DIPLOMACY (ver1.0): Hosted by Jeje2

[Jeje2]

Hi all and welcome to the new DIPLOMACY thread.

I will post here first a collection of ideas in the old thread and as my second mail will be the idea by Mindlace. (Hope you don't mind me coping it here. )

These two mails are both quite long.
I'll try to edit the ideas during weekend.

Jeje2

[Jeje2]

Hello,
I have updated the list again
We can use more ideas so keep on sending them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRUST
If Player FOO asks me join his war against BAR and I'll join then FOO mustn't make peace with BAR in X turns. (We have seen this too many times)

DECLARING WAR SIMULTANIOUSLY
Planning behind someone's back is fun. Let's declare war together on BAR.

PEACENEGOTIATIER
FOO and BAR you have to make peace now, we all will benefit from it in industry. To be used in late game. In SMAC this option is, but make extra benefits for negotiator

DECLARING WAR
A democracy may not delcare war on a another democrary, or if so done there are to be strong negative effects.

COUNCIL
Use the SMAC council system.

NATO
Possibility to make a combination of three or more nations. Even two or more combinations could exist in the game at any time.
Also different alliances needed. Ex. Economic, military, mutal defense, scientific,

JOINT ATTACKS
Like SMAC, but take it further.

CONNECT
In SMAC you could trade frequencies for connections. Let's use it a little more. First one can ask FOO to connect you to BAR and next in war you could ask FOO to talk with BAR and tell him…

SNEAK ATTACKS
Are to be reasons for full-scale war. Senate is to obey this

SENATE MAKING PEACE
Senate in Civ II was all the time making peace and ignoring the fact that two or three turns later he would attack again. This has to be taken care of.

SOCIAL CHOISES
In SMAC we have them. Shall they stay?

DIPLOMACY STADGES
In SMAC there are: war, neutral, treaty and pact. We need more.
Ex. Unity, If FOO and BAR are united FOO could help BAR in production when BAR helps FOO in research. Also in unity secret projects are benefiting both players.

UNIQUE TEXT'S
Make the options unique. It's more fun when you see different ways of saying the same thing, according to nation philosophy.

TRADING
Large scale trades are important. Ex. I give you 50 gold and electricity for combustion

CUSTOMISE PEACE TREATIES
Give me City a and I'll make peace, treaty expiration date, if there will be a demilitarised zone

ALLIES
More possibility's here. Ex. I need help in defending Rome, send units there for ten turns. Even between three or more players.

SURRENDER
We need one more stage here. In SMAC your play was over but ex.
A surrender option which will end the war you are currently engaged in. The surrendering faction will lose some territory and have military restrictions imposed on it for a certain time 50 years? This can totally change a civilisation personality, and you should also be able to impose socially engineering choices on them. Look at pre and post war Germany.

SANCTIONS
Like in SMAC, sanctions are to exist.

REPUTATION
One has to have individual reputation with all nations. (This way one can have good reputation with one nation bad with another.)

CEASE FIRE
There has to be no deadline for how long a cease-fire exists. Furthermore breaking a cease-fire shouldn't have big negative effects. (If you compare to declaring war in peace time)
During cease-fire no trade routs are to be made, nor shall they exist.
When making a cease-fire agreement there has to be an own sub-screen where on can pick the options for cease-fire. (Like whitdraw your units around Rome and take them home.)

SMALL ATROCITIES
In Civ II the only thing one could do if annoyed by one player was to attack and get into a war. Something more is needed

SIZE
Why is a small nation always trying to fu** with me. I can crush him anytime. Instead it would be in their interest to be friends with me.

DEMANDING MONEY
The computer always knows how much money I've got. This is silly.

