Ideas on Military Diplomacy and Alliances

I think that military diplomacy and alliances needs to be overhauled in Civ. And, I have a number of ideas.

Firstly, I think that there need to be several types of war, ranging from trade wars, to border wars, to full scale total wars.

Secondly, I think that there needs to be some sort of ability to form more effective military alliances with civs, against other civs. This could be done with more advanced AI, and an agreement with a civ to go to war in, say, 5 turns. This way, both you and the opposing civ could get mobilised and ready to strike within those 5 turns, when the war would be officially declared by whoever instigated the original deal. Of course, it could be cancelled if anything applicable to it came up, like if your intended enemy signing a defensive pact. I think this would result in better cooperation and greater perparedness between allies in wars.

Thirdly, I think there should be the ability to make any deal secret, on the agreement of both civs, with espionage possibly uncovering such secret deals.

Finally, I believe you should be able to create a central command in a war, putting all the forces of those civs that participate in the combined force under the most powerful civ in the alliance. There could be options to allow for only a partial contingent of troops to be under unified command, and any city that was captured would become an 'international' city until the war ended, where it would be finally settled by some system combining contribution to the allied force, overall power, and cultural influence. Also, as a safeguard, members of the temporary military alliance could not declare war on any other member of the temporary military alliance (TMA) for at least 10 turns after their current war, and alliance, ends, and if any member of the TMA is declared on by a third party, all members of the TMA are at war. A sort of defensive pact, if you will.

So, what do you think, and do you have any other suggestions?

Oh, and please vote in the poll to indicate what you think about each of my ideas.

I ultimately don't feel most of these ideas add up to the feel of civ. Permanent alliances allow you to handle almost everything but moving AI troops and MMing cities, but really that would just be imbalanced. The AI doesn't plan for war well anyway and agreements that don't come into effect until later would be terribly abusive. I guess I'd encourage trying out MP or even Co-op games, working with another human against AI. Unfortunately the AI will never cooperate fully like a human and just handing over control probably isn't great for the main game.

Your last idea is along the lines of something I DO think is needed though - military alliances more in the civ3 style, that deal with new features in civ4. Namely, I think the vassal system should be changed - first, no more peaceful vassals, ever (only capitulated). But then, a military alliance (standard 10 turns fine) is a feature I'd like to have, working something like this:

-Can be between two civs already at war with a third, or can bring a new civ into the war. I'd weight the AI to very strongly favor an actual alliance when bringing allies into war.
-Any civs in an alliance cannot be vassalized, nor can they take the "target" civ as a vassal, until the alliance expires.
-No effect on other wars/outside DoWs (so you could take an outside vassal, albeit that would be an odd situation).
-Peace can be made (ends the alliance, possible penalty for selling out an ally) but again, no vassalizing.

Finally there are some buggy things with vassals/DoW in general - I'd add some option like "War has broken out" between two civs that causes NO diplo hit at all for anyone. This would be used in case of vassals/defensive pacts instead of everyone having to DoW (primary attacker of course still does a real DoW). And finally auto-peace upon vassalization is broken - units should not teleport, and the new "master" should have to decide to DoW. Situation something like:

Civ A is killing B, and C wants to jump in and become B's master. A can stay at war with B on his own, NOT at war with C, units don't teleport or anything - it's up to C to either bribe/bully A into peace, or do a DoW on A himself to protect the new vassal. (Note that if C was at peace he couldn't vassal himself into a war anyway - it would have to be a military alliance, so this basically also just prevents situations where multiple civs are dogpiling but only one magically gets the vassal).

I will reply to this after some considered thought. Generally I think diplomacy can be enriched...

Earthling said:

I ultimately don't feel most of these ideas add up to the feel of civ. Permanent alliances allow you to handle almost everything but moving AI troops and MMing cities, but really that would just be imbalanced. The AI doesn't plan for war well anyway and agreements that don't come into effect until later would be terribly abusive. I guess I'd encourage trying out MP or even Co-op games, working with another human against AI. Unfortunately the AI will never cooperate fully like a human and just handing over control probably isn't great for the main game.

Click to expand...

I guess so, but it probably isn't very realistic to have no coordination between allies. Perhaps some system halfway in between the two would be more ideal, but I don't know how this would work. It's a bit hard to come up with, and implement, an idea that isn't either all or nothing.

Your last idea is along the lines of something I DO think is needed though - military alliances more in the civ3 style, that deal with new features in civ4. Namely, I think the vassal system should be changed - first, no more peaceful vassals, ever (only capitulated). But then, a military alliance (standard 10 turns fine) is a feature I'd like to have, working something like this:

-Can be between two civs already at war with a third, or can bring a new civ into the war. I'd weight the AI to very strongly favor an actual alliance when bringing allies into war.
-Any civs in an alliance cannot be vassalized, nor can they take the "target" civ as a vassal, until the alliance expires.
-No effect on other wars/outside DoWs (so you could take an outside vassal, albeit that would be an odd situation).
-Peace can be made (ends the alliance, possible penalty for selling out an ally) but again, no vassalizing.

