remember previous urban losses. That's a good idea, and I bet they could work that into the code. I mean after all, the AI remembers you pissing off someone else 1000 years ago, so it shouldn't be too bad remembering things in the short term.

I've actually done tests on stationing troops right outside the AIs' cities before. Sometimes they will offer progressively more as you increase the number of troops in their territories. I've used this exploit once or twice when I was hard-pressed...once when I needed a chokepoint, and once when I needed Iron.

I want the AI to remember city razing and capturing in more than just their attitude toward me. Perhaps this would be a happy-medium between SMAC's philosophy toward Submissive attitudes, and the way the system is currently implemented.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
To be honest, most of these options or ones similar to them were in SMAC and they were a good thing.

I always get my memories of SMAC, Civ, and Civ2 confused. It was just one big blurry addiction for me. I do remember some of the ideas were implemented in SMAC, but you'll have to forgive me if I confuse them with Civ.

I personally thought a combination of the diplomacy in ALL the previous Civ games (including Civ 3) would make for a hell of a game. I really hope they look into these ideas, or at least some of them. I'd be happy with even 2 or 3 of them. Not including the updates to the current trading scheme, of course.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by UberKruX
exactly. then i starve the cities of their native population and all is done...

oh, what wasn't your point.

Haha I will admit I do the same thing. I am a warmongerer after all. But I think this would be damn hard to implement. It would be impossible to determine if someone deliberately starved a city, or if it was merely due to growth problems. Perhaps what they could do is set a limit to how many foreign citizens are starved in a certain number of turns? This may work, although it would change my gaming style considerably.

[WarpStorm]

The starvation is often hard to avoid. If they are all unhappy becuase you are at war with the mother country most are going to have to be entertainers or whatever just so that they aren't rioting in the streets.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Andrew1999


New treaty suggestion: Environment Pact. If one of your cities is producing more than a certain amount of pollution, production is reduced until you meet the requirements (using the pollution formula in reverse.) There should probably be compensation for losing shields this way--maybe you lose 5 shields of production but 10 shields' worth of pollution.

Wow, best idea about pollution I have seen. It is nonsence to have to have workers "clean up pollution". Rather than bandage solution:
pollute==no production. It would be much better to handle like waste or corruption. We could have BLUE shields for good production, RED for lost due to waste/corruption and ORANGE for lost due to pollution. Then add to production queue something like "Health Agency" which would work to reduce pollution production in city. But like police and courthouse, would not eliminate entirely, just reduce. The only way to eliminate is to either abandon those coal plants or reduce city size.

== PF

[Cyclotron]

planetfall, I have to disagree. Production is not compromised by pollution; in fact, ignoring pollution frequently lets you get away with more production. There is a difference between having production reduced because of pollution controls and automatically losing productivity to pollution.

[Velociryx]

Now if pollution cut into aggregate food production (rather than on a minimal per tile basis)....::evil grin::

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Hmm, that's a thought. Don't get any ideas Vel, no pollution in CB...

[planetfall]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Production is not compromised by pollution; in fact, ignoring pollution frequently lets you get away with more production. There is a difference between having production reduced because of pollution controls and automatically losing productivity to pollution.

Huh, what is the difference?

For me the problem with pollution is it is not well thought out:

1) too many times you can outproduce by being a polluter and filling cities with coal plants,

2) pollution seems only to be added to give the player something to do during the Modern Age, especially since the Shift-P command starts workers cleaning up pollution but does not reawaken them with new pollution. Directing working to clean up pollution is not a value added game play feature.

However, if pollution effected all tiles in a city and not just one and we had a new choice of building a Health Agency, then civs which pollute would also have to pay either a food or production cost to continue with short range city management of putting short term gains over long term gains. Thinking about it some more, it would work best if effect of pollution build up over time, like WW, and then if say in 10 turns, pollution is not addressed, then there is a productivity hit. After 20 turns it gets more severe, and after 50 turns it really penalities, but not totally cripples polluting civ.

I say either fix pollution so it makes sense, or get rid of it. The current pollution model decreasing the value of playing the game for me.

== PF