Fix Diplomacy
- Thread starter menwia
- Start date
I guess its getting a minor amount of interest.
But me personally - and tell me if you disagree. Diplomacy is the one key area where the most urgent FIX needs to be done. EVerything else takes a back seat to things.
IF they improve Diplomacy - they will have improved the game by 50%. Like Before, We need more depth, mure subtlety in Diplomacy. WE need to be able to bribe other civs into war with others with out haveing to declare war ourselves - its always nice when you can get someone else to clean the toilet and not have to do it yourself, we need to be able to do the same things Pre-Civ 3 and a little bit more.
the present model of diplomacy for Civ3 is just so basic, my pet gold fish would be a better political adviser then the one in Civ3. Did I tell you my gold fish can't read or write either - let alone use a telephone or sign treaties . ..
P.S. It's a fictional gold fish . . .
But me personally - and tell me if you disagree. Diplomacy is the one key area where the most urgent FIX needs to be done. EVerything else takes a back seat to things.
IF they improve Diplomacy - they will have improved the game by 50%. Like Before, We need more depth, mure subtlety in Diplomacy. WE need to be able to bribe other civs into war with others with out haveing to declare war ourselves - its always nice when you can get someone else to clean the toilet and not have to do it yourself, we need to be able to do the same things Pre-Civ 3 and a little bit more.
the present model of diplomacy for Civ3 is just so basic, my pet gold fish would be a better political adviser then the one in Civ3. Did I tell you my gold fish can't read or write either - let alone use a telephone or sign treaties . ..
P.S. It's a fictional gold fish . . .
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK Menwia. First up I definitely want to point out that diplomacy was much better in civ3 than it was in civ2! However, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of 'glaring ommisions' which could be fixed up! These would be
1) Allowing unit trades back into the game!
2) There needs to be a MUCH better model for 'civ relations'! For instance, preferred and shunned governments play no real role in your relations with other nations, yet this and culture group should be a MAJOR factor in how or if you accept another nation's overtures-and vice versa. Religion, when added, would also add a further point of 'contention' in civ relations!.
3) The more open and democratic your nation is, the more your peoples view of other civs should effect your diplomatic arrangements!! Relative morality should also play a role in how you relate to other nations!
4) More diplomatic agreements should be available!
5) The UN should have much greater functionality than at present-acting more like the high council in SMAC! Additionally the current diplomatic victory should be replaced with one that has much greater meaning (one more tied to continued good relations with other nations AND a history of altruistic behaviour!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
1) Allowing unit trades back into the game!
2) There needs to be a MUCH better model for 'civ relations'! For instance, preferred and shunned governments play no real role in your relations with other nations, yet this and culture group should be a MAJOR factor in how or if you accept another nation's overtures-and vice versa. Religion, when added, would also add a further point of 'contention' in civ relations!.
3) The more open and democratic your nation is, the more your peoples view of other civs should effect your diplomatic arrangements!! Relative morality should also play a role in how you relate to other nations!
4) More diplomatic agreements should be available!
5) The UN should have much greater functionality than at present-acting more like the high council in SMAC! Additionally the current diplomatic victory should be replaced with one that has much greater meaning (one more tied to continued good relations with other nations AND a history of altruistic behaviour!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
plastiqe
Grinch
6) AI civs shouldn't break treaties and betray you when the wind shifts.
7) You should be able to buy and lease cities. Hong Kong anyone?
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, I most DEFINITELY agree with #7, but I think #6 should not be that cut and dried! After all, history is replete with broken agreements and alliances of very short term convenience (just look at how Nazi Germany shafted the Soviet Union in WWII!) I think that how 'flexible' you can be with honouring agreements should depend to some degree on your government type AND the overall penalties both domestically and internationally for regular treaty violations should be greater than at present!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
The Hitler-Stalin agreement was never meant to last long, it was just a timeout to rearrange troops. I think that if you have a long term ally and you suddenly turn against him there should be massive WW independent of your current government type. This WW would decrease over time since governmental propaganda comes in. It is too easy to be a really opportunistic warmonger with changing your allies like your underwear. Alliances with former foes should also be more difficult. However I totally agree that your culture grup as well as preffered/shunned governments should have more impact on diplomacy. (Although I hope they will change the government system for civ4). However, religions will be implemented into the game, I would be surprised if they won´t have impact on diplomacy.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Oh yeah, Mr. Blonde, I do agree that alliance is a different kettle of fish! You should be able to 'break' an alliance, but NOT be able to go from alliance to war! Breaking an alliance before the time you negotiated should carry penalties for you both with your neighbours AND your own people!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
plastiqe
Grinch
Penalties for breaking treaties is a good idea, I like Mr. Blonde's war weariness. You can still do it, but if you do your gonna be sorry.. As long as there is something to discourage all the AI backstabbing I would be happy, I myself never break treaties. 
