DIPLOMACY (ver2.0): Hosted by Jeje2

[Flavor Dave]

Stealing money will never work with a espionage budget. Suppose you can spend 100 to have a 50-50 chance at 500. Then you'd do it every time. If you have to spend 100 for a 50-50 chance at 150, you'd never do it. And if it costs 100 for a 50-50 chance at 200, what's the point?

Unless I'm missing something the only reason, ever, to try to steal money would be to lower the cost of bribes (which uses the treasury of the bribee as a factor). But in that case, destroying the courthouse would be better--or knocking out the temple and Colosseum and send the city into revolt.

Here's a thought--an espionage cost to knock out the civ-wide WOWs effect on a city. For example, you spend money causing New York to not get the benefit of Mike's Chapel. The variable might be the number of turns (of which you'd be informed.)

[Mo]

1. Rescue a leader of a conquered civ. You can then give him a city to restart his civ. This would better your relations with peacefull nations and the civ whom you stole from his enemys.
2. Rescue a spy that was caught. You get your unit back.

[Theben]

Mo,
1) Is okay. You'd have to give him back one of his original cities, though. But will players want to do this? We're conquerors!

2) If there is a counter-espionage result that results in "team captured", then I'd say yes. There'd have to be a reason to try to regain your team (the other civ gets espionage/counter-espionage bonuses for a # of turns?). Otherwise no. Spy missions, as I envision them, use their resources during their mission and must be refunded/resupplied again before they are sent on another one. There's nothing saved from one mission to the next (on a civ game scale).

[Mo]

Resciung spys
I thought that after one of your teams was captured you could take another spy team and rescue them which would return both units to you. The only way for this to be an effective ability is that there would be little risk that the rescuing team would be caught.

[Mo]

Emergency alliances:
Two civs should make and emergency alliance if they are both being greatly threatend by a third civ. What makes this different from a normal alliance is that the two civs don't need to be on great diplomatic terms with one another and that the alliance will break apart once the war is ended. This would espcially affect two partys of a civil war. They should band together against a common enemy even if they were fighting each other.

[jof]

2.1.4 Duration for declaration of war & Harel: peace/war levels - reputation
+++ alliance, as is
0++ peace, as is
00+ cease fire, as is
000 neutrality, as is
00- hostility: bribing, attacking etc. units, pillaging cities etc. allowed, but not attacking cities
0-- war, as is, but allows no usage of nukes or taking more than e.g. 3 cities per 10 turns
--- total war: taking more than e.g. 3 cities per 10 turns from one civ

NotLikeTea: I also "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 think it lessens the excitement. A unit is more real than words on a screen..." and more fun for me.
On the other hand I see the micro-management arguement for the later games. So this may be solved by optional switching from discrete diplomat/spy (settler/engineer caravan/freight) units to more abstract schemes triggered by advance (logistics?) and/or (editable in rules.txt) number of cities, units ...

Theben: I like civ for 1) Exploring & Conquering new worlds, 2) Building an (utopic) empire, 3)Trade, spying, diplomacy (against the AI). All points are equal high on the priority. Yes, we want all of them to work well, but the Trade, spying, diplomacy stuff is what needs improvement most. Simplifying trade, spying, etc. helps killing the stuff we like. What's boring for me are the myriads of military units and not the few special units (How much elephants & phalanxes, crusaders & pikemen do you build compared to diplomats & caravans? And don't get me started on the modern units!). The above, of course, is IMHO.

CUSG instead of RUSG

[Harel]

Trade menu

When you give a gift, ask for something, or want to chance the proposel, you open the trade menu. In which, you have two section: "Gift", what side A want's to give to side B, and "Request, what side A want's to get from side B.
You may give/take the following things:
Cities.
Units.
Money.
Technology.
Resourse.
Treaties ( I will sign an alliance and give you 500 credits, if you give me 3 soldiers and steam-engine tech ).

Approch

When you ask another civ for some things, you can select your approch:

* "If we take this, what do you want instead?" ( Add something to the "request" section ).
* Ask nicely ( Low chance they will agree ).
* Threaten (better chance of excepting, but cause hostality. If they are pissed at you, may cause war )
* Hostile ( very good chance they will agree, but if they don't war is automaticly declared. Good when: stop spying or I will go to war!, for example ).

