[DESIGN] Duration of Diplomatic Agreements

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by J Bytheway


Except that we know the same leader is always in charge of the human players government... The beautiful absurdity of civ games .

With regard to cancelling agreements, I think it's a bad idea - it would be too easy for a Human to exploit to avoid obligations.

About this I haven't thought at all even worse than what I thought off...........

[Solver]

Peter's number are very good, but with the source, what prevents us from adding a ProposalDuration flag to the proposal text file, allowing for easy modding, etc. Numbers for durations, benefits and such should be hard-coded as little as possible, IMO.

[EPW]

okay I have been convinced lol

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Solver
Peter's number are very good, but with the source, what prevents us from adding a ProposalDuration flag to the proposal text file, allowing for easy modding, etc. Numbers for durations, benefits and such should be hard-coded as little as possible, IMO.

Solver, we agree again with one little different: I would like to see it dependend on traits(warmonger versus builder) and trust, not just a fixed modable value..........

[Peter Triggs]

Gilgamensch
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.

E
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.

This should be done in the AI's response logic. It works largely like that already but if we allow for, say, a peace treaty to have a long or short term duration we'll have to expand on it.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
This should be done in the AI's response logic. It works largely like that already but if we allow for, say, a peace treaty to have a long or short term duration we'll have to expand on it.

Not sure about your last part

[Ekmek]

Do you mean that say 50 turns would be the base duration for a treaty but depending on personality it could be 5 more or less (as an example)?

[Gilgamensch]

Yep,

if you are a bloodthirsty untrustfull warmonger, the peacetreaty shall be only like 10 turns. Only if you passed this time without breaking the treaty, the next proposal would be like 12 turns.

But you have been always fullfilling your part of a treaty, the same shall be like 100 turns. (base-value 50)

[Tamerlin]

Though I agree about a time limit whith most of the agreements I don't think that a peace treaty should be limited. Once you have signed one, the only way to get out of it should be to break it or to denounce it. I would be more likely to accept time limits though if the AI Civs were really able to make decent proposals.

[The Big Mc]

Can we have some way to brake down the diplomacy between two civs. Like a way for you to try to get your opponent to brake a treaty by calling him names.

I would also propose we add the next step up from alliance “merger” for historical people this does happen with my main and probably only example being the Germany Austrian thing.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by The Big Mc
Can we have some way to brake down the diplomacy between two civs. Like a way for you to try to get your opponent to brake a treaty by calling him names.

Well currently if you do things to lower your regard (the AI's regard of you) this happens, doesn't it?

I would also propose we add the next step up from alliance “merger” for historical people this does happen with my main and probably only example being the Germany Austrian thing.

A diplomatic version of bloodbath.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Though I agree about a time limit whith most of the agreements I don't think that a peace treaty should be limited. Once you have signed one, the only way to get out of it should be to break it or to denounce it. I would be more likely to accept time limits though if the AI Civs were really able to make decent proposals.

What does a “peace treaty” mean in the game?

I doubt Canada and Barbados have ever signed a peace treaty but they have very friendly relations.

Canada and the US fought a war in 1812. They signed a peace treaty at the end of it. Let us also assume that Canada legalises marijuana possession and gay marriage this summer, and that George W. invades, and Canadians burn down the White House a second time. Has the US broken the peace treaty of 1812? Is that treaty even still relevant?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Flinx
What does a “peace treaty” mean in the game?

I doubt Canada and Barbados have ever signed a peace treaty but they have very friendly relations.

Canada and the US fought a war in 1812. They signed a peace treaty at the end of it. Let us also assume that Canada legalises marijuana possession and gay marriage this summer, and that George W. invades, and Canadians burn down the White House a second time. Has the US broken the peace treaty of 1812? Is that treaty even still relevant?

CtP2 being a Grand Strategy Game many things are abstracted in the game. A peace treaty, as far as I am concerned, represents formal and friendly relationships between two countries. IMO, the peace treaty represents the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Flinx
Let us also assume that Canada legalises marijuana possession and gay marriage this summer, and that George W. invades, and Canadians burn down the White House a second time.

They won't dare as they are afraid to be burned again



They still can't get over this one..............

[The Big Mc]

Originally posted by Flinx
A diplomatic version of bloodbath.

No you take over the other nations lands army’s and cities this being the next step up from an alliance your people being as one .

The other bloke gets to retire the only problem is that the other civ most really trust you to do this.

of course the is the opposite version of this when the ai can’t win "surrender "