DIPLOMACY (ver1.0): Hosted by Jeje2

[Transcend]

EnochF:
I wasn't sure where to put the use of nukes. The 2 atomic bombs against Japan saved probably more lives by ending the war sooner. An invasion against Japanese mainland could have millions. In that case, the use of nuclear weapons has generally not been considered as atrocity.
It may be a good idea to introduce some UN Charter that prohibits the use of Nukes. Once the charter passes, then all nations will declare war on you if you use Nukes. However, if you have been a victim of a nuclear attack, you can retaliate against the offender without consequences.

[meowser]

Let's not forget that if there is a UN Charter against nukes and you are a victim of a nuke attack, all the other AI civs better respond to the attacking civ in the same way they would you if you had violated this UN charter.

[EnochF]

Yeah, I'd better not see the whole peace-lovin' world kissing up to Hitler just because *I* happen to be at the top of the power graph...

[Fugi the Great]

The UN as a WoW. Should this wonder have an upkeep cost like the real UN does? Benefits to who builds it? Double votes doesn't sound like much, and it really isn't fair to the others (but thats why we built it). You could make it that the other members may go along with your ideas a high percentage of the time. The US pays the largest share of the cost, so they usually get their way. If the US pulled out, the UN would fold. So can this WoW be disbanded if the upkeep is not paid, then maybe rebuilt at a later date when the world is again ready for peace after all the wars that suddenly pop up?

Alliances. In the alliance, I should not have to fight another country just because my ally decided to attack them, let them take the losses and reap the benefits - if any. Now if the war goes badly for them, maybe now I should jump in and try to stop the fighting or help defend my ally from a counter-attack. During Falkland Island War, the US provided intelligence to the UK, but did not send any military forces there, not that they really could have since they had a peace treaty with Argentina. What would the US have done if Argentina would have had more Exocets and destroyed the British Fleet? Declare war of Argentina? I don't think so.

To add to the different ways of saying things, I would add HOW you say it, or tone of voice. Asking someone to "please get off my land" is alot different then telling them to "get off my land before I nuke your a$$ out of existance". Depending on what type of reaction you are trying to get from another nation/faction you would pick the proper way of saying it. They may take it as a bluff or may take it seriously, depending upon your past history and what they know of your military strength and readyness. You don't tell someone that can beat the crap out of you something that will just tick them off. On the otherhand you may want to tone down the language a bit when talking to someone weaker than you to keep them from having a heart attack, but then again maybe not if you want something they have and they will just give it to you without an argument.

[Txurce]

The tribute system needs a thorough overhaul ...for the AI's sake. The ability to repeatedly demand tribute throws the game out of whack.

Unless it's about to get wiped out, the AI should never give up most of its money in response to a human demand. This is even more true when the human isn't that powerful, or geographically close to the AI civ.

[Ecce Homo]

More civs!

This will make diplomacy much more exciting.

Conquering the world will be harder, and cooperation would pay. I would like to see the whole world populated. So if you want to colonize another continent, you might have to "move" another civ...

[Viking]

How about multible people in diplomacy secisions.

[willko]

one thing that we must remind brian and firaxis: make sure that the cheezy amount of goodwill one can curry from the computer factions' canned responses to certain soc.eng. choices is moderated in civ3.
in alpha centauri, it is laughable how you can switch from fundamentalism to democracy within the same turn to conduct several different interviews with computer opponents to gain favor with everyone and anyone no matter what their agenda. i'd be surprised if something like this appeared in a later game effort from firaxis.

another diplomatic flaw in the smac model is the ease with which computer leaders will exchange a highly-populated, fully-developed, wonder-containing city for a spankin' new water colony in the middle of nowhere. god knows we all agonized over these little things for the version 4.0 enhancement for smac (yet to be released), but it never hurts to gently remind the master of his past mistakes lest he go that road again.

it might help keep their egos down too when they realize that this game could be the best thing since irrigation, road building and mining.

/willko.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Everyone! Let's not forget DOMESTIC POLITICS!!!!!

This could be important! You could incorporate problems with minorities that you conquer, appointing ministers from certain regions of your empire as your minister of war, science, labour, etc.

Plus we could these ministers could effect the productivity of each section, both bad and good.

Imagine... if you had an Empire with 12 cities. The western portion of your Empire composed of about 7 cities is of Russian origin (the civ you chose), but you conquered 3 neighbouring Greek and 2 Japanese cities. You have 5 positions to fill your cabinet (or court advisors if you're playing a monarchy), and you choose all Russians from the West. This could bring about unrest in your other cities, thus creating a potential of revolt and even civil war.

