Please discuss diplomacy in this thread.

(!) Addon to diplomacy (!)

Something like trading resources but differant and possibly hard to code:

1) What im thinking is to acctually "sell" and "buy" worker(including slaves), scouts, navy via diplomacy. What i want it to do is this:
When ever you/AI have a navy/scout/worker stationing in capitol, it can buy it as a resource (like iron) for 20 turns (10 turns is too small for worker), and "bought" worker instantly showes up in your capitol, but has no moves left, and costs no maintanance or just gives you +1 free unit, and works whith same speed as normal workers. After time runs off the trade is still active, but you no longer have this unit as a free one. When the person you bought the unit from decides the deal is done, this woker just dissapears from you country and comesback to its oner capitol.
Same thing would work whith scouts.
This was done on "slave" markets. Like Gladiators werent only thos that were cought by Romans, but also those that were bought from lets say Egypt.

For navy units its harder, as 2 condiion will have to be made in order to do this:
[a] Owner must have navy unit in its capitol, witch is also a harbor city.
[b] Buyer needs a coastal Capitol.

2) The thing along the open border that is missing - improoving. Lets say you as a player can pay lets say 10 gold/turn, and the enemy will send some of his workers to do automated improvemants in your city exept chopping down trees and jungles, but can build all improvements the owner of this units has. For instance, you dont have animal husbandary and calender, so you cant build pasture and plantation, but if you hire improvemant works from a civ that has knows those technologies, than his worker can build those improvemants on your terrain.
Same thing should be let for you.
How ever paying cant be so easy, as you will agree to improve enemy, and you wont send a single worker to his country, but still recive the gold. This way i say it should be done this way:
[a] After you have Open Borders, you will be able to give, or take (needs permision from other side, might require war, friends, tribute, threat) the new diplomatic option "foreign works".
[b] You wont get paid by turn, not from signing (unless signing this trade will give you a tribute of one time pay, or resource (strategic, luxuary, worker, scout, navy unit, gold in meaning of money not resource) per turn.
[c] The pay from working will be given to you when ever you will send a worker to enemy and start the improvemant (still cant pillage old ones, also meaning cant switch irigation into cottage, but can switch into mine when under a farm or cottage there is a resource that requires a mine eg copper).
The pay for work should look like this
5 gold for road (1/turn, and 2 for finish) [this may have problems whith stacked worker improving, when 2 workers build same improvemant on same title, so lets say in that case the work cost increases by 75% for every addonitional worker (adds only to base cost)]
30 gold for farm (3/turn, 9 for finish)
25 gold for mine (3/turn, 4 for finish)
30 gold for cottage (4/turn, 10 for finish)
50 gold for fort (5/turn, 10 for finish) [fort might have bad counting as i dont know how long it takes to build it] + fort can be constructed only on titles away from city radious.
20 gold for raildoad (2/turn, 10 for finish) [also might be worng calculated]
50 gold for lumbermill (4/turn, 10 for finish)
28 gold for windmill (2/turn, 10 for finish)
and so on.

3) Buying production (!)
Its reality, as Hitler bought production in russia before WW2. What i mean is in diplomatic screen, you can buy a foreign city whith opened border production allowing you to build units (only units) that will be affected (promotions and expitiance) by Buyers civics (like Feudalism, Theocracy) and wonders (Art of War), buy unit selection is limited to enemy technology and enemy resources (you can still give him/her your only Iron to make swordsman in her country), you can build your UU, but you cant create foreign UU, or foreign religion special units, unless you share same religion, but still the city in witch you bought must meet requiremants for production (access to Capitol in order to recive Iron, and cristianity, and cristian temple to build a Crusader).

Selecting the city is simple, you just select it like "selling city", so diplomatic menu should look like this:
resourcs;
-Iron
-Copper
-Ivory
-Wheat
production city;
-Madrid
-Barcelona
-Seville
production city cost:
production length

So you just select a AI city (on AI side of diplomatic screen) and tham select "production city cost" and type in the cost in hammers (gold per turn window) and "production length" witch is the numbers of units you want to build in enemy city.
By saying "production cost" i mean the cost of every 10 hammers (i prefer shields as it was in civ3, just so used to it). So depanding on city production speed is your paying. For instance - if a city has 5 hammers, and your production cost is set to 2 gold for 10 hammers, that means you will pay that foreign civ 1 gold per turn.

