DIPLOMACY (ver2.0): Hosted by Jeje2

[Flavor Dave]

I LOOOOVE the idea of an intelligence budget. It really would add depth to the game. Firaxis would need to be very very careful to make sure that there is a good espionage/counterespionage balance.

We all agree spies are far too powerful. It's quite possible they're going to change them radically anyway--why not go all the way and adopt this idea. Espionage budget has a max of 10%, maybe with 20% under commie.

In another thread, I think the tech thread, I suggested a way to use all of the minor techs everyone suggested. I grouped them into money, food, army, science, and happy. One for each of the 4 eras. Each would add 10% for each city. But I pointed out that when you get to the modern era, a city generating 50 arrows would get a 40% boost, to 70. 20 wheats become 28. We'd need to find a way to absorb this extra stuff.

We've already found how to absorb the extra beakers--these "enhancement techs" have to be discovered. Extra happiness would be taken care of by using many of the ideas about races/religion--you'll need the extra happiness to maintain balance. Now, we've figured out where the extra tax revenue would go--espionage budget.

You build up money in the budget, with a few ongoing costs. Then whenever you want to do some spying, just choose from a menu, and the money is deducted from the intelligence budget. In general, I'll leave it to the playtesters to decide what everything should cost.

Categories--1. general intelligence--1G/turn before you have an embassy, free after. General intelligence is just what you get with an embassy now. Establishing an embassy costs X gold, and knowledge of the location of at least one city.

2. City intelligence--this is like investigate city.

3. Funnel arms--for every 25G you send, the rebels build a partisan. With a limit of 100 G or so per turn per AI civ. Counterespionage could intercept the arms.

4. Sabotage--you already know this one.

5. Incite revolt--this should be waaay more expensive than it is now. Alternatively, this could be propaganda, which would cause unrest/unhappiness. Then, make it so you can only buy cities in revolt (except this makes fundy bribeproof, and therefore too powerful. Thoughts?)

6. Bribe unit--this should be cheaper than it is now.

7. Famine--I like this better than poison--for a certain number of turns (dependent on tech level?) irrigation doesn't work, or doesn't work in a certain city. Use in combination with a siege. In another thread, there seemed to be a consensus that sieges should work better.

8. I don't like the nuclear device. The AI never uses this, and I don't need it.

9. Oh yeah, and steal tech.

10. Counterespionage

Cartagia--great idea.

[Theben]

Eggman,
Your last suggestion is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. No more spy units, just spy MISSIONS. You pay for them, with either money &/or production, and they do their thing. If anyone's ever played Pax Imperia that's what I'm basing it on.

Notliketea,
Personally it seems to me that players like civ for either 1) Exploring new worlds, 2) Conquering new worlds, 3) Building an (utopic) empire, 4)Multiplayer. Trade, spying, diplomacy (agianst the AI) aren't high on the priority. Yes, we want them to work well, but the other stuff is what attracts us. Simplifying trade, spying, etc. helps micromanaging w/o killing the stuff we like. The above, of course, is IMHO.

Flav Dave,
For your missions:
3, 5, & 6- Happiness of both your people & theirs would be a factor in cost. Happier they are, more cost. If your citizens are more(less) happy than theirs, the cost would go down(up).
4- Spy missions wouldn't have the overall power to destroy a "building". I suggest they knock out the building for x# of turns, or implement "structure damage" (which I'll describe later).
8- I don't like it either, but it is a threat in this modern world, so it should be there.
Otherwise I agree with the rest!
We're gonna need a list of possible missions. Start brainstorming people!

Cartagia,
Should include tech advances to give intelligence points. Nice idea, though.

[korn469]

terrorist could be barbarian spy units or babarian spy missions

korn469

[Flavor Dave]

korn--good idea--IMO, they should be limited to sabotage and poisoning, and subject to counterespionage.

[Alexander's Horse]

One thing that should be fixed is that if you build up trading links with another civ and particularly if the other civ is smaller than you, it shouldn't turn on you unless you mistreat it. Trade should also improve relations with Hostile/rival civs.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 29, 1999).]</font>

[EnochF]

Exactly. And trade embargos would worsen their attitude.

In Diplomacy terms, a minor point, though people have gone on about it for some time in the Economic thread.

[VaderTwo]

In CivII, the computer can demand a one-time monetary or technology tribute only when you talk to them.

I would like to see where you could demand that a computer or human nation become a tributary/protectorate under your nation or the computer would demand that your nation become their tributary.