Multiple civ agreements is a neat idea too.
Kettle of fish, you aussies have some strange sayings.
Multiple civ agreements is a neat idea too.
Kettle of fish, you aussies have some strange sayings.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I do think the biggest improvement they can make to diplomacy -- above and beyond the specifics like unit trades or multi-lateral agreements...
Make alliances more important.
Isolationism isn't profitable in the real world, not to mention it makes for a REALLY boring strategy. If cooperation is profitable, it forces people to make choices about who to keep close and who to keep closer. And the whole dynamic of the game can change with just one war between two civs who have different levels of friendship with nations around them (trade partner, military partner, sympathizer, friendly rival, arch enemy).
Make alliances more important.
Isolationism isn't profitable in the real world, not to mention it makes for a REALLY boring strategy. If cooperation is profitable, it forces people to make choices about who to keep close and who to keep closer. And the whole dynamic of the game can change with just one war between two civs who have different levels of friendship with nations around them (trade partner, military partner, sympathizer, friendly rival, arch enemy).
I agree with dh. Diplomacy - treaties actually got mean something. At the moment their not worth the paper their written on - considering its a computer . . .
I don't think that Civ3 diplomacy model is better then before - there are a few aspects which are better -but I think as whole it has regressed.
P.S. 'kettle of fish' is not just a Aussie saying - it is I think it essentially Pommie in its origin and not Aussie. If i can recall what one Aussie said to me as he described a austrialian snake to me. It went I belive something like . . .
Aussie . . .Good day
Me . . .hello
Assue . . . gotta watch out for that snake
Me . .. How come?
Aussie . . . Its bite can kill ten Pommies or one Aussie
Me . . .hmmm . .. who's round is it?
(all people and places mentioned here are fictional and no reference was intended to any real people or places . . . This was based in part on a true story with fictional and artistic license being used to change a few aspects of the story) end of non-liabilty disclosure - or something like that - it just pisses me off everytime they do that . . .like covering your butt from getting sued or what . . .
I don't think that Civ3 diplomacy model is better then before - there are a few aspects which are better -but I think as whole it has regressed.
P.S. 'kettle of fish' is not just a Aussie saying - it is I think it essentially Pommie in its origin and not Aussie. If i can recall what one Aussie said to me as he described a austrialian snake to me. It went I belive something like . . .
Aussie . . .Good day
Me . . .hello
Assue . . . gotta watch out for that snake
Me . .. How come?
Aussie . . . Its bite can kill ten Pommies or one Aussie
Me . . .hmmm . .. who's round is it?
(all people and places mentioned here are fictional and no reference was intended to any real people or places . . . This was based in part on a true story with fictional and artistic license being used to change a few aspects of the story) end of non-liabilty disclosure - or something like that - it just pisses me off everytime they do that . . .like covering your butt from getting sued or what . . .
Dwarven Zerker
Just one more turn Honey!
Civ 3 made great strides in diplomacy. There is still more to be desired, like...
1) Multi-national trades/alliances
2) "Permanent" alliances (a possible diplomatic victory to get every nation in your alliance)
3) Buy/Sell/Lease units (we currently do this with workers)
4) Less predictable trade negotiations (make offer before you know if they'll accept or not.)
Just to name a few improvements I'd like to see.
1) Multi-national trades/alliances
2) "Permanent" alliances (a possible diplomatic victory to get every nation in your alliance)
3) Buy/Sell/Lease units (we currently do this with workers)
4) Less predictable trade negotiations (make offer before you know if they'll accept or not.)