Unfortunatly, when the city in witch you have bought production will be captured/razed by other AI/barbarian (well, barbarians are AI too, buy saing that they are [Artificial] inteligant is a mistake :p) The deal is cancelled whith no negative result on disposition, and your production as well as gold is lost.

There is also a problem whith what the civ that have sold the production. Well also simple. When you will sell production city to foreign civ, the city witch you have sold will start building "[Foreign civ name] - [unit name]" (example : Spain - Swordsman) and this build will be wealth like. If it can bring any other beneficts than money for production, it may be also be culture, and sciance, as foreign culture in in your country. Also you cannot switch this production (all other in your city are darkned[unavailable], like crusader in Cristian country whith no temple build).

I know it can be dont. Faith dies last.

*This requires opened borders, opened borders cannot be canceled, when production city is bought.*

Pleeease revamp the UN. It just looks like you pc shat out data into a text box. Could you give it its own graphical window, or at least some formatting and color coding in the results box.

More proposal options would be good too, like trade sanctions against a civ that uses slavery, or uniting the council against one really powerful civ.

Pleeease revamp the UN. It just looks like you pc shat out data into a text box. Could you give it its own graphical window, or at least some formatting and color coding in the results box.

More proposal options would be good too, like trade sanctions against a civ that uses slavery, or uniting the council against one really powerful civ.
Agree totally!

Since all civs seem to take slavery for a time, adding a slave trading option to diplomacy wouldnt be bad. Or you could enable them to be hired as mercenaries, but you get the one payment for them and thats it. They cannot be recalled back.

Wonder if Houman ever reads this threads ^^
The onyl good thing is that Posts are actually larger than sigs :p

Wonder if Houman ever reads this threads ^^
The onyl good thing is that Posts are actually larger than sigs :p
I agree with you. At least the quality of the posts is more than: Oh my God I have a CTD what do I do. :mischief:

I think there should be more UN Resolution like
1] Imposing of Embargo : You can get UN to pass resolution against a country to impose blockade of trade against a particular country.
It can be total blockade or partial like only on strategic minerals or bonus resources. It also can be very specific like Blockade of some particular resource like Uranium or Oil.
2] Option of joining UN : I think countries must be provided with option to join and leave UN. If a particular country joins UN it will not only avail its benefits but must also accept all its resolutions. And to make it realistic as well as fun, members of UN must get relations boost and people [if there is modern gov.] get happier.
3] I also feel nations must be provided with options to establish Organisations and Communities of there own.
It can be military organisation like NATO, with option of not only Def. pact but also Off. Pact.
Peaceful Orgs. can be like for combined Science Research, exchange of Non Combatants like Settler Worker and will provide Relation boost if these nations are trading partners.
Though Organistion could be established from medieval Age but upkeep must be there with regards to its participation.

I think there should be more UN Resolution like
1] Imposing of Embargo : You can get UN to pass resolution against a country to impose blockade of trade against a particular country.
It can be total blockade or partial like only on strategic minerals or bonus resources. It also can be very specific like Blockade of some particular resource like Uranium or Oil.
2] Option of joining UN : I think countries must be provided with option to join and leave UN. If a particular country joins UN it will not only avail its benefits but must also accept all its resolutions. And to make it realistic as well as fun, members of UN must get relations boost and people [if there is modern gov.] get happier.
3] I also feel nations must be provided with options to establish Organisations and Communities of there own.
It can be military organisation like NATO, with option of not only Def. pact but also Off. Pact.
Peaceful Orgs. can be like for combined Science Research, exchange of Non Combatants like Settler Worker and will provide Relation boost if these nations are trading partners.
Though Organistion could be established from medieval Age but upkeep must be there with regards to its participation.


On the question of defensive pacts, permanent alliances, etc... A lot could be improved by just allowing permanent alliances to involve more than 2 countries. Even allowing 2 different permanent alliances to combine into one big one. Would love to see 18 civs divided into 3 large permanent alliances at the end of a game, let the war to end all wars begin!