Under a tributary, a certain percentage (say 5 to 10 percent) of a tributary's food, shields and trade would be diverted to the master nation. Unlike the current situation, this tribute would continue every turn, until the tributary "rebels" against the master nation. This tribute would go into a reserve that could be allocated to whatever city and whenever the master nation wanted.

A tributary would be required to join any war that the master nation is fighting when the master nation demands it. However, a master nation would also join the war when one of its tributaries was attacked to protect their interests. A tributary would also be required to obtain permission from its master nation before being allowed to attack another nation. However, unless they revolt, withhold tribute or refuse its demands, a tributary would not be attacked by its master nation.

A tributary could "rebel" from its master nation either by withholding tribute, refusing its demands or simply hitting the revolting option. This would lead to immediate war between the two nations.

However, freed from their oppressor, the rebelling tributary would receive a couple of benefits for the duration of the war: one more happy citizen in all of its cities, a 25% attack bonus against the master nation and/or up to 5 units that are support-free per city.

The war of liberation would end only with the capture of the rebellious capital, or in a cease-fire/peace agreement, or 25 turns. After which the bonuses of the rebelling former tributary would be eliminated. If the capital falls a new capital is immediately established but the rebellion would be ended and the tributary status would resume, but at twice the previous percentage. After two unsuccessful revolts, the master nation can have the option to conquer the entire tributary nation.

[Flavor Dave]

Vader, a few questions.

1. Why would any nation decide to accept the lesser status? It would just weaken an already weak nation, and strenghten a strong one. As they say, it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

2. I think the answer to #1 is, you take the tributary status in order to get the bonuses for revolt that you mention. But that just makes it a trick for the human player to exploit. I think you'd have to make accepting tributary status like a "cease-fire", or a 25 or so turn Great Wall/UN. As a practical matter, the way you've conceived it won't make the game better.

But the idea is promising. It adds some neat options, and is realistic, which is a good thing as long as you don't mess up gameplay. You need to make it much more worthwhile to be a tributary. Some ideas.

I suggest that you have to keep the lesser status for a while, and then have the option of renewing it at 5 turn intervals. At the same time, the master nation can change the terms. Then, the master nation has the option of letting you go, or declaring war at no penalty (if democracy or republic, no senate revolt) if you refuse the harsher terms.

The tribute always starts out the same--X % of your civ's food and gold (we'll let the playtesters decide a good suggestion.) If the master is worried that the tributary is too strong, he can increase this % by one at each renewal. Conversely, if he's worried the burden is too onerous, he can reduce it by one.

Other ideas for the effects.

1. You get every tech of the master civ. This is if you need to warmonger, and need to funnel arrows into gold, for buying cities (remembering that the master civ gets a percentage of your increased tax revenue). This would give you the benefits at the alliance, without the permanent obligations, but with added cost. Better and more realistic, the master civ can only be one tech ahead. If the master civ has two techs you don't have, you get to choose one of them.
2. You get double trade for every caravan that arrives at the master civ. (But not vice versa.)
3. The lesser nation gets the benefit of universal wonders, or perhaps just the happiness wonders. This would allow you to try some new strategies. Perhaps you want to forgo Mike's and JSB, and use SOL and fundy. You accept tributary status from the JSB or Mike's civ, in order to go republic to get the science to get to democracy early.
4. When the relationship is terminated, the master civ has the option of any of the following 3 statuses--war, no contact, and peace.
5. I think that maybe the 2 nations should only be obliged to go to war for one another when attacked. Yes, I know this isn't at all realistic, but it would work better with the game. Otherwise, the human, tucked away in South America, would become a tributary of a nation centered in Europe, in order to force them to fight a power in Africa that the human SA civ would have no problem provoking. Then, 25 or whatever turns later, end the relationship, knowing that the European civ can't do much to you while embroiled in another war.

Anyway, these are 3 things that popped into my head as ways of making this worthwhile to the weaker civ.

If this idea can be properly implemented, it would make early embassies a big deal.

[VaderTwo]

Flavour Dave,

Actually the idea originated simply as an "Annual Tribute" idea. This situation would be far worse than giving another player (AI or human) techs or money as tribute as it would involve giving up the civ's independance to a certain extent and would involve a per turn tribute.

I like the idea of renewing it every 5-8 turns and the dominant civ (I really don't like the term master nation I don't know why I used it - reminds me of the Nazis)having the right to reset the terms upon its renewal.