Response on refusal

You and the AI select which approch they prefer. Also, when you are refused, you can decided your response:

* "Ok then. What do you like in exchange?" Ask then what would they like to accept.
* "Ok, what if we give you this?" ( add something to the "gift" section ).
* "Ok, we understand."
* "This will not be forgoten". Like threat, the second side may regert then. Cause hostality.
* "We want no more contact with you". Good chance they will regret and accept your offer. If not, cancel all treaties with the other player. Cause major hostality.
* "You will pay for this!" Declare war on the other player.
Both you and the AI may respond.

Response on request

When you are asked, you may respond in the following manner:

* "No thank you". Cancel.
* "We might accept if you give us this..." ( Add something in "request" to the trade menu ).
* "We cant give you this, but perhaps you would agree to this..." ( Add something in "gift" and "request" section. A new proposel ).
* "We are hurt if even can think of such a thing." reduce diplomatic connection.
* "You wound us so much we wish no further contact with your people". Cancel all treaties.
* "How dare you!" delcare war.

An example on how this works:

Side A ask side B for a trade treaty nicely.
Side B refuse: "no thank you."
Side A: "what would you like then?"
Side B: "we might accept if you give Xenology tech"
Side A: "We cant give you this, but maybe you would care for 1000 credit, and you can add one navy ship?". ( Trade menu, add "request unit" in demand, add "1000 credit" in gift ).
Side B: "We don't need your credits. However, we may sign the treaty and give you the unit if you give us New-york city". ( take off "1000 credit" in gift, keep "navy ship" on request, add "new-york" on gift ).
Side A: "what? how dare you ask for this!" ( declare war on side B ).

I would like this kind of deep conversation and debate. Contracts and trade could be long and complex.

Extra

I want the AI to have long memory. For example, if you refused something he asked for it, when you ask for something he might respond:
"X years ago, we asked you for Y. Why should we accept now?"
And then, you could response in the following ways:

* "Ok then. I will grant you what you want, if you give me what I want".
And all the other forms of refusal.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 07, 1999).]</font>

[Jimmy]

Harel: I like your idea. It seems to add the kind of atmosphere and diversity that I have been asking for.

[Jimmy]

I especially like the negotiation aspect of your idea, Harel, that is what diplomacy is all about. I would suggest to expand the list of items that can be put in the "gift" and "request" section. For example:
- cancel treaty with third party.
In the "gift" section, you would be offering to cancel your treaty with someone (like a common enemy) in exchange for something. In the "request" section, you would be asking the other civ to cancel a treaty with third party.
- make treaty with third party.
In "gift" section, you would be offering to make a treaty with a third party in exchange for something. In "request" section, you would be asking the other civ to make a treaty with a third party.
- loan.
You could offer or request a loan.
- tribute.
A tribute would be a sum of money or food, or minerals, or units that would automatically be given every X turns. This could be used to surrender or to request a surrender. If you put the tribute in the "request" it would amount to asking the other civ to surrender if they accepted. In the "gift" section, you would be offering a surrender if the other civ accepts. (you would not lose the game in a surrender, just you would be like a submissive pact brother/sister, having to pay a tribute which might be heavy. This could be last resort strategy to stay in the game if you are losing a war). An unconditional surrender would be when nothing is in the "gift" section, a conditional surrender would be if there were something in the "gift" section.
Your system, Harel, would allow almost an infinite amount of combinations with deep negotiation. Excellent!

[Mo]

The surrender should expire after a certain time. When a country surrenders, a few different things can happen. The conquering nations can split the surrendering nation into 2 or 3 different civs, they can also force them to switch governments, make them pay tribute, limit their number of military units, or force the units to stay within the city radius of their cities. This should also greatly affect their personality.
All of these affects should expire after a certain time where the civ(s) can then freely do what they want. I think this time should be a maximum of 100 years.

