Thread Tools
Old November 23, 2001, 15:30   #1
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
NEEDED - a non-aggression treaty
An expirable, non-revocable non-aggression treaty. This would fix trading between agressive and non-aggressive countries.

Now to make sense, it must be irrevocable, like the MPP (which SHOULD be revocable with penalty).

Example:

A Civ is agressive but needs some resources. Right now, the other Civs won't trade with them, likely due to security concerns. Why give oil to the enemy war machine?

But - a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns would allow the non-aggressive Civ a sense of security and give the aggressive Civ an opportunity to obtain trades and enjoy the diplomatic aspect of the game.

Allow us to trade security for goods - it makes sense and benefits both parties.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 15:35   #2
Cian McGuire
Warlord
 
Local Time: 12:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 161
One other thing that would be nice could be tied to the United Nations (thus giving another reason to build it) wherein anyone can ask someone to stop fighting another- useful if you have two potential allies but when you side with one it pisses the other off...
Cian McGuire is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 15:40   #3
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
I think the act on behalf of option you are talking about was in SMAC, and also should be considered to be added as well.

An elegant system should give us options, and should always leave us with multiple possibilities. To ask the Russians to pressure their allies the Germans to stop fighting you is a step in the right direction.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 15:45   #4
Boracks
Warlord
 
Boracks's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Erie, Ontario
Posts: 254
Yes, please, I want a non-agression treaty for 20 turns including resources so I can build up my forces and then crush you after the 20 turns are up. What? The AI won't go for it? The game is broken!

[/sarcasm]

This game has more diplomatic depth. If you can't adjust your style to it, it will beat you with it. Pick your aggresion carefully, some might even say strategically. This isn't CIV2.

__________________
Rule 37: "There is no 'overkill'. There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'."
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ 23 Feb 2004
Boracks is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 16:06   #5
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Boracks
Yes, please, I want a non-agression treaty for 20 turns including resources so I can build up my forces and then crush you after the 20 turns are up.
Who said twenty turns? How do you know how the trade system is valued when resources are included? As it is now you simply GUARANTEE war over oil and other late game resources.

Quote:
What? The AI won't go for it? The game is broken!
How about you bring something to the thread other than your overpowering ignorance?

Quote:
This game has more diplomatic depth.
Than what? Smac? No. Imperialism? No. There are numerous older titles out that have far superior diplomatic options...

Quote:
If you can't adjust your style to it, it will beat you with it.
No, it won't. I doubt I'll ever lose to the AI in Civ3, unless I'm totally screwed early on. I'd rather the game have some diplomatic depth than just "No Oil For You!" as it's mantra.

Quote:
This isn't CIV2.
Another remark from the brain trust...thanks...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 16:30   #6
Boracks
Warlord
 
Boracks's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Erie, Ontario
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger


Who said twenty turns?
Some guy named Venger in the first post said, "...a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns would allow the non-aggressive Civ a sense of security and give the aggressive Civ an opportunity to obtain trades and enjoy the diplomatic aspect of the game. "

Quote:
How do you know how the trade system is valued when resources are included? As it is now you simply GUARANTEE war over oil and other late game resources.
Funny, as it is now, I don't go to war for resources, I trade for for them or expand my borders to include them (had to do both for coal).

Quote:
How about you bring something to the thread other than your overpowering ignorance?
not on topic

Quote:
Than what? Smac? No. Imperialism? No. There are numerous older titles out that have far superior diplomatic options...
Your opinion. My opinion is that I think the diplomacy in CIV3 is better than SMAC (which I think has good diplomacy) and Imperialism (which I didn't like).

Quote:
No, it won't. I doubt I'll ever lose to the AI in Civ3, unless I'm totally screwed early on. I'd rather the game have some diplomatic depth than just "No Oil For You!" as it's mantra.
Obviously, the style of game you play is to get all the civs upset with your agressiveness and then not understand why they don't trust you. And, yes, this game can be won as a pure wargame if that's all you play. The style I play, I've not had a problem getting someone to make a deal. Not always the civ I want to deal with and not always the deal I like but I've always gotten what I needed, without declaring war. (Yes, I'm one of those. I usually don't start wars, I just make sure they end in my favour.)

