What do you guys want to see enhanced/added/fixed and revamped in the diplomacy option in Conquests?

With Fixed alliances confirmed, what can we expect?

Thoughts, comments? Wild dance moves?

I just want to be able to trade units and make peace between two countries at war.

Oh, and have I mentioned before that I want a better AI? ;)

To answer my own question


(leaving out fixed alliances for now) The following general diplomatic options should be included.

- Some form of unit trading (if it needs to be restricted to avoid exploits, I'm cool with that)

- Ability to stop wars



AI Modifications
-Anything the human can do (unit trade/stop wars etc) the AI must also do. There is nothing worst than getting a feature the walks like, talk like and waddles like a feature put in for the "humans only". The AI doesn't use it and it ends up giving human players a disproportionate advantage in "shaping" the game.

-Make the AI plan ahead more frequently and decisively. It is common human strategy to bring in multiple parties against the AI in a war. The AI does this, but they take too long. Usually several turns before they start dragging other Civs in. A planned attack, or defending against a human attack should

-More agressive AI tech trading -- Too easy for humans to play tech brokers, where they buy an expensive tech from an AI, then turn around and sell it to another AI for another tech, thus getting 2 techs for the price of 1. I'm not saying humans should be denied this, but at least the AI should be able to do it. This may help them hold on to their leads longer.


More as I think of them.

Also, fix the ability of the AI *not* to know where all the resources are and units of the human player are.
Everything that the human player knows the AI should know. Everything that the human player dose not know, the AI should not know. This will balance out the game a bit.

The only diplomatic options I'd really like to see added are those mentioned. Fixed diplomacy, which is apparently included in some form, and an option for a third party to request/coerce/bribe one of two warring nations to make peace. The problem with this latter option is that all civ3 diplomacy is conducted between 2 nations at a time, and the war-stopper really requires 3. It can probably be worked around, at least in single-player, but it is not as easy as it might first appear. As for other issues such as AI improvements and customization options, there are lists all over, some of which I've contributed to, and at this point I'm waiting to see what kinds of things are there before I start going nuts with the suggestions ;)

To be able assume a neutral position on wars like Switzerland. (I'm a builder);)

A better "negotiation table" interface. With keyboard control.

Unit trade and re-trade resources.

I'd like to see better and stronger nukes(both ICBMs and Tact Nukes). Maybe biological and chemical warfare as well(link that to Espionage; "Release Virus": A city suffers one pop drop every turn until it is cleaned up(A different "Clean Pollution" button perhaps?))

I would like to be able to decide whether to say "please remove your troops from our territory" or "get out or declare war". That way you could enforce your borders much more effectively agaisnt scouts, workers, and settlers.

Also, train the AI to use artillery. I think that would be huge in terms of how a lot of people fight wars.

:hmm: I don't have PTW so perhaps the AI is better at artillery use.

First, I should NEVER be penalized for breaking a treaty when it isn't my fault. If I trade GPT to a civ for a technology, and that civ is killed off by another civ before the 20 turns ends, that's not my fault.

If I'm trading GPT to a civ, and that civ then attacks me, it's not my fault.

If I'm trading GPT to a civ, and that civ loses it's harbor city to another civ, it's not my fault.

The idea behind those things is great: if I break a gpt deal, other civs are less likely to give me gpt deals. In practice, it sucks. The last 3 games I've played, gpt deals have been nearly impossible, and it was never my fault.

Also, I'd like a better advisor. If I am about to start a war, instead of just a warning "Are you sure" screen, tell me which treaties I'm about to break. Warn me that they have a MPP with my trading partner. Along the same lines, warn me on the turn before trade agreements, peace treaties, and other agreements expire.

Also, I'd like to see the UN used differently. The owner of the UN should get to call votes to impose sanctions. If a country launches an aggressive war, you could have a UN vote to impose an embargo. If the aggression continues, you could have a UN vote to declare hostilities against the aggressor. The embargos and military alliances formed at the UN would be free of cost to the owner. Also, you should be able to impose sanctions for using nukes (or even building nukes maybe). Also, maybe allowing sanctions for excess pollution.

