Alliance

Ok, I have another addition to the diplomacy between Allied Civs. I don't know if it was discusses already but here goes...

In Civ 1 and 2 you could take a city that originally belonged to an ally but was captured by a rival civ. Now in real life if you liberated that city and didn't give it back to the original owner - your ally, they would certainly break the alliance with you. Especially a city of importance (High population, Capital, etc.) So I propose a diplomatic addition to give cities to allies after their capture. For example - the WWII scenario. If you liberate Paris as the Allies you're going to want to give it back to the French. Maybe not right away, but when the war's over of course. Otherwise they're going to want to break the alliance with you or even declare war. Giving cities back to Allies should raise their opinion of you and make it extremely hard to cancel alliances after the hostilities are over (did anyone notice that cancelling alliances was a problem in Civ 2? After a war ended they always felt the need to end the Alliance) So what do you think?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[MidKnight Lament]

That's not a bad idea. Seems realistic. Relatively easy to implement. Adds detail without getting too complicated....

Yeah, I think I like it.

- MKL

[UltraSonix]

I like this idea - maybe after liberating an allied town, the ally should call you up and subtly suggest all sort of consequences if you don't hand back the town. Conversely, the ally would also view you much more favourably if you do hand back the town.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Ken Bregott]

More diplomacy and less to gain from war is OK with me. I'm for it.

[The Joker]

This is more or less a must. But the essential thing is, that there need to be some mechanisms in the game, that actually makes it less benefitial to keep such liberated cities, and possibly conquored cities generally, in modern times. These could be that your allies would like you less, but if nationalism is included there could be a far more powerful mechanism than that: Conquoring cities would make the chance of a civil war, which could spread across your civ higher. In stead I think that in modern times conquored civs/cities should be made into protectorates, with semiindependance, but still under your ascendancy. People in protectorates would be pretty unlikely to revolt against you.

[Par4]

Better AI, the comp realizes you have one of its cities it should ask for it back. Popular support in your country should change and sway for or against keeping allied cities liberated by you. Especially if they are helping with the war they would want it back.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[agent4043]

I'd really like to see relationships with allies extended in a number of ways. For one, I agree on the protectorate idea. Many times if I were to relinquish control back to my allies, they'd quickly loose it again. I'd really like to be able to stack and defend along side my allies within their city. Often I have to surround every city square to keep the enemy from moving in.

Airspace is another problem. There have been times I've tried to fly over a narrow channel and the number of ships my ally has makes it impossible. Sharing the space (either passing by or over a turn) should be possible. I think subs should have the ability too.

Also I thought it would be interesting if my allies or even a peaceful neighbor were able to buy passage on one of my convoys and vise-versa. ...eventually using each other's airports as well.

I'd like to see a loyalty factor added to the equation. Increases with positive interaction (trade, military, money loan, engineering improvement, etc.), decreases when you don't or over time. I think the role jealousy played in civ was a bit too persuasive too.
[This message has been edited by agent4043 (edited June 05, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by agent4043 on 06-05-2000 07:41 PM I'd really like to be able to stack and defend along side my allies within their city. Often I have to surround every city square to keep the enemy from moving in.

Exactly. You could also take advantage of City walls and SAM Missle Batteries...

quote: Originally posted by agent4043 on 06-05-2000 07:41 PM Airspace is another problem. There have been times I've tried to fly over a narrow channel and the number of ships my ally has makes it impossible. Sharing the space (either passing by or over a turn) should be possible. I think subs should have the ability too.

Definitely. Well said agent. To add, in Civ 2 if there is a bomber and an infantry unit in the same square and you try to attack with a howitzer (or other land unit) you can't destroy it because you can't attack air units. Doesn't make sense, needs to be changed.

quote: Originally posted by agent4043 on 06-05-2000 07:41 PM Also I thought it would be interesting if my allies or even a peaceful neighbor were able to buy passage on one of my convoys and vise-versa. ...eventually using each other's airports as well.

Why would they have to buy it? I just see it as free use of transport units by all Allies. That way, Allies can work cohesively for faster production! (Don't need seperate transports for seperate Allied Civs)

quote: Originally posted by agent4043 on 06-05-2000 07:41 PM I'd like to see a loyalty factor added to the equation. Increases with positive interaction (trade, military, money loan, engineering improvement, etc.), decreases when you don't or over time. I think the role jealousy played in civ was a bit too persuasive too.

Hmm..a loyalty factor sounds good to me. Back to what I was saying about capturing an allied city...not returning it could drop your loyalty to zero. Maybe it could be harder to cancel alliances when the loyalty rating is very high? Cause why would any Civ want to cancel a military alliance just becuase there is peace? This was a problem in Civ 2.