Quote:
Another remark from the brain trust...thanks...
You're welcome.

ps. nothing personal, we just obviously have different styles of play and, therefor, different ways of viewing the game and even different ideas about what we want to get out of it. Must be a heck of a game to have such a broad scope, even in its unpolished state!
__________________
Rule 37: "There is no 'overkill'. There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'."
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ 23 Feb 2004
Boracks is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 17:27   #7
Dienstag
Warlord
 
Dienstag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Brea, CA, USA
Posts: 243
I heartily agree there should be a non-aggression pact option. I'm not too keen on having the AIs gang up on me, but in my experience the mutual protection pact causes more trouble than I'd like...

This actually happened to me (in the tournement game which I've almost finished):
I had MPP with China, Eqypt, and Aztecs, to try to balance against agressive Zulus and most-power-civ Greece (hi MarkG!) which had conquered Romans.
MPP with China expired, and since my Iron source had just been exhausted, and becuse the Chinese had 2 cities in the heart of my territory that refused to act on the awe they felt for my culture, I decided to invade.
The treacherous Egyptians honored an MPP they had with the Chinese. (I'll have to figure out the AI MPP priority system, now) Concerned with the loss of this key ally, I sign an MPP with the Zulus, who quickly declare war on my allies the Aztecs, drawing me in with them... about two turns later they Aztecs sign a peace treaty with the Zulus but still won't consent to hear my diplomats bearing offerings of peace.

So now instead of me (Babylonians), Egyptians, and Aztecs vs Chinese....it's a messy free-for-all. The Greeks and Persians got involved as well in ways that are too confusing to remember. I think there was a time when each of the 6 civs were only at peace with one other civ.

So anyway...a non-aggression pact would be a very nice tool for discriminating between who you want to make war with vs who you don't want to make war on. ...Patch please!
Dienstag is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 18:37   #8
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Better Alliences
I agree on the need for non-aggression pacts (whic many other games like MOO2) had. I also think that alliences shoulod be retought to include defensive aspects. A MPP is a general deffensive allience, but I want to be able to say, 'hey aztecs, if the Zulu attack either of us, we help each other. But the chinese are your own damn problem'. This allows for greater diplomatic balancing acts and is in many ways how alliences actually work (which is why while the Germans and Japanese were allied in WW2 the Japanese never declared war on the SU. In Civ3, with a MPP, they would have to.)
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 19:40   #9
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Boracks

Some guy named Venger in the first post said, "...a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns
Whoopsie!!

Quote:
Funny, as it is now, I don't go to war for resources, I trade for for them or expand my borders to include them (had to do both for coal).
Well, they won't trade me for it, and the borders are set and have been set for most of the game...

Quote:
Obviously, the style of game you play is to get all the civs upset with your agressiveness and then not understand why they don't trust you.
I understand why they won't want to trade - but they should be able to trade with ensured security. Mind you, I've gone to war with three of the other civs ONLY because of MPP's. And despite being generous with trades, there is nothing I've done they've not done to others. If they are going to make late game resources crucial to even surviving, accessing them via diplomacy is crucial, and having a non-agression pact is a way to do that while ensuring some security.

Quote:
ps. nothing personal, we just obviously have different styles of play and, therefor, different ways of viewing the game and even different ideas about what we want to get out of it.
Hey, nothing personal here either. I like the breadth of options in the game. I just think this addon may address the issue of late game resources trading for resources. I'm wanting to hear input on how to make it so the AI could get security so it'd be willing to trade for those resources.

Quote:
Must be a heck of a game to have such a broad scope, even in its unpolished state!
It has potential...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 20:35   #10
Sevorak
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 205
I don't know about that...MPPs and stuff generally cover that quite well...

I'd prefer to fix the resource problem with a world commodities market. Price goes up with demand, down with supply, but you can always get the later resources...if you've got the money.

Of course this system is really only appropriate if there are more strategic resources than just eight, since two don't run out, and because luxuries don't run out and are clumped. But if there were 15-20 tradable resources? That would make the economic forum pretty important (not to mention allowing some kind of SMAC style economic victory).

-Sev
Sevorak is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 21:30   #11
Dienstag
Warlord
 
Dienstag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Brea, CA, USA
Posts: 243
regarding my post about 4 posts up: I just realized (I'm not too quick, sometimes) that I could have tried for an alliance with the Zulus against the Chinese... but I'm still all for adding a non-aggression pact option.