Unit trades are a must. It expands the diplomacy options significantly by allowing you to essentially fight a war by proxy.
I like inudog's idea of another option short of war to urge the AI to remove its rabble from my land.
The peace broker idea is nice too. It should get you a rep boost, especially with the factions at war.
Perhaps the ability to negotiate placement of airbases in another civs territory would be useful.
Selling food and/or shields to other civs would expand the table but I can't quite see how it would be usefull.:)

Inudog:
You already have this ability. When a unit from a Civ does not have a ROP with you, if you go to the diplomacy screen one of the options is usually something like "Remove your forces from our territory or declare war!"

Also, I really wish people would stop making references like this:

Also, fix the ability of the AI *not* to know where all the resources are and units of the human player are.
Everything that the human player knows the AI should know. Everything that the human player dose not know, the AI should not know. This will balance out the game a bit.


First, in order to address this problem, you have to understand the tech design of the game. Its a computer. How do you make a computer not know where something is in the game? If it forgets where all the units are, it forgets where your units are and that will end the game quick! :D

Lets tackle the question as it should be, by taking up a notch. Currently when the AI processes its moves, it takes into consideration the position of resources that are not currently visible to a human player. To phrase the "functionality" correctly, the AI prioritizes areas with strategic resources over other areas, regardless of the civs current tech level. Perhaps a correct change would be for the AI to ignore undisplayed resources based on its own tech level until that advance was reached.

The only reason why I say this is because the current phrasing is ridiculous, and because the current phrasing doesn't address the issue nor provide a proper solution.

If we stick to things with a reasonably chance of being implemented, I want to be able to cajole warrings civs into making peace, and to have the rules for when you're blamed for the breach of a treaty overhauled.

More optimistically, I'd want to be able to pay civ A to fight civ B without being at war with B myself. A kind of "proxy war". Being able to lend out units to A during this would of course be great, especially if there was a risk that B discovered this, which of course would blacken you rep similarly to espionage actions. There could be given chance of discovery each time one of the lended units are defeated, as captives are interogated.

Edit: Grammar and spelling.

Originally posted by Hellfire

First, in order to address this problem, you have to understand the tech design of the game. Its a computer. How do you make a computer not know where something is in the game? If it forgets where all the units are, it forgets where your units are and that will end the game quick! :D


No, the designers should be able to program it in. It's ridiculous that a civ plops a city in some crappy desert or tundra terrain in 3500 BC, only to have oil or Iron Works resources appear to the human 4500 years later. In analyzing city placement, the computer must currently look at food, shields, gold, resources, and luxuries available. All you have to code is, when viewing resources, count only those which have been discovered. It's no more difficult than telling me I can't build a tank without oil.

@Hellfire:

Originally posted by Hellfire
Inudog:
You already have this ability. When a unit from a Civ does not have a ROP with you, if you go to the diplomacy screen one of the options is usually something like "Remove your forces from our territory or declare war!"

You are correct to a certain degree. But, have you ever tried this when there was a only a worker, scout, or settler in your territory? The option you will have is something to the effect of "Please remove your forces from our borders." To which the AI responds OK and either leaves or doesn't (usually doesn't). It is only after many turns of that or if the unit is militaristic that you get the option "Remove your forces from our territory or declare war!" When the AI responds to that, their forces either get automatically removed from your territory or they declare war. You have likely experienced this from the other side, when AI asks you to leave on one turn and then demands the next.

Anyways, I once read that there is a formula to figure out when it switches from request to demand. It had something to do with # of turns in the territory, proximity to cities, and ADM values of the units.

My point is that the formula is good for the AI, but as a human I should be able to decide if I want to request or demand they leave.


@billindenver: (edit: Thanks)

OK, I fixed it. Hellfire typed your name in the first part of his message and I didn't notice it when I was selecting text out of his post.

