treaty type

[luca 83]

White peace: if the contenders do not fight for a certain time, automatic peace is made. Peace treaty for certain turns, states go to war in the event of conflicts: non-aggression treaty, states undertake not to declare war on each other for certain turns: treaty on borders: nations undertake to regulate the borders and properties of cities, treaties between political states: they intervene to restore order in the event of political disorder at the request of a state, economic treaty: states undertake economically to help commercially and economically with products, technologies, money

 

[Patine]

White peace: if the contenders do not fight for a certain time, automatic peace is made. Peace treaty for certain turns, states go to war in the event of conflicts: non-aggression treaty, states undertake not to declare war on each other for certain turns: treaty on borders: nations undertake to regulate the borders and properties of cities, treaties between political states: they intervene to restore order in the event of political disorder at the request of a state, economic treaty: states undertake economically to help commercially and economically with products, technologies, money

An interesting idea, actually, but a few too many qualifiers as presented.

 

[luca 83]

Even for passing treaties: states should be able to deny the treaty . Hypothesis if a state declares war on me and in the middle there is a third state and that state has a right of way with me but also with my enemies is not it inconsistent?

 

[luca 83]

Treaties require permanent alliances from the beginning of the game and where their allies cooperate in war and global coordination and in battles, and also actively participate in peace treaties and in the division of territories , and in the clauses of the tractates

 

[Patine]

Treaties require permanent alliances from the beginning of the game and where their allies cooperate in war and global coordination and in battles, and also actively participate in peace treaties and in the division of territories , and in the clauses of the tractates

That is completely and utterly unrealistic and implausible - both historically and in-game - except in a scenario.

 

[luca 83]

Alliances such as the Triple Alliance in the First World War or the Axis in the Second are stable and active alliances, not to mention the various wars from the War of the Austrian Succession, the Spanish War, the Seven Years' War, or the American War of Independence won by the French, the Spanish and the Dutch...

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Treaties require permanent alliances from the beginning of the game and where their allies cooperate in war and global coordination and in battles, and also actively participate in peace treaties and in the division of territories , and in the clauses of the tractates

What's a permanent alliance?

 

[Patine]

Alliances such as the Triple Alliance in the First World War or the Axis in the Second are stable and active alliances, not to mention the various wars from the War of the Austrian Succession, the Spanish War, the Seven Years' War, or the American War of Independence won by the French, the Spanish and the Dutch...

None of them lasted remtedly close to 6000+ years.

 

[luca 83]

Of course they are timed and can change but an alliance is crucial even in a cold war scenario

 

[Evie]

Of course they are timed and can change but an alliance is crucial even in a cold war scenario

Didn't you just say:

"Treaties require permanent alliances from the beginning of the game"

You're literally contradicting yourself here.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Didn't you just say:

"Treaties require permanent alliances from the beginning of the game"

You're literally contradicting yourself here.

I assume he means that treaties are usually temporary, but in case of a scenario, we should have the option to make them permanent.

 

[luca 83]

Treaties serve to create offensive or defensive alliances , to create global conflicts, they last only when an enemy is defeated or no longer exists, or depending on the interests of the nation, the allies lasted until the defeat of Hitler, the anti-Napoleonic coalitions until the defeat of Napoleon

 

[Evie]

Marla - quite possibly, though he's refered to scenarios in both posts, so it's more of a wild guess based on our understanding of the game than something he's actually said. And the latest post bring no clarity whatsoever.

 

[luca 83]

Marla - quite possibly, though he's refered to scenarios in both posts, so it's more of a wild guess based on our understanding of the game than something he's actually said. And the latest post bring no clarity whatsoever.

No scenario alliances are created if you have common interests between economic and political and ideological nations , so you create alliances , for defense or attack

 

[luca 83]

And a problem of ai above all : in the old games the peace treaty marks the conquests, if the player has conquered the cities a, b, c land the cities, a, b, c there are no intelligent exchanges with the allies , or negotiations, no, congress, Vienna , or peace of Versailles, to establish borders or create new national entities diplomacy is limited to confirming the conquests or losses

 

[Naokaukodem]

On the basis of Civ6, I would rather suggest that amenities hits from lost units fade away even if that's not realistic. (it's rather accumulation of defeats and lenght of distance wars that create war weariness, well maybe)
And in Civ7, amenities should either hit the yields, OR create population points to riot after a certain threshold of negative amenities, or be a total mechanic of its own. (I mean war weariness)
We should also consider to recast population cost, I mean give each pop point a gold cost, while we would get more gold since the start. We could also "privatize" those workers, for the gold they cost vanish but for the benefits they give (yields) going to the private companies they are working for. Private companies would act in the same time as Civ5 puppets cities (you don't control what they build) and Civ6 city-States (they would give you various bonuses, not to speak about the spin off in yields they would allocate to our government and civilization (but other's too). So they would act as Civ5/6 trade routes also)
So that when a pop point revolts, it doesn't get supported financially anymore, so doesn't last eternally. (unless strike rights, but I have to admit that I'm short on this topic)

 

[luca 83]

On the basis of Civ6, I would rather suggest that amenities hits from lost units fade away even if that's not realistic. (it's rather accumulation of defeats and lenght of distance wars that create war weariness, well maybe)
And in Civ7, amenities should either hit the yields, OR create population points to riot after a certain threshold of negative amenities, or be a total mechanic of its own. (I mean war weariness)
We should also consider to recast population cost, I mean give each pop point a gold cost, while we would get more gold since the start. We could also "privatize" those workers, for the gold they cost vanish but for the benefits they give (yields) going to the private companies they are working for. Private companies would act in the same time as Civ5 puppets cities (you don't control what they build) and Civ6 city-States (they would give you various bonuses, not to speak about the spin off in yields they would allocate to our government and civilization (but other's too). So they would act as Civ5/6 trade routes also)
So that when a pop point revolts, it doesn't get supported financially anymore, so doesn't last eternally. (unless strike rights, but I have to admit that I'm short on this topic)

in a peace treaty it should be possible to negotiate the exchange of cities, treat borders, impose forms of government, and create new state and political entities, limit armaments, create vassal states, cede colonies, and impose economies and economic treaties

 

[Naokaukodem]

in a peace treaty it should be possible to negotiate the exchange of cities, treat borders, impose forms of government, and create new state and political entities, limit armaments, create vassal states, cede colonies, and impose economies and economic treaties

All of this is more or less already in, or has been in past iterations, in one form or another. For example the AI is more willing to trade one or several of its cities in peace treaties when they have already lost some or they feel they lost the war.
Treat borders however would be too complicated for what would just be stealing a luxury or a strategic resource, because the player is not patriot and just wants to win.
Impose form of government has already been done IIRC, but it was kind of useless, would have been very useful in Civ5 with Ideologies however for example, if it wasn't possible (don't remember). It should have an impact on the gameplay, and as of now, government types for other civs is is the range of "I don't care". (except if you want to befriend/ally, but knowing the defeated AIs denounce you short after the peace treaty, such a choice wouldn't be coherent, unless there is change here, which I would be all favourable to it = make your old foe an ally !! However that could be like being a warmonger and have tons of allies, so maybe not in the devs agenda)
Create new states and political entities, basically new civs in the terms of the game, seems difficult to achieve ; and for what purpose ? There should be a whole range of new mechanics to justify it from a gameplay stand point.
Limit armament even in the reality it wasn't all white or black, instead the game would put a limit on one's army for X turns, and it would be impossible for that player to create more than X amount of units. The contrary of European countries "allowing" (tolerating by default) Hitler to rearm Germany in the 30's whereas he wasn't supposed to do it. Additionnally I find it interesting for a beat civ to have a chance to "revive" somehow, or recover from its hounds, which is practically never the case in the facts.
Create vassal states we had it in Civ4, which was good, but maybe underused maybe for lack of interest ? And in Civ5 we had puppets. Nothing in Civ6, it's very disappointing, yes.
Cede colonies there should be actual colonies labelled as so to mean anything in the actual state, unless we are in Civ3 with corruption and the AI settled a crappy city near your borders, that could be seen as "colony" by the AI in peace treaties, but even so, I doubt any player wouldn't have go for this city ASAP.
Impose economies same with government, and economic treaties means also the AI will not denounce you 3 turns after the peace treaty, or changes in the denouncing mechanic should intervene.
Economic treaties we have them in a way, it is to say gold/gold per turn as what could be seen as "reparation". But I agree, this is linked to city trade as in most of the wars when signing treaties it was about to "give back" the conquered cities to the loser, in exchange of gold per turn and maybe flat gold too. Obviously this is less a concern for Deity AI with all its bonus gold, but still would be an incentive for "reviving" defeated civs. (in the state of the game : without their capitals... could we change this ? Like vassals would count as "conquered", but could still win the game ?? But what if they enter in direct competition with you ? Unvassalize and raze or proper conquer/puppet ?)