Announcement

**Jeje2** · June 19, 1999, 04:26

OK, for the first version I counted following submitters:
Akron, Al Gore, anachron, billybobjoe597, Bingmann, Black Dragon, Bubba, CarniveaN, Cartagia the Great, Chris J, CormacMacArt, CrayonX, CyberGnu, DarthVeda, Diodorus Sicilus, Diplomat, Doo1284, Dreadnought, Ecce Homo, Eggman, EnochF, FinnishGuy, Flavor Dave, Fugi the Great, Galen, Gallagher, Harel, HughTheHand, Ilprincipe, Imran Siddiqui, Isle, itokugawa, JamesJKirk, Jason Beaudoin, Jimmy, JT, korn469, LordZarm, MBD, meowser, Mindlace, Ming, Mo, Mr. Biggelswrth, NotLikeTea, Octopus, Qinglong, Redleg, Robert Miller, Shining1, Snipe, Stefu, tfs99, Trachmyr, Transcend, Txurce, Viking, Willko, yin26, ZenOn and Zorloc.

If your name is missing, please send email to me (Jerri@iki.fi) for correction.

------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited June 19, 1999).]</font>

**Ecce Homo** · June 19, 1999, 16:16

Thank you for this well-prepared summary! I feel it is almost impossible to make new suggestions in a post with 50+ posts!

About point 7.1.1: Atrocities - early vs. late game
Whether certain acts are atrocities should maybe not be decided by the game year, but by Govenment/Social Engineering of the offending and the observing states. For instance, enslaving citizens of a civ which has abolished slavery would be a grave atrocity.

About point 8: Size does matter...
What is "size" then? I would suggest military power + military potential (production+tech). (One of the greatest problems of the European Union today is that their influence is hampered by not having any armed forces.)

**Harel** · June 19, 1999, 16:35

I failed to find two things:

1. A section to state all the possible peace treaties level ( i know people suggested quite a few, like: war, limited war ( like a limited strike against a country ), no-aggersion pact, peace, alliance, unity, and probaly more ).

2. I suggested a new level of pact, a unity in which you can have shared victory conditions: you can both win toghter is you ally up. Kill all other civ's, and you both win the game, or build a space ship toghter.

**Eggman** · June 19, 1999, 19:30

Did anyone suggest the option of having two different types of AI diplomacy? Before the game starts, you could have two choices:

1) Realistic - Computer opponents will act like "real" powers. Wimpy small nations will grovel and try to be friendly with the big powers. Long-time friendly major powers can remain friendly indefinitely as long as something doesn't come between them.

2) Standard - The computer opponents try to win the game at all costs. If one player gets too far ahead, they gang up to stop that civ from winning. Small civs will go to war if that is their only hope of winning.

**Flavor Dave** · June 20, 1999, 01:42

Eggman--that is one of the most brilliant ideas I've seen here. Solves alot of problems/complaints folks have talked about here. Would it be too hard to program? I don't think so. The AIs have some pretty obvious triggers for how they regard you--1750, 1850, space techs. All you'd have to do is move or eliminate those triggers.

Along the lines of what was summarized, that ancient "reputation" was a very different thing than it is today, perhaps we could have the tech "international law" which triggers the new diplomacy. Or 3 stages--ancient, nation-state, and modern. "Colonialism" would trigger the 2nd, intermediate stage.

Also, if you're going to have this, there should NEVER EVER EVER be only one tech for the human to research. You should NEVER be forced to research colonialism or international law. Even Future Tech 25 instead of international law.

**Ove** · June 21, 1999, 10:21

Mainly a proposal for the OTHER thread, but this touches on issues which may be of interest for the DIPLOMACY thread too:

AI ministers/governors
The ministers in CIV2 were an amusing interruption of the usual chores (micromanaging cities, micromanaging units, etc.). They didn't really give any useful information, they just complained if you were not doing what they thought should be done. Who is the ruler here?

It would be better if they were able to act upon directives from you (or each other, depending on how much power you grant them) as an extra (micromanagement-reducing) layer between you and the city/regional menus. After they have been given tasks or general directives, they present you with their suggested solution(s) which you may accept/modify/decline.

example:
You have given your diplomacy minister a directive to improve relations with your neighbour.
Diplomacy informs you that your neighbours insist on a special trade relation in which they will buy weapons for food.
The ministers of trade, production and military tries to dissuade you from that course of action, because; you will lose money, your production facilities are already engaged with other orders and it is dangerous to arm your neighbour.
You instruct diplomacy and trade to make the deal anyway, but to delay the weapon shipments. Production are ordered to commence the weapon production and turn them over to military who will use them to make an attack army that can crush this insolent neighbour.