Finally there are some buggy things with vassals/DoW in general - I'd add some option like "War has broken out" between two civs that causes NO diplo hit at all for anyone. This would be used in case of vassals/defensive pacts instead of everyone having to DoW (primary attacker of course still does a real DoW). And finally auto-peace upon vassalization is broken - units should not teleport, and the new "master" should have to decide to DoW. Situation something like:

Civ A is killing B, and C wants to jump in and become B's master. A can stay at war with B on his own, NOT at war with C, units don't teleport or anything - it's up to C to either bribe/bully A into peace, or do a DoW on A himself to protect the new vassal. (Note that if C was at peace he couldn't vassal himself into a war anyway - it would have to be a military alliance, so this basically also just prevents situations where multiple civs are dogpiling but only one magically gets the vassal).

Click to expand...

I think that part of this type of vassal agreement between B and C is that C automatically declares war on A to protect it's new interest. As B is now a de facto part of C, A is in fact attacking C. So C will declare war. I don't think in the game that when this happens A declares on C. I think C declares on A.


Oh, and 1000th post!!!

I may not be quite like ESB, but I think 3 months is pretty reasonable.

I agree with Camikaze.

Borders should be able to be drawn and Cultural influence should be allowed to go beyond them. This would allow peacfull negotiations on borders and a way to eliminate the borders penalty with neighboring civs. The cultural areas can still be used by the second civ but perhaps at a penalty and if the border ever gets redrawn the culture is already there to support the new territory gained.


This could also be combined with a sort of No-Mans land concept where a section may break off temporarily due to war or unhappiness.

As far as the other types of war and central command it gives great diplomatic scenarios where your only option isn't just declaring and thats that.

I would also like to see barbarians and or privateers in late game in the form of terrorists or pirates or some type of movement of some kind, where a well funded coup could produce actual troops for a revolution. Perhaps only allowed to be used in cultural borders that go past a neighbors drawn border?

I agree that warfare in Civ needs to be overhauled because a war cannot last 50 over even 100 years which is possible from Civ1-4. I do believe that centers of power or empires require at a maximum of a century to rise (Golden Age) & fall (Backwardness).

Dunkah said:

I agree with Camikaze.

Borders should be able to be drawn and Cultural influence should be allowed to go beyond them. This would allow peacfull negotiations on borders and a way to eliminate the borders penalty with neighboring civs. The cultural areas can still be used by the second civ but perhaps at a penalty and if the border ever gets redrawn the culture is already there to support the new territory gained.


This could also be combined with a sort of No-Mans land concept where a section may break off temporarily due to war or unhappiness.

As far as the other types of war and central command it gives great diplomatic scenarios where your only option isn't just declaring and thats that.

I would also like to see barbarians and or privateers in late game in the form of terrorists or pirates or some type of movement of some kind, where a well funded coup could produce actual troops for a revolution. Perhaps only allowed to be used in cultural borders that go past a neighbors drawn border?

Click to expand...

The no-man's land idea would work, I suppose, as an interim sort of breakaway civ, that would have to be captured by both its old masters and whoever they were at war with. Some sort of system would have to be in place however, to determine whether it was a breakaway wanting to join the enemy civ, or a breakaway wanting self-determination. This would determine how hard it is for each side to bring it under their control.

exhile said:

I agree that warfare in Civ needs to be overhauled because a war cannot last 50 over even 100 years which is possible from Civ1-4. I do believe that centers of power or empires require at a maximum of a century to rise (Golden Age) & fall (Backwardness).

Click to expand...

Warfare definitely needs to be made faster. If you participate in a siege early on, it can easily last for hundreds of years, which is terribly unrealistic. Even the minimum time you can have for war (1 year) seems to be too long for some minor conflicts.

As for empires rising and falling, I think that there should be some sort of time constraint, but this is probably factored in by the time periods passing quickly, and artificially by city maintenance costs, meaning you can't just spam an empire quickly.

"I have another idea!"

The Armstice:
A possibility of ending a war, in an armstice, the victors decide all of the terms. Like the Treaty of Versailles.

Nice idea, but armistice is just a synonym for a ceasefire, that may have terms, for a peace to follow at a later date. It would probably work if there was something to stop abuse of the system, 'cause otherwise I'd just take all the opponents' cities.

Nice idea, but armistice is just a synonym for a ceasefire, that may have terms, for a peace to follow at a later date. It would probably work if there was something to stop abuse of the system, 'cause otherwise I'd just take all the opponents' cities.

Click to expand...

By 'terms' I did not mean just cities. I mean military size, equipment, government, research, diplomacy specific stuff like that.

That would make it even more susceptible to exploitation. I would take all of their cities as well as force them to disband all of their military units, change to the worst possible civics, cancel all their deals with the rest of the world and force them to research divine right.

That would make it even more susceptible to exploitation. I would take all of their cities as well as force them to disband all of their military units, change to the worst possible civics, cancel all their deals with the rest of the world and force them to research divine right.

Click to expand...

I'm not sayin focing research, I'm saying limiting research. There should (of course) be limits, or reactions so severe that you don't want to do something. For example: the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles is one of the main reasons that the Nazis came to power and WWII was started.

