Borders, Diplomacy and Nukes

pesgores

pesgores

Deus Vult!
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
1,087
Location
Portugal
Do you know what Civ 4 (in particular) needed? The following are improvements for stupid or unexplored game features.

Borders::wallbash:
Cultural borders? Are you kidding me? Since when do real-world borders get disputed by artists performing concerts?

-A neutral plot may be claimed by a military unit. The plot must be adjacent to an already acquired plot by the same nation. Scout and Explorers can't do it. Settlers can found cities in neutral land, and all the plots within the city's workable ring become instantly part of that nation's territory, if those plots aren't owned by someone else already.
-Alternatively, neutral plots can turn national when a city's culture expands, but only neutral plots.
-Plots can't flip just normally due to cultural influence. Neutral can become national territory, but national can't just flip to another nation like that. It can only change during war or through diplomacy.
-Maintenance costs for distance to capital city are halved to half. Bonus reduction when territory connects. Only on Industrial and later eras a nation can claim ocean plots.

Diplomacy Improvements::king:
-All civs are more likely to sell and buy cities and plots. Improved AI chooses when to go proposing to sell cities to collect wealth because they are short on funds or with a negative treasury.
-When negotiating peace, an overwhelmed AI civ is more likely to cede cities, techs, or anything, to get peace.
-No more redded-out options. Everyone has a price. What kind of nation would refuse selling a useless (in all ways) city for 1,000,000 wealth?:mad:
-More options on the diplomatic collumn, especially when making peace proposals. Also, make it so both parts can pay tribute.

Nukes::nuke:
-Separate Nukes into 3 categories:
-A-Bomb: available for the researcher immediately after completing the Manhattan Project and 3 units immediately deployed on capital; has the same power as current ICBM
-H-Bomb: available after completing a TEAM Project available after Rocketry is discovered; completely obliterates a size 15 or lower city (turns to city ruins) and has a chance of destroying improvements on adjacent plots. Combining 2 H-Bombs has double power (30 or lower goes kaput)
-Tactical Nuke: immediately available to researcher when Computers is teched; has same effects as H-Bomb, but with the very reduced range and has more chance of evading SDI

Your thoughts?
 
I'm with you on borders. I hate culture, the more when it prevents you to manage your new conquered city in "enemy land". (so you have to raze 2/3 mor ecities in order to be able to work the squares around your first conquered city) This also prevents short wars.

I prefer the way borders are treated in CivRev. It is a mix of Civ2 and Civ3/4. Colored squares appears on worked squares, at first. Then, if your culture is really big, it can start to hilight non worked squares. (if I'm right) But culture won't go to far from a city radius, so that when you take it, you get the land around also.
 
WARNING-LONG POST
I just had the GREATEST ideas on nukes. The earliest type of nuke should be a primitive guntype fission core which can't be loaded into an ICBM or ballistic missles (I will explain later). This should be relativly cheap to produce and can be carried by an air unit. Avalible very soon from that should be a primitive implosion fission core. This should be able to be loaded into an ICBM and balistic missles (previously tatical nukes) which is built seperatly. It should be able to be carried by an air unit and a very advanced armored vehicle. After that advanced nuclear fission weapons can be built which are smaller and can be carried by a ground unit. A ground unit carring it though will have a chance of getting radiation poisoning.The next nuclear weapon avalible should be a fusion or thermonuclear core. This can be carried by a ground unit but can not be denonated alone. Still there is a chance of radiation poisoning. It can also be loaded onto an air unit purily for transport purposes. To be able two denonate one an implosion fission core and a thermonuclear core must be loaded into a fussion bomb casing. This still should be able to be carried be a foot unit and air units. This can be dentonated. This "complete" fussion bomb can be loaded into an ICBM or a ballistic missle. Lastly a neutron bomb core could be researched. This is a type of thermonuclear weapon and therfore can't be denotated without being in a fussion casing along with a implosion fission core. This does little to no damge to buildings and armored units but will be very devistating to the population and exposed units. It should leave an extra row of fallout if some type of that is represented in the next civ game. This should be able to be loaded into an air unit, ballistic missles, ICBMs, and a ground unit (as always with a radiation poisoning chance. The only air units that can use nuclear weapons are bombers. All else are used for transport purposes. Most modern units would be able to cary nuclear weapons, including spies (HINT HINT,WINK WINK). Naval transorts should also be able to car them for transport purposes and sumbarines should be able to cary ballistic missles. Nukes placed by ground troops should be detonated in a certain number of turns (up to five mabye), or mabye even at your choice although you risk getting discoverd if a spy placed it. In addition to the already in place SDI, an "improvement" similar to the SDI should be created.The main advantages of using different methods of transport methods would be because there are different forms of defense. Bombers would only be able to be shot down by anti-aircraft guns or enemy fighters. Ballistic missles will not be likely to be destroyed by an SDI but will be likely to be destroyed by the "SDI improvement". They also have a farther range than bombers. ICBMs should have infinite range and should be able to be likely shot down by an SDI but likely, but not as likely to be destroyed by the SDI "improvement". Production costs should also play a major role. Carrying a nuke by hand cost no extra production and could be "hidden so the other nation might not no you plantd it if you use a spy. Every nation that has a unit placing a nuke other than a py in it's line of sight should automaticaly no that there is a nuke there. If a unit that has a nuke it it is killed the nuke should also be destoryed (mabye with a chance of detinations. It should also be possible to threaten a rival nation telling them that you havve planted nukes or will shoot nukes at them. Well, that's all I got for now. Please comment.
 
