Diplomatic Pact

A discussion in another thread just grew into this idea, and I thought I'd post it here (Sonereal and YoHo helped give rise to this idea).

Diplomatic Pact
If Civ A is being overrun by Civ B, they can beseech Civ C to come to their defenses. If Civ C agrees to help A, C's only option when recapturing any of Civ A's occupied cities would be "Liberate". If you take any of the aggressor's (Civ B) cities, you have the usual options. If Civ C succeeds in holding off the invasion and liberating a certain number of Civ A's cities (3?), Civ A and Civ C form a Diplomatic Pact. A Diplomatic Pact ensures the liberated civ will *not* DoW the liberator and, if this pact is in place at the time of a UN vote, Civ A is guaranteed to vote for Civ C.

Now, the catch is, the Diplo Pact must be maintained, a la alliances with City States. They will decay over time, so, as the liberator, you have to maintain good trading with the liberated, maybe gift them gold or units from time to time, and, if at any point Civ A is invaded again, you *must* DoW the aggressor, or the Diplo Pact is immediately null and void.

I think adding this would have two huge positive effects: 1) it would make war a direct tool for a victory other than domination and 2) it would provide a lot more depth to a diplomacy victory.

Thoughts?

I really like this idea. I've always wanted Civ games to better reflect the kind of Diplomatic situation that say WW2 entailed.

Yeah, and I really, really love ciV, but Diplo Victory feels quite empty as implemented. I think something like this and the Trade Pact being discussed in there now would make it amazing.

I like the gameplay objectives - but probably there is a simpler/intuitive way of doing it.

One idea would be that, as liberator of a city, you get massive good-will points (you should anyway - although that doesn't seem to be the case). However, you lose good-will points if you take other cities that used to be theirs and keep them for yourself. Also, you lose good-will points if you later refuse to help them if attacked again (I think it is already this way anyway; I've seen relationships cool when I refused to help somebody in war).

Then, the only additional change would mean going back to the old way UN elections worked - only the top X (depending on # of civs) can run; and everybody else has to vote for them. If the other civ isn't in the top X, and you fulfilled the requirements above, chances are they would vote for you.

(BTW - this doesn't mean the bottom Civs aren't "trying to win"; it just means they try to win by other means. The insistence that Civs only vote for themselves has really changed the diplomatic victory from "who can navigate a mess of conflicting interests successfully?" to "who has the most money to pay off city states?")

Another idea from the same thread (not sure it warrants its own thread?):

Trade Pact

A Trade Pact allows foreign trade and is available in the "discuss" Diplo dialog once you get Currency AND are connected to the other civ's capital (via roads, water, or combo).

If two other civs are only connected to one another civ through your lands, you can "negotiate" a trade pact between those two civs, but they cannot with one another. So, in the "discuss" Diplo dialog, one option would be "form a trade pact with" and then when you click it, it would list any civs connected to you but not to the civ you're talking with.

Successfully setting up a third party trade pact gives you a strong Diplo boost with each third party, as well as a portion of the proceeds.

CGG1066, I think it would be good if it were more explicit. It's one thing to go to war at another civ's behest and focus on the aggressor's cities for your own gain. It's quite another thing to have explicit incentive to go to war at another civ's behest and focus on capturing only the attacked civ's cities so you can liberate them.

eric_ said:

CGG1066, I think it would be good if it were more explicit. It's one thing to go to war at another civ's behest and focus on the aggressor's cities for your own gain. It's quite another thing to have explicit incentive to go to war at another civ's behest and focus on capturing only the attacked civ's cities so you can liberate them.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but I would rather see things implemented correctly before we start adding additional diplomatic options through dialog. My fear is that by making explicit choices, the AI would just never offer/agree to it. Heck - the AI won't even sign a defensive pact when it's down to it's last city and I am looking for an excuse to enter - it says it doesn't want me to free ride!

Based on this, I don't think making explicit labels is going to solve anything.

Oh, well, I'm not looking at these as solutions to any broken game mechanics that may exist. I agree those need to be handled first.

But, if/when those are out of the way, I'd like more explicit options with real diplomatic ramifications. Kinda like, you declare war, you go to battle. You protect a civ, negotiate a trade pact, you're a valuable asset to the relevant civs and they will work to maintain good relations.

Perhaps the next advancement on the concept...based on WW2 would be to make it possible to turn puppetstates/cities back into an Empire and that, in particular if you have the correct social policies, they would turn in to a diplomatic/happiness advantage.

This, as a mechanic is a little harder to get the mind around, but I'm imagining a way in the game to illustrate what the US and Britain did with Germany and Japan.

I don't think the value in this case is quite as high as the initial idea. This is more the preview of a mod perhaps.

The key to the Diplo pack being discussed is that essentially it's a war of liberation and that liberation should have game impacting benefits.

YoHo said:

Perhaps the next advancement on the concept...based on WW2 would be to make it possible to turn puppetstates/cities back into an Empire and that, in particular if you have the correct social policies, they would turn in to a diplomatic/happiness advantage.