Just to name a few improvements I'd like to see.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, I think the whole "find the best price" model was kind of lame in Civ 3. It was one of those tedious things that a monkey could do. The only real bartering choice is this -- accept the deal and keep them happy or haggle them down to the minimum and lower their attitude towards you or don't trade at all. Why not just make that a multiple choice answer.
Otherwise, I think there does need to be more emphasis on getting along. Economics shows that any nation that isolates itself and does not trade will end up poor. That's the whole reason why sanctions MEAN something.
Otherwise, I think there does need to be more emphasis on getting along. Economics shows that any nation that isolates itself and does not trade will end up poor. That's the whole reason why sanctions MEAN something.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Oh I am sooo glad that other people agree with me on that! Its so idiot-proof that it really took out the challenge of diplomacy and haggling! Thats one of the things I DID like about civ2 diplomacy-was that you never knew exactly how the other civ would take your offer!
Oh and, one other thing I would like to have is an ability to set your 'negotiating' tone! Anywhere from cordial/slaphappy to downright provocative and threatening! You might change your tone according to who you speak to, and which tone you might think will elicit the best outcome for you at the time!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Oh and, one other thing I would like to have is an ability to set your 'negotiating' tone! Anywhere from cordial/slaphappy to downright provocative and threatening! You might change your tone according to who you speak to, and which tone you might think will elicit the best outcome for you at the time!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Dwarven Zerker
Just one more turn Honey!
Aussie_Lurker said:
That would be
!!!dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think the most important thing for diplomacy, in my mind...
Is whatever mechanism is good for the AI has to be good for the player.
If negotiating tone works on the AI, it would need to have believable effects on the player too.
Is whatever mechanism is good for the AI has to be good for the player.
If negotiating tone works on the AI, it would need to have believable effects on the player too.
Dwarven Zerker
Just one more turn Honey!
That's why I would like to see some "randomly generated" responses that make the AI less predictable. Proposing a deal one round might get a "try again" response and the next turn it might get an "Are you nuts!?" response. In either case the computer may treat the decision identically (open to additional offers) but gives the impression to the player that he might be more likely to aggrivate the AI in one instance over the next.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
The only part of Civ 3 diplomacy I liked was the 'trade' format it was in. This means, all proposals and transactions were treated as tradeable commodities, but that does not work for all agreements. Keep the GUI, bring more stuff to trade. Also, bring back commerce bonuses for goods trade.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think that simplifying the whole haggling mechanism is the start of the solution, not the crux of it. That is the least important decision you'll ever make and should be treated as such, instead of a part of the game that will consume 2 minutes of your time in extreme circumstances.
With that, it's just as simple as making diplomacy mean something. I have a few ideas (that don't necessarily depend on one another).
1. More resources with a greater variety of resources
Make it nearly impossible to have every possible resource within your borders. That way you're FORCED to trade with someone else.
2. Discrete supply of resources
Instead of letting one spot of oil power your entire armada of battleships with a probability of that oil disappearing, there should be a discrete supply of each resource that can be measured, like gold. This way, someone who has a resource has to ration it, and someone who trades for it can be held at the mercy of who holds the supply.
This should probably be combined with #1: greater variety of resources, so no one nation holds every other nation at mercy for everything.
3. Multilateral trade
Why not? Especially if it's an innovation towards the end of the middle ages, it lets you naturally scale up to a "United Nations" instead of making it this wonder that sudddenly turns the world into something to be ruled by one person.
4. Discrete trade routes
Discussed in another thread, I think discrete trade routes would make transportation and overall security more important. A volatile Near East throughout the middle ages prevented much contact between Europe and the Far East. And when Portugal finally got a ship over there, it was a big ****ing deal.
Being Italy in the middle ages was really important because it was the trade center of Europe for a while. They had easy access to many different trading partners via the Mediterranean. They got pretty rich in this time partially because people would need to run their trade routes through Italy's territory. This is particularly important with multilateralism, as seen in #3 above.
And being Switzerland now is really important because they're NEUTRAL -- the world trusts them, and there is nobody they don't trade with. If you make war with a lot of people, either you're hated, or not trusted -- do you really want to get into a long term trade agreement with someone who very well might attack you, or who very well might be attacked and unable to get their promise to you?
4. Military trading
Leasing units, training units, providing weapons to units who figure out their own training. However it happens, it should happen. And it should be able to be done discretely, with nobody knowing -- unless, of course, they're using powerful intelligence and espionage.