[Jeje2]

mindlace wrote:
-------------------------------------------
Treaties:
There should be 3 types of treaties, each with 4 levels:

1.MILITARY:
1.a. War: You're fighting. This suspends other treaties.
1.b. Cease Fire: You're not fighting, but have no other diplomatic relations. Other treaties are still suspended.
1.c. Peace Treaty: You are not at war, and have diplomatic relations. Other treaties resume, but this does not start any other treaty. Non military units may enter other's territory, and you may turn over units to your ally. There is no obligation to enter war with another party, and though the computer may ask/bribe, they will only become pissed inasmuch as they're losing. (The Incans have ruthlessly plundered Cairo! How can you remain at peace with such monsters?) Downgrading from Treaty to Cease fire is sufficient to shut another treatied player up.
1.d. Military Pact: You co-operate on military affairs- Cooperative assaults, ala SMAC, an obligation to come to the other's aid, computer likely to turn over units, etc.

Military Notes: All military treaties may be downgraded unilaterally- Russia withdrew it's ambassadors for a week over Kosovo (Treaty to Cease Fire), though American ambassadors stayed put and France went from pact to treaty with NATO for some time, but NATO still guaranteed France's defence. You might even have a situation where a pipsqueak nation declares war on you and you maintain cease-fire, just to keep up the international pressure... (Hmmm. Iraq vs. Rest Of World?)

2. ECONOMIC:
2.a. Embargo: There is no trade between your nations.
2.b. Protectionism: There is limited trade between your nations, but it is hobbled by high tarrifs/embargoes on some industries.
2.c. Normal Trade: There are limited tarrifs on goods, and maybe a very small number of embargoes (like recreational drugs, for example)
2.d. Free Trade: There are effectively no barriers to trade.

Economic Notes: The Tarrifs correspond to income for the government, whereas more open trade corresponds to more economic activity (which inderectly corresponds to more income), so 2.c. may generate more income than 2.d. if your economy is abysmal, but the economic benefit offsets the tarriff income if you're more developed. 2.d. should cause some unrest when it is first implemented, and it would be best if this was localized and related to the relative value of the treaty (more value=more unrest). (Steel Industry in Babylon protests Steel Dumping by Russia! +1 drone in Babylon). Also, Economic Treaties may be declared unilaterally- America has more-or-less free trade with China (I think), but the inverse is not true.

3.RESEARCH:
3.a. Gag Order: No information exchange.
3.b. Informal communication: a small number of RP is traded- a + to research in cities, calculated similarly to econ trade in SMAC.
3.c. Research Treaty: a larger + to research, you get to see what the other is working on at all times, a computer faction is more likely to trade techs with you.
3.d. Research Pact: All techs are exchanged, a big benefit to research, and you may change your tech research to one that the Pact partner suggests without penalty (and vice versa).


The final treaty level, Unity, would encompass the benifits of all of the highest levels, plus one benifit for each kind:
Military: You may 'borrow' military units- click on unit, select 'borrow'. If the military unit has orders (including 'designated defender', patrol, go to, etc.) the selection is denied, otherwise you can use it for 20 turns or until you give it back (whichever comes first). You can 'borrow' to your own unit, and then your partner gets it, with the above limitations. The Unified partner continues paying any maintinance cost, including unrest. (this gets around the instant disband/massive riots/no production problems of turning over a unit)
Economic: You may hurry production for your partner, and may borrow without interest.
Research: Your research points, with benifit, are pooled and you cooperatively select techs to research.

Some real world examples: the EU and America have a military pact and are cooperatively persuing a war in Yugoslavia, while at the same time are near to 'economic warfare' over genetic food, hormone beef, and banannas. In game terms, America has downgraded the EU from 'Free Trade' to 'Normal Trade'. Of course, (from my experience importing to the EU), the EU was always at 'Normal Trade'.

[Gallagher]

Regarding the Council. This should be a Wonder, (obviously the United Nations) and needs more things to do. Possibilities include:
1 Vote sanctions against warlike nations (sanctions never declared without vote.)
2 Trade embargos. No income from trade routes
3 Peacekeeping force. Special UN forces given to weaker nation losing a war. UN forces never attack, only defend but may combine with losing nations forces (like Pact brothers in SMAC)
4 Ultimatums for peace. Existing war must end or attacker faces trade embargos automatically
5 Membership is voluntary and costs $

[anachron]

This one is probably too complex for the game, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway.