[Theben]

Harel,
An excellent post, well-thought out and explained. I'd also add some more:

Gifts:
1) Parcels of land. A square or more of space.
2) "Temporary" techs. By this I mean you allow the civ to use the technology, but don't show them how it works. FE, advanced medicines to fight disease & increase growth rates & happiness; sell/give guns, the effect would be to allow them to build gunpowder units until you stop "giving" it to them (like a treaty). Of course, if they have the pre-requisites, (interchangable parts or some such) they may figure it out for themselves.

I'd change the names to "Request", "Demand", & "Threaten" but the results are still the same. Request is something used mostly with allies/friendly civs, while threaten with weaker &/or hostile civs.

For surrender: I wouldn't give a minimum time for civs to be hindered by surrender. If the time ever comes where the civ thinks it can safely defy you and the benefits of doing so are worthwhile, it should do so immediately. Of course, this would require a smart AI.

[Mo]

For multiplayer you could have the option to sell advice to other players similar to Theben's idea of managing their cities. Like where to attack an enemy, where to distribute his troops, or you can tell them false advice and lead them into a trap. This would provide an alternative to just selling your world map.
How about selling the map of a continent of one island at a time instead of your whole map.

[Harel]

Second big diplomatic post

I planned to post a more coherent explantion of how I want to make my "Debata" model work: but I had night duty last night and all i could do it think about treaties. Therefor, I would like to present my suggested list of treaties and pact level.
I know I missed some good ideas, but I probaly added a few new ones right now.

Treaties

1. Fixed trade: a fixed trade agreement is when Side A gives side B an agreed amount of things in exchange of some other booty every turn.
You may trade the following things:
Food, Money and Shields ( or resoruce, if we have those ). For example, Side A gives side B 100 credit every turn, and Side B gives side A 100 shield unit that Side A may distribute to all his cities.

2. Trade:
Side A gives Side B X items in exchange for another Y items. Also can be used when asking, demanding or giving items. In this way you may trade:
Technology, Money, Land, Cities, Resources and units.

3. Science treaty: an agreement which gives both sides +% to science output.

4. Commerce treaty: an agreement which gives both sides +% to trade income.

5. Trade treaty: allows caravan trade with the other civ.

6. Intelligence treaty: You may not spy on other side, and you both share all reports on other hostile nations. You can even pool toghter your intel to sabatoge and espionage toghter.

7. Survlience treaty: shared maps and all known enemy units location.

8. Military alliance: allows united attacks.

9. Research treaty: Side A pays side B money, and side B in exchange gives all new technology he researched.

10. Mutual research: Both sides share all new technology they accquire by research.

11. Construction contract: Side A pays money to Side B, by ordering construction of several units. Side B select a city, which then invest all money to speed-up production of the required units. Side B get 10% of the construction cost. ( Used when you have a good construction ratio in one city, mainly because of a good wonder ).

12. Design contract: Side A pays Side B to design and build a prototype of a unit. Both sides can later build this unit at normal cost. Side B gets 10% of the cost ( Useful if: A. You have a unit workshop like SMAC. B. A certain idea in the unit section will be included: that the stats of the prototype units will be better the higher your tech and the more money and time you invest in the development ).

13. Right of passage: side A may pass and refuel at side B bases.

14. Port contract: Side A pays side B to build a harbor/dock at his land for refuel.

15. Trade passage: Side B allows side A to build trade routes over his land, but he gets 10% of all trade income.

16. Embargo: Side A ask Side B to cancel all trade with side C.

17. Monopoly: Side A ask side B to only buy a certain item from him ( used in a commodity system, see economics/trade ).

18. Funded trade: Side A pays side B to build some caravans and establish a trade route with another civ that normally he can't because he has no contact of way to her. Side B gets 10% of the income.

19. Limited arms: Both sides agree not to use an illegal weapons.

20. Free air: Both sides agree that be "pollution-safe" after X turns. Meaning, the popultion level must not raise above Y level, or the civ is fined ( forcing the civ to hurry up and build dams, solar panels and recycling systems ).

21. No-nuke: both sides shell not build any nuclear missiles, subs or power plants.

[Theben]

Again, excellent!
A question, aren't commerce & trade treaties the same? Do we really want both?