5. Greater emphasis on intelligence
Yep. There should be a greater variety and different kinds of information you can tap into on your allies and enemies. Knowing what they're building is one thing, but tapping their diplomacy screen is valuable (along with the ability to uncover taps).
Being able to instigate propaganda not to flip a city, but persuade their audience is valuable. I guess this would tie into a greater variety in domestic problems -- but I think you should be able to instigate these problems. War weariness is an obvious example. The smartest kind of "information warfare" is to do something so savage and brutal to the opponent, that no matter how winnable the war seems, it seems not worth while. Or, on the flip side, to publicize and advertise the civilian casualties within your borders to raise sympathies and make the other guy look like a jerk.
Of course, I'd like to see this go deeper than war weariness, but then I'd be biting off a much larger chunk of the game than I care to discuss.
6. Greater benefits from international trade
I think this is severely worth doing. Having silks within your own borders offers some small gold benefits. But moving it across borders, so to speak, should be worth 10 times as much. Especially when combined with #1 (greater variety in resources) you could see people trading so many different commodies in a mutually beneficial deal. "Yeah, having 10 salmon is great. But having 5 salmon and 5 cod is even better!" Not that the user would need to keep track of 50-100 different resources, but only that the user would have to understand the benefits of "fish" and that salmon and cod are two different types.
This way it becomes more profitable to interact than to isolate. In fact, it makes interacting a necessary evil in order to get ahead.
7. Greater penalties from jerk moves
Sure there's enough to be lost when we talk about the ideas above. It's obvious that foregoing trade and allies makes you miss out on key benefits. And certainly a trade embargo against you for being a jerk would seriously hurt you.
But breaking a Right of Passage agreement shouldn't just hurt you in the eyes of the world. It should hurt you in the eyes of your citizens. Not to say that they'd start hating their nation, quite the contrary, they might love you for it. But the citizens, recognizing that sneaking up on someone and backstabbing them is an intelligent and appropriate way to settle conflicts, begin doing that to one another. Your nation becomes more corrupt, more chaotic.
8. Reward for liberating allies
Conquering and keeping territory should always be profitable. But right now, there is no motivation to do the noble thing and help somebody out. Even an alliance is insufficient. I've had alliances with computer players that I basically say "enh, let them fight it themselves", if not an excuse to loot and keep territory for myself. I'm suggesting an alternate victory type. You guys have heard this before: glory victory, where returning a territory to an ally earns you points. And if you acquire enough of these "moral points" you win this Churchill style victory.
If there's a reward for playing like Hitler, then there must be a reward for playing like Churchill. In fact, that's gonna be my new motto.
9. Slave States, Puppet Regimes, and Colonies
Combine this with discussions I've had on AI, where some Civs don't play aggressively but play to enhance the simulation aspects of the game.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101196
A few superpowers, you and the AI, compete not only by conquering territory, but by having favorable regimes towards you. Having a Colony that is subservient to you and provides you with a variety of resources -- this was an important fact in the pre-industrial era, right up until the modern era. Puppet regimes are a fact of the modern era. This kind of complexity makes the late game very compelling.
10. Civil War at medium levels
I think Civil War should be a fact at medium levels. Combine this with greater emphasis on intelligence (#5) and you now have an avenue for people to mess things up even in the peaceful world -- let's instigate a civil war! Not only that, but conquering certain nations would make your empire more divided, thus making it harder to be expansionistic and forcing you to consider other ways to extend your dominance. Or think of ways to do it in a slow and stable way.
11. More "Historical Facts" at Higher Levels
I hate to be an advocate of limitations, and I try to avoid doing it. But I think this would make the game much more interesting. The modern game, as it stands now, is tired. It's worse than the early game because the territory is all settled, so it's basically the same thing over and over with new units.
Imagine that in the industrial age, you can no longer conquer. Instead, you must colonize and occupy. The end result is the same -- you can inch closer to a domination victory. But the catch is that you have less control over the colony, and eventually the colony will overthrow you (by the modern age).
The modern age, too, could be different, forcing more strategy instead of blind war. The USA can't just Carpet Bomb Iraq -- and as much as some people think they should, the world has moved towards the Geneva convention. This forces people into diplomacy and greater intricacy in war -- instead of the easy victory provided by rolling over Iraq with Tanks.