Originally posted by Hellfire
First, in order to address this problem, you have to understand the tech design of the game. Its a computer. How do you make a computer not know where something is in the game? If it forgets where all the units are, it forgets where your units are and that will end the game quick! :D

Lets tackle the question as it should be, by taking up a notch. Currently when the AI processes its moves, it takes into consideration the position of resources that are not currently visible to a human player. To phrase the "functionality" correctly, the AI prioritizes areas with strategic resources over other areas, regardless of the civs current tech level. Perhaps a correct change would be for the AI to ignore undisplayed resources based on its own tech level until that advance was reached.

The only reason why I say this is because the current phrasing is ridiculous, and because the current phrasing doesn't address the issue nor provide a proper solution.

.....not impossible to do. It might be complex (Civ is already very complex) but it could be done.:king:

i also wanna be able to help a civ at war against another civ, ie minerals resources... and get appreciated for it...

Non-Aggression Pacts baby!

Food convoys to transfer food between cities to get rid of the annoying +1/-1 food grow then starve loop.

Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.Have them come later, but their disband ratio is 1/2 instead of 1/4.
One come with Engineering and cost 40 shields, disband for 20, and another with Industrialization and costs 80 shields, disband for 40.

Originally posted by Quokka
Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.
How would wonders be effected by this? It's a nice idea, but people would abuse this like they did with caravans in Civ II.

Originally posted by Hellfire
Also, I really wish people would stop making references like this:

First, in order to address this problem, you have to understand the tech design of the game. Its a computer. How do you make a computer not know where something is in the game? If it forgets where all the units are, it forgets where your units are and that will end the game quick! :D


No, this would not be a problem at all. The programmers deliberately gave the AI opponents omnivision (TM), allowing them to see where your units are and see which cities are undefended or lightly defended. This was done to give the AI a leg up against the (hopefully) more intelligent human player.

I haven't decided if I like the feature or not, but it could easily be programmed out (or made an option at game startup). It helps to keep the human on his/her toes but is easily exploitable: ie drawing AI troops into prime kill zones. :king:

Originally posted by shu2
i also wanna be able to help a civ at war against another civ, ie minerals resources... and get appreciated for it...

Yep, I also wish to be able to broker economic assistance and sanctions when parties are at war. I should also be allowed to share the exploits of war and be appreciated.

I want the per turn deals improved, specifically the "blame" logic of it. As this thread was about diplomacy I think that this could be solved with a relatively simple addition (remember, Conquests won't be Civ4 so all changes have to be minor to be even considered by Firaxis).

My idea: Whenever a per turn deal gets broken for whatever reason the diplomacy screen opens (or analoguous diplomacy stuff is handled behind the screens if it's between two computer players) and you will see something like the following:

A) "Your shipments of incense have stopped. Are you trying to cheat us? We demand 30 gold for compensation."

or

B) "We are unable to pay you the tribute of 10 gpt. Have mercy on us and let us continue our peace."

depending on who is unable to meet the request. The computer calculates the worth of the deal left "unpaid" if you owe him. If it's the otherway round then it's up to you to think how much you value peace over war. Then you negotiate a new settlement or deal that you can have with the current trade routes or gold incomes and if there's agreement no-one gets a rep hit. If agreement is not made then the rep hit applies.

Although it's kinda logical that if you have demanded gpt for a peace contract and the losing civ is unable to pay the tribute it declares war (i.e. gpt deal AND peace contract get "broken") it's still pretty stupid...

Originally posted by RegentMan
Originally posted by Quokka

Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.

How would wonders be effected by this? It's a nice idea, but people would abuse this like they did with caravans in Civ II.

Easy. Shield transfers can't be used for wonders just like forest chops and unit disbandings. I think it is an alright idea, but it could change the game significantly. Think if you were going for 100k cultural victory. Just use these 'caravans' from your productive cities that already have all their cultural buildings, straight to your newly conquered cities to rush the cultural improvements. Actually, might give cultural victory on Deity a fighting chance (based on personal lack of ability to stay close culturally even at Emperor).

