DIPLOMACY (ver1.1): Hosted by Jeje2

[Isle]

I mentioned this in the WONDER-thread.

If you have a city improvement like internet-backbone, that scaled according to the number of cities connected(like +10% research per city connected), but by default only was connected to your own cities. There could be a diplomatic option to link two nations nets together, this would be much more concrete than just a research treaty, but do exactly the same(And make research treaties obsolete). The Internet would then just be a number of countries nets interconnected, which coincidently is what it is in the real world.

Simple, fun and yet realistic.

[NotLikeTea]

What about evolving diplomacy?

In early days, civs would be at war, or in a ceasefire. True peace can't really occur till you have diplomacy. Pacts require even more sophistication, at the very least some kind of understanding of foreign languages. NATO/UN like allainces are a recent occurance...

[CormacMacArt]

I like it; it would also be a way to establish the "human" player qualities of whether or not you are MILITARISTIC or RATIONAL.

[NotLikeTea]

How to do this?

Obviously, we can't force the human player into making decisions.

Could we have an expanded reputation, then?

[CormacMacArt]

That's just the point, the AI players assume certain characteristics about the human player that we just read off the diplomacy screen for the AI players, but if my actions could be read and translated into the personality values of -1,-1,0, it would make my relationship with other civilizations a lot different.
-1 rational
-1 perfectionistic
0 research both civilized and militaristic advances

[Ecce Homo]

I think the AI characteristics system could be extended, for instance to these properties:
Liberal/Totalitarian (affecting preferred government)
Treacherous/Faithful
Cooperative/Isolationist

[NotLikeTea]

Just thinking about assigning Human players values based on their decisions.

I sometimes change my style of play. I may start a game as a millitaristic leader, but settle down into a peaceful state if I am having good relations with my neighbors.

On the otherhand, a millitaristic AI leader is always millitaristic.. perhaps this should be allowed to change over time, too? (Retaining an overall leaning, perhaps)

[Cartagia the Great]

Here are my opinions for diplomacy:

Protectorate: A status that could be forced upon another civilization after a war, or through peacful negotations. Under this agreement the other civilization remains independant, but gives the stronger nation aprt of it's gold, and any technologies it discovers hat the other has not. Forthermroe the main nation ould demand vertian forgien policies of the protectorate, such as to declare war, make peace, and many other things. Likewise they must ask permission to go to war and to carry on foreign relations. For the larger nation they would need to go to war to protect the protectorate if it was threatened, or suffer MAJOR diplomatic penalities. A protectorate is NOT a permenant thing, and they could decide to becoem the protectorate of another nation should they not be happy, or they could be bartered off to another nation as part of a peace treaty. Your civilization could become a protectorate for a time as well, and break out of it later.

Pact: More or less what everyone else has been saying. An allaince of 3 or more nations which would act together. If one nation is decalred war one, war would be declared by all other nations. Other things would come up to a vote. Also asking for aid from a pact member would be much better recieved than askign for aid from a non-member. However, you MIGHT be drug into a needless war, or forced to givem oeny to a cause you don't agree in. Still the advantages would be great

Alliance:same as in Civ2, more or less

Peace treat:same as in Civ2. NOt a temporary thing

Partition: this would be a temporary alliance. Two or mroe parties would pick another nation, and decalre war on them. They would then draw out boarders for after the partrition ash taken place. When goals have been completed these boarders come into affect. If you have taken a city to help an ally, but you did not agree to that city, it is given to the nation it belonged to in the agreement. There would, most likely, be a set time to accomplish your goals.

Reinstatment: This happens when a civilization, for one reason or another, recreated an old nation, or created a new one out of cities. For instance, if The Zulus have destroyed the French Civilization, but you, the Celts, have had an allaince with the French, you could declare war on the Zulu, and, when it is over with, create a new French nation. Or, you could create a new nation inside your own boarders if there as been a good deal of rebellion, and clammering there. This would also allow for the creation of buffer states inbetween Empires, which is always a good thing.

land trade: This would be the agreement to sell cities, or territory, to another civilization. If you have four cities on a continent with 2 larger Empires, and are unable to defend them well as you are in a major war with a power on your main continent, you might choose to sell these lands to one of those other nations for a price. Likewise they could sell territories to you for a price.

