[DESIGN] Duration of Diplomatic Agreements

[Peter Triggs]

In Civ3 diplomatic agreements last for 20 turns. In CTP1 (or, going by the source, at least in some pre-CTP2 version of the diplomatic system) they also had fixed terms.

We need to re-implement this because, as it stands, once the AI makes an agreement with you that's it forever and the game can stagnate.

I propose 30 turns. Does this seem reasonable?

[EPW]

I agree that most agreements should not last forever, but I think some agreements should last longer than others. Ceasefires/leave terrotory agreements should be short term, but I would think peace treaties would last longer. trade/military/research agreements should last even longer (50 turns?) and alliances should be longer or permanent.

[J Bytheway]

I think I'd prefer variable durations too, in particular Cease fire < Peace treaty < Alliance, but if a uniform dration were used then 30 turns sounds reasonable.

[Keygen]

I agree with EPW, duration of agreements should vary, depending on the type of the agreement.

In CtP1, alliances between human parties never expire. We could adopt this model in CtP2, possibly expanded in other types of agreements, with the option to securely end it after a number of turns if desired. If end it before that number of turns expires and consequences could apply.

[Keygen]

Another idea would be the possibility of defining the number of turns that an agreement would last for, while doing the negotiations, at list at some types of agreements and possibly with an upper limit. That could be difficult to implement for the AI though.

[Maquiladora]

Would be good if these numbers (counting down) were displayed in the diplo manager for each agreement too. Are these values going to be exposed in some text file?

[The Big Mc]

set a duration would be good

[Gilgamensch]

duration

I would only like to see it changed depending on government type(s).

Like Demo. to Demo. with the longest duration and the rest, shorter. And if somebody changes to a non-trustfull government, then treaties shall expire. But otherwise ?????????

Just my first thoughts..........

[The Big Mc]

What would you class as an untrustworthy government.

[Maquiladora]

Democracy no, seriously all of them are untrustworthy. The most untrustworthy would be the type of leader may be, since its not always the choice of the people, even in a democracy.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Democracy no, seriously all of them are untrustworthy. The most untrustworthy would be the type of leader may be, since its not always the choice of the people, even in a democracy.

Actually you made a good point there Maq.

Best example for me in the moment: There is a democracy out there, where nobody trusts the leader at the top (even not his only people anymore).

So OK, I revert my opinion to make it more dependend on the leader attributes. Those attributes shall be actually flexible, especially for the human. If he breaks often treaties he shall become a untrusty person.

Does anyone have a complete list of personalities?

[The Big Mc]

this is really going to be hard a communist and a fascist government according to any model would not trust each other but it will never cover real life as Russia and Germany had peace at the beginning of ww2.

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch

Best example for me in the moment: There is a democracy out there, where nobody trusts the leader at the top (even not his only people anymore).

Hey gig, no Chiraq and Schroeder bashing here

I agree that there should be limits for diplomacy and it should be based on personality. Or maybe reputation. If you reputation suffers, the more likely nations will only sign short agreements.

I'll also make the point that the big benefit in Civ3 about limited treaties is that they expire so you can declare war without a rep hit or you can renegotiate a trade deal.

I'm for the renegotiating the trade deal, but in the effort to stem war-like expansion and declaration of war should have a reputation hit and increases with the era (but I do wish we can adjust it for the reason for war, i.e. AI not leaving territory should not have rep hits)

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by E
Hey gig, no Chiraq and Schroeder bashing here

I didn't mentioned any names, did I? Just a remark from my side

I agree that there should be limits for diplomacy and it should be based on personality. Or maybe reputation. If you reputation suffers, the more likely nations will only sign short agreements.

I'll also make the point that the big benefit in Civ3 about limited treaties is that they expire so you can declare war without a rep hit or you can renegotiate a trade deal.

I'm for the renegotiating the trade deal, but in the effort to stem war-like expansion and declaration of war should have a reputation hit and increases with the era (but I do wish we can adjust it for the reason for war, i.e. AI not leaving territory should not have rep hits)

Actually with the fixes we are trying to do, we shall not have the problem anymore of an AI stumbling all over the place. But that is (for the moment) still future........

And I agree, if you declare war you shall get a reputation hit, unless you had a valid reason (like discovered covert operation by this enemy). But if you just declare war for nothing you shall have a hit, and even worse sneak attacks: If you sneak attack you shall hit the bottom of the floor (again unless there was a good reason....)

[The Big Mc]

what about border disputes the ai always goes in to my territory and settles.