I happen to disagree with the non-wonder usage for the shield transfers. Back in the 1960's, when Kennedy urged the country to reach for the moon, he didn't urge just one city, it was an entire effort of the country. Granted, not every person worked on it, but it was more than one city, or business.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing a limit of the number of shields, based upon the number of cities in the empire. Kinda like how many armies can be supported. . . .

extra food should carry over when the city grows. and carry over extra shields when something is finished.
It is ABSURD how musch micromanagement you find yourself doing because things dont carry over. (eg, a city needs 1 more food to grow, but its getting 8 extra food per turn, so just for one turn you should move the people on the flood plains to the mined hills, because then it would still grow in one turn and get more production.)
same happens whenever I see a city that says "2 turns left" to build something, I move people to the production tiles to try and finish in one turn, getting the exact amount of shields needed.

If you have a deal going on with a civ (a lux or gpt) and that civ gets killed off, you get the rep hit, even if you didn't take the final city. This is just absurd. They need to make it so that no one gets a rep hit. Same thing applies when an AI declares war on you, and your trade route to the other civs depends on his roads, a deal is broken and the game sees you as the deal-breaker. It's just not cricket.

Well, say you are shipping products to your customers and the shipments travel via a country where a war suddenly breaks out and your containers get stuck in its harbors. The response from your customers will be to complain to _you_, not to the government of the warring country. And rightly so, because the responsibility for delivering is yours.

But what's missing in civ is that in real world you don't get a reputation hit from force majeure issues. You are merely liable for damages and by paying compensation to them, your customers will still stay your customers in the future as they know that you indeed are dealing honorably with them even though you couldn't deliver.

Add the possibility of paying compensation for broken deals, and most of the current problems with trading in civ would be solved. There wouldn't even be a need to put any fancy logic of "whom to blame" because if you intentionally screw your trade partner then it wouldn't make much sense to pay him damages, either. This would automatically put the rep hits where they really belong: those who intentionally break deals and can't be trusted.

And those who weren't to blame but who can't afford to pay enough to compensate the customer? Well, if a business can't even return your money if it fails to meet its end of the bargain for whatever reason then such business rightfully deserves to get a rep hit...

Originally posted by Quokka
Food convoys to transfer food between cities to get rid of the annoying +1/-1 food grow then starve loop.

Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.Have them come later, but their disband ratio is 1/2 instead of 1/4.
One come with Engineering and cost 40 shields, disband for 20, and another with Industrialization and costs 80 shields, disband for 40.
These are on my list (especially #1). The other thing I want is in high production cities, the ability to ration shields on small cost items. Example:
Let say I have an industrial city cranking out 90 shilds per turn. I need to build something for 120 shields.
Time to build = 2 turns
Shields wasted = 80
Fix #1 - Take the 2 turns to build and take the 60 wasted shields and invest them into gold like the city was building "Wealth" OR
Fix #2 - Take 1 turn to build and charge me the extra 30 shields as if I were rushing the project.
Any comments?

Originally posted by civrules
Also, fix the ability of the AI *not* to know where all the resources are and units of the human player are.
Everything that the human player knows the AI should know. Everything that the human player dose not know, the AI should not know. This will balance out the game a bit.

But why not add it into the game options just like the ability to turn on and off the cultural flips.

Keep civilized

David

Originally posted by RegentMan

How would wonders be effected by this? It's a nice idea, but people would abuse this like they did with caravans in Civ II.

No caravans. Instead let's have an abstract system of clicking on a new icon on the commerce screen where you get another screen (much like to the espionage's one) where you are able to set the food trades between cities connected to the trade network.
I guess this could be expanded to shields, taking care of negating the transfer into wonder building cities.

Keep civilized

David

Originally posted by dguichar


No caravans. Instead let's have an abstract system of clicking on a new icon on the commerce screen where you get another screen (much like to the espionage's one) where you are able to set the food trades between cities connected to the trade network.
I guess this could be expanded to shields, taking care of negating the transfer into wonder building cities.