Colonies: I'm not sure if this would really fit here, but I still believe that you should have the option to build colonies. These colonies would produce more money, but would ahve a greater chance of rebellion. If they rebell there is a chance they will form their own nation and bring other colonies with them. If you conquer another civilization you can opt to make it a colony, and not a full fledged part of the Empire. You could, at a later date, grant these colonies freedom, for a nice reputation boost, or ,for a price, make thme part of the Empire.

Jsut a few ideas, tell me what you think

[DarthVeda]

I have a great idea, a civ can hire you to produce x units. The base cost would be the unit shields converted to gold, plus incentives on top of that. The unit could be something the civ already discovered, or something you have that they don't.

There would be no chance of them discovering the technology for themselves upon receiving the unit. They could disband the unit in a city with a library, university, or laboratory, and a small chance of discovering the unit's technology would occur. This would count as a diplomatic penalty on their part.

[billybobjoe597]

I also think that having subdivisions within your nation is a good idea like haveing colonies and such. I think that land agreements are of course nessasary. These could be part of a peace treaty to end a war or one nation could simply lease land to other nations. I think that the UN also schould olny become avilable after a large world-wide-war much like the UN and NATO came about after WWII and the leauge of nations after WWI. I also feel that like govements schould get some sort of incentive for forming an alliance/ pact.
also special atteck like convert city and francise shcould become more allowable thae closer of allies you are and stoping these attack scuold be more unacceptical singifiying the free flow of ideas and trade.

P.S. for all of you that think decmocarcies don't fight wars here is a partial list of wars founght by just one democracy: War of 1812,civil war, Mexican american war, Spainish american war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitam, Desert strom, the current situation in yougoslavia and numerous peace keeping/ national security actions like bosina, panama, and haiti.
Democracies don't fight wars, huh?

[Ecce Homo]

Billybobjoe: I think most people know about those wars. What they mean is that Democracies don't fight each other.

[CormacMacArt]

NotLikeTea - Maybe your right. I do change the way that I play depending on who my opponents are.


Cartagia the Great - I like your ideas, but why should there be a diplomatic cost if I declare independance? Maybe that cost would depend on how each civ views the civ I just declared independance from?

I also think that the ATTITUDES need adjustment over time. One thousand years ago there was very little diplomatic cost for conquering your neighbor, but today that is looked upon as uncivilized. No pun intended.

[Flavor Dave]

When getting out of an alliance, you should have the choice of paying $$ or taking the rep. hit (1.2.2.2)

[Cartagia the Great]

When I said a diplomatic cost to delcare independance, I believe I was refering to a diplomatic boost for allow a colony to go free. Much like many European nations began to let their colonies go free when they became to costly, and also to gain a better relationship with other neighbors.

[NotLikeTea]

Another tangent here.. Pacts and Liberation.

I can't remember if CivII let you transfer control of cities, but I know that SMAC could.

Consider the following situation. The canadians are in a pact (Allies) with the dutch during WWII. At the end of the war, they march in and liberate holland. Super, right? No.. instead they say "Sorry folks.. you're our newest province now. Do as we say!" Think the dutch would have liked that?

However, in Civ and SMAC, freeing a city/colony of an ally makes it yours, forever, with no repercussions. I think that if you liberate the city of an ally, they should immediately contact you and ask to have it back. Refusing to do so would not be an atrocity, but would do nothing good for relations. If the situation is very grim, they might ask you to look after it for x turns (about 5 at most, I'd think), the ask for it back again.

This could create wars for diplomatic reasons, and not just for conquest. In Civ, even the "good guys" are conquerers, no matter who wins the war.

Maybe even in wartime, with non allies. If the Greeks ask me to fight for them against the Aztecs, we might come to a deal about conquered cities. They may promise to give me 4 techs if I promise to give all captured Aztec cities to the Greeks once I capture them.