Mediator/Intermediary - In any war longer than, say, twenty turns, the two warring parties must request that another nation act as mediator. A ceasefire is then granted, and the mediator gains enhanced reputation points and one additional form of payment (tech, cities, money, or units) offered by each warring party. This would reward peaceable nations in a tangible way, something that Civ II lacked. Obviously if there are only two nations left, this aspect of diplomacy would discontinue.

Also, some visible means of tracking the expiration of diplomatic agreements and renewing or improving them must be incorporated into the interface.

A

[This message has been edited by anachron (edited May 19, 1999).]

[Transcend]

The lists by Jeje2 and Mindlace are great. I just want to add some details:
- Sneak Attack. Democracy will not suffer unit penalty if being sneak attacked.
- Senate will not make peace with a repeating treaty breaker.
- Atrocities: there should be minor and major atrocities. Some minor atrocities are plundering, building internment camps, first use of nuclear weapons; major atrocities include forced starvation and genocide. Genocide can only be committed by despotic or fascist government, and any other government forms will declare war against faction that does commit genocide.

[EnochF]

Transcend: I think that starting a nuclear war, unprovoked, whether it's the first use of nukes or not, should be a major atrocity in your system. Of course, that means the computer will have to discriminate somehow between a nation using nukes to *end* a war and using them to *start* one.

[Zorloc]

An additional treaty aspect that could be added once nukes are discovered is a "No First Strike" treaty. Breaking this treaty would mean a total elimination of all diplomatic credibility, and most likely attacks by other powers.

Also refusing to sign this treaty would be a diplomatic penalty.

A similar treaty could be created for a Nuclear Test ban or ban on landmines.

[Mo]

I think that smaller countries should be able to join together not only in an alliance but to form one civilization. For this to happen they either have very good relations with one another or they are faced with a common enemy which will kill both of them. This would also allow the possibilty of starting civil wars.
I would also like that the computer players realise that if one civilization is going on a mad conquering spree that they should try to make peace or to allie with as many other civs as possible.

[JT]

Definatly social choices.

I agree with absolutly everything said so far here. The more options, the better(to a certain limit, of course).

[meowser]

I want AI CIVS to have a reputation. And I want other AI CIVS to recognize the reputations of other AI CIVS.

[meowser]

Whatever an AI civ can do diplomatically. I want to be able to do it also. For example, if I ignore an AI who's trying to contact me and they can magically show up and scream bloody hell to me, I want to be able to do it to them also - just for the satisfaction.

[CrayonX]

Hi Jeje!

I'm overseeing the diplomacy thread at the Firaxis site, I'm going to move it to here and let you take over, if that's okay.

CrayonX

[CrayonX]

I hope this works...

CrayonX posted 05-17-99 06:12 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start posting DIPLOMACY SUGGESTIONS now!
CrayonX posted 05-17-99 06:18 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think diplomacy should be more realistic and not canned. Each race should have unique scripts based on their philosophies. SMAC (as do it's predecessors) suffers from repetition, eg how many times have you seen "I am running low on energy credits." I guess the best example would be Star Control II or III, where scripts were unique right to the end. I know that that's a linear game, but script does not take that many bytes out of the whole program, make each faction have a unique style of prose. I know, it sounds like a lot of work, but I would rather see uniqueness of factions or "races" than pretty pictures of bioscans and family photos flashing on the bottom.
yin26 posted 05-17-99 06:37 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrayonX,
Thanks for the thread!