This, as a mechanic is a little harder to get the mind around, but I'm imagining a way in the game to illustrate what the US and Britain did with Germany and Japan.

I don't think the value in this case is quite as high as the initial idea. This is more the preview of a mod perhaps.

The key to the Diplo pack being discussed is that essentially it's a war of liberation and that liberation should have game impacting benefits.

Click to expand...

Sadly, we would have to wait until DLL access to mod that.

I like the Diplomatic Pact idea in its short term goals, but no so much in the long term ones. It would be good to be able to have some more complex diplomatic agreements and options to get help during war, but I'm not sure that this extending beyond the end of the war is entirely realistic or necessary.

The Trade Pact idea sounds quite interesting too, and would lend itself to a form of economic warfare (if you allow a trade pact through your empire between Civ A and Civ B, then you can cut both of them off, damaging them economically), which would be great for the game.

Camikaze, the only reason I think it would be good if the Diplo Pact had long term implications is because it could make the UN vote much more dynamic.

Definitely agree about the Trade Pact having interesting economic implications, in addition to diplomatic ones.

I like the idea but it needs to change the game a lot (grateful AI, voting system, etc...)

"Liberate the city" should be an option each time it's possible. They do it for the workers, why not cities? And they seem more grateful for a worker than a gifted back city...
The pact forcing the vote seems a bit unfair, I'd rather go for something like:

CGG1066 said:

as liberator of a city, you get massive good-will points (you should anyway - although that doesn't seem to be the case). However, you lose good-will points if you take other cities that used to be theirs and keep them for yourself. Also, you lose good-will points if you later refuse to help them if attacked again (I think it is already this way anyway; I've seen relationships cool when I refused to help somebody in war).

Click to expand...

Though I agree that

eric_ said:

It's one thing to go to war at another civ's behest and focus on the aggressor's cities for your own gain. It's quite another thing to have explicit incentive to go to war at another civ's behest and focus on capturing only the attacked civ's cities so you can liberate them.

Click to expand...

so maybe we could, when entering a war, publicly declare it's a liberation war and we couldn't be called warmongers for this as long as we don't take other cities from the aggressor.


About the trade pact: do you mean for the trade of luxuries or bringing back some foreign trade routes? This last would be great.

Open borders could be divided into civil and militar open borders. Civil would be enough to open trade routes but they still could scout our territory so we would have to be careful to who we sign these pacts with.

The pact forcing the vote seems a bit unfair

Click to expand...

I think it's fair as it a) requires some diplomatic 'upkeep' to maintain their vote, and b) you're required to defend them in any future wars (inherent defensive pact). If your military isn't up to snuff, this could really come back to bite you.

Also, to be clear, a diplo pact is *only* possible if a civ requests aid in a war (as opposed to "shall we declare war against..."). Maybe, though, to nerf it a bit, diplo pact would be something you can put on the table when a civ requests assistance in war. So, you can either agree to go help sans diplo agreement, or you can put diplo agreement on the table as counter offer, and the attacked civ can reject or accept that condition of your involvement.

If they accept, you still have to liberate a minimum number of cities before the diplo pact goes into effect (kinda like building requirements for other buildings, etc).

On top of all that, I agree that "Liberate City" should be an option when you capture a city that is not occupied by the original owner, and that it should minimize the perception of warmongering by other civs. I don't think it should apply if you capture a city from its original owner, though.

do you mean for the trade of luxuries or bringing back some foreign trade routes?

Click to expand...

Foreign trade routes.

I like the idea of civil and military OBs.

There could be one-sided protection treaties, like with city-states. Now when a civ is about to get wiped off the map, I often propose them protection pacts but they decline, probably not to get involved in my wars. I just want other civs to know that DoWing them is DoWing me and not be called warmonger for it. We could sell these unilateral treaties to all civs for gold or any trade.

I don't believe the Diplomatic Pact to be unfair by itself, especially if it's something can we put on the table when negociating our help. I just fear the AI, considering how badly it sometimes evaluate situations. But maybe I'm too pessimistic, must not be hard to make them look for these pacts only when they have very few cities left. Agree it's better for them to sign it before being totally conquered than just vote for us after liberation as they do now.

just vote for us after liberation as they do now.

Click to expand...

???

They do? (I haven't really tried for diplo yet)

I just fear the AI, considering how badly it sometimes evaluate situations.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be ideal if the AI could, y'know, use the game mechanics effectively .

eric_ said:

???

They do? (I haven't really tried for diplo yet)

Click to expand...

I read it (several times) but haven't seen to tell the truth. From what posters said it's only when you make them come back in the game.

That can happen!? If so, that's pretty cool.

eric_ said:

Camikaze, the only reason I think it would be good if the Diplo Pact had long term implications is because it could make the UN vote much more dynamic.

Click to expand...

What happens if you have two diplomatic pacts? So if you also get Civ D to come to your rescue, who do you vote for between Civ C and Civ D at the UN?

Hrm...good question!