I don't particularly like the idea of neutral tiles being claimed. It slightly defeats the need to produce settlers as a priority.

And I don't think that nukes need to be split, although I don't mind having both ICBMs and Tactical Nukes.
 
Gamemaster77 said:
WARNING-LONG POST
I just had the GREATEST ideas on nukes. The earliest type of nuke should be a primitive guntype fission core which can't be loaded into an ICBM or ballistic missles (I will explain later). This should be relativly cheap to produce and can be carried by an air unit. Avalible very soon from that should be a primitive implosion fission core. This should be able to be loaded into an ICBM and balistic missles (previously tatical nukes) which is built seperatly. It should be able to be carried by an air unit and a very advanced armored vehicle. After that advanced nuclear fission weapons can be built which are smaller and can be carried by a ground unit. A ground unit carring it though will have a chance of getting radiation poisoning.The next nuclear weapon avalible should be a fusion or thermonuclear core. This can be carried by a ground unit but can not be denonated alone. Still there is a chance of radiation poisoning. It can also be loaded onto an air unit purily for transport purposes. To be able two denonate one an implosion fission core and a thermonuclear core must be loaded into a fussion bomb casing. This still should be able to be carried be a foot unit and air units. This can be dentonated. This "complete" fussion bomb can be loaded into an ICBM or a ballistic missle. Lastly a neutron bomb core could be researched. This is a type of thermonuclear weapon and therfore can't be denotated without being in a fussion casing along with a implosion fission core. This does little to no damge to buildings and armored units but will be very devistating to the population and exposed units. It should leave an extra row of fallout if some type of that is represented in the next civ game. This should be able to be loaded into an air unit, ballistic missles, ICBMs, and a ground unit (as always with a radiation poisoning chance. The only air units that can use nuclear weapons are bombers. All else are used for transport purposes. Most modern units would be able to cary nuclear weapons, including spies (HINT HINT,WINK WINK). Naval transorts should also be able to car them for transport purposes and sumbarines should be able to cary ballistic missles. Nukes placed by ground troops should be detonated in a certain number of turns (up to five mabye), or mabye even at your choice although you risk getting discoverd if a spy placed it. In addition to the already in place SDI, an "improvement" similar to the SDI should be created.The main advantages of using different methods of transport methods would be because there are different forms of defense. Bombers would only be able to be shot down by anti-aircraft guns or enemy fighters. Ballistic missles will not be likely to be destroyed by an SDI but will be likely to be destroyed by the "SDI improvement". They also have a farther range than bombers. ICBMs should have infinite range and should be able to be likely shot down by an SDI but likely, but not as likely to be destroyed by the SDI "improvement". Production costs should also play a major role. Carrying a nuke by hand cost no extra production and could be "hidden so the other nation might not no you plantd it if you use a spy. Every nation that has a unit placing a nuke other than a py in it's line of sight should automaticaly no that there is a nuke there. If a unit that has a nuke it it is killed the nuke should also be destoryed (mabye with a chance of detinations. It should also be possible to threaten a rival nation telling them that you havve planted nukes or will shoot nukes at them. Well, that's all I got for now. Please comment.
Click to expand...

Whoa, paragraphs, please.;)

@Camikaze: What do you suggest then?
 
For tile claiming, I suggest the current system, but with other military and diplomatic ways of influencing borders. Border wars would be one way, annexation another.

For nukes, I would sheerly suggest not having them as an important aspect of the game.
 
Why would that be?
 
Nukes:

To date, I've never confronted one enemy using nukes against me, in any civ and neither in Alpha centaury. (I don't know the reasons exactly in general).

In multiplayer, We (I or the enemy) managed to make an anti-nuke resolution (Alpha centaury civIV both).

anycase, I can say that if one enemy, Suddently, in some game, declares war to me and attack me with 8-12 nukes, possibly I will been wipeout and all the hours spent in the game will be a completely waste (all major cities deceased, all major aglomerations of army lost...) And the enemy only has to arrase with all his army.

This is a good reason about Why the nukes can be out of the game.

ANYWAY, Is good to have the possibility; Of being WORST than hitler (hehe, like the american president when Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and use Nukes againsts my enemys (and not exactly as a "warning", or to have to defend myself against the possibility that my enemy can nuke me in the ass. The game is more competitive and unpredictable. (anyways, with a good defense against misiles the situation changes)

But I'm still thinking about I've never been attacked by nukes, of empires that possibly they have the technology to make them. Anyone knows if the IA have some restrictions for using nukes?