Diplomacy is such a tough one it seems, maybe the developers could give us some guidance about what is really possible in changing the diplomacy functions and what things are either too hard to code or won't be handled well by the AI?


Other things that have bothered me is that there is no dynamics to diplomacy, you delcare war on someones friend, they are going to remember that for 1000's of years. Some of these modifiers should decay over time perhaps.

Striking the right balance while completely overhauling the diplomacy in Civ IV seems like a tough project.

I agree. Negative modifiers should be forgotten over time. I would hope that france has forgiven germany for the repeated invasions, especially given that very few if any responsible for those invasions are still alive.

WarKirby

I agree. Negative modifiers should be forgotten over time. I would hope that france has forgiven germany for the repeated invasions, especially given that very few if any responsible for those invasions are still alive.

WarKirby

I agree.

@anybody

I think maybe open borders should only be allowed for countries taht are pleased with each other. i dont think a country who is cautious would allow another countries' military to cross across their land. Or better yet the implementation of two types of open borders. open trade and the open borders to allow passage of military units..(i think someone mentioned this before) however i think it would be quite difficult to get the ai to correctly use this.

what about being able to offer open borders for money or something?

but either way i think this could possibly deserve some consideration:D

some thoughts?

yes, at least i am reading all your posts. but now i have too much work at work and too much problem with this CTD debugging, so i am unable to react to every post :)

Yes if you raze a holy city and they change to another religion the offence should be forgotten.

What about forgiveness or amnestia.

Like when i attack any one i will have "-1 you declared a war against us" for the rest of the game.

Good we have you have "traded whith our worst enemies" get erazed as you seaze all active trades, and never trade whith him.
Also religion disposition changes.

But thing as "you refused to give us tribute" "you made and arrogant demand" "you declared war on us" "you brought friends against us" "you razed our city" stay to the end of game.

"you razed out holy city" penalty should stay for ever. Even after he will switch to other religion as they can never forget what you did to their history, old religion and culture.

One thing I hate with diplomacy is being asked to declare war against someone, an live with the consequences.

Warring countries can be substained with other means than direct involvment (see USA in WWII with GB). What I would love to see is a 3rd option in the middle:
1: declare war
1.5: we can't get involved directly at the moment, but we want to help out...
2: we won't go to war

Of course this would obviously reflect on the boni and mali.

See if this makes any sense for you.

PS: And yes, I agree on a forgetful AI...

One thing I hate with diplomacy is being asked to declare war against someone, an live with the consequences.

Warring countries can be substained with other means than direct involvment (see USA in WWII with GB). What I would love to see is a 3rd option in the middle:
1: declare war
1.5: we can't get involved directly at the moment, but we want to help out...
2: we won't go to war

Of course this would obviously reflect on the boni and mali.

See if this makes any sense for you.

PS: And yes, I agree on a forgetful AI...



I like this idea, and there are many more like it that would be great to implement, especially considering how poor the diplomacy is to begin with, but is this an example of something that might be easy to code, but difficult for the AI to use well?

I know Mexico is coding like mad, maybe Houman could talk a little bit about what kinds of things seem doable and an example of something that would be next to impossible.



As an aside, I think the trading and/or sharing of information could be a part of diplomacy. For example, you could trade or buy the information that a spy or an informant has on an enemy Civ through the diplomacy screen. Buying this information wouldn't reveal everything inside the Civ's borders that you are buying from, but rather any cities of other Civ's that they are able to see, either by being nearby or having a spy or informant on the scene.

I feel there is so much to be done with this aspect of the game, there should be more grey area in relations between Civ's, but of course, balancing wholesale changes in diplomacy might be the toughest part of it all. No one wants to see Happy Hippos return or Civ's that end up in constant warfare.

I agree.

@anybody

I think maybe open borders should only be allowed for countries taht are pleased with each other. i dont think a country who is cautious would allow another countries' military to cross across their land. Or better yet the implementation of two types of open borders. open trade and the open borders to allow passage of military units..(i think someone mentioned this before) however i think it would be quite difficult to get the ai to correctly use this.

what about being able to offer open borders for money or something?

but either way i think this could possibly deserve some consideration:D

some thoughts?