I wouldn't give the tributary all of the dominant civ's techs as that would be another human trick, but maybe a percentage chance (say 10%-25%) each turn of learning one of the dominant civ's tech.

Actually I would not limit this idea to tributary civs. It would be interesting to give each neighbouring civ a percentage chance of learning an advance from another neighbouring civ with the percentage based on the level of your current tech and the distance from your capital to the other civ's capital. But they could not use the units/buildings/wonders/etc. of this tech until they researched it as they do not completely understand it. However researching it would cost only half as much as it would have as they know some of the information for this tech already. This would show the reality of new ideas flowing from one place to another.

What anyone would get out of becoming a tributary would be survival. This would be a way of stopping a war that a civ was losing and give them the time to rebuild its defenses and/or units or time to try and covertly gain allies or support from other civs.

One other idea would be that when a civ becomes a tributary all citizens would become content as the dominant civ would frown upon any dissent.

[Jeje2]

Hi,
I have read your comments and will make few personal comments now.
(I am waiting the official layout from yin, before making a new summary) But let me say that here are many new and good ideas.

OK, I will now comment some mails:

Harel:
You were absolutely right. I will correct my mistake in next version.
(Don't know how I skipped number 1, but number 2 I remember thinking a lot about. Were would it fit best? And then left it for later decision and forgot. Sorry)

Eggman (and Flavor Dave)
Wow! (Have you crossposted this to AI-thread? They might also be interested)

Ove
Minister meetings and agreements whitout player interface. (How about that if political system is very diplomatic, ministers could work automatically and you couldn't stop them, just delay or try to get them to focus on other things? Just an idea)

Cleggster
How could we miss that? UN should be able to declare sanctions. Are they to be the law or?? (Should pacts be able to this too?)
And yes, I also would like to se more diplomatic possibilities in Civ3 compared to SMAC.

Theben
Your first idea sounds radical. And will be a living hell for me, when I next time update my system. (But that is not your problem, it's mine. So keep on posting )

Simplifying ESPIONAGE has made some talk around here. Personally I do like the idea.
A question: What game is ST:BOF? (Cartagia the Great was talking about it) It seams to some sort of solution I should maybe know. Right now, more information wouldn't hurt (An URL maybe? THX in advance)


Finally, one thing is sure. I will have to completely rethink my summary system. But keep on sending ideas.

Jeje2

P.S. I will be gone for a while, so here will be a break from my side. My next change to use a computer will be on 19th. of July, so a little patience and I will then make a new summary. (Hope to have the official layout by then )

[Theben]

Jeje, I originally made it for the "Clash" team months ago, but they are planning to have so many civs it wouldn't work as I hoped. If civ3 has a reasonable amount of civs it should work (though programmers may curse my name ).
To go back to the question of scouting missions for spies (Eggman 6/25), I guess this could be done, but isn't that what regular units and explorers are for?

I'm guessing, but it probably means Star Trek: Birth of Federation.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited July 01, 1999).]</font>

[Ecce Homo]

As a civ becomes the most powerful in the world, the enemies get more likely to form alliances.

This factor should be extended to make global conquest harder. As a human civ gets closer to world domination, these events could be triggered:
1. All wars between computer players end. Including barbarians!
2. All computer civs ally.
3. All computer civs virtually act as one.

If the human civ loses some of its power, these conditions cease.

[John Barbarossa]

Rather than have just different forms of govenment slowly devolving power from a centralised state to a representative state, you could have devolution WITHIN your existing government.

For example, if you have a border city far away from your capital, naturally they are harder to pacify than cities closer to the administrative centre. I have took this to represent the fact that due to the difficulties of increased supply lines, and poor communications, cities far away feel less like a part of the empire than your central settlements. This is a cry for more regional autonomy to reflect thier reduced feelings of nationhood.

One solution might be the devolution of power to that city. This could be done by building a 'regional assembly' or 'city hall' as a prerequisite AND declareing them a semi autonomous City State (In medieval Europe this was done by granting a town a 'City Charter' to run thier own affairs ie Venice.) This should drastically cut unhappiness and corruption and stimulate an automatically enhanced growth and it should also drastically enhance production making the city more militarily useful, perhaps along the lines of Civ 2s 'We love the leader days' or the effects of Communism. However, to represent the devolution of power from the Central Government, you will only be able to set a direction for your City State to build (ie military or civilian) and will only be able to give general orders to the troops from that city, ie attack Rome, hold the garrison, or even as simple as defend or attack.) The AI would have to take over the application of those orders simulating the local barons leadership of the troops and the local governments priorities for infrastructure/units, thus giving you a REAL taste of the way representative government restricts the application of power.

