Blocs

If two civilizations have less than half the 'power' of another, those two civs could combine in to a bloc (think EU).
'Power' is determined by number of cities, population, size and quality of military and tech level.

The bloc would function as single civ with some exceptions. Resources and luxuries are shared as a single civ. Effects of Great wonders are shared, but not those of small wonders. Units may not occupy the same tile. A conquered city belongs to civ of military unit which performs the final victory.

Forbidden Palaces lose their effect.

If the civs have different governments, the weaker adopts the system of the more dominant civ.

Tech research will be separate until both are at the same level. Tech transfer between the two civs will be one tech per turn. This would work both directions if applicable.

A third civ my join if that civ and the bloc again meet the half power criteria.

If the bloc becomes twice or more powerful than the second most powerful civ, the civs will diverge.

The bloc forming ability should be available sometime after Nationalism and before the Modern era. At least one of the two civs must be at the appropriate tech level.

For a human/AI merge the human will control both civs.

Blocs should help alleviate a run away game where a win is "guaranteed' mid-game.

i don't like the idea of the joining of civs but, what i think your objectives are with this idea should be able to be addressed if the diplomatic options and the whole treaty and alliance problems get ironed out.

I dont really like the idea of mergeing the civs. But i like the 3 or more way alliance

I would like to see multi lateral military blocs, as the NATO, and Warzaw pact. The creator of the allience could name it, and then ask other countries to join. Such pacts should be even more difficult to break out from, then normal bi lateral alliances, with a duration of at least 40 turns!

Philips beard has a great idea i like the stronger alliance, but i would like to add this, It would be harder to drop out of an alliance like this depending one what type of goverment the lead nation, If the main country were a democracy or repulic it would be easyer but a Communism and Facists would be harder. A Monarchy, Deposition, Anarchy if they were in would be easy to break from even more so then a democracy because of the unorginizedness of there govermental structure

Well, I don't like the idea of joining civs, but here's something I could handle.

There could be different types of blocs. Like if you agree to join in a military bloc you get automatic RoP, MPP, and military alliance against anyone the other people are at war with. Military support is significantly increased, and the people, knowing that you have the protection of an ally, don't get war wearied as fast.

An economic bloc would join the economies (in essence, controlling gpt and what not jointly). You automatically agree to the right to trade (you always have to come to a deal when negotiating a trade, otherwise it's considered a treaty violation and you suffer a severe rep hit), you get automatic RoP, and you have to have a trade embargo against anyone that the other party has a trade embargo against, and you must be in the same government. You also get economic bonuses (decreased corruption, increased happiness, possibly other things).

A political bloc...you have to bring up peace deals for anyone who's at war with anyone else, you must be in the same governments to be in the bloc, there is less corruption, you get automatic RoP, you must attempt to end all trade embargoes as well. There are other things I could think of. If you can't end wars or trade embargoes you may have to take a harsher course of action.

Breaking the agreement of the bloc would be considered the absolute worst thing you could do. Obviously, my political bloc isn't as well thought out, but I could flesh stuff out of it with some thought. Entering a bloc would have to be taken into severe consideration, and would be an ultimately game-winning or game-ending decision (much like MPP's, but even more extreme).

The real point of the blocs is to offer a middle and late game challenge when the game would otherwise already have been decided.

No need for blocs as EU is an exception not the rule. What people have been asking for is more sophistical alliance system (ala Warsaw vs. NATO/ Axis v. Allies) type set ups.

I've discussed this in other threads, but essentially, this would be a multinational treaty where AI or human players sign up to a loose coalition. Some resources may be shared, but main, its an extended military/trade alliance and there may be certain bonuses to this (ie: all trades with bloc members get some bonus) but the states remain independent.

This has the advantage of being a more sophisticated evolution of the current alliance system in Civ3, which only recognizes bilateral treaties, although the game has been programmed such that 'blocs' or coalitions do sometimes form out of common enemies and mutual interests. But these tend to be so informal only a human can recognize and the AI never takes advantage of this anyways. It's almost like an accidental alliance.

Your point is well made, and with such a system the game would much more enjoyable. With the bloc, the AI again has a good chance to win the game if you pull to far ahead. Even with the multinational treaty idea, if you are ahead, you're still guaranteed a win.

I like this idea, mostly how bob rulz and philips beard have interpreted it however. Hmm.