NikNaks suggested that I should post a new thread with my idea. I'm not quite sure if first post shouldn't be someones inside modding team, but anyway.

This idea is what I called the chain of escalation. It will give player a chance to fight local wars, much like in modern world, where (at least I belive) a direct combat between USA and China over Taiwan won't immediately cause world war and nuclear exchange.

Local War
For example, this might be war where US and China fight over Taiwan, NATO and Soviets for Cold War Berlin, or from history, alternative version of beginning of WW2.
- can be declared only over 1 city certain, which must have less than 60% culture of enemy civ or must have 90% of culture and must be in riot.
- AI (original civs and all their allies/vassals) will attack/defend only such city (though may attack enemy units elsewhere).
- after 5 turns will either come to Cease Fire or Total War (given choice to both sides; if pre-war relations were at least 'cautious', high chance that both AIs will choose peace, not depending who owns targeted city).
- nukes can't be used.

Total War
More or less standart war from CIV4, but
- Cease Fire can't be declared for the first 10 turns. (because if civs wanted peace, they had a chance during Local War)
- AI tends not to use ICBM unless they lose more than 50% of original army or 50% of original territory.
- If any ICBM used, switched to Nuclear War (player of warned).

Nuclear War
I guess you will include that one Nuclear War Mod I saw somewhere here.
- every civ involved in Total War launch all their ICBM on enemy cities, targeting cities with ICBMs at first.
- some devastating and/or end-of-the-world (but not game) events occure.

Of course one would still has a chance to declare any kind of war. This's just basic idea, though I can imagine few more versions, such as Spy war and something else.

I think that diplomacy and trade options for the mod should be much more complex, and if possible closely tied with (not so random anymore) events, since job of most of the leaders today is to more of less conduct something connected to diplomacy and trade.

Brilliant ideas!!!

I have an addition:
Proxy War
The armament supply among civs should become more important. I'm not sure how to make it work but it should be custom that Civs supply wartime enemies of their enemy with units. That way they can weaken their enemy without having to go to war themselves.
I can think of several ways to do this:
- If a Civ gives a unit to another Civ the usual way (moving into the others therritory and donate it) it should have effects on diplomatic relations...like +1 for every 5 modern units.
OR/AND
- If a Civ asks you to join its war against another there should be a third option to answer like "No, but I will secretly supply you with weapons." Then a new diplomacy screen pops on and you can choose which of your units to transfer to the other Civ. But you can't just put a warrior on the table to buy your way out of it. The other civ has to accept it like any other trade. If you put too little on the table the "you refused to help us during war time" malus will appear. If your offer is accepted then there is no effect on relations. To gain a positive effect you additionally have to donate units the way I described before.

this sounds great. Is there any chance it will be made?

I'm not sure about Proxy War, I don't see any need to do it as special kind of war. The idea about helping other state/civ (how call them in the mod?) is great and should be included in this way, though I don't think there really must be a red lettered sign Proxy war with other civ... But anyway, your mod :-)

Nice thing about (so called) Proxy War might be giving civs one or two Privateer-like units, let's call them Advisors. You can help foreign civ wage war with Advisors, but they might be more expansive than normal infantry. If any of your Advisor is destroyed, effects on the diplomacy will be the same as if your spy was caught causing troubles + they can't capture cities.

Certainly also response to this (if you are attacked by third party Advisors) should be included, as I said above, I'd like to see most of this response as Events.

I'm not sure about Proxy War, I don't see any need to do it as special kind of war. The idea about helping other state/civ (how call them in the mod?) is great and should be included in this way, though I don't think there really must be a red lettered sign Proxy war with other civ... But anyway, your mod :-)

You're totally right. I didn't mean it as an "official" war option like your "Local War". My post was unclear. "Proxy War" was just the title of my ideas... :)

Nice thing about (so called) Proxy War might be giving civs one or two Privateer-like units, let's call them Advisors. You can help foreign civ wage war with Advisors, but they might be more expansive than normal infantry. If any of your Advisor is destroyed, effects on the diplomacy will be the same as if your spy was caught causing troubles + they can't capture cities.

I'd see Advisors doing something else: Provide allies with military training. You could build a limited amount of Military Advisors (larger civs should be able to build more...e.g. 1 Advisor per 5 cities). This Advisor can provide allied units in their home territory with experience. You move your Advisor on the same tile with an allied unit, press a button and this unit gains +1XP. You cannot use the Advisor to gain experience for your own units.

But the idea of Privateer-like units is good, too. These could actually be disguised soldiers like the USSR used in Korean War.