Mo posted 05-17-99 07:31 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Include a planetary council later in the game.
2. Add the option to make large scale trades (I give you 50 gold and electricity for combustion)
3. Be able to customize peace treaties (give me City a and i'll make peace, treaty expiration date, if there will be a demiliterized zone)
4. For allies: defend my city rome and i'll pay you 10 gold per year expired after 10 years, some sort of penalty if the city is then taken.
5. Option to sell or loan military units to another nation.
6. Military alliances(Nato)

Al Gore Rythm posted 05-17-99 07:45 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow Players to Form Councils of Their Own:
Say the Romans, English, Spanish and French all band together and deciede to form the Europeans Against Zulu Opression (EAZO)

To form the EAZO all the members must ally with one another. Then one of them may propose to "form league/council/something" at which point the members of undeclared EAZO form an official EAZO.

These members can then call council, ala SMAC, but will only involve their own internal members outsiders are left behind.

In this way, multiple allies can get together to discuss anything from technology to military plans to adding new folks to the council.

Mo posted 05-17-99 08:05 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few more
1. A surrender option which will end the war you are currently engaged in. The surrendering faction will lose some territory and have military restrictions imposed on it for a certain time 50 years? This can totaly change a civilizations personality, and you should also be able to impose socialy engineering choices on them. Look at pre and post war Germany.
2. When a civilization commits an atrocity and sanctions are imposed you can chose to continue trading with them, but it will hurt your reputation with other civilizations.
3. Allow a council option to impose sanctions because of agression.
4. Have the choice to kill the messenger.
5. I don't know where this would fit in. Removing your flag from your military units having them be privateers, which should cause some diplomatic penalty.
Octopus posted 05-17-99 11:12 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There definitely needs to be a better system for multi-national/factional wars. In the current system, if you have an ally, it is exceedingly difficult to change the state of relations with a third party. For example:
Spain declares war on me, I get the Aztecs to help me.
Spain sees the futility of opposing me, but now the Aztecs get annoyed with me when I call for peace and try to get them to do the same.
The next turn, the Aztecs call me up and say "We are at war with the evil Spanish, you must honor our alliance and attack them!"

If there was a system in which an interfactional dispute could be "upgraded" to a greater diplomatic state, it could be settled in a Planetary-council-esque format.

For example, in the above example, I could have upgraded the Spain/Russia conflict (let's assume I was Russia) to be "The Great Russo-Spanish War" (obviously they need a random war-name generator ) and asked the Aztecs to join the Russo-Spanish War on my side. Then, in order to stop hostilities more easily, I have a diplomatic option to "discuss Russo-Spanish War", where all parties can discuss it, and agree on terms to end the conflict.

If the wars were broken out this way, the AIs might have an easier time estimating how important a particular war was. For example, if the Spanish were scared off because I was able to bring the Aztecs in, but the Aztecs never fired a shot or lost any units in the war, they probably wouldn't particularly care about the resolution of the war, so they wouldn't be to picky about accepting any terms that were agreeable to the other side.

This also opens up a new avenue for diplomacy, e.g. "support my proposal for ending the Russo-Spanish War". As a modern-day example, think about western nations asking Russia to step in to try to mediate a dispute between the West and Serbia.


Jeje2 posted 05-18-99 12:31 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I have read your posts and here are your suggestion sofar:
This is only a start, keep on sending them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRUST
If Player FOO asks me join his war against BAR and I'll join then FOO mustn't make peace with BAR in X turns. (We have seen this too many times)

DECLARING WAR SIMULTANIOUSLY
Planning behind someone's back is fun. Let's declare war together on BAR.

PEACENEGOTIATIER
FOO and BAR you have to make peace now, we all will benefit from it in industry. To be used in late game. In SMAC this option is, but make extra benefits for negotiator

DECLARING WAR
A democracy may not delcare war on a another democrary, or if so done there are to be strong negative effects.

COUNCIL
Use the SMAC council system.

JOINT ATTACKS
Like SMAC, but take it further.