As for the resources vs security question: I would like it to be possible to create genuinely friendly relationships with another civ. The best I've seen in Civ III is a superficial smiley-face tolerence of my civ until some random factor makes them annoyed at me again. I think there is a definate AI bias against the human (though maybe not so much as in Civ 2, thankfully). So as it's programmed now I don't think the AI is capable of that much trust, let alone when to use it.
Dienstag is offline  
Old November 24, 2001, 02:53   #12
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Sevorak
I don't know about that...MPPs and stuff generally cover that quite well...
Problem -

Assume I join MPP to get Civ A to trade oil to me. Fine. Now that I have oil, I begin production on all sorts of oil based units. Once I've created entries in the queue, I break my MPP and declare war. The AI has no security in this situation. Now, if we had an enforcable non-aggression treaty component...

Also, it'd be nice to have the AI have it as an option when making peace with you - he'd only give a peace treaty in some instances when their is a non-agression guarantee...

Quote:
I'd prefer to fix the resource problem with a world commodities market. Price goes up with demand, down with supply, but you can always get the later resources...if you've got the money.
Very smart - but nations can deny resources to other nations. Perhaps you have to have at least X number of operating harbors to trade for non-resident materials (i.e. if you have 40 cities, you must have 4 operating harbors to still obtain oil on the spot market). Of course, the enemy can always eithe destroy their harbor or blockade it (harbor closes if a warship is within the city radius). Also, this would give privateers a chance to actually be more than just a unit that sinks - a privateer stationed in a bay will hijack bough commodities and convert them to gold for the owner of the pirate ship.

Why aren't we all making a game fellow Civ'ers??

Quote:
Of course this system is really only appropriate if there are more strategic resources than just eight, since two don't run out, and because luxuries don't run out and are clumped. But if there were 15-20 tradable resources? That would make the economic forum pretty important (not to mention allowing some kind of SMAC style economic victory).
I'd like to see more, rarer resources. That is, more types, fewer of each type. Go to the thread I'm starting...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 24, 2001, 13:44   #13
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Re: NEEDED - a non-aggression treaty
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger
A Civ is agressive but needs some resources. Right now, the other Civs won't trade with them, likely due to security concerns. Why give oil to the enemy war machine?

But - a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns would allow the non-aggressive Civ a sense of security and give the aggressive Civ an opportunity to obtain trades and enjoy the diplomatic aspect of the game.
Good point! An added non-aggressive pact option is needed for many reasons.
Ralf is offline  
Old November 24, 2001, 14:02   #14
SuiteSisterMary
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 17:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 58
How about this:

A Mutual Protection Pact will NOT bring a signatory into an ALREADY OCCURING WAR. That would require a MILITARY ALLIANCE.

In addition, a MPP will NOT bring a signatory into a war that another signatory starts. I understand that as it is, so long as you're fighting on your own soil, it's not invoked, but that's not good enough.
SuiteSisterMary is offline  
Old November 24, 2001, 15:12   #15
Blaupanzer
lifer
Emperor
 
Blaupanzer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 3,810
Why should the AI trust a non-aggression pact. One of the examples was breaking a treaty to invade China and the hassles created by selectively invoked MPPs. If Egypt crossed you and backed the Chinese, why should you trust them later? Why should China assume any pact has value with you? What in-game penalty would be sufficient to give this non-aggression pact value without artificially creating a God-like referee? Wait until you meet the Aztecs as your in-game opponent. (One sure reminder this isn't Civ 2.) No pact has value to them for even one turn, unless you have the army to back it up. Obviously the non-aggression pact implies one side does not have the power to back it up. Won't work unless some UN-like programming device forces everyone else into the fray.
__________________
No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
"I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author
Blaupanzer is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 08:25   #16
moomin
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
King
 
moomin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Moo Like In Moomin
Posts: 1,579
needed interface fixes
I already posted this in it's own thread, but nobdoy seemed interested. Maybe it'll do better here. Here are a couple of things I think Firaxis needs to fix with the game interface.

1. Unit grouping is not available. If you can't figure out how to group combat units for moving them around. at least, for the sweet love of Jesus allow us to group workers!

2. So I save money to upgrade all my pikemen to riflemen. I choose mass upgrade. And spend half the next turn re-fortyfying all those upgraded units in cities. Please! If a unit is fortified in a city it should bloody well stay fortified, not activate, when upgraded. You got this right in SMAC so why introduce this broken behaviour now?