Diplomacy's directives could be shaped like this:
MISSION (to Persians):
x Improve Relations o Provoke War
Get
o Territory o Bases o Passage rights o Technology o Money o Goods o Trade agreement o Prohibition against Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/... o Acceptance of Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/...
Give
o Territory o Bases o Passage rights o Technology x Money (200 gold) o Goods x Trade agreement o Prohibition against Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/... o Acceptance of Slavery/Ethnic/Pollution/Drug/Religion/...
Willingness to achieve mission goal(s) (1-10): 7
Willingness to offer gift(s) (1-10): 5
Who can sign agreement? o Agent x Emperor
Duration of mission? o Immediate o Fixed # of turns x Until an agreement is reached

**Cleggster** · June 24, 1999, 23:20

There is one thing I belive that a UN feature needs. Sanctions. If one culture is getting to aggresive, then everybody can vote for UN resolutions against then. These could be economic sanctions (no forign trade), punitive sactions (no units aloud out of there territory), or a resolution for the destruction of the society. The latter being really hard to immpossible to pull off. The other UN idea is that of forceing peace between two other factions. SMAC got it with the ability to ask someone to stop attacting an ally. But wouldn't it be nice if you could step in to stop unaffiliated civs. Much like the US of today.

Another option is surrender. If there is an overwhelming power that a smaller power in the way, how about a non-combative option. The fact that you have to conquer every city by hand is overly aggressive with no option otherwise.

I also feel that all these suggustion be given some kind of higher priority to Firaxis. The fact that you could wini the game with fully peacfull means is what made Civilization stand out. Unfortunately Activision ignored my attempts to get a better diplomatic model. SMAC come close, but still leaves true diplomacy short. I feel that we should stongly emphasize the importance is lots of diplomatic options in the game.

**Theben** · June 25, 1999, 11:17

I dropped this in RADICAL IDEAS also.

Your people all start out as a homogeneous cultural group. There are several "diplomatic"
categories: You(the ruling class) vs. other rulers, your people vs. other rulers, your
people vs. you, your people vs. other peoples, their people vs. their rulers, & their
people vs. you; also a religion vs. religion scale. Generally each category is on a sliding
scale from, say, 1-10, 1 being insanely hateful while 10 is harmonious bliss. At 1st
contact these will generally fall into the 6-7 range. Markers include daggers, bloody
daggers(to represent atrocities), doves, and doves with an olive branch(represents
generous gifts). These last few will affect relations far into the future, otherwise the
scale tips for standard actions(wars, treaties, trade, etc.) on a turn by turn basis.
Things that affect one group(their people) will not affect others(rulers) quite the same;
ex. genocide rarely affects the ruling class, so although the people will be very angry
with you, the rulers will not be as angry; a gift of food or medicine(tech?) will please the
population more while a gift of money will more likely please the ruler.

Societies cease being homogeneous over time w/o govt. intervention. Conquest & trade
are the quickest methods; warfare w/o conquest, connection by roads between peaceful
empires, types of terrain between cities, etc. also affect the rate. Conquered cities are
assumed to have their old culture. Whenever a city grows by a population point
(assuming civ3 will be using citizens like civ1&2 in that the size of the city=# of
"people") a formula will be needed to determine what the new pop's culture will be based
on the above factors, plus how well the populations get along(a pop will rarely migrate
to a land where they are not welcome!). The new pop will then assume all of the
diplomatic categories of that culture. Governments can limit the flow of people to their
lands and of their people to other lands; there should be some kind of penalty for
this(perhaps a minor trade reduction?). Mixed pops may cause additional unrest in a city
if the pops do not get along.

Differences in religion will be handled separately. Religion will function mainly as to how
you will handle certain situations, and will be chosen by you when the pre-requisite tech
is discovered(polytheism, monotheism in civII). For instance, you're a christian leader of
the christian Franks. Burning a christian city of the Germans to the ground will not only
upset the Germans, but every other christian leader and population, including yours. Now
if you burn another city down that is pagan, muslim, etc., your people will not be as
upset and if it is considered a 'hateful' culture by ANYone then it may even grant a
bonus in relations to that group(with exception of a modern democratic society). In the
case of a mixed city you could leave certain pops alive. Depending on how this is set up,
I envision either (a) button(s) to push in the city screen or a command given to army
groups to cause actions like SMAC. Some possible actions:

Forced conversions/cultural- Removes possible unrest due to differing cultures.
Diplomatic penalties with other civs people, possibly minor penalty with rulers.

Forced conversion/religious- Removes possible unrest due to differing religions.
Diplomatic penalty with all civs with that religion & their rulers.

genocide- Kills off citizens of the city. Can be tailored to only kill certain religious/cultural
groups. Severe penalties with that civ & it's rulers, penalties/bonuses with other
civs/rulers depending on their diplomatic status with the genocided civ and religion,
possible penalties/bonuses with your own pop.

Suppress population following conquest- Unrest in city decreases considerably.
Suppressed people of conquered cities do not begin to assimilate into your civ until
suppression ends. Penalties to any similar cultural/religious group. City will probably lose
1-2 pop points as refugees flee from your armies.