CONNECT
In SMAC you could trade frequencies for connections. Let's use it a little more. First one can ask FOO to connect you to BAR and next in war you could ask FOO to talk with BAR and tell him…

SENATE MAKING PEACE
Senate in Civ II was all the time making peace and ignoring the fact that two or three turns later he would attack again. This has to be taken care of.

SNEAK ATTACKS
Are to be reasons for full-scale war. Senate is to obey this

SOCIAL CHOISES
In SMAC we have them. Shall they stay?

DIPLOMACY STADGES
In SMAC there are: war, neutral, treaty and pact. We need more.
Ex. Unity, If FOO and BAR are united FOO could help BAR in production when BAR helps FOO in research. Also in unity secret projects are benefiting both players.

UNIQUE TEXT'S
Make the options unique. It's more fun when you see different ways of saying the same thing, according to nation philosophy.

TRADING
Large scale trades are important. Ex. I give you 50 gold and electricity for combustion

CUSTOMISE PEACE TREATIES
Give me City a and I'll make peace, treaty expiration date, if there will be a demilitarised zone

ALLIES
More possibility's here. Ex. I need help in defending Rome, send units there for ten turns

NATO
Possibility to make a combination of three or more nations. Even two or more combinations could exist in the game at any time.

SURRENDER
We need one more stage here. In SMAC your play was over but ex.
A surrender option which will end the war you are currently engaged in. The surrendering faction will lose some territory and have military restrictions imposed on it for a certain time 50 years? This can totaly change a civilizations personality, and you should also be able to impose socialy engineering choices on them. Look at pre and post war Germany.

SANCTIONS
Like in SMAC, sanctions are to exist.


Dreadnought posted 05-18-99 06:46 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's something about diplomacy I just thought of. In CIVIII, it would be great if other factions would NOT get really pissed at you for your social choices. You all know what I'm talking about. For example, Diedre will totally go PMS on me for my free market economy. In real life does this happen?
-Dreadnought

Octopus posted 05-18-99 09:30 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreadnought: "In real life does this happen?"
Look at: US vs. Cuba, US vs. USSR, US vs. China, US vs. Iran, etc.


Bingmann posted 05-18-99 10:34 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrayonX: I think this is an AI issue. Open source the AI! I think this would best be accomplished by using a Python interface to the AI, and then implementing the AI in simple Python scripts with C++ *.dlls for time-consuming operations. Each faction/civilization could have its own AI! The games designers would only have to design the usual simple/lame AI, but then a few months after release, the internet would be full of great AI scripts for the game written by fanatical hackers.
JT 3 posted 05-18-99 12:57 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO Pacts
UN Council

Surrender

Good ideas. Keep 'em coming. Also, go to the Apolyton Civ3 suggestion board, it's got a lot of good stuff.

CrayonX posted 05-18-99 01:06 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingmann...hmm, I guess now that you look at it, you're right...I guess in a sense SMAC and CivII did have their own "AI", with differnt variable settings, but I'm actually more concerned about the actual words. It's hard for many to get immersed in a game when everyone acts like parrots and repeat the same thing over and over. Yes, a .DLL file should be set up for each faction.
I remember those old GWBASIC programs called "Lisa" or "Elisa" or something where you type in phrases and it would (sort of) recognize and respond. I don't see why they couldn't have up to 1000 customized phrases for each faction. You can make the faction mean the same thing but say it in different words (eg. "Surrender now!" and "It would probably be best for you to cede to our wishes") depending on the circumstances.

Jagged Alliance did it, and did it well. Programmers shouldn't worry about "taking up disk space" when everything nowadays is 300+MB in size anyhow.

In real life diplomacy, there are so many different possibilities in varying circumstances which can be mapped out in a complex way. Let's see it in a game!