Again, this would happen at higher difficulty levels.
Combine this with risks of civil war, and you have a really compelling second half of the game for the first time. All the land is taken, yes, but now it shifts from expansion to imperialism to neo-imperialism. The game changes, and so do the strategies.
12. Nuclear Deturrants at the Highest Levels
Imagine that no more than 5 nuclear weapons are allowed to go off, or the game ends in a draw. Now THAT'S challenge. That's the kind of fear that paralyzes the world even today, but especially during the cold war. USA and Russia never would have attacked each other -- if they did, it would have been the end of the world. USA launches a Nuke, USSR launches a Nuke, anyone else who has a Nuke launches a Nuke, and before too long the world is essentially a wasteland. The balance of power between USA and USSR was maintained for this reason -- forcing more tricky ways to rally for power. Particularly covert regime changes in Latin America (see 4 for military trading, and 9 for puppet regimes).
Combine this with some of the thoughts on Type B Civs, that play to add a simulation type elements, and all of the sudden the most powerful AI and you are trying to broker peace to make sure nobody launches a Nuke (and keep Nukes out of the hands of horrible regimes).
Conclusion
I think I went a little crazy here. But I just wanted to keep the discussion rolling and put people on the imaginative track, also forcing them to recognize just how important diplomacy can be in making the game better. Diplomacy is perhaps the most interesting thing going on in the world today -- and yet Civ tries to repeat the same old wars right up until 2050.
The most contraversial suggestions are there at the very end. But they are, once again, only there to stimulate discussion.
This is one of few times I'm too lazy to clean up and tighten the ideas. Right now is the brainstorm. Maybe one other later time, I'll tighten this up into a nice little proposal.
With that, it's just as simple as making diplomacy mean something. I have a few ideas (that don't necessarily depend on one another).
1. More resources with a greater variety of resources
Make it nearly impossible to have every possible resource within your borders. That way you're FORCED to trade with someone else.
2. Discrete supply of resources
Instead of letting one spot of oil power your entire armada of battleships with a probability of that oil disappearing, there should be a discrete supply of each resource that can be measured, like gold. This way, someone who has a resource has to ration it, and someone who trades for it can be held at the mercy of who holds the supply.
This should probably be combined with #1: greater variety of resources, so no one nation holds every other nation at mercy for everything.
3. Multilateral trade
Why not? Especially if it's an innovation towards the end of the middle ages, it lets you naturally scale up to a "United Nations" instead of making it this wonder that sudddenly turns the world into something to be ruled by one person.
4. Discrete trade routes
Discussed in another thread, I think discrete trade routes would make transportation and overall security more important. A volatile Near East throughout the middle ages prevented much contact between Europe and the Far East. And when Portugal finally got a ship over there, it was a big ****ing deal.
Being Italy in the middle ages was really important because it was the trade center of Europe for a while. They had easy access to many different trading partners via the Mediterranean. They got pretty rich in this time partially because people would need to run their trade routes through Italy's territory. This is particularly important with multilateralism, as seen in #3 above.
And being Switzerland now is really important because they're NEUTRAL -- the world trusts them, and there is nobody they don't trade with. If you make war with a lot of people, either you're hated, or not trusted -- do you really want to get into a long term trade agreement with someone who very well might attack you, or who very well might be attacked and unable to get their promise to you?
4. Military trading
Leasing units, training units, providing weapons to units who figure out their own training. However it happens, it should happen. And it should be able to be done discretely, with nobody knowing -- unless, of course, they're using powerful intelligence and espionage.
5. Greater emphasis on intelligence
Yep. There should be a greater variety and different kinds of information you can tap into on your allies and enemies. Knowing what they're building is one thing, but tapping their diplomacy screen is valuable (along with the ability to uncover taps).
Being able to instigate propaganda not to flip a city, but persuade their audience is valuable. I guess this would tie into a greater variety in domestic problems -- but I think you should be able to instigate these problems. War weariness is an obvious example. The smartest kind of "information warfare" is to do something so savage and brutal to the opponent, that no matter how winnable the war seems, it seems not worth while. Or, on the flip side, to publicize and advertise the civilian casualties within your borders to raise sympathies and make the other guy look like a jerk.