Yes, great idea, though i think it'll take some serious modding...

ianinsane: I don't know if this is propper thread, but I had an idea that experiences of units might adapt the same system as Espionage, that Barracks and such would generate XPs and later on you might use them to quick specialize your army without quite annoying micromanagment. From realistic point of view it's more like XPs are trained officiers getting new unit. There surely would be limits how far you can promote one units with there XPs, but anyway.
And, more importandly, XPs might be another tradeable item (propably with Espionage points). You could supply your allies with them, like you're sending him your military advisors.

How about a minor civ called Mercenaries, which are at war with everyone including you. You can, though, give them units directly through the diplomacy and ask them to attack a specific city = Proxy War

And is there such system in modern world? I don't think so.

Actually there is...think of Blackwater or Sandline International...

Great ideas everybody! will the mercenaires have cities? cause that would be strange.
and if they capture a city it should be going to the one who told them to do it.

Well, that was a good point with the Blackwater, but do they have enough manpower to conduct entire war? And aren't they still somewhat tied with some country?

Besides, I don't think it would be fun enough, in the game. You just send troops to neutral AI (which, I might be wrong though, will be another serious modding) and wait who will win. But if you acctualy send in your own privateer-like troops, if you are selling units/money/xps to that one coutry in war, it's IMO more fun. And game know how to count diplomacy and such if it's you, who is trading/attacking in this proxy war.

I was thinking that you can be friendly to a mercenary but they could eisly doble cross you if someones offers a better deal. Thel have a special diplomacy system so if you offer the deal to capture a city then they will have to give the city to you if they don't cancil it.

I understand your idea, I just don't see much fun in it. Especialy not with so many civs. There propably will be small number of wars (unless you want to make WW3, but than you propably just bring the world to its end), and with this type of mercenary proxy war, player really will be dealing mostly with Events, Espionage and such.

I think diplomacy shouldn't be so hard to affect as it is in many mod scenarios, for example: in a cold war scenario if Great Britain should change civics to communism (state property), shouldn't the US hate them then? no, cause they have +100 to each other, i think that is wrong. And some civics should also affect like if somebody changes to something that was his pleased friends opposite and it drops down to cautious or annoyed (depending on how many civics) with something like "we don't like your choice of civics" -1 or maybe 2 3 or some more depending on how many civics that was changed.

Raynor: half of all of civilization is war, and the other half is economy, proxy war is just combining them, making money from killing or spending money to stop war on you. It’s not necessarily fun (would be for me :)) to use this technique but it looks like an important thing for our near future so we can't ignore it.

I'm not denying proxy war idea, I'm just saying that doing it by mercenary civ is both boring and confusing. Just let player send in his own black ops troops, just let him help directly to a friendly civ with money and stuff. I'm only saying that game doesn't know how to count with mercenary civ, it would be too easy to pillage all enemy civ throught mercenary and they won't even know you was the one who did it to them...

i say mercenaries seems to be a good and realistic idea, but i don't think they should be any barbarian like civ

IMO it isn't bad idea, it just isn't neccesary to be included. There should be a system in game design and I don't see mercenary civ to fit into any propper system in Civ4 design, unlike privateer units and unlike trading/supplying friendly civ during wars. One can wage proxy war with privateer units and simple trade, mercenary civ is like doing the same thing twice, in this case supply of friendly civ with units/resources/XPs; IMO Blackwater and such companies are not powerfull and/or important enough to be part of Civ4 simulation of modern world. If you think they are, therefore you should also include media, stock markets, etc. etc.

IMO it isn't bad idea, it just isn't neccesary to be included. There should be a system in game design and I don't see mercenary civ to fit into any propper system in Civ4 design, unlike privateer units and unlike trading/supplying friendly civ during wars. One can wage proxy war with privateer units and simple trade, mercenary civ is like doing the same thing twice, in this case supply of friendly civ with units/resources/XPs; IMO Blackwater and such companies are not powerfull and/or important enough to be part of Civ4 simulation of modern world. If you think they are, therefore you should also include media, stock markets, etc. etc.

I partly agree with Raynor. It is complicated. It is not necessary to include mercenaries the way it is done in Total Realism Mod nor as a barbarian civ. And it is true that Blackwater & Co. are not powerful and important enough.
BUT it is quite likely that in the future with continuing privatization more and more state-run duties will devolve to private companies. Then military and security service companies will become more important. All the more as not quantities of armies will be important but quality. The major question is how to deal with that. IMO we cannot deal with that since civ simulates the actions of nation states. Properly dealing with it would mean to take away options from the player and give it to the AI with ongoing privatization. Starting with city micromanagement to workers to armies. And this won't be fun.
So I think we have to speculate a little bit in this way: Soon governments all around the world will discover that the more they privatize their governmental duties the more power they will lose to corporations. Since nobody likes losing control this trend will be reversed. If we assume this development for the future we don't need to deal with mercenaries.