Black Dragon posted 05-18-99 02:11 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Change ignoring:
I find it very frustratig how computer players are always quick with the ignore button. The Computer often does it in large periods, I've seen CP's go totally on ignore and ignore more me for stretches of over 200 years. Make it so CP's can NEVER ignore during peace, and only ingore during war if it has decided that it wants war no matter what.
- Treaties: Go back to the MOO system for most of it, and instead of the the current system of neutral/pact/treaty/war, go to:

Non-Agression Pact
Free Trade Agreement(expands commerce)
Research Collobration(more science)
Mutual Defense Agreement: If one side is attacked, both sides will Declare war on the agressor.
Alliance:The allied countries will support each other no matter what.
Embargo: Prevents all commerce between the two nations.

Also for a Wonder of the World, make one of them the U.N., which would be a planetary council, with the builder nation getting double votes.

When the U.N. is created, certain atrocities(such as nukes) will be banned and will require an agreement to allow them without sanctions again.


Imran Siddiqui posted 05-18-99 04:08 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I put the Democratic Peace on Apolyton, so if you want to read it, look there.
I'd like MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Civ's wouldn't launch nukes at you, until they were in danger of losing their capital or something.

Imran Siddiqui

HughTheHand posted 05-18-99 04:45 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be able to annex another civ(s) if they very weak (and you're powerful), you spend enough gold (for bribery, conversion costs, etc), and some other conditions exist (perhaps similar gov't, and so forth).
I hate it when you have to eradicate other civs, especially if its just a matter of time- the tedium can be avoided in extreme cases (as described above).

-- Hugh

Mo posted 05-18-99 04:52 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think smaller countries should be able to merge together, so that they'll have a greater chance of survival. Also the effects of world wonders should extend to your allies.
After a joint war with an allie against one enemy you should split up the cities you took so that the one person who marched in, but didn't destroy any of the defenses doesn't get all the cities.


Octopus posted 05-19-99 12:39 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrayonX: You don't have an e-mail address listed... Please come to http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/000514.html to discuss things with the other Thread Masters.

CarniveaN posted 05-19-99 01:46 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmm... I would like to see the diplomacy choices be less extreme. i.e. request for tech... do you? tell them to screw off, or yes my highness. I know there are no negative effects of semething, but I would lie something like... no my friend... sure, great to be of service. This obviously would not work with someone with who you are at odds with, but maybe the messages could be scalable depending on your friendship status. I don't like telling Yang to screw himself and invoke UN sanctions, only later to be told how much he loves me.
Carny

Shining1 posted 05-19-99 02:05 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a point - if you've seen the size of the diplomatic text files in civ, you might reconsider unique text for every civilisation. Only greetings and a few comments from each race should be unique. Otherwise the patches will be huge.

[CrayonX]

Sorry, a bit of repetition there, Jeje.

What I'll do is I'll mentally "flag" the Firaxis thread and copy/paste from that flag so that we're not repeating myself. I'll do it every other day (or so).

Keep up the good work! Stay tuned...

CrayonX

[Transcend]

EnochF:
I wasn't sure where to put the use of nukes. The 2 atomic bombs against Japan saved probably more lives by ending the war sooner. An invasion against Japanese mainland could have millions. In that case, the use of nuclear weapons has generally not been considered as atrocity.
It may be a good idea to introduce some UN Charter that prohibits the use of Nukes. Once the charter passes, then all nations will declare war on you if you use Nukes. However, if you have been a victim of a nuclear attack, you can retaliate against the offender without consequences.

[meowser]

Let's not forget that if there is a UN Charter against nukes and you are a victim of a nuke attack, all the other AI civs better respond to the attacking civ in the same way they would you if you had violated this UN charter.

[EnochF]

Yeah, I'd better not see the whole peace-lovin' world kissing up to Hitler just because *I* happen to be at the top of the power graph...

[Fugi the Great]

The UN as a WoW. Should this wonder have an upkeep cost like the real UN does? Benefits to who builds it? Double votes doesn't sound like much, and it really isn't fair to the others (but thats why we built it). You could make it that the other members may go along with your ideas a high percentage of the time. The US pays the largest share of the cost, so they usually get their way. If the US pulled out, the UN would fold. So can this WoW be disbanded if the upkeep is not paid, then maybe rebuilt at a later date when the world is again ready for peace after all the wars that suddenly pop up?