Keep civilized

David

I wanted to delete this doble posting, but i couldn't... Sorry

Keep civilized

David

I think stealth interception values should be changed.
For example: A B1-B bomber was made to reduce radar detection by 99%, a B-2 stealth bomber reduces it by 99.99% yet in civ3, I am forced to give the B-2 stealth characteristics and the B1-B normal characteristics. This means that the B1-B would get intercepted 50% of the time and the B-2 only 5%. That's cheap!
There should be a counter from 1 to 100% interception rates on the editor. Also, it's stupid that a Tactical Nuke does the same damage as an ICBM.

Doh! I was replying to another thread and my message was posted to this one isntead.

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. OK here goes. Any deal you make with the AI shouldn't automatically be 20 turns. You should have the option to make a 10 turn deal and an option for a 30 turn deal. Like in a normal negotiation if you're paying the lump sum gold but can't afford any per-turn gold for an AI luxury, if your advisor says "We're getting close to a deal here." while at the same time you're tapped out with nothing more to give, you can renegotiate the deal for 10 turns instead of 20 and still have some gold left over. If you get the AI to trade you straight up one luxury for another, you want to go for the 30 turn deal. Or if you're trading a strategic resource for a luxury, same thing. What if you have 0 gold in the treasury but are several techs ahead and you offer a tech for the luxury and your advisor says you're close to a deal. But all you have to offer is another tech- again push for the 30 turn deal. Or what if ROP with your neighbor will help tremendously in your war with his neighbor, but you'll only need it for a handful of turns to accomplish your objective ( capturing one particular city). You don't particularly trust your neighbor and don't need the ROP all that extra time, so you negotiate a 10 turn deal. You can do the same with MA's, MPP's, Embargoes.... the possibilities are tremendous. If you really want improved diplomacy these are the options you want.

If I tell the AI to get of my land I want them to leave, not walk across it, not to get some pointless piece of land at the other end of my emprire. If I walk across their land within two turns they kick me off. Look fair fairs....

Sid

I would love to see something like SMAC's Pact of Brotherhood. It let's you share bases, defend each other, have units from different civs on the same square, things like that. Also, being able to tell the other member of the pact to research one side of the tree, while you work on the other would be nice.

Perhaps to avoid abusing them, they would last a minimum of 50 turns, and with no way to cancel them until that time is up, and after it expires, perhaps another 10 turns before war can be declared.

More forms of government.

More governments. Give the human players a fairer chance against AI(the whole AI sees everything that I can't, I get booted off their land in 2 turns while they can waltz across my mine no matter what, etc) 3rd party intervention, prevent the AI from flying off the handle when ever you make a slight request or politly tell them no when they ask for something completly lame, like offering wine for 20 turns inexchange he wants money, tech AND 1 or 2 resouces.


Oh and prevent the AI from cheating, in the way of the AI gets some tech and on the same turn is using the tech

Originally posted by Pembroke
I want the per turn deals improved, specifically the "blame" logic of it. As this thread was about diplomacy I think that this could be solved with a relatively simple addition (remember, Conquests won't be Civ4 so all changes have to be minor to be even considered by Firaxis).

{snip}

Although it's kinda logical that if you have demanded gpt for a peace contract and the losing civ is unable to pay the tribute it declares war (i.e. gpt deal AND peace contract get "broken") it's still pretty stupid...


Pembroke, brilliant post.

The problem you describe is actually a BUG! The game treats A) Civilization you are trading with is destroyed by another Civ b) Trade route is cut due to war (road/habor destroyed) as the same as YOU breaking a perturn deal. The AI gets increadibly upset at you. That is why in a war, your good ally sometimes get angry after the war. The attitude modifiers for fighting the same enemy hides the bug during the duration of the war when a per turn deal may have been broken (not intentionally) because a trade route was cut. But the game blames you anyways. After the war, when the common enemy attitude modifier is removed, the friendly Indians is suddenly annoyed or even furious at you.

I'd like to see this fixed and there are a number of ways to fix this. One way is to treat all per turn deals you cut by trigger a war yourself as the ones that are penalized the most. But that still runs into the problem of the game not being able to identify the intent of the player as it would be very easy for players to step around this and "trigger" wars through alliances/MPPs so that they can get out of an per turn deal without being blamed for it.