Or you can allow player to build more privateer-like units, maybe through some Civic/Wonder/something. I'm talking about privateer attack being penalized with -1 after several attack; like after spy is catched causing troubles.

I mean, c'mon, if for example Blackwater blows up a Chinese ship by order of CIA, it can still be traceable to US, or at least everyone would be suspecting them. Beside conspiracies (which I guess can't be included in the mod) all that mercenary warfare just doesn't seem possible to me. Not without escalation at some point. And in mercenary civ it just won't be traceable.

And even if there will be such mercenary warfare in near future, it still will be ordered by states; especialy in Civ4 game mechanics, where you even control corporations... I agree with ianinsane. Either do more "corporation civs" or let it all on a player.

Insanely tough to code SDK Idea:

Revision of Civilization Relationships; currently, we have Defensive Pacts and Permanent Alliances. Why not expand on this?

Offensive Pact: Civilization A and Civilization B sign an Offensive Pact. Civilization A declares war on Civilization C. Due to their Offensive Pact, Civilization B declares war on Civilization C.

Defensive Pact: Same as original.

Voluntary Vassal: Civilization B agrees to become Vassal of Civilization A. Each has their own diplomacy, military, culture, etc, but an Offensive and Defensive Pact is signed between both.

Capitulation: Civilization B capitulates to Civilization A during war time. An Offensive and Defensive Pact is signed between both, and Civilization B cannot engage in Diplomacy.

I love the first idea. It would be perfect, but it sounds like it would be hard to include.

I must say I don't like the mercenary idea though. No offense, I love that people are being creative and coming up with ideas for this, I just don't think it will add enough to the mod to be worth it.

They have very little impact on today's world right? Blackwater is basically a privatized part of the US military. They can't go attack or invade another country without the US government telling them to.

A blackwater UU for the US would be very cool though. Thinking out loud now... maybe somehow we could allow the US to build a certain amount of these units per turn instantly, without having to spend a city's build time, but they cost a lot of money every turn.

Re: defensive pacts.

In the real word if one member of a defensive pact intitiates an intervention (low scale action) it doesnt mean that all defensive treaties are cancelled. Like portugal in the WW2 & The Falklands or the NATO treaty nations regarding the Iraq War.

Re: defensive pacts.

In the real word if one member of a defensive pact intitiates an intervention (low scale action) it doesnt mean that all defensive treaties are cancelled. Like portugal in the WW2 & The Falklands or the NATO treaty nations regarding the Iraq War.

Agreed. It would be great if low intensity conflicts did not cancel defensive pacts.

Regarding warfare, afew ideas?

Boarder \Limited Strike
- No cities taken little to no -diplomacy point internationally
- No cities captured
- Does not activate defensive agreements nor deactivate them for attacking force

Low intenisty warfare
-1 city captured
- Does not activate defensive agreements nor deactivate them for attacking force
- larger - diplomacy points for agressor

High intensity
- 2-10 cities captured
- Activates all offensive\defensive treaties.
- heavy -diplomacy points and + moderate diplomacy point for the defender

Total War
- 10+ cities have been captured
- 4 to 6 countries involved
- Activates all offensive\defensive treaties as above.
- extreme heavy -diplomacy points for attacker and + heavy diplomacy point for the defender

World War
- 7+ Civs involved
- All UN Resolutions become null and void, UN Wonder ceases to work.
- Activates all offensive\defensive treaties as above.
- War cannot end till one side or the other has vassalized the enemy or destroyed there Civ.

I love it Sheep21, great idea. The only thing I'd add, if possible;

After a war escalates to Low intensity warfare, it should occasionally activate defense agreements. That could be a risk you have to take when escalating a war. The existing relationship between the nations involved could be a factor.

I love it Sheep21, great idea. The only thing I'd add, if possible;

After a war escalates to Low intensity warfare, it should occasionally activate defense agreements. That could be a risk you have to take when escalating a war. The existing relationship between the nations involved could be a factor.

say a 25% or 50% chance?

say a 25% or 50% chance?

Yeah, something like 30-35 should do it.

i say mercenaries seems to be a good and realistic idea, but i don't think they should be any barbarian like civ
Most mercenaries were trained by real armies and then disbanded: how about any time anyone disbands a unit it is available for sale for a turn or two? Is that practical to code?

i disband a nuclear missile and its up for sale for 2 turns?

i disband a nuclear missile and its up for sale for 2 turns?
Yup. Scarily, that would make the game more realistic....