Alliances. In the alliance, I should not have to fight another country just because my ally decided to attack them, let them take the losses and reap the benefits - if any. Now if the war goes badly for them, maybe now I should jump in and try to stop the fighting or help defend my ally from a counter-attack. During Falkland Island War, the US provided intelligence to the UK, but did not send any military forces there, not that they really could have since they had a peace treaty with Argentina. What would the US have done if Argentina would have had more Exocets and destroyed the British Fleet? Declare war of Argentina? I don't think so.

To add to the different ways of saying things, I would add HOW you say it, or tone of voice. Asking someone to "please get off my land" is alot different then telling them to "get off my land before I nuke your a$$ out of existance". Depending on what type of reaction you are trying to get from another nation/faction you would pick the proper way of saying it. They may take it as a bluff or may take it seriously, depending upon your past history and what they know of your military strength and readyness. You don't tell someone that can beat the crap out of you something that will just tick them off. On the otherhand you may want to tone down the language a bit when talking to someone weaker than you to keep them from having a heart attack, but then again maybe not if you want something they have and they will just give it to you without an argument.

[Txurce]

The tribute system needs a thorough overhaul ...for the AI's sake. The ability to repeatedly demand tribute throws the game out of whack.

Unless it's about to get wiped out, the AI should never give up most of its money in response to a human demand. This is even more true when the human isn't that powerful, or geographically close to the AI civ.

[Ecce Homo]

More civs!

This will make diplomacy much more exciting.

Conquering the world will be harder, and cooperation would pay. I would like to see the whole world populated. So if you want to colonize another continent, you might have to "move" another civ...

[Viking]

How about multible people in diplomacy secisions.

[willko]

one thing that we must remind brian and firaxis: make sure that the cheezy amount of goodwill one can curry from the computer factions' canned responses to certain soc.eng. choices is moderated in civ3.
in alpha centauri, it is laughable how you can switch from fundamentalism to democracy within the same turn to conduct several different interviews with computer opponents to gain favor with everyone and anyone no matter what their agenda. i'd be surprised if something like this appeared in a later game effort from firaxis.

another diplomatic flaw in the smac model is the ease with which computer leaders will exchange a highly-populated, fully-developed, wonder-containing city for a spankin' new water colony in the middle of nowhere. god knows we all agonized over these little things for the version 4.0 enhancement for smac (yet to be released), but it never hurts to gently remind the master of his past mistakes lest he go that road again.

it might help keep their egos down too when they realize that this game could be the best thing since irrigation, road building and mining.

/willko.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Everyone! Let's not forget DOMESTIC POLITICS!!!!!

This could be important! You could incorporate problems with minorities that you conquer, appointing ministers from certain regions of your empire as your minister of war, science, labour, etc.

Plus we could these ministers could effect the productivity of each section, both bad and good.

Imagine... if you had an Empire with 12 cities. The western portion of your Empire composed of about 7 cities is of Russian origin (the civ you chose), but you conquered 3 neighbouring Greek and 2 Japanese cities. You have 5 positions to fill your cabinet (or court advisors if you're playing a monarchy), and you choose all Russians from the West. This could bring about unrest in your other cities, thus creating a potential of revolt and even civil war.

Let's have Domestic Politics too!!!

[meowser]

Military Alliance:

When you have a military alliance with a civ(s) you should have the option of building multiple size X citybase(s) to be made up from citizens from both your cities and your allies cities.

Whichever civ contributes the most citizens to this citybase(s) determines what is produced and where (must be at least two, three? square within the allies zone of influence). Depending on how many civs are in this alliance, determines how many units are built at the same time. For instance if there is an alliance of three allies, this citybase will produce three units at a time. When those units are complete, each of the allies will be able to control one of those units.