Of course, I'd like to see this go deeper than war weariness, but then I'd be biting off a much larger chunk of the game than I care to discuss.
6. Greater benefits from international trade
I think this is severely worth doing. Having silks within your own borders offers some small gold benefits. But moving it across borders, so to speak, should be worth 10 times as much. Especially when combined with #1 (greater variety in resources) you could see people trading so many different commodies in a mutually beneficial deal. "Yeah, having 10 salmon is great. But having 5 salmon and 5 cod is even better!" Not that the user would need to keep track of 50-100 different resources, but only that the user would have to understand the benefits of "fish" and that salmon and cod are two different types.
This way it becomes more profitable to interact than to isolate. In fact, it makes interacting a necessary evil in order to get ahead.
7. Greater penalties from jerk moves
Sure there's enough to be lost when we talk about the ideas above. It's obvious that foregoing trade and allies makes you miss out on key benefits. And certainly a trade embargo against you for being a jerk would seriously hurt you.
But breaking a Right of Passage agreement shouldn't just hurt you in the eyes of the world. It should hurt you in the eyes of your citizens. Not to say that they'd start hating their nation, quite the contrary, they might love you for it. But the citizens, recognizing that sneaking up on someone and backstabbing them is an intelligent and appropriate way to settle conflicts, begin doing that to one another. Your nation becomes more corrupt, more chaotic.
8. Reward for liberating allies
Conquering and keeping territory should always be profitable. But right now, there is no motivation to do the noble thing and help somebody out. Even an alliance is insufficient. I've had alliances with computer players that I basically say "enh, let them fight it themselves", if not an excuse to loot and keep territory for myself. I'm suggesting an alternate victory type. You guys have heard this before: glory victory, where returning a territory to an ally earns you points. And if you acquire enough of these "moral points" you win this Churchill style victory.
If there's a reward for playing like Hitler, then there must be a reward for playing like Churchill. In fact, that's gonna be my new motto.
9. Slave States, Puppet Regimes, and Colonies
Combine this with discussions I've had on AI, where some Civs don't play aggressively but play to enhance the simulation aspects of the game.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101196
A few superpowers, you and the AI, compete not only by conquering territory, but by having favorable regimes towards you. Having a Colony that is subservient to you and provides you with a variety of resources -- this was an important fact in the pre-industrial era, right up until the modern era. Puppet regimes are a fact of the modern era. This kind of complexity makes the late game very compelling.
10. Civil War at medium levels
I think Civil War should be a fact at medium levels. Combine this with greater emphasis on intelligence (#5) and you now have an avenue for people to mess things up even in the peaceful world -- let's instigate a civil war! Not only that, but conquering certain nations would make your empire more divided, thus making it harder to be expansionistic and forcing you to consider other ways to extend your dominance. Or think of ways to do it in a slow and stable way.
11. More "Historical Facts" at Higher Levels
I hate to be an advocate of limitations, and I try to avoid doing it. But I think this would make the game much more interesting. The modern game, as it stands now, is tired. It's worse than the early game because the territory is all settled, so it's basically the same thing over and over with new units.
Imagine that in the industrial age, you can no longer conquer. Instead, you must colonize and occupy. The end result is the same -- you can inch closer to a domination victory. But the catch is that you have less control over the colony, and eventually the colony will overthrow you (by the modern age).
The modern age, too, could be different, forcing more strategy instead of blind war. The USA can't just Carpet Bomb Iraq -- and as much as some people think they should, the world has moved towards the Geneva convention. This forces people into diplomacy and greater intricacy in war -- instead of the easy victory provided by rolling over Iraq with Tanks.
Again, this would happen at higher difficulty levels.
Combine this with risks of civil war, and you have a really compelling second half of the game for the first time. All the land is taken, yes, but now it shifts from expansion to imperialism to neo-imperialism. The game changes, and so do the strategies.
12. Nuclear Deturrants at the Highest Levels
Imagine that no more than 5 nuclear weapons are allowed to go off, or the game ends in a draw. Now THAT'S challenge. That's the kind of fear that paralyzes the world even today, but especially during the cold war. USA and Russia never would have attacked each other -- if they did, it would have been the end of the world. USA launches a Nuke, USSR launches a Nuke, anyone else who has a Nuke launches a Nuke, and before too long the world is essentially a wasteland. The balance of power between USA and USSR was maintained for this reason -- forcing more tricky ways to rally for power. Particularly covert regime changes in Latin America (see 4 for military trading, and 9 for puppet regimes).