3. So you got that strategic resource, and what to fill your build queue before the inevitable war begins. But the goddam queue moves the units up and down when you add them to the queue, so you have to play hide-and-seek with the mouse for evey unit you add.

4. I get _one_ queue to play with? Have a choise of _at least_ five different queues, which can be saved and loaded into different games.

5. Can we please get a strategic resource finder on the map? Playing a large or huge map makes hunting all over the map to find that elusive strategic resource you just discovered is a royal pain in the but. Oh, and then it turns out it's hidden under a city, so you have to check each and evey city out too! Fix this already! The pitiful CTRL+SHIFT+M is no substitute for a resource finder.

6. I have some workers on a tile. There must be a way to know which work, which just stand there admiring the scenery and how many turns there are left till the work is done. The SMAC way with a special box showing what all units on any chosen tile were up to was just fine.

7. I want to check out where a specific city is. So I call up the city finder. Guess how that sorts the cities? Alphabetic order? No. Alphabetic order by civilisation? No. AGE! I don't have to scroll through a list of hundereds of names looking for my city if I just know how old it is compared to all other cities on the map! This is stupid beyond belief.

8. In the F1 empire management screen, if I choose to sort cities by production, they should bloody well stay sorted that way untill I choose otherwise.

9. So you have a massive amount of workers and units on the map. The new turn comes around, and the computer zips from one unit to the other in seemingly random order - you end up fortifing half you worker force, especially if you've mass upgraded the turn before. Active workers first, military units later!

10. Give us a turn summary so that we can go to those cities that have gone into unrest or have had pollution one by one, fixing the problem, instead of desperately trying to remember where things happened as the notices flash by during the AI turn.

11. So my workers are all set to hut down and clean up pollution. Fine. They should STAY THAT WAY until I tell them differently, not change back waiting for orders every single time there happens not to be any pollution for them to deal with.

12. Small nag, but _please_ let me turn the stupid palace upgrading off.
__________________
"The number of political murders was a little under one million (800,000 - 900,000)." - chegitz guevara on the history of the USSR.
"I think the real figures probably are about a million or less." - David Irving on the number of Holocaust victims.
moomin is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 08:42   #17
moomin
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
King
 
moomin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Moo Like In Moomin
Posts: 1,579
gameplay issues
Here are the gameplay issues I'd like to see addressed in a patch. I won't bring up all the outright bugs, becuase there has been enough said 'bout them already.

1. I'm really, really disappointed to see that one of the MAJOR advances of SMAC - not needing to pave the whole goddamn planet with roads and railroads - has been lost again. Apart from the how ugly it is, it really is just so much more wasted micromanagement. Please fix it so that you need roads between cities, resources and colonies ONLY.

2. Localize pollution! If I build factories and hospitals in my core cities only, I shouldn't get pollution in my arctic oil outposts! Let me decide where that pollution happens so that I don't need to build roads on every single square of my entire territory to deal with it.

3. Give some kind of indication about a city (my own or the AIs) hanging on the brink of cultural defection.

4. Game balance issue; I've handily won on emperor going for an early all-out attack and vassal/tech trade strategy. I can't win a a builder even on regent - there has to be a rethink to allow for a viable builder game.

5. In the vein of 4, the AIs _must_ do better as far as connecting to strategic and luxury resources is concerned, so that they _can_ trade those resources. The number of times I've seen five horses within AI territory, and the AI only connects to one being unable to trade and forcing me to start a war.

6. Diversify governments! The total dominance of democracy may be historically motivted, but it kind of reduces the gameplay. I really miss the SMAC SE-settings...

7. Reduce the amount of money the AIs are willing to pay for a tech with the same rate that the research cost is reduced when more civs get that tech.
__________________
"The number of political murders was a little under one million (800,000 - 900,000)." - chegitz guevara on the history of the USSR.
"I think the real figures probably are about a million or less." - David Irving on the number of Holocaust victims.
moomin is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 08:46   #18
moomin
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
King
 
moomin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Moo Like In Moomin
Posts: 1,579
and finally a small trick
All those experiencing extreme slowdown during play:

Download and install the no-cd patch! This reduced turn and "recalculation" time by a factor of 10 or so for me playing on huge/16 civ...
__________________
"The number of political murders was a little under one million (800,000 - 900,000)." - chegitz guevara on the history of the USSR.
"I think the real figures probably are about a million or less." - David Irving on the number of Holocaust victims.
moomin is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:23.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team