Each ally will contribute X% production and income resources to this citybase and production of units is increased by a factor of X%

This citybase cannot grow. It can increase in size by contribution of citizens from the allies.

If you were an enemy of this alliance, you would probably want to knock off this citybase first.

If your ally or allies get elimanated, you gain control of all remaining units, the citybases are dismantled and are added to your cities (not sure how yet).

When an alliance is over, each civ gets back the citizens they contributed, the citybase is dismantled and each ally gets to keep the units they control.

the citybase heals units faster, much like a barracks only better.

A combination of the citybase and the allies support the units made.

Not sure how tiles will work within this citybase. Will try to think of some ideas or hope someone can.

The citybase produces units only.

City Improvements are donated and made from the allies(i.e. factory, nuclear plant)

Some city improvements will cannot be included (i.e. university)

You CANNOT build a citybase without at least one ally (game balance, adds to flavor of diplomacy).


Science Alliance:

With a science alliance you and your allies can devote X% percent resources to this alliance. When doing research, you must agree on what to research with your allies. Only one ally needs to have the prerequisite for the advanced to be researched. Whichever allies don't have the prerequisites will automatically get it from their allies.


Research cost for an advanced is cut by X% because of the alliance.

You can still do normal research independent of this science alliance research but your own research is dropped by the amount you contributed to the science alliance research.
(Thus you can be researching two or more things simultaneously).

All allies get the advance once it is discovered.

And of course you can still do stuff from before: trade/give/exchange units and advances.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The UN as a WoW. I think that the nation that builds it gets VETO power (like the leader on SMAC). It functions like the Council, but with more options, such as: Declare War on ____, or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties, or Nerve Gas Prohibition Treaties, etc.

------------------
Imran Siddiqui
Moderator SG Forums - www.sidgames.com/forums/ ,

"Sir, I would rather be right than be President."

-Henry Clay

[Mo]

If they include more civilizations, it was mentioned several times, I think the veto power would be to strong. In Alpha Centauri there are only 6 others who would have to agree to over rule the veto. But if there were 15+ othersd it would be very unlikely that a veto would ever be over ruled. I think that the United Nations should be formed once atleast half of the nations on the planet have discovered a certain tech. Membership in the united nations should be voluntary. Members would have to either pay a small amount of gold or donate a unit or two for peacekeeping operations.

[Diplomat]

Some great ideas! This is kind of a summary of one of them--propaganda. I should be able to divert resources to convince my people that what I'm doing is right. History is full of this in every form of government. This could also be a fairly simple way of influencing the Senate so it's not constantly overruling me. I also think that as the game progresses, rather than "peasant revolts" etc., random internal political matters would be more challenging. There's little point using some government other than Democracy in Civ2. And frankly, I don't think any genuine democracy will ever attempt to conquer the world--it's too expensive. Random events might force one out of a democracy to avoid civil wars, strong political opponents, whatever.

[Mo]

If you have domestic politics you should be able to launch a media campaign for the people to support a war your in. This would eliminate a lot of the civil unrest caused by units away from home and it might boost productivity. And if you don't keep all the parts of your empire happy it could lead to civil war. This would also apply if you allow civilizations to merge together. If one side feels under represented it will again break off either peacfuly or by means of war. I agree that there should be more civilizations.

[Robert Miller]

Secession

When cities are conquered, or otherwise annexed, they should maintain a distinct society status due to cultural differences.
Yugoslavia, Scotland, and my own Québec, are examples.
General unhappiness could result in more specific outcomes - the cities secede, or are one over more easily than other cities to the civ that originally founded them - a city would have a cultural/historical memory that would gradually fade.
This would be more or less transparent to the player (no micro-management in here); only the effects would be "visible".

Motiviation for war

Also, I would like war to be more specific. When declaring war, select a reason from a list - annexe a single city, conquest of a continent, genocide, commercial reasons, etc. This would change the civ leader's profile.