Nice, but note that opened borders increace your disposition. So not sure if it were to change at all.

I agree.

@anybody

I think maybe open borders should only be allowed for countries taht are pleased with each other. i dont think a country who is cautious would allow another countries' military to cross across their land. Or better yet the implementation of two types of open borders. open trade and the open borders to allow passage of military units..(i think someone mentioned this before) however i think it would be quite difficult to get the ai to correctly use this.

what about being able to offer open borders for money or something?

but either way i think this could possibly deserve some consideration:D

some thoughts?

Nice, but note that opened borders increace your disposition. So not sure if it were to change at all.

BTW: in spanish "copa del Rey" player named Paz (from Cadiz) score a hattrick and owngoal :lol: his team won 3:2 :lol:

Some option for the player to enable a "refuses to talk" would be very nice. Even other civs that hate me are making annoying diplomatic proposals every turn. (esp. thinkin of my special friend genghis khan, damn horsewhisperer).

Yes a setting 'refuse to talk' would be good. Sometimes you just want to be isolationist or focus on whats really going on than hear the constant "can i have a free technology", the threats, offers to join wars etc etc.

Bah! Im taking over the world, i dont want to hear your pathetic whining, or requests! (That would be an amusing response option)

Rather than a setting, just a dialog box beforehand saying something like

An <insert nation here> emissary has arrived and wishes to speak to you.

Grant him an audience
Send him away


In the modern era, this could be changed to

"Mr President, <insert leader name> is on the line. Do you wish to speak to him?"

Put him on
Tell him I'm not in


Or perhaps a more serious alternative:lol:

WarKirby

Rather than a setting, just a dialog box beforehand saying something like

An <insert nation here> emissary has arrived and wishes to speak to you.

Grant him an audience
Send him away


In the modern era, this could be changed to

"Mr President, <insert leader name> is on the line. Do you wish to speak to him?"

Put him on
Tell him I'm not in


Or perhaps a more serious alternative:lol:

WarKirby
Sounds good to me. :goodjob:

someone should ask the lopez for those particular request for diplomacy mod component which i think are good. the point being though is that diplomacy revamps are a project all by itself which could possibly add much more work to houman and mexico and other team members that arent quite as actve on the forums..

Another great thing from Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod:
"Congresses"

From time to time - congress of various city is taking place where most powerfull civilizations can trade cities which are interesting for them. If move of a city from one civ to another find acceptation by majority of others - it is traded.

Great thing! Very historical :)

I should be able to make demands on an AI civ, just like they do to me. I can't stand how I can't even choose a certain tech in the diplo screen, just because they 'don't want to start trading it away just yet'! Human players should be able to threaten war in exchange for an item, before actually declaring it.

I agree!
This drives me crazy too!
Worst change in diplomacy comparing to civ3

I should be able to make demands on an AI civ, just like they do to me. I can't stand how I can't even choose a certain tech in the diplo screen, just because they 'don't want to start trading it away just yet'! Human players should be able to threaten war in exchange for an item, before actually declaring it.

Agreed it's an annoying element of the diplomatic game. At least GalCiv2 lets you at least ask it of the opposing Civ, even if they'll ask you if you're smoking something for demanding it. :)

When I played Civ 3, I used to ask the impossible of an AI civ to piss them off into declaring war in my turn so I had the first round strike. :D

Nowadays, if something I want is listed in Red, I just end the dialogue and invade. Gotta love that (mostly) lack of diplomatic consequence for declaring war. :D

Is it just me, or is it impossible to get another civ to declare war on one of your enemies? Of course, since you can't bribe them with tech, that option is out. I suppose if I saved up 20000 gold or something, maybe I could bribe 'em that way, but if I had that much money, I'd be quite capable of fighting my own wars, thank you very much ;)

Don't get me wrong - I still prefer the way the tech system works in TR. It's just that I feel more like "me vs. the world" than having any sense of allies. At best, I have a few nations that are Friendly/Pleased, and they (almost) never attack me.