Combine this with some of the thoughts on Type B Civs, that play to add a simulation type elements, and all of the sudden the most powerful AI and you are trying to broker peace to make sure nobody launches a Nuke (and keep Nukes out of the hands of horrible regimes).
Conclusion
I think I went a little crazy here. But I just wanted to keep the discussion rolling and put people on the imaginative track, also forcing them to recognize just how important diplomacy can be in making the game better. Diplomacy is perhaps the most interesting thing going on in the world today -- and yet Civ tries to repeat the same old wars right up until 2050.
The most contraversial suggestions are there at the very end. But they are, once again, only there to stimulate discussion.
This is one of few times I'm too lazy to clean up and tighten the ideas. Right now is the brainstorm. Maybe one other later time, I'll tighten this up into a nice little proposal.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
9) I think a more revolutionary way of doing this would involve changeing the leader concept. Most obvious is the idea that the leader after a successful revolution would not be the same as the one before. Of course as the player you would have to break this rule(assume you joined the rebels).
If leaders were not permanent, supporting possible leaders inside a government and coups would be easily modeled. Intelligence about these sort of things would be very valuable, especially for highly hierarchal governments(Monarchy, Communism, somewhat Democracy).
You help a leader get into power, and a part of this involved setting up an intelligence network inside the new regime. If the regime tries to go renegade, you might be able to replace them.
This could also lead to another concept, personal vs. administrative strengths. Many kingdoms fell because they had leaders who worried about themselves more than running a kingdom. If they had strong personal traits, such as being popular or paranoid about aassassination, they would be weak leaders realtively. If they were excellent rulers, they might be considered strict or slave-drivers. Within civs there woudl be multiple potential leaders, all with different balance.
In oligarchical governments it is likely that the ruthless, rather than the wise will rise to power. In representative governments it is more likely that good rulers rather than greedy ones will be elected. I know this sounds counter-intuitive to real life, but it would make gameplay decisions easier as well.
I also know many will compliain because it adds an RPG element to civ. In my opinion though, history is often defined by those who led.
If leaders were not permanent, supporting possible leaders inside a government and coups would be easily modeled. Intelligence about these sort of things would be very valuable, especially for highly hierarchal governments(Monarchy, Communism, somewhat Democracy).
You help a leader get into power, and a part of this involved setting up an intelligence network inside the new regime. If the regime tries to go renegade, you might be able to replace them.
This could also lead to another concept, personal vs. administrative strengths. Many kingdoms fell because they had leaders who worried about themselves more than running a kingdom. If they had strong personal traits, such as being popular or paranoid about aassassination, they would be weak leaders realtively. If they were excellent rulers, they might be considered strict or slave-drivers. Within civs there woudl be multiple potential leaders, all with different balance.
In oligarchical governments it is likely that the ruthless, rather than the wise will rise to power. In representative governments it is more likely that good rulers rather than greedy ones will be elected. I know this sounds counter-intuitive to real life, but it would make gameplay decisions easier as well.
I also know many will compliain because it adds an RPG element to civ. In my opinion though, history is often defined by those who led.
plastiqe
Grinch
That post was an epic, dh. I agree with everything except the fact that you linked to your AI thread and not to the caravan thread. :shakehead:
My favourite idea is the nuclear war draw. The first person who gets nukes could use a few, but blow up an entire civilization and you've started a nuclear winter. And when more than one civ has nukes you would get cold war situations. Of course the AI shouldn't be allowed to just "nuke a draw" if they are losing but that would be easy to program. I think you should start a new thread on nukes for this idea.
I agree with everything except the fact that you linked to your AI thread and not to the caravan thread. :shakehead:My favourite idea is the nuclear war draw. The first person who gets nukes could use a few, but blow up an entire civilization and you've started a nuclear winter. And when more than one civ has nukes you would get cold war situations. Of course the AI shouldn't be allowed to just "nuke a draw" if they are losing but that would be easy to program. I think you should start a new thread on nukes for this idea.
Similar threads