BTW: thanks to everyone for the support of the Allied city idea

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Torin]

I think it's a must that allies can stack a field together, use transporters and also use city buildings (airport for transports or PSI-doors in SMAC etc.) of allies. But I want to go one step further: in multiplayer games you can specify lifetime allies and also share benefits of wonders to share between allies. Per example (SMAC): if one member of ally builds the EmpathGuild so the other member(s) can also use it --> the secret services share their information. But can strong parties get much too strong because of this? Eventuelly there's the ability to specify whether a wonder is shareable or not or to set it in options ...

This should probably be in the WoW thread, but since you brought it up , there should be a way for Civs to share the cost of developing a wonder. Even if you can't share the effects, there are times when I want an ally to build a wonder just to keep it out of an enemy's hands. I could just give my ally cash to assist in the construction, but there is no way for me to get him to use the cash specifically for what I want him to.

Any thoughts?

------------------
"We are all greater artists than we realize."
-Nietzsche
[This message has been edited by Spekter@Home (edited June 08, 2000).]

[Torin]

Of course: if you can give your ally a caravan or supply crawler, so he can use it for building or (may be) a protype (SMAC) if he wants to make you angry ...
By the way: how about a ally that can`t be cancelled - multiplayer only, I think - as a prerequisite for sharing wonders ?

[Akron]

When you have captured a city that was your Ally's, you should also be able to hold it for some time until the front moves away or the war ends. This would be so that you can use production from that city to build necessary military units or improvements to help with the war effort.

Here's another thing to think about. What if you are attacking a foreign civilization with your Ally. Both of you attack the same city, but from opposite directions. How should the territory gained be split? Your Ally might have lost a lot of his troops while you suffered minimal damage, but you get the city more territory. Should Allies be able to demand that you split it up? And how? It needs to be split up equally, depending on how much each person has contributed to the war effort. (Can't really think of anything)

And yes, I agree that something has to be done about units blocking you. I remember in the WWII scenairo, Spain was blocking the Strait of Gibraltar. I just wanted to get my ships through, but couldn't do so because of this. Even civs that are at peace with you should let you through the spaces their units are on, just not on their land. I'm not sure about air space though, maybe a civ can demand it or something.

You should also be able to demand that your Ally leaves you territory, or a specific area.

I definitely like the idea for spending money for an allied wonder project. Example: Statue of Liberty (France). It would greatly improve your rating with that ally. I believe France and America have been allies from The American Revolution to present day. So it makes sense.

About dividing territory - I think this could get complicated, but I definitely like it. And if the alliance breaks things could get interesting . But it would be hard to implement in Civ, and ideas on how this could be done?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Quartz Dragon]

quote: Originally posted by agent4043 on 06-05-2000 07:41 PM Airspace is another problem. There have been times I've tried to fly over a narrow channel and the number of ships my ally has makes it impossible. Sharing the space (either passing by or over a turn) should be possible. I think subs should have the ability too. [This message has been edited by agent4043 (edited June 05, 2000).]

This problem is not present in SMAC. Any unit can enter any space occupied by allies.

I think Civ 3 should have no fly zones and demilitirized zones as a stipulation to the end of a war. It could be something debated on by the UN. Examples of this: Rhineland after WWI (Hitler Violated it, no one did anything - result - Poland is taken by German forces. Gulf War - no fly zone in Iraq. Even though Saddam managed to get around it and fly his choppers up to shoot his own people.)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Par4]

DMZs NFZs good, I like, you could select a hotly contested area or an area where an invasion could easily happen. NFZ could be over military bases or labs or something important. You should set up NFZs but they should hurt your economy and be only for the isolationist. UN could also do this stuff.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a consequence for losing a war. If there is a no fly zone over their territory than they can't fly their planes anywhere. Make sense? But I like your ideas as well Par.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Par4]

Oops the UN can do it, I meant other countries, like a punishment. I realized what you meant, just didn't put it very well.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

I think what we need is more and different types of peace treaties. A hostile peace treaty would prevent the signatories from overflying each others territory completely. Entering someone else's airspace is grounds for cancelling the treaty. A neutral peace treaty would allow them to overfly each other, but both would still have the right to demand the withdrawal of air units (like you can do with ground units already). Refusal to withdraw becomes grounds for cancelling th e treaty. A friendly treaty would give the right for overflight with no option for the demand for withdrawal. However they couldn't stack units. Stacking should be restricted to Allies only. I think these ideas would apply to ground units as well, but would perhaps require a bit of tweaking. Also, you'd need to set up some way for treaty status to fluctuate based on the relationship between the civs.

Any thoughts?

------------------
"We are all greater artists than we realize."
-Nietzsche

Spekter - that's a very good improv plan. I like it a lot. I hate the way the AI treats peace treaties like a promise with their fingers crossed. It's not realistic at all and I think your system would solve a few of the problems with diplomacy. If your civ hates another civ, than the peace treaty should be easily broken. But a longer lasting peace treaty or a treaty between two friendly civs should not be so easily broken. I also feel that friendly peace treaties should not have the right to "demand tribute" every turn. It gets annoying and I always refuse anyway. The refusal of tribute is not grounds for war, just less likeness towards another civ. Same with not sharing a tech. Good thoughts everyone, anything to add?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Jon Miller]

they should make civ3 so that allies actually matter and are could to keep and that taking over is not always advantageous, as it is it is always best to treat the treaty as a scrap of paper (and the A/i does this too) and use it to sneak attack

Jon Miller

[abuzayd]

quote: Originally posted by Akron on 06-08-2000 10:08 AM Here's another thing to think about. What if you are attacking a foreign civilization with your Ally. Both of you attack the same city, but from opposite directions. How should the territory gained be split? Your Ally might have lost a lot of his troops while you suffered minimal damage, but you get the city more territory. Should Allies be able to demand that you split it up? And how? It needs to be split up equally, depending on how much each person has contributed to the war effort. (Can't really think of anything)

Racing to claim enemy territory before your erstwhile ally does... dividing a single city up into occupation zones... sounds like the end of WWII to me.

I really like the idea of sharing Wonders benefits w/allies. But I think you should always be able to break alliances and stab your friends in the back, Diplomacy-style. Of course, you'd have to plan ahead and realize that you'd lose the benefits...

[UltraSonix]

I also agree with Spekter about the having different types of peace treaties.

It's about time that diplomacy in a game was really strengthened. At this forum we seem to concentrate mainly on the realistic modelling of how a civ would work, but we tend to leave out diplomacy and trade. One should be able to play Civ3 and has a country/civ of a small size but having considerable world influence through diplomacy, eg Switzerland.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Being able to Offer Loans to Allies. Breaking an alliance with paying back the loan ruins your rep massively, no one will sign a treaty or up with you and you must pay back the loan so you can get back your rep.

------------------
GAMEOPOLIS

[UltraSonix]

Gameopolis, it's a bit unfortunate that your first proper suggestion here already exists. The loans idea you mentioned above was implementeds in pretty much the way you described in SMAC.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited June 12, 2000).]

[Spekter]

quote: One should be able to play Civ3 and has a country/civ of a small size but having considerable world influence through diplomacy, eg Switzerland.

Does Switzerland really have that much influence? Calling Switzerland a world power is like calling Canada a world power (I can say that, because I'm Canadian ). Sure, most countries have heard of us, and we seem to have a good reputation in most places, but when push comes to shove we really aren't taken that seriously. If we want to push our agenda, we have to sucker one of the real world powers into backing us.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of much better diplomacy. However, would you really want to play Switzerland (or Canada ) for a whole game? Maybe I'm just too much the wargamer, but it doesn't seem like all that much fun to me.

[UltraSonix]

I guess it probably couldn't work to play a purely "Switzerland" - but still, I'd like a game which could be won diplomatically even though you're in a vastly inferior militaristic position.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Az]

quote: Originally posted by Spekter on 06-12-2000 04:43 AM Does Switzerland really have that much influence? Calling Switzerland a world power is like calling Canada a world power (I can say that, because I'm Canadian ).

have you see Southpark the movie ?

anyway the most annoying thing in Civ 2 was that plot : an allied civ asks you to break a peace treaty with its sworn enemy. I don't like them much either so I agree . the next time I meet them the are mad at me because my reputation is low . no logic.


------------------
Prepare to Land !

[Tiberius]

For me the most annoying thing was the fact that no matter how peacefully I played, they always sneak attacked me. And later, when I proposed a peace treaty, they didn't want to, because "they saw how I betrayed my friends"

The diplomacy model of CIV2 wasn't bad for its time, but it surely needs a lot of improvements. Fortunately Mr. Sid Meier promised this to us already .

Mr. Meier, there are some good ideas in this topic, too. Take a look!

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 15, 2000).]

I think the main thing is, the AI should play like that in the early stages, but gradually **** to a more peaceful method, like after the UN, who's gonna sneak attack a country with nukes and then not have peace? Simple things like this need to be changed to make the game better. Along with having the Civ Love you one turn (enthusiastic) because you gave it 1000 gold, and the next turn it hates you again (uncooperative)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"