One last thing - even my bestest buddies will still have the "Stop trading with X..." options redded out. This plays into the "me vs. the world" theme, because they always let their territory be used as a staging ground/avenue of attack for my worst enemies, who wheel their Stacks O' Doom right up to my doorstep before declaring war. In real life, I'd say to my neighbor - "Either keep X out of your lands, or I'll take that real estate off your hands for you!" :mad: :nono: :hammer:

Is it just me, or is it impossible to get another civ to declare war on one of your enemies? Of course, since you can't bribe them with tech, that option is out. I suppose if I saved up 20000 gold or something, maybe I could bribe 'em that way, but if I had that much money, I'd be quite capable of fighting my own wars, thank you very much ;)

Don't get me wrong - I still prefer the way the tech system works in TR. It's just that I feel more like "me vs. the world" than having any sense of allies. At best, I have a few nations that are Friendly/Pleased, and they (almost) never attack me.

One last thing - even my bestest buddies will still have the "Stop trading with X..." options redded out. This plays into the "me vs. the world" theme, because they always let their territory be used as a staging ground/avenue of attack for my worst enemies, who wheel their Stacks O' Doom right up to my doorstep before declaring war. In real life, I'd say to my neighbor - "Either keep X out of your lands, or I'll take that real estate off your hands for you!" :mad: :nono: :hammer:

Hi Man,

I agree with you about some of these points. The problem with the tech system we use (no trade but bonus with open frontiers) is it allows both trade, tech exchange and military agreement. I will be happy the day when a good system will be built that make a difference between trade/tech and military.

About "me against the world": when i look at the history of my own country (France) i can say that we made wars against ALL European countries (unless one if i'm right: Poland) and even some far away from us ( Japan, China, Mexico for example). So, i think it's logical. The problem is to not too many wars at the same time....

Hian the Frog.

<snip>... About "me against the world": when i look at the history of my own country (France) i can say that we made wars against ALL European countries (unless one if i'm right: Poland) and even some far away from us ( Japan, China, Mexico for example). So, i think it's logical. The problem is to not too many wars at the same time....

Hian the Frog.

Don't tell that to the Sun King ;) :D

I read here great ideas, e.g.: cogresses, UN restructuring, the inequality of possibel demands between AI and human player etc.

I am not sure if it works in Total Realism, because i never ever tried, but i would like to write about PERMANENT ALLIANCE.

Maybe, it should be available much earlier and not for the rest of the game. And not only two players should be able to make but many. Like the European Union nowadays.
I think it happened even in the Ancient Ages that two states joined together for a while.
It could a good dipmlomatic method to come out from disadvantageuos situation through allying yourself with other lesser nations.

War kirby has some great ideas. It annoys me when many leaders keep trying to talk to me, plead for tech or their lives. Civ so and so requests an audience and having the ability to turn them away would be great. perhaps just a pop up box in the corner, allowing you to ignore it? because in multiplayer if a human player wants to talk you can just ignore it.

permanent alliances should come earlier, after all joining together and ganging up on an adversary is a very primitive tactic and should be available early.

and the demands need to be made available. they bother me with nonsense, i want to do the same.

all good ideas guys

permanent alliances should come earlier

Agreed. In XV vnetuary or in the end of XIV Poland and Litvia have made such alliance, witch lasted till partitions of Poland.

If we talk about civs currently in-game, are there any historical examples of permanent alliances between them at all?

Spain (Catalonia, Castilla, Leon) dont know if this can be counted, as they were conquered, by Castillians.

China. Its ?clans? were "unificated"

No, between civs, as in game.

England and Celts. Today its United Kingdom, or Great Britain.

I haven't posted here in monthes....

You're right, Anaz. Our treaty of union is the only case of a permanant alliance I can think of in history.

Also, I always disable the "No Tech Trading" thing. I can't stand not being able to use my superior technology to my advantage.

WarKirby

Pardon me, but you are wrong,

Not only Britain and Scotland made a "permanent alliance in history"

For example, just in Europe: as it was said in this topic before, Poland and Lithuania had a "permanent alliance", Russia and Ukraine had a permanent alliance, Austria and Hungary had a permanent alliance, and Spain is also made up of some permanently allied lands - Spain became to exist with the wedding of Isabella and Ferdinand, meaning the unfiacation of Castilla and Aragón.