Let's have Domestic Politics too!!!

[meowser]

Military Alliance:

When you have a military alliance with a civ(s) you should have the option of building multiple size X citybase(s) to be made up from citizens from both your cities and your allies cities.

Whichever civ contributes the most citizens to this citybase(s) determines what is produced and where (must be at least two, three? square within the allies zone of influence). Depending on how many civs are in this alliance, determines how many units are built at the same time. For instance if there is an alliance of three allies, this citybase will produce three units at a time. When those units are complete, each of the allies will be able to control one of those units.

Each ally will contribute X% production and income resources to this citybase and production of units is increased by a factor of X%

This citybase cannot grow. It can increase in size by contribution of citizens from the allies.

If you were an enemy of this alliance, you would probably want to knock off this citybase first.

If your ally or allies get elimanated, you gain control of all remaining units, the citybases are dismantled and are added to your cities (not sure how yet).

When an alliance is over, each civ gets back the citizens they contributed, the citybase is dismantled and each ally gets to keep the units they control.

the citybase heals units faster, much like a barracks only better.

A combination of the citybase and the allies support the units made.

Not sure how tiles will work within this citybase. Will try to think of some ideas or hope someone can.

The citybase produces units only.

City Improvements are donated and made from the allies(i.e. factory, nuclear plant)

Some city improvements will cannot be included (i.e. university)

You CANNOT build a citybase without at least one ally (game balance, adds to flavor of diplomacy).


Science Alliance:

With a science alliance you and your allies can devote X% percent resources to this alliance. When doing research, you must agree on what to research with your allies. Only one ally needs to have the prerequisite for the advanced to be researched. Whichever allies don't have the prerequisites will automatically get it from their allies.


Research cost for an advanced is cut by X% because of the alliance.

You can still do normal research independent of this science alliance research but your own research is dropped by the amount you contributed to the science alliance research.
(Thus you can be researching two or more things simultaneously).

All allies get the advance once it is discovered.

And of course you can still do stuff from before: trade/give/exchange units and advances.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The UN as a WoW. I think that the nation that builds it gets VETO power (like the leader on SMAC). It functions like the Council, but with more options, such as: Declare War on ____, or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties, or Nerve Gas Prohibition Treaties, etc.

------------------
Imran Siddiqui
Moderator SG Forums - www.sidgames.com/forums/ ,

"Sir, I would rather be right than be President."

-Henry Clay

[Mo]

If they include more civilizations, it was mentioned several times, I think the veto power would be to strong. In Alpha Centauri there are only 6 others who would have to agree to over rule the veto. But if there were 15+ othersd it would be very unlikely that a veto would ever be over ruled. I think that the United Nations should be formed once atleast half of the nations on the planet have discovered a certain tech. Membership in the united nations should be voluntary. Members would have to either pay a small amount of gold or donate a unit or two for peacekeeping operations.

[Diplomat]

Some great ideas! This is kind of a summary of one of them--propaganda. I should be able to divert resources to convince my people that what I'm doing is right. History is full of this in every form of government. This could also be a fairly simple way of influencing the Senate so it's not constantly overruling me. I also think that as the game progresses, rather than "peasant revolts" etc., random internal political matters would be more challenging. There's little point using some government other than Democracy in Civ2. And frankly, I don't think any genuine democracy will ever attempt to conquer the world--it's too expensive. Random events might force one out of a democracy to avoid civil wars, strong political opponents, whatever.

[Mo]

If you have domestic politics you should be able to launch a media campaign for the people to support a war your in. This would eliminate a lot of the civil unrest caused by units away from home and it might boost productivity. And if you don't keep all the parts of your empire happy it could lead to civil war. This would also apply if you allow civilizations to merge together. If one side feels under represented it will again break off either peacfuly or by means of war. I agree that there should be more civilizations.

[Robert Miller]

Secession

When cities are conquered, or otherwise annexed, they should maintain a distinct society status due to cultural differences.
Yugoslavia, Scotland, and my own Québec, are examples.
General unhappiness could result in more specific outcomes - the cities secede, or are one over more easily than other cities to the civ that originally founded them - a city would have a cultural/historical memory that would gradually fade.
This would be more or less transparent to the player (no micro-management in here); only the effects would be "visible".

Motiviation for war

Also, I would like war to be more specific. When declaring war, select a reason from a list - annexe a single city, conquest of a continent, genocide, commercial reasons, etc. This would change the civ leader's profile.