Once again, I am sorry if these ideas have been suggested.

Regards
John Barbarossa
ICQ #31005032
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by John Barbarossa (edited July 06, 1999).]</font>

[John Barbarossa]

I am new to this thread (and its forerunners) so forgive me if these ideas have already been suggested. Here are a couple of trade ideas, as they relate to diplomacy.

I would like to see a South Africa style trade embargo. By that I don't mean that participating nations will not build new trade routes, this is already common in diplomatic Civ 2 games (see Tales from the diplomatic front on Apolytons Multiplayer forum) rather that the ongoing benefits of existing trade routes will be eliminated for the duration of the sanctions. This should have several effects and conditions.

-Obviously the imposers and the victim's trade will be hurt, but assuming it is a bilateral strategy in partnership with others, the effect on the victim will be exponentially bigger as you lose trade with one nation whilst the victim loses trade with several.

-The recipient of the trade sanctions should have increased corruption, as thier economy shrinks and is forced to rely upon internal trade.

-The effectiveness and totallity of the sanctions should be related to the form of government the imposing nation is run by. In the case of South Africa, many high profile companies (Barclays Bank etc) did not obey the British governments sanctions, using thier internationalism as a defense. I therefore propose that In more representative forms of government that the totallity of an embargo be less than in more centralised economies.

-During an embargo cities in Anarchy should have their trade restored, despite thier governments (your) wishes until order can be restored. (As an aside from the trade issue, the AI should take control of the military to reflect deserters and revolutionary elements in the military during revolts, turning them back over to player control after the city returns to order).

Embargos would provide enormous diplomatic leverage for those who have prioritised it. Imagine if you went to war in an internationally unpopular way, the international trade embargos might mean that you will go from profit making to loss making and from a discovery every 10 turns to one every 25. In Civ2 trade is undervalued. It does not reflect the way external trade is the cornerstone of political influence in modern politics, nor the way that trade can be used as political muscle to achieve non-trade related international political goal. Right now I would value the Civ2 caravan/freight unit as worth no more than 20 shields.


I would like to see each country set an import rate which will decide upon thier split of any initial monies from caravans. Obviously the lower the rate the more attractive trade with that country is, leading to smaller countries setting competitive rates (perhaps even 0% to encourage the ongoing effects). A crude version of this is often applied in diplomatic games relying upon trust (see 'Tales from the diplomatic front' & 'A game of diplomacy' on Apolytons Multiplayer forum ) but to formalise it would be a great improvement. That we are already attempting to simulate this is proof that, at very least us diplomatic players, would make extensive use of the feature. It also brings in one of those supply and demand resource management balances that so effectively simulates Capitalist economies.

Regards
John Barbarossa
ICQ #31005032
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by John Barbarossa (edited July 06, 1999).]</font>

[Jimmy]

I have two ideas for civ 3 diplomacy:
1) expand on the dialogue part. ie the AI Roman civ could say to the player civ (let's say the player is carthagians) something like "Do you approve of our war with the Zulus?" and the player could click "yes" "no" or "We are neutral".

2) Actually see the contents of a treaty.
When a civ proposes a treaty to the player the screen would ready:
(type of treaty) Treaty of (city where diplomats are) between (name of both civs)

article 1: (sentence on exchange of territory or not, several choices to choose from)
article 2: (amount of tribute per turn if any)
article 3: (relations between both parties, this part determines type of treaty, choices could be non-agression/cease-fire/peace/alliance of trade/alliance of research/military research/mutual defense/surrender/war pact)
article 4: (passage through territory allowed or not, choices would be free passage, no passage, only non-military units can pass through)
article 5: (conditions of treaty, ie must declare war on third party X, make peace with third party X, share intelligence etc..)
article 6: (duration of treaty, ie 10 turns, 30 turns, indefinite)

space for both parties to sign.
The player could click a "reject treaty" "negotiate changes" or accept treaty" button. When both civs accept treaty their signatures would appear at ther bottom. If the player clicks "negotiate treaty" he/she could click on the article they wish to change and they would pick what they want instead from the choices. The treaty would come back with the article scratched and the alternative below. The treay would go back and forth until someone clicks reject or they both accept.