BUT in history permanent alliances do not last to "end of the game" :)

Pardon me, but you are wrong,

Not only Britain and Scotland made a "permanent alliance in history"

For example, just in Europe: as it was said in this topic before, Poland and Lithuania had a "permanent alliance", Russia and Ukraine had a permanent alliance, Austria and Hungary had a permanent alliance, and Spain is also made up of some permanently allied lands - Spain became to exist with the wedding of Isabella and Ferdinand, meaning the unfiacation of Castilla and Aragón.

BUT in history permanent alliances do not last to "end of the game" :)

He was talking about permanent alliances between actual in-game civs. And alliance between England and Celts can't be considered permanent too, as Ireland is independent now, BTW.

Ireland are just serfdom rebels :D

Question: Is it hard to implement diplomatic influence? (thos +2, -3 etc.)
If no, why don't complicate more political scene. My suggestions:

1. War Crimes
It is already a negative effect for that: "you raze one of my cities" but only from civ that suffered. What about global penalty from all other democratic civs like:

-"You are a war criminal!" - negative effect, higher with number of razed cities
(only from civs with civics: classical democracy, representation universal sufrage)

Is it possible to apply that also to pillaging cottages or towns? Gengis Chan rules!


2. Nucler Powers
Comparing quantity of ICBMs

- "We respect your nucler strength" - positive effect
(only from cives which don't have ICBMs at all)

- "You have too much nucler missiles!" negative effect, higher with difference between quantity of ICBMS
(only from cives which have less ICBMs but more than 0 and with no open boarders agreement signed)

... and cold war begins!


3. Dictators and democratic leaders
Comparing civics

- "You're nasty dictator!" - negative effect
(only from civs with civics: classical democracy, representation universal sufrage to civs with: despotism, hereditialy rule, totalitarianism)

- "You are weak decadents! - negative effect
(only from civs with civics: despotism, hereditialy rule, totalitarianism to civs with: classical democracy, representation, universal sufrage)

- "Welcome to our democratic community" - positive effect
(from other civs with democtratic civics)

- "Let's unite against democratic cowards" - positive effect
(from other civs with despotic civics)


4. Leave us alone!

- "You're not welcome in our borders!" - negative effect
(from civs with mercantilism civic)


5. Trade relations

- "Your speculators make our nation poor" - negative effect
(from civs with state property civic to civs with free market)

- "Deregulate your market!" - negative effect
(from civs with free market civic to civs with other economic civics)

- "Laissez-faire!" - positive effect
(from civs with free market civic to other civs with free market)

6. Ecology

- "Take care about the planet!" - negative effect
(from civs with enviromentalism to civs with other economic civics)


Values can be disscused. What do you think?

any feedback? is this possible? easy or hard to implement?

any feedback? is this possible? easy or hard to implement?

Diplomacy is hardcoded for the most part. BtS might fix that, though. They promised to make more things moddable.

Could you change it that whenever you support your ally and declare war on someone that declared war on them (or getting a vassal whos in war with others) you still get the "You declared war on us!" relation penalty?
Now really, if you declare war on someone you can hardly be angry that their ally declared war on you. Actually in the official meaning in this case you declared war on the ally too. The fact that you dont have to honour an alliance doesnt mean that doing so is not the natural and expected result.
At the next step, you should actually get positive relation if you dont honour the alliance and dont declare war.

i dont think anyone can do much with diplomacy. Atleast untill BtS expantion.

I disagree! You already did much. Just look at favourite religion effect.

Its a simple disposition midifier. It can be added. But length of penalty does seem to work.

Okay, then maybe lowering the "declared war" and "razed one of our cities" penalties? Or reducing their timeout? I find it really unrealistic that if you declare war on a civ and raze one of their cities then you can just completely forget to have good or even neutral relation with them in the future.

Which in many cases leads me to the solution to create a demilitarized zone at my border with especially bothersome enemies by razing their border cities. (talking about long-time borders where cities have high enough culture to prevent re-establishing the cities, or if they still build new ones those wont have any effect on the border)

I tried it on my own and setting this in XMLS seems not to work. 300 turns and shes still mad at me :(