DIPLOMACY (ver1.1): Hosted by Jeje2

[Mo]

3.1.*
I would like that you can ask another civ with which you are at peace but not allied to allow passage through their territory for a certain number of units. They can ask for payment and require that you keep your units at least 1 or 2 spaces away from their cities.

[Cartagia the Great]

You know, I ahd that idea myself way back when, during one of me, and my cousins, continual "how this would be better" discussion sessions. The idea of paying people to allow them to go through your territory, and paying to go through others. the only problem woudl be that, wether you like it or not, the other nation might associate you with the enemy, after all.

Another idea was that you could sell you military units to another civilization for a certian amount of time to be used as merceneries. When the war is over, or time runs out, those units are rreturned to your control, or how ever many remain of them.

[Eggman]

This may be an AI issue but here goes.

Please do not have the AI come begging for a ceasefire after I capture a city. Unless they are in really bad shape, they would be much better off counterattacking. The way it works in Civ2, I can just slice a part of my enemy away each turn, make a ceasefire and repeat until there is nothing left. Dumb.

[Qinglong]

One thing missing from Civ 2 was the complex diplomacy which follows the resolution of a war. In Civ 2, the only penalty for losing a war was gold or technology, if you had any. Winning a war would be much more satisfying if you could gain territory from it. On a related point, would it be possible to have a surrender following loss of units, like 50% or whatever of the military forces? I'm sure the territory one could be done, since Brian reynolds just posted a message saying that borders would not only be included, but evolve with time.

I hope this is useful

[Zen0n]

Harel: Your idea is godd. However, did USA lost in economics after the WWII? I think the war was big impulse for them...

[NotLikeTea]

I was listening to the local campus radio, and they were discussing war crimes. Got me a thinkin'...

One major point from the Neuremberg trials was that initiating a war of agression is not only a war crime, but the worst possible crime. In Civ, however, it is not only acceptable, but encouraged!

Could this be implemented, as a treaty, perhaps? Suddenly, if passed, starting a war without reasons (I don't know what reasons could be.. diplomatic, certainly) would become an atrocity. Could dramatically change the end game. If you're the warmonger type, you'd want to do all you could to stop this from getting passed.

Speaking of this, what would be a valid diplomatic reason the start a war? Spying, probably. WWI was triggered (not started by.. it would have started eventually regardless, most likely) by an assasination.. could we have random diplomatic events?

What about other rules of war? Could attacking civillans (settlers, engineers, etc) be outlawed? Obviously there should be a treaty to ban the use of Nukes, nerve gas, biological warfare, etc... What else?

[NotLikeTea]

Brings up another point, something from Colonisation (of all places)

If units have special abilities, why not a "Piracy" ability? Flys no flag, can attack in peacetime, as the enemy has no idea who is doing the attacking. Would become more and more easy to discover the identity as tech advances. Could also be used as a starter for wars, or a way of getting around the restriction.

[Ecce Homo]

NotLikeTea, thanks for bringing up Pirates. I don't know whether this is the right thread, but:

As barbarian gangs wander around the map, you could send them an emissary and give them an agreement charter - they may move in your territory and attack and plunder your enemies.

[Ecce Homo]

NotLikeTea, thanks for bringing up Pirates. I don't know whether this is the right thread, but:

As barbarian gangs wander around the map, you could send them an emissary and give them an agreement charter - they may move in your territory and attack and plunder your enemies.

[Ecce Homo]

NotLikeTea, thanks for bringing up Pirates. I don't know whether this is the right thread, but:

As barbarian gangs wander around the map, you could send them an emissary and give them an agreement charter - they may move in your territory and attack and plunder your enemies.

[Galen]

My biggest problem with Civ2 and SMAC was the AI being able to get away with attacking me or canceling a peace treaty over me being in their territory, but I can't. I also don't think the AI should be able to attack without consequence.
I also didn't like a few other things:
I don't think anyone should be able to declare War/Vendetta through a sneak attack, they have to try to contact you.
Sneak attacks should just declare a conflict, not a war.
Destruction of units in your territory should be okay.

[Cartagia the Great]

Well, I believe that sneak attacks should be allowed early in the game. Back during the time of the Roman EM
mpire, sneak attacks were looked down upon, could lower your reputation, but were seen as a good stratigic option as well. LAter in the game over, the Genevea Convention outlawed sneak attacks along with war against civilians and secret alliances. This brings in a few ideas:

First of all, perhapse there should be a Genevea Convention type situation in the game where laws are passed to regualte war fare. Until then certain things would be allowed, but afterwards, doing them would be a MAJOR case of dipolmatic lese majesty.

Also when you sign an allaince you should have the option, for a certian amount of money, to keep the alliance secret. this price would be justified by the amount of resources you have to divert to keep this alliance secret from all. the bennifits would be that diplomacy would be carried on as if no one knew of it, and the alliance did not exist. This might allow you to goad people into wars, and have yo ally crush them, or other sneaky manuvers. However an enemy spy could disocver this allaince and make it public knoledge. In doing so it would waste the moeny you spent , as well as give you a diplomatic penalty with the other nations.

Likewise attacking refugees(units that would pop up along with partisans) would be accepted early in the game, as well as settlers, but would be make illegal later in the game, for a major diplomatic penalty. If my other idea of having ethniticity play a part in the game, any hampering with hem, alter in the game, would be a dipomatic no-no as well

i also like the idea of pirating. In Civ:CTP pirating is allowed, but actually gaisn you nothing in return ,except cutting supplies for other nations. I must prefer the way that Colonization dealt with the situation, and you gaiend money from the venture, as well as hurt your enemy. I believe that a similiar thing must be used in this game. Piraty would, eventually, be outlawed later in the game, but would be a pwoerful force for a long time. After all, who doens't want to paly the pirating civilziation

[Eggman]

Fot those modern warmongers out there, you should be able to try to *manufacture* a reason to go to war to avoid an atrocity penalty. Have a spy go over there and attempt to create an incident which would be a politically valid reason to go to war. However, the whole scam could be revealed (which would be WORSE than just attacking).

[Mo]

I think that when one of your pirate ships is destroyed there should be a random chance that the other civ discovers that the ship belongs to you.

[Jimmy]

One thing that I want to see is less outrageous demands like "Give me this tech or X gold or else" from the AI. Democracies should never make those kinds of demands. You don't see Tony Blair demanding stealth technology from Clinton. And if he did and the US refused, he would not break the alliance. I can't stand the AI making demands everytime and breaking treaties or declaring war if you refuse. The AI should also not declare war on you even when you are an ally just because you refused the demand.

On another issue: I think attacking a unit should not automatically be a declaration of war but you should have to formally declare war before you attack a city. This is the way Botf works and represents border skirmishes very well. Also, it adds more strategy for the player: if the AI sends one unit into you territory and attacks a colony pod, do you escalate the crisis and declare war or do you let it go because you don't want a war?