The revised Diplomacy Model

[vovan]

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention.

Suppose we have a multi-national treaty. (Actually this question holds whther we decide to choose mn treaties, or the UN, regardless.) Then you propose some addition to it. And one of the nations doesn't like it. But the problem is not the player, but some third nation. (Like, the two don't really like each other that much.) How do we settle the problem? Should there be a button saying something like "Make the two nations settle their conflict", or should the player then have to devise some kind of different proposal, which would be acceptable to both? That's a tricky situation there. Ideas?

[LDiCesare]

vovan, your point raises an interesting issue: When a party is not interested in one clause, it should be able to ask for someone else to change that clause. For example, in a one on one negotiation, civ 1 wants to sell civ 2 a tech in exchange for something else. Civ 2 knows the player has that same tech, so it could (should?) make a proposal to the player in order to bid for a lower price, then tell civ1 the price they can settle upon. You are actually in a state where you may bid down in order to help civ2 get a low price without yourself doing anything.
Now if you have for example Greece and Turkey and Greece doesn't want Turley to be even considered entering the EU, other European countries could explicitly target (bribe, ...) Greece in order to have the veto left, like in CMonkey's proposal.

[yellowdaddy]

yes, generally the proposals for an alternative to a "un" work for me... especially as you might change history and the League of NAtions or Comintern be a success.

i wonder - could a MNTreaty from of UN type assoc. have th option of a location? just as a cosmetic effect... it doesn't have to mean much per se...

in any game there are going to be superpowers down to tiny "finlandised" states, and it might have a potential diplomatic effect if you located the "treaty UN" in the USA. it sounds like i'm argueing for a UN, but i'm not really, it could just be a diplomatic and cosmetic device, in the treaty graphics for "select location/no location", it needn't alter the function of the MN, it could just be an addendum, or a type of MN treaty.

................................................

but yeah - i don't much like "auto-resolve dispute" any more than i like "auto-resolve battle". it makes sense to have to negotiate, negotiate, and negotiate again.

a bit of double-dealing/skanking between differnt nations mightn't hurt either!

................................................

so then you could have overlapping orgs like tyhe EU and NATO, OSCE and UN - all share a core of common members.

...............................................

speaking of overlapping - would there be any scope for the personalities of characters to be taken into account?
and changes in leader through succession, thus chages in relations and opportunities. this could also extend to the relgion of a leader, relevant in middle ages europe.
you could then have alunatic leader who doesn't represent the will of all his people, like Saddam, but leads them into disaster, and the whole relations with that nation can change with the deposing of a leader?

(leaving the player more as a "spirit of the nation" than playing with Hammurabi or Catherine the Great from the stone age to the nano age.)

[Cmonkey]

vovansim,

The UN is an entirely different beast then the EU or NATO, IMO, which is why I suggested it being handled differently. I see the UN more as a civ unto itself than a simple multi-national treaty, albeit a civ with no land.
However, if all multi-national treaties are handled this way, I guess I could live with it, or at least learn to.

[yellowdaddy]

sectors

a civ with no land.

that sounds rather like what i was meaning when i talked about criminal organisations like the mafia or big pirate gangs etc... this seems to be leading into an interesting area - the concept of organisations and even corporations which resemble a nation in many ways, but have no fixed territory.

..................................................

i also wanted to raise the point about what if you have a multinational force conquering a country - as in WW2 when you had the Allies: UK, USA, Russia, France, taking over Germany, and dividing it into sectors... and one sector is turned into a country, a puppet state, i.e. East Germany.

Coul/Should nations/Civs/EGs partition a state/region/province/civ and turn part of it into a new one, a puppet state?

are "East-Germanisation" and "Finlandisation" worthy and do-able concepts?

[yellowdaddy]

whole game objective

what about economic/currency or political union between two or more states as in Austia-Hungary and the EU? is there any room for currencies and a commodity market?

.........................

what is the game objective?

in civ, you're aiming to build a spaceship and fly off to alpha centauri.. wouldn't a space race to the moon, and or mars be more apt? hows about a first baby born on the moon or first self-suffiecient colony in space, something like that as a final objective?

[Lord God Jinnai]

I think in the latter it might be possible to have a thing that says whatever my international policy/treaties are, yours are exactly the same.

Now eventually this may cause interanal problems, but that's another issue.