I have an idea that would only work with an ally:

You offer to show how to "manage" the AI's city. Through the diplomacy screen, you go to the allied AI's city screens (in SMAC you can see into their cities so this is not a huge advantage). You can:

• Move their people around for maximum benefit in food, growth, trade (veteran civ players know that the AI doesn't always do this).
• Mark obsolete units & unnecessary buildings for disbanding/sale.
• Change items in construction, as well as design better units with their technology.
• The AI will always ignore changes when building a wonder.

Pros: Allows players to increase the power of their ally. This has historical precedent.

Cons: Unscruplous players will sabotage their ally's efforts. Some may create alliances soley to do this. To counter this a smart AI would be necessary to know when to accept the changes & when not to, but if it's so smart it should never need to be shown what to do!


To go back to NotlikeTeas's & jof's concern's, I understand where you're coming from. But like you mention I do try my best to reduce micromanagment, and abstracting spies/dips/caravans is IMHO a good start.
Now this doesn't mean that everything that has been mentioned wouldn't work in either system. But if you still want a unit then I'll have to dredge up my old ideas on spy units.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited August 17, 1999).]</font>

[Cartagia the Great]

Many people have put forth their ideas for diplomacy in this thread, and I have helped. However, I believe that I would like to try and post down my entire thoughts on how treaties should work. I apologize if this has already appeared.

let us start out with the war between the Russian Empire and the Republic of Wisconsin(I always add them to the game, so sue me :P). The war progress, with neither side able to take each other's capital, but Wisconsin is deffiantly on top. In Desperation Russia sends a message whihc reports that they would be willing to discuss a treaty.

Wisconsin ,war weary, and with unhappiness due to this, agrees to this. Immediatly they go to the 'Treaty Screen'. This would be the screen which would allow you to set the peramiters of the treaty. They would be divided into 4 catagories


Government:
Economic:
Social:
Politicle:

GOVERNMENT:

The Government header more or less speaks for itself. This would impose on the other nation the government of the winner's choice. Waisconsin could demand that Russia becomes a Republic, Monarcy ect.

ECONOMIC:

Once again this is rather self explanitory. This is where Wisconsin could demand a certian monetary exchange to Russia, forcing them to pay tribute either per turn, or in one lump sum.

SOCIAL:

This one is a bit more intersting. Under this catagory one can set certian permaiters dealing with the people in the other Empire. For instance, Wisconsin could ahve a large minority of Chinese in their Empire who are on good terms with the government. They could demand that all Chinese under Russian government are sent into Wisconsin. Like wise they could also say that certian nationalities, such as the Romans should be opressed.

Tarrifs could also be demanded, as could differant building resrictions in cities.

POLITICLE:

This might prove to be the most intersting of catagories, and the easiest way to contain another nation if need be. It would be under here where you owuld demand the status of protectorate from another nation, as well as cut up their empire and take certian cities away.

Those are, however, the most common things. Other options would be available as well. For instance, you could demand that a nation take up alliances with other nations.

the most intersting option, in my opinion, could be the creating of other nations. In this area one would be able to create new nations, giving them names, leaders, and politicle stances. They could either be based on a prior ethnic group(in which case a majority of the people in this nation must be of the ethniticity choosen or atleast contain a few of thier cities)

One could also create a ficticiouse nation such as the Philonthroper Republic. All people owuld hodl their old ethnic ID, but would devleope into that nationality after a while.

Each nation you create, you would be able to set up it's boardres, government, it's leaders and it's relations with other nations.

Now, you might ask yourself why you would wish to do such a thing, and not jsut annex the entire nation. First of all, you may feel that you don't ahve the streangth to hold on to the rest of it, and you wish for your enemy to be strong enough to resist OHER nations. Also you might only have wanted to free a religion or ethnic group. Finally, heaving to strict of a treaty might very well destroy your relations with other nations.

Also the other nation coudl reject the treaty, and dicerking could go on(FUN!), but there is always thei dea that if you want peace enough, you'll take what you can get.