This wouldn't work without serious limitations. I'm all for a greater variety of options for inclusion in a peace treaty (like limiting research, etc.), but I don't see the need for armistices, when the same peace deal could be made through a conventional peace treaty as through this option. If a civ is willing to sign an armistice in which the opposing civ can dictate terms, then they would be willing to give in to the opponents demands in a normal peace treaty anyway.

There will be limitations, yes. But it will work. Armstices are not conventional peace treaties, all countries included in the war get a say, and it is only viable as an urge for the country to surrender before more people die.

Look at the end of WWI. Germany was forced to surrender, it was not allowed tanks, aircraft, or artillery. Massive reparations were set in place and much territory was given to the remade nation of Poland. Austria-Hungary was split, Italy was given territory from Croatia, and Japan was given all of the German territory in the Pacific.

That gives me another idea: Nationalities don't just disappear when a city is conquered; German citizens are still German, French citizens are still French, but they are under the control of the ruling nation.

Argetnyx said:

There will be limitations, yes. But it will work. Armstices are not conventional peace treaties, all countries included in the war get a say, and it is only viable as an urge for the country to surrender before more people die.

Click to expand...

Armistices are pretty much ceasefires, which are currently in the game. One term can generally be substituted for another. It is the peace treaty that follows on from an armistice that all countries get a say in. There may be some immediate terms to an armistice, but these are only leading to a finalised peace treaty at a later date.

Look at the end of WWI. Germany was forced to surrender, it was not allowed tanks, aircraft, or artillery. Massive reparations were set in place and much territory was given to the remade nation of Poland. Austria-Hungary was split, Italy was given territory from Croatia, and Japan was given all of the German territory in the Pacific.

Click to expand...

At the end of World War One, the armistice signed on November 11 1918 only disarmed Germany. That was pretty much its only term. Germany had to lay down all their weapons in return for a cessation of fighting. The heavy reparations, limitations on the armed forces, territorial losses, etc. that you mention were points in the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. A treaty, not an armistice.

Also, I have to correct you on your assertion that all Pacific territories were given to Japan. Sure, a lot of them were, but not all. Notably, PNG (or German New Guinea as it was at the time) was given to Australia. Also, Italy was not given territory from Croatia, as such, because Croatia as a national entity didn't exist. It was part of AH. And, FWIW, Italy wasn't satisfied with its territorial gains in the treaty, despite being on the winning side.

That gives me another idea: Nationalities don't just disappear when a city is conquered; German citizens are still German, French citizens are still French, but they are under the control of the ruling nation.

Click to expand...

That is in Civ4 (see, it does have good things ).

Armistices are pretty much ceasefires, which are currently in the game. One term can generally be substituted for another. It is the peace treaty that follows on from an armistice that all countries get a say in. There may be some immediate terms to an armistice, but these are only leading to a finalised peace treaty at a later date.

Click to expand...

Fine, I wont call it an armstice, I'll call it a treaty.

Also, I have to correct you on your assertion that all Pacific territories were given to Japan. Sure, a lot of them were, but not all. Notably, PNG (or German New Guinea as it was at the time) was given to Australia. Also, Italy was not given territory from Croatia, as such, because Croatia as a national entity didn't exist. It was part of AH. And, FWIW, Italy wasn't satisfied with its territorial gains in the treaty, despite being on the winning side.

Click to expand...

Most of it was though. Italy was given land from Croatia, even though Croatia wasn't even its own country (think of Ukraine in the Soviet Union, Austria and Hungary in AH). I know Italy wasn't satisfied, but it was mostly because it was not given the land it was promised.

exhile said:

I agree that warfare in Civ needs to be overhauled because a war cannot last 50 over even 100 years which is possible from Civ1-4.

Click to expand...

How would you count the Hundred Year's War, then ?

How would you count the Hundred Year's War, then ?

Click to expand...

I'd count 116...

I agree that warfare in Civ needs to be overhauled because a war cannot last 50 over even 100 years which is possible from Civ1-4.

Click to expand...

I can't think of a solution to that problem that doesnt sacrifice another part of gameplay, but wars can last a very long time, especially in ancient and medieval times.

rysmiel said:

How would you count the Hundred Year's War, then ?

Click to expand...

But the problem is that 100 years (albeit 116 in this case), is pretty much a minimum for many wars in civ. Which is reasonably ridiculous. However, I don't really think there is a way to fix it without completely altering the time scale of civ. It's one of those things that will just have to stay unrealistic, I guess.

Camikaze said:

That would make it even more susceptible to exploitation. I would take all of their cities as well as force them to disband all of their military units, change to the worst possible civics, cancel all their deals with the rest of the world and force them to research divine right.

Click to expand...

How much you can demand should depend on how seriously you are beating them, though.

I mean, if they have one city left and you have a massive empire, them doing research at your beck and call makes sense to me as a thing they would do if the alternative is you exterminating them.

It would also work to have diplomatic effects on third parties if you enforce an overly harsh set of conditions on a defeated enemy.