Another option would be mercs as a Corporation founded by a Great General, but I'm not sure how that'd work.

Yup. Scarily, that would make the game more realistic....

Another option would be mercs as a Corporation founded by a Great General, but I'm not sure how that'd work.

I know how it would work, the GG founds the Merc "Corporation" and instead of Producing Executives, it produces Mercs. I don't see how that's NOT feasable.

just though about vassals. could we rename them, say puppet state, a more fitting title in the modern era?
Also, if the puppet master civ goes to war, can it have the option of not having there puppet declare war? Sometimes it is not advantageous.
Perhaps its possible to have a form of economic vassalhood? this would be useful to represent the relationship between the first world & china with Africa. Afterall, france exerts economic influence in former french colonies in africa and china is moving in on a number of east african countries. just an idea chaps.

Very good ideas sheep21. Puppet state is definitely a better name.

It would be sweet if we could have the master civ decide when and where the puppets go to war, instead of them all fighting together all the time. Hopefully someone working on this will know how to code that. I sure don't right now.

We certainly have to find some way to represent the western and Chinese economic exploitation of Africa. Once we get the bulk of the work on this done, all the xml and everything, we can start figuring out what we can and want to do with sdk/python.

We certainly have to find some way to represent the western and Chinese economic exploitation of Africa.

Surely that's what the corporations are for? Why is anything else needed?

Surely that's what the corporations are for? Why is anything else needed?

Yeah you're right, that's what we'll do.

I think you should be able to adjust the amount of turns that a peace treaty lasts. Also, there should be different types of peace treaties that could correspond with the different wars

I also think that you should be able to threaten other civs

Some examples of threatening civs:

Cautious/Angry with:
You will give me ______ or I will (declare war on you / stop trading with you)

Friendly with:
Please give me ______ or (our friendship will end / I will declare war on you / I will stop trading with you)

Doesn't that already happen in the game sandman730? When I'm a weak civ I get threatened by hostile powerful civs, and if I don't pay, sometimes they declare war.

AFAIK I have been threated by the AI in normal games with threats of war if I dont give em resources\gold they want.

Doesn't that already happen in the game sandman730? When I'm a weak civ I get threatened by hostile powerful civs, and if I don't pay, sometimes they declare war.

Yah, but threatening someone is more direct than asking the civ for it and if they deny declaring war on them

We demand you give us (X)!

isn't that what they say? Anyway if you want to change the language they use, post exact phrases that you want to include, and we can make the changes.

We don't need any changes to the actual function though right? We have to avoid piling on programming changes for version 1.0. Look at the features thread and you will see that we have enough of that ahead of us as it is! We do actually want to release this thing in 2009. :-)

In fact we are aiming for a public release of version 1.0 in the first quarter of 2009.

Okay. I guess it is fine the way it is.

Not trying to shoot down your idea, like I mentioned, we can change the language to make it more threatening.

We're just trying to limit changes to the actual gameplay right now, since we have so many already.

Keep the ideas coming bro!


P.S. Love your sig!

Language eh? I'll have a go at that, here's some text I've knocked up for the AI leaders to spout out in rages of fury:

Demands
Give us what we want, or we shall give you the fury of our [enter unit].
You have had years of us not razing your capital, it's time you payed the price.
Friendship isn't free, pay the price.
Your Master demands a tribute to honour our glory!
To pay, or not to pay; you shall decide.
Give us what we need, or we will take what we want.
Our fruits grow bitter, we shall feast on yours tomorrow if you do not appease us.
Your lands are so plentiful and bounteous. They should be under our control. For a small price, you may keep them though..
Vermin like you do not deserve diplomacy, so consider this proposal benevolent.
I can almost see your cities from here. If you do not pay us tribute, I may see them no more..
Just like War, Peace is costly. This is how much:
I'm feeling partial to a spot of conqest. Will you stand against my hordes?
As much as I hate destroying an entire civilization, I also hate seeing such impressive soldiers go to waste, here are much demands:
We demand the following, for the good of Mighty [enter civ name].
Glorious [enter civ name] needs a bolstering to the coffers, we hope, for your sake, you can provide it.

lol, great stuff bud, I like it.

Actually shoot, I totally forgot... we had someone doing custom diplomacy for each leader. I don't think he has been doing it recently though. But the good news is, we can get even more specific.

He has some great stuff in there already, unfortunately a lot of it was for Bush.

So the best way for us to do this would probably to assemble a set of standard lines, like you have above, and then get custom ones for specific leaders. Let's try to use the kind of BS language that diplomats use these days. I'll put some thought into it and help you out later, I have to focus on units for now.