Treat new population well after conquest- No extra penalties vs. their people, but
penalties vs. their rulers. If you treat your people better than the newly conquered
people's are used to, and treat them as well, less unrest will result and assimilation will
be quicker, and your penalty vs. the other ruler would be greater. If your pop hates their
pop and you treat them well after conquest, you may suffer a penalty with your own
people.

Gifts- Depending on type of gift. Food to starving population will increase diplomatic
bonuses between yourself/your people and their people considerably, and to their rulers
somewhat. If you want to make it even more complicated allow the ruler to not tell
where the food came from; then the bonus is between the ruler and subjects while
you/your people have minor penalty vs. the other ruler.

Forced conversion/genocide after modern era AND civ is democratic causes additional
penalties from demo population vs. the ruler committing the action.

**Flavor Dave** · June 25, 1999, 13:04

Cleggstar--I fear your idea would make winning by world conquest too difficult, eliminating it as a good option (unless you're one of those warmongers who can pull it off before the UN).

**Ecce Homo** · June 25, 1999, 20:27

I like Theben's idea. Instead of "building" diplomats and spies in the regular way, you could buy them for money in your capital. Then you can order them to carry out a mission in another nation - in the diplomacy screen OR by walking the unit on the map.

Having an embassy would simplify this kind of missions, but embassies should cost money to maintain.

**Eggman** · June 25, 1999, 21:30

I like the spy simplification idea. Just makes life easier. However, you do need to deal with how to handle certain spy missions like scouting (not only specific cities but also just the area at large).

Perhaps you could build spies like in MOO2 and they go in a special espionage screen. Then you split them up into various ongoing tasks (sabotage, counterespionage, steal tech, scout) which they do automatically. When you need a special mission, take one of those spies off its job and send it to do its dastardly deed (revolts, poisoning, nukes).

This whole screen would probably be easier if the spies were kept track of as number (3 spies doing scout in the Aztecs, 1 spy stealing tech from the Romans, etc.) instead of icons which get too messy.

Hey, maybe we should give up building spies altogether. You just set an intelligence budget and you get an appropriate espionage team for your spending level.

Just throwing out ideas here...

**Cartagia the Great** · June 25, 1999, 21:57

I believe that the best way to do skying in Civ3 is to elimiante the spy unit and the diplomat unit. Instead I would structure it much like it's done in ST:BOF.

If done in this fashion you would have a certian amount of integlence points, based on the amount, and type, of certian strucutres you have built in your cities, as wel las the type of government you have.

These points are then invested in the differant nations, allowing you to pick jsut one another to destroy itnernally or many, as well as to invest in internal security. You could choose certian areas to disrupt in the enemies civilization(Domestic, Foreign, technology, Military ect).

For a certian amount of extra points you could attept to target a single city for something truely infamous, or to a certian etyhnic group inside that Empire. You want the Romans to Rise up in Revolt agaisnt their Chinese masters? try to funnle them arms and propoganda to stage a rebellion. Or, perhapse, you've always disliked the Japanese who are a large minortiy in the Austiran Empire. Simpyl spread a plauge through predominantly Japanese cities and watch the unrest Also has the added benifit of gettign rid of an old enemy evne after they've been taken over

What do you all think of this? i think it woudl add a nice layer of depth to the game, that would be fun to play. After all, who doesn't like commnading their spy networks to do something evil without havign to build a spy which, for all you know, could get wasted in a turn by a tank.

**NotLikeTea** · June 25, 1999, 22:22

Hrm.. on the one hand, I love the idea of propaganda, and have advocated for a propagandist unit (or maybe a spy special ability).. lots of fun in cold wars.

However, as unrealistic as they are, I like my spy units. I like sneaking them across the seas, and infiltrating enemy bases. I like spy duels if the opponent has counter-sepionage measures installed. Having spying done through menus and windows may be more realistic, but I tihnk it lessens the excitement. A unit is more real than words on a screen...

**Theben** · June 26, 1999, 00:23

If there is a ESPIONAGE thread, I apologize:

Eliminate diplomats, spies, probe teams, cyberninjas, etc. Have an espionage screen linked to the diplomacy screen. Have a selection of espionage missions to choose from, pay X amount of coins and a spy team will be sent on its way. The team will not be visible on the main screen. After an appropriate amount of time (depending on distance to target and tech available for movement) you will get a report on whether or not the mission was successful. You might get more than you asked for &/or something different as well (1 idea is that sending teams through unknown territory, they would also come back with the map of the route they took). Counter-espionage would be necessary, which could be done by paying coins each turn, through city structures, or just assumed through tech advances.

-The Embassy unit. The only reason I bring up this one is because in life they were expensive-i.e. many shields- and should be in this game (well, in China, Korea, and Japan they were expensive). Aside from establishing embassies (info on enemy civ's would be in espionage) they would confer a status to the sending civ; what that does I haven't figured out yet (maybe bonus to trade for sender, or enemy population views your civ as superior?).

Announcement

DIPLOMACY (ver2.0): Hosted by Jeje2

DIPLOMACY (ver2.0): Hosted by Jeje2

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment