Diplomatic balance of power

[awcabot]

I would like to see the diplomatic reactions of the AI try to maintain a balance of power throughout the game, so that one single civ does not become too strong. This would be close to the actual events in the real world and make the game tad more engaging and prevent the "snowball" effect. Think of WW2: after the fall of France, the rest of the world did not attack the UK, or when Napoleonic France became very powerful, the rest of the European nations fought back (not in unison, but France was cut down in size), or 16th centure Spain, which under the house of Hapsburg ruled half of Europe.

Now, I do not mean to make it impossible to win the game by conquest by having all AI civ gang up on the strongest one, but close enough...

Some examples of what I envision:

1. alliances to be made so that the two or more blocks are approximately equal. As soon as one alliance is made between the strongest civ and another civ, other civs, withing a short time, will form an alliance, trading block to counterbalance the previous alliance.

2. if the strongest civ is at war a much weaker civ, the others, according to their current relationship may form MP pacts between themselves, boycot the strongest civ, or support the weaker civ. This would hold regardless of who started the war, but of course some penalties would be incurred in by whoever started the war. If the war is long, and the weaker civ is losing, the other civs would be inclined to intervene in support of the weaker. As soon as the strong civ gets cut down to size, the incentive of the other civs to keep on attacking diminishes and things can be quite what they were at the beginning.

This would considerably change war strategies: long wars would not pay off, negating the resource advantage of a large nation. Territorial growth would be slower, with wars not lasting until the other side was vanquished.

I think this would be a new game, not just a new feature on an existing game.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, it would be a pretty drastically new game.

There's actually been a surprising number of people suggesting ways to prevent people from running away with the game, and adding a few more obstacles to conquering the world (something that has never happened in real life).

My question to you is how do you win a domination victory in this new model?

 

[Colonel]

You dont in this because it would be near impossible. At least I think according to the first post

 

[awcabot]

My question to you is how do you win a domination victory in this new model?

Well, given that no current civilization in the real world has a domination of the world, as defined by Civilization III, it is not really necessary to use that route to win. The US is the world's hegemon now, but not to a comparable level that would be required in Civ III for the game (and history) to end.

However, getting back to the game, the strongest power would get more powerful, by small incremental growth. Some cities can be converted peacefully, others could be bought (if this option is introduced) or militarily, by small conquests, but not tol the point of destroying a civ.

Military conquest would essentially be short massive invasions, until the rest of the world was able to react to the strongest civ's growth. Note that the reaction of the rest of the world would not be immediate, but a gradual escalation: mutual protection pacts, embargoes, economic support to the weaker civ, military aid to the weaker civ, piracy or privateering and finally a declaration of war. Therefore the strong civ must aim for a brief war.

A turn by turn example:
Year 1: War starts. No gains by either side. A series of MPPs are established in the rest of the world.
Year 2: War continues. Massive battles, by no cities gained.
Year 3: War continues. Massive battles, strong civ gains one city. Rest of world has trade embargoes against the strong civ.
Year 4: War continues. Battles, but the weak civ is getting weaker. Rest of world starts subsidising the weak civ.
Year 5: War continues. Weak civ loses a second city. Rest of world send military aid to weak civ.
Year 6: War continues. Massive battles.
Year 7: War continues. Weak civ's defense strengthens.
Year 8: War continues. Weak civ's defense stiffens. Rest of world begins piracy actions against strong civ, by privateer, submarine (if this option is implemented) and espionage/sabotage.
Year 9: War continues. Strong civ, at great cost, captures a third city. Rest of world (or one alliance in particular) demands that strong civ desist and return some of conquered land to weak civ, otherwise war will be declared.
Year 10: War ends. Strong civ has won a net of two cities, but the battles have seriously exhausted it's strength. Embargoes lifted, but MPPs stay in place.
Year 11: Slow reparation of diplomatic relationship starts. Rebuild military and economic strength.

In this pattern, territorial growth will be slow and an over-ambitious civ can get cut down to harmlessness, but not extinguished.

 

[awcabot]

You dont in this because it would be near impossible. At least I think according to the first post

Well, not quite. See my response above. Also, if you remember the strategy game Warlords II, the weaker players would gang up on #1. I used to win by always keeping my strength close to #1 and when wars broke out, I would have enough power to attack and slowly grind down whoever was left standing. It was not easy, but it made the game challenging until the end.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

My question to you is how do you win a domination victory in this new model?

Why not make a domination victory when you sign everyone into an alliance? Diplomatic would still be elected by the UN.

Just an idear to three.

 

[dh_epic]

I dunno, don't get me wrong, I'm all for moving away from the importance of domination victory... but there's no doubt that most people who enjoy Civ now love conquest.

I'm all for offering an alternative... what we need to do is create a "pepsi", and here it sounds like you're banning coke. You can't just cut down on the old thing.

 

[sir_schwick]

One, America maintains power but controlling vassel states. Maybe dominations could be how much territory you "control", not necessarily own. Also, this model would force people to play along with others, maybe being the dominant power but not too powerful to stop. Dominations would involve controlling many many states through various methods. Theorhetically it could all be economic.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, the solution to this quandry is not to have an outright 'Domination Victory' as there is in the game right now-any more than there should be an outright space race, diplomatic or culture victory.
Instead, the game will end at a random turn between 2100 and 2500, say, and when the game ends it works out who won each victory type on the basis of certain parameters.
For 'domination victory' this might be the number of squares that you indisputably control, the number of people in your civ, the number of cities you control AND the number of minor nations you have either conquered, allied to you or who have become full-fledged members of your civ.
Whoever has the most points on this basis will win the domination victory.
Other victory types will work in much the same way!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Not that I'd be disappointed with this, but I think a lot of players find the score-victory a last resort kind of win. They'd like to know that if they finish these goals and jump over these hurdles, they'll clinch a victory.

Ask anybody -- the best boxing fights are the ones that are finished by a knockout, not by a decision.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, I think you misunderstood me DH!

Basically, each victory type is determined by set parameters, which give you points. The nation with the most points in a given victory type gets the 'knockout' for that victory. When the game finishes, though, the civ with the most number of 'knockouts' wins the game. This is a better way, IMO, than a simple-oh, you conquered 75% of the globe, so you win the game and the game is now over! This way, you have to pursue any and all victory conditions simultaneously, especially as the game gets into the 22nd century, as you have NO idea when the game is going to end!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

How about the game ends 40-50 turns after the first person finishes all the required techs. This means the game consistently ends in the near future of what we now know.

Instead of somewhat unrealistic scoring systems, each civ has a resume. The resume would list such things as, Major Dominant Power on Continent (1250 BC - 500 AD), Culture Envy of World (2000 BC - 1500 BC; 500 AD - 1200 AD). Each of these would be less hard to achieve, but part of the challenge would be sustaining it and being the leader 'relatively' rather than absolutely. Also, instead of recieving a score for even GOTM, you would just have a resume full or barely touched with achievements.

 

[dh_epic]

It's an interesting proposition, in that respect. I mean, people love a game like Hockey or Football where you need to make as many points as you can in the game, and each time you clinch a point it's a reason for celebration (if the points are discernable and meaningful enough). And it only ends when the time is up.

You don't think a lot of people would miss the "race" aspect, though? Ending the game by 500 AD if you're really slick?

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually it would be more of a race, especially if technology determines how many years per turn rather than a table. Imagine a GOTM goal was to see what year you could end the game by. FIrst one before 0 AD wins.

I really like your Footbal analogy. My system was just a sheet, but if it was points, then you coudl even have a silly crowd graphic cheering. Even a scoreboard would be kinda funny, different graphics based on technology such as wooden, chain-mail, metal, electronic. Civ is so competative it might as well be a sport.

 

[warpstorm]

So, your strongest allies would ally against you just because you were doing well. This was how Civ2 worked and I hated it.

 

[sir_schwick]

If you and your allies percieved themselves to be on the 'winning team', they would support it unless they thought they could get a better posiition. Yes, it would have to be tweaked to avoid the Civ 2 phenomenon.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, well of course IF allies were to recieve a certain % of the points that their allies were getting, then this would be another encouragement for forming and maintaining an alliance. You could even say that, the longer the alliance, the greater % of points you recieve from your ally. This way, you might have two nations that are allied. Nation A is set to win the domination victory, but the Science and Space Race victories are still up for grabs. Well, a % of nation A's points in those two areas go to its ally-nation B-which is sufficient to put it in the lead in both those areas. Whoever wins the culture and/or diplomatic victory will probably be the overall victor!
The other thing, of course, is that because you don't know WHEN a game is going to end exactly, you can't be completely sure when, or even IF, you should break an alliance with someone who is in the lead. After all, merely breaking an alliance could harm your chances of winning a diplomatic victory, and the points you lose might cost you victory in other areas too! If the game finishes before you expect, then you might not be able to recover enough points to get in the lead yourself!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[slc193]

So this is a little off topic but I havent found which Civ4 thread to post this on: I would really love it if Mutual protection pacts worked a little different. I get so annoyed when Civ A attacks me, then I defend myself, but me attacking any of Civ A's units (even in my own territory) then causes Civs B and C then declare war on me, even though Civ A started the whole thing! This leads to very confusing international relations and quite frequently, everyone ends up at war with everyone else. I think that there should be a catch that MPPs only apply to defenders. If you are the perp who did the first offense, then your allies aren't obliged to help you. But if you are at war with Civ A, and then Civ B attacks you because your resources are elsewhere, then your allies will come to your aid, but only against Civ B. They are still at peace with Civ A. Then, the only what your allies would help you with Civ A is if A attacked your allies or A signed a MPP with B. Any thoughts?

 

[Dragonsbain]

This idea could work but the diplomatic system would have to be updated.
You could attack civ a and you would have to keep reasuring the other civs that every thing wil be alright you are not invading civ a you are just trying to help civ a keep coruption down

Or if you are the biggest civ you would have to keep reasuring the other civs that they are in no way going to be attacked

the cultural border could also make a diferance,
I think that de borders should overlap to more accurately show your cultural influence,
the citties that lay within your cultoral borders could then be considered to belong to you and civ a and the other civs would react less.

And finaly the other cives should learn to realise who started the fight and the Long Time Enemy aspectof the game.

If I atack civ a, civ b would become concerned and would most likely atack me or if they are LTE then they could side with me.

If I am atacked then te other civs who like me would be willing to send aid and the cives who don't like me would try and take advantage of the situation and atack me in the back.

And if al else fails just whipe them al of the map

 

[awcabot]

Glad that this has generated some interest.

Mutual Protection Pacts ought to be revisited. What happens when you have MPPs with two civs and they go for eachother's throats? I see several solutions:

1) Current: as it is, in which the MPP is called upon whenever a civ's unit is attacked, regardless of who declared war. Currently it is a license to wage war.

2) Defensive: MPP is called upon only when the civ has had war declared upon it. If the civ declares war, all MPPs are null and void.
Issue to be discussed: it the Civ declares war because it has an MPP with another Civ, should it's MPPs be respected?
E.g.: I have an MPP only with America, which in turn has an MPP only with Babylon (yeah, immagine that...). I do not have an MPP with Babylon. China declares war on Babylon, so America declares war on China. Should I in turn declare war on China?

3) Conditional: MPPs are called upon only if the Civ is attacked from a specific enemy. If I have an MPP with the Aztecs, I will come to their aid only if they are attacked by Babylon, not China.
Why? Suppose I have excellent relations with the Aztecs, and I am sour to Babylon, but I have an MPP, because Babylon pays me good money. Aztec attacks Babylon. The MPP would force me to attack my good friends the Aztecs.

A simpler solution to these would be to make MPPs OPTIONAL . Of course the penalty for not honoring an MPP would be stiff: your reputation is in the sewer, all current MPPs are cancelled, your old friends have embargoes against you, and it will take you either a government change or 100 years to re-establish an MPP.