That is why I like your idea of a compensation addition to diplomacy. IMO, if you don't have the cash, there should be an option to defer trade of a resource into the future at a slightly discounted price. Where essentially the AI civ has the right to immediately be trading X resource with you once a trade route is re-established. This way you pay no cash if you can't afford it and if you go ahead and trade that resource to someone else, you'll be forced to break that deal and trade that resource back to the original Civ if you have no surplus of that resource after the trade route is re-established.

I'll need to go back and read the other new posts and repond to them as well. The diplomacy feature in Civ 3 is something of an interest of mine as it is a lot of fun now and has the potential to be even better with locked alliances and the like.

LASTLY, and to be quite frank, if Breakaway games (the firm Firaxis is farming out the development of C3C to) can't manage to even fix this bug I just discussed, I'd be disappointed at Firaxis, the Civ franchise and the good folks at Breakaway who did a heck of a job with their past XP titles for Sid.

Originally posted by Esckey
More governments. Give the human players a fairer chance against AI(the whole AI sees everything that I can't, I get booted off their land in 2 turns while they can waltz across my mine no matter what, etc) 3rd party intervention, prevent the AI from flying off the handle when ever you make a slight request or politly tell them no when they ask for something completly lame, like offering wine for 20 turns inexchange he wants money, tech AND 1 or 2 resouces.


Oh and prevent the AI from cheating, in the way of the AI gets some tech and on the same turn is using the tech

This isn't about diplo features though and the AI doesn't cheat. It plays by the same rules with a few slight exceptions.

And I don't get your comment about AI getting some techs and on the same turn is using the tech. If you get a tech, you are supposed to use it now. Now in 10 turns.

I wish there is some kind of a "peace keeper" role if you're a strongest nation, just like the U.S in real life.

And I totally oppose the way that AI know everything about our units' location, or even know one of our cities has weak defense. If the A.I will not know this I will stop doing "reloading" cheat which is the excuse reason for me to do :D.

Ok, I keep seeing this but please keep your comments to strickly diplomacy. Unrelated AI issues detract from the discussion.

FYI Chuot, the AI knowledge of your unit locations is old territory. The AI is not human, and while it knows the locations of your units, it can't really take advantage of it in the same way a human can. It is my understanding that only certain AI subsystems can access this. Attacks may move towards weakly defended cities, that's it. But any competent player can deal with these surprise attacks. If you have trouble dealing with that and have to reload and cheat even more than humans players already do, you have other bigger problems in your Civ3 skillset to worry about.

Going back on topic...

Being able to sell weaponary even if they don't have the technology would be good. Asking for a peace resolution on some one elses conflict would be fine too...generally a few more diplomatic options like in SMAC.

Yes sir!

I'll keep that in mind sir.

Why shouldn`t there be colonies, which can become independent after a time? For example you settle down on a new continent. The new continent is far away from the mother country, and there are living many barbarian tribes, which the player civilizes with weapons or with culture! If the "civilized" barbarians are more than the settlers(percentage), they can become(ex.: 100 years later or more) independent from the mothercountry and if they win the war they become independent. The new conutry should take a minor role, and should not be a protagonist civ! If you, the player, have a colony and there is an uprising(partisans, rebels, freedom fighters) you have the ability to let the freedom-fighters win the war without fight, or you must kill them in "set in advanced" turns(Sorry my english is not good, I hope you understand me). If you loose the country gets free! With minor role, I mean that this country has not the ability to change something or to begin wars(but you can conquer them another time and then they have an other status, notlike a colony but like a conquered country)This countries only exists and can make "minor diplomacy"(trade, change maps, right of passage etc.) they can`t use the full ability of diplomacy. They can build an army, but only for defend, the can earn money with trade, make alliances with other former colonies, etc. And there should be an further ability; Only one country(of the protagonist countries, not former colonies) can make a special diplomatic contract; To be a "protecting power" for the country. The protecting power earns 40% of the Income of this country and has the ability to move their soldiers in ttheir cities, without conquering them! You can use this ability for your interests ! I know, that I can write more to this theme, but it will last to long, so if you have questions´, ask.