(Personal conclusion: I like pesgores Nuke idea, bmore than CivIV standard.

Diplomacy

Yes, aparently the lack of a BETTER diplo system in civIV is one of the bad things I found. Anyway, I suposse is a very complicated system, but possibly I don't understand it completely (when you can make vasalls, why sometimes the vasalls stop of being vasalls, Why to make a damm good alliance, etc, and I dislikes the idea of having so little diplo options in the first 4000-4500 years.

Borders

I'm not sure about the idea of claiming neutral plots by military units. Maybe is a good idea, maybe not. I think is possible, only if is adjacent to our cultural normal border, and if the militar get more than 4 turns to claim the territory. I like the idea of new colonies without all the ring control, And it will be a good idea of claming key territory of the new settle with military units. This will have sense.
Anyway, Yes, the plots can't change the nationality just by culture, It can do a lot of damage to some citys. And yes, the diplomatic/war way is the way to change culture of plots.

But I think that went you are in Siege with a enemy city (a concept not much deep in CivIV) the cultural border of this city will need to reduce (something like; Every time the city is bombarded or attacked with triumph, the city loss cultural squares.
 
Gamemaster77 said:
Why would that be?
Click to expand...

Nukes? Well, in the scale of history, they hardly deserve to be in the game at all, let alone as more than one unit. I mean, they have been used twice in all of history, and have been around for less than 65 years. Sure, you can say that they played a determining factor in the diplomacy of the last 65 years, but still, they have not been used. It would be like putting in some non-existent unit that could have been dangerous had it existed. I'm happy enough to have one or two types, given the modern weighting of the game, but really, that is generous.
 
That is have had been a determining factor in late diplomancy. Although they have only been used twice in war, more than a thousand other nukes have been tested. Of course, with my nuke idea, to fit these different levels of strenghth, the overall strength would have to be downsized.
 
Nukes area boring most of the time, so many turns building and creating a good empire and one turn to destroy it all. Its cool to have them as a last resource (like in CIV IV), but they should be marginal.
 
moscaverde said:
Nukes area boring most of the time, so many turns building and creating a good empire and one turn to destroy it all. Its cool to have them as a last resource (like in CIV IV), but they should be marginal.
Click to expand...

I think this is the right attitude to have towards them. By all means include them in the game, but under realistic parameters.
 
Nukes are an important part of history and should most definately be in the game. However, I hate them sincerely, and I would really much like a custom game setting "no nukes". I only play marathon games on largest worlds, and having them being used 80 hours into the game is just too devastating. :D I don't play with diplomatic victories enabled, so that's not a real option.

What I would love to see though is more advanced conventional rocketry, and even artillery. I can agree with having a catapult or even a cannon on the next tile, but artillery and mobile artillery should have a range of two. MLRS launchers (rocket based artillery) have even greater range, and should have a three tile radius.
 
The increase peace only through threats. You should have an option to threaten to nuke someone in the diplomancy sccreen.
 
That would also have to come with some serious diplomatic penalties. I think it is factored into diplomacy anyway, so it wouldn't really make any difference. With such an option, would you be committing yourself to nuclear war should the opponent reject whatever you demand, or would it merely be a heavier empty threat than normal?
 
Camikaze said:
That would also have to come with some serious diplomatic penalties. I think it is factored into diplomacy anyway, so it wouldn't really make any difference. With such an option, would you be committing yourself to nuclear war should the opponent reject whatever you demand, or would it merely be a heavier empty threat than normal?
Click to expand...

They are AIs designed to provide a challenge to the player, not to win exactly, that's why they vote for someone on the UN or AP.

SO I think AIs should interpretate the threat as something serious, because if the human really has A LOT of nukes, then it should submit. Of course, after agreeing, a temporary unbreakable peace (5 turns) time is issued.
 
I am totally opposed to the AIs acting as obstacles rather than opponents. I don't support any game mechanic (that I can think of) that upholds this, so this wouldn't be a positive change, IMO.
 
Gamemaster77 said:
The increase peace only through threats. You should have an option to threaten to nuke someone in the diplomancy sccreen.
Click to expand...

No need to threat. In Cold War, USA and USSR didn't pass their time to threat each others.


Speaking of that, there should also be separated camps in the game, like it is in Civ4 with religions, but not religion related (or not only), to emulate Cold War.

There should be a system, maybe based on civics and religions, to determine two major sides in modern era. (globalization: who will win it?)

In reality, we can say that USA won the globalization victory, with USSR collapsing and becoming capitalist Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
More gaming and diplomacy may be needed
Replies
0
Views
344
xxnssw
X
D
A new Yields Governor that has empire wide scope. Operates like the city governor but can also manage plot ownership.
Replies
18
Views
1K
Patine
Patine
A
Throwback Leader Ideas
Replies
0
Views
387
Archanist
A
M
Antiquity and Exploration Age Victory Projects
Replies
2
Views
654
Krikkit1
K
kryat
Borders and True Diplomacy in Civ VII
Replies
1
Views
2K
luca 83
luca 83
Back
Top Bottom