Ther should also be this kind of Shism, which was in Civ1, and then was removed(Why?)

@chuot: This is a "Diplomacy" wish list discussion, so please keep to the topic at hand. The relatively small amount of AI cheating is well documented, and you should be able to find plenty of good discussion threads with a little searching. ;)

@dexters: Don't get so defensive. Most threads tend to get a little off-track now and then.

I like the Peace kepper Idea :)

I think a non-proliferation treaty would be cool, say a nation can't build nukes for 20 turns or something, just a thought......

I have been thinking more and more about Secession and are begining to think it would be a good idea. It would help contain Empire Sprawl if a cities could break off. I think it should be a slightly different calculation than a cultural flip. It should take into account the ammount of curruption the city has (which would be abatted by a new capital) and only groups of cities would only be able to break off. I think this would make players conentrate on having solid, smaller empire's than humongous mega empire's with weak peripheries. It would also take into account that people far from the empire's core eventually take on their own ethnicity in a way: Englishman Vs. Yanks Vs. Australians. Similiar roots, but a divergenct culture.

Perhaps groups of cities could peition their secession with tributes of gold, or ausome trading status (where it ties into diplomacy). Maybe cities could even negotiate! Like, if you promise to hurry build us libraries and coloseums, we'll stick around.

And if a deal cannot be reached, then open war with a new "freedom fighter" unit (geurilla, but very motivated) plus whatever military you had in the region would occur (yes, they would automotically flip!). Also, if you manage to take back a city, you would have a very hard time asserting control and defection would be common.

I'm on a roll her, so bear with me. Other Civs would be highly inclined to give aid to an independent Civ (see France and American revolution).

I love timberwolf's idea about breakaway nations. It would make the game a lot more interesting and realistic.

The idea about brokering a peace treaty/declaration of war is great also, it would add realism and new tactics to the game.

An idea I had (although its probably too big for C3C) was that each nation could have multiple leader heads, and by multiple I mean 2 or 3. With each leaderhead could come new AI tactics, and changes could occur in mid-game.

Also there could be a senate for Republics or Democracies that could try to intervine on your political decisions like in the real world. For example you may want to declare war on a certain country, but the senate doesn't. They could try to either warn you, and by ignoring that it would lower your popularity, or they could outright stop you if you continually ignore them. If you do that for too long they could try to cecede. That would add a lot of realism to the game, and there could be a similar thing for monarchies called the court, but weaker, and instead of stopping you they go staight to an uprising.

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

Well if you ever played 24 civs then you know it would be nice to have a real trade advisor. An advisor that could tell you who is willing to buy something you have and who can/will pay the most for the item or even just supply the list of offers from every civ for the item.

I think the trade/diplo screens needs fixing. Those were designed for 8 civ (max) games, and it shows.

By adding so many new civs in the 2 XPs, and with computing power moving ahead since 2001, I think Firaxis should know that people play more than 8 civs. My P III 450 can handle 16 civs just fine. I'm sure others out there with the new 3 ghz CPUs can run all 32 civs on the largest map there is.

I think they need to revise the trade and diplo screens so that it would look more like a spreadsheet and each Civ will have several columns including goods demanded, goods in supply.

Nobody more ideas? Here is one...

If i have a defence alliance with somebody i want an option to withdraw from the alliance if my partner starts the war.

I like serpentex777s idea about not building something for 20 turns or so. I however think that more options for a peace treaty would be cool, like arms limatation(you pick a unit and they become unable to build it until that treaty ends, this would be useful if you fight the #1, or if your #1 someone else like #2 power and win you could prevent them from becoming #1 again) , perment trade with you, or not able to have a certain resource. This could prevent someone you were at were with from bothering you again. The closet I've come to the arm limitaion is using the editor and making one of the units hidden nationlty and invisible of course this relies on using the steal plans and that gets cosyly after a few turns. Tell me what you think.:goodjob:

here's some wild